< July 24	July 26 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Credit history. Sourced material can be added there as necessary. (non-admin) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Credit fixing[edit]

Uncited, looks like WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:OR and is most likely a WP:HOAX.--S_RX 01:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on Not a hoax. Protonk (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Credit "fixing" is basically a scam perpetrated by individuals looking to either solicit high interest loans from borrowers or to gaina ccess to personal information. Scammers claim (as this article does) that they can send letters to the credit unions to get items removed. While wrongful items can be removed (and you can be removed from debtor rolls if you are placed there erroneously), it doesn't take a third party to do this. Ususally they want an SSN. I'm gonna remake this article because it is basically an ad for scammers right now. Protonk (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Ok. I rewrote the article so it wasn't basically inducing readers to get ripped off (noting that we were the top hit for "credit fixing"...yikes). this is not promising for notability. I'm half tempted to suggest a redirect to Wire fraud because I can't find a very good target. Protonk (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Credit history, Credit repair which is the more widely used term already directs there. Consider adding some more specific info about problems with credit repair firms, as per link now on article and [1] to that article. -Hunting dog (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Credit history, this scam turns up litle in google or google news but could be a plausable redirect. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 08:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to credit history Artene50 (talk) 23:55, 26 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 but I would strongly suggest a quiet editorial merge. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-State Conference of Indiana[edit]

Non notable conference DimaG (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N.--S_RX 01:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 26 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, Tiptoety ^talk 03:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 06:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merger of all the conference articles with Indiana High School Athletic Association or a new catch all article about all the conferences. There are a fair number of stubs for individual conferences listed at Template:Indiana High School Athletic Association (IHSAA) and Category:Indiana high school athletic conferences. All of these conferences would appear to potentially meet base notability guidelines, being the regular subjects of third party commentary in reliable sources. That said, the stubs individually are rather repetitious and uninformative standing alone. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge for now per User:Ihcoyc. We did this for another midwestern state (Ohio?) and kept two of the conferences as sourcing was strong enough. Hobit (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the state as SofT suggests. A good solution. DGG (talk) 01:49, 31 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) 20:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness therapy[edit]

Wow, how did this last so long? A mixture of new-age mysticism and abject nonsense, unsourced. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V, WP:NONSENSE.--S_RX 01:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching on Google Scholar/Books shows that this is certainly not nonsense, although I'm not sure if the coverage is extensive enough to verify the article to a minimally acceptable degree. Skomorokh 09:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just spam for a nonsensical new age nonsense book. The only source is the book, the only online source a website pushing the book. There's a few other names dropped to try to make it look legit, but it's drivel. Nick mallory (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sages of the future will thank us for purifying Wikipedia in this way. -- B.D.Mills (T, C) 07:20, 30 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 per WP:HEY, WP:SNOW. No-one would reasonably contend that the subject does not meet the general notability guideline in light of the 5+ articles specifically devoted to this in reliable sources. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 09:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne Civic Center[edit]

A convention centre. It's differnet fomr all the other convention centres because, er, because.... well, not it isn't. No references, no inbound links. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find a single source that does anything else than verify its existence. (Wow, this has been orphaned for two years?!) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per sources. Good work. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure Ms. Civic Centre is a very fine woman but...a two year orphan with virtually nothing in the way of sources and nothing apparently sourcable? If more can be added to this and is verifiable, I'll reconsider, but as it stands this doesn't look promising. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to neutral after Dravecky's expasion of the article. It's certainly of enough local notability to be borderline for an article. I still question whether it has more widespread notability, but I'm not going to oppose any suggestions of keeping this now. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep - f~~ails WP:N, WP:V, and WP:REF.~~ Has been expanded and sourced.--S_RX 01:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It doesn't fail WP:V but may fail WP:N. Its basically a rec centre in Alabama as this search shows. Artene50 (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as this facility was the subject of significant press coverage (which I have used to expand this article with properly referenced statements) in reliable third-party sources during its proposal, construction, and upon its completion. Further it still receives direct coverage from time to time, as evidenced by the WPMI TV report. (In any case, notability is not temporary.) I urge others to re-examine this article in light of this update and reconsider any decision to delete. - Dravecky (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems to met the requirements of WP:N, WP:V, and WP:REF now, though it's still an orphan. Altairisfar _talk 00:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC) O.K., now it's no longer an orphan. Altairisfar _talk 00:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I've added a link from the Alabama and Daphne, Alabama articles but will confess to being at a bit of a loss for other logical places from which it could be linked. - Dravecky (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep since it is a real convention centre. Artene50 (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to the editor who added the references. Notability is now clear. --Eastmain (talk) 01:43, 27 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) 20:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dar Davies[edit]

Unsourced WP:BLP. Stunt men typically do not attract independent coverage. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BLP, WP:BIO, WP:REF, WP:V, and WP:N.--S_RX 01:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find only one news mention and no other material to build an article. Original research about a topic that fails to be verifiable. - Peripitus (Talk) 13:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources covering the individual -- Whpq (talk) 23:42, 28 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 due to lack of evidence for notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coleford Music Festival[edit]

Unsourced orphan article which reads as advertorial. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that the nomination does not pertain to the article's suitability for deletion, but merely to WP:PROBLEMS with its WP:CURRENT state. A few minutes searching Google News turns up the following articles devoted to the topic: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] (there are many more). Did the nominator not research the topic per WP:BEFORE? Skomorokh 09:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has had a maintenance tag on it for two years and has never been fixed or sourced. Feel free to fix it, but as it stands it fails policy. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't offered a reason to delete the article yet... the rationale seems to be WP:NOEFFORT Skomorokh 10:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:47, 30 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 due to crystal ball concerns at the moment. Davewild (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Big Brother 2009 (UK)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dalejenkins | 22:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No verifiable info exists on this season yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete No reliable or verifiable sources confirm this is actually going to happen. Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 00:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless it can be found that an announcement has actually been made regarding its future existence by the studio. Canterbury Tail talk 12:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I only started the article because someone had made this article on another page and when I asked for the Article to be deleted I was told it did not have good enough reasons to delete. Once the page is deleted in think the page should be locked until December.
Keep - The image tells it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackpoolKickboxer2008 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --T-rex 19:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and because there are no reliable references. Can be reinstated once more information becomes available. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not confirmed there will be a CBB6 yet, only when it is confirmed by channel 4 will it become notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.131.189 (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's pretty much confirmed that it will happen, but there's no verifiable information that can be put in it yet so, WP:CRYSTAL. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 01:52, 28 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. --jonny-m t 07:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caging the Dragon[edit]

Never linked to, never referenced, might be significant but the article does not say why. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources asserting notability or a substantial citation record can be found. LANL.gov would be the most reasonable place to look, but that only netted a passing mention from 1997. GoogleScholar does turn up the Zombie Survival Guide, though. If anyone finds out how I could acquire a copy, please drop me a line? - Eldereft (cont.) 12:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only covered and commented on significantly in government circles. About as cited as you would expect for this type of work. Seems largely unnoticed and unnoted in the wider world. Insufficient independent material to write about the subject I think. Peripitus (Talk) 13:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Underground nuclear testing - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 17:46, 29 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) 20:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Principlist[edit]

I can't make head or tail of this article. I suppose that its subject, if it even exists (and some Ghits would attest that it does), pertains to philosophy, or ethics, or politics, or something. But it is so unintelligible that if anybody knows anything about the subject, he or she would be best served by a fresh, empty article. Goochelaar (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rambling, incoherent dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 00:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly promotion of a neologism, and possibly a hoax. —SlamDiego_←T 07:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total and complete garbage. JuJube (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Speedy delete if possible for this nonsensical article Artene50 (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A1 Speedy It's not notability but rather patent nonsense. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 05:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Flagged it for speedy a while back, but was rejected. Bongomatic (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then make into a redirect to Principle. Reyk _YO! 02:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think that we should support the author's neologism even to the extent of providing a redirect. —SlamDiego_←T 03:58, 29 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 WP:POINTish nom by a confirmed sock. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeb Huckeba[edit]

non notable, unverified Moop Fan 17 (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All NFL players are notable. See http://www.nfl.com/players/jebhuckeba/profile?id=HUC401791 --Eastmain (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nomination by confirmed sock of banned user Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JeanLatore. Darkspots (talk) 23:40, 25 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 now. This article will be recreated, I agree, once it is properly titled. No prejudice against recreation in that sense. Too early, too speculative at this point. Keeper ǀ 76 21:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kellie Pickler (Album)[edit]

Only one source which gives name and release date, no track list, no cover art. Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Fails WP:CRYSTAL; only one source that just gives a small blurb of info. No cover art or track list verified yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 22:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Limited information available, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Eric444 (talk) 04:36, 26 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 consensus that the article is not salvagable. Davewild (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Konjic massacre[edit]

This article seems to be highly biased and it is not clear to what extent it is based in fact. My POV and HOAX tags have been removed.

The key points of the article are to allege a massacre and genocide of Serbs in Konjic during the war in the former Yugoslavia. The title seems not to reflect a phrase in general circulation. Googling for "Konjic massacre" gives only one hit other than on Wikipedia. Nothing in Google News. Nothing in Google Scholar. If this event did take place then it certainly is not known by this name.

There are five references. Four of them rely on what seem to be three Serbian Nationalist sites, which have an obvious bias in this domain. The fifth, the only one which looks RS to me, is an UN court judgement. This only contains the words "massacre" and "genocide" in relation to explaining the scope of the court's jurisdiction and in references to other cases. It is not used when describing this particular case. While I would not wish to belittle the importance of the case or make light of the crimes commited, it doesn't seem to support an article titled "Konjic massacre".

It seems to me that this article fails to establish notability, verifiability or neutrality. This is not to say that the event which this article is based upon might not be a notable subject if written about more objectively. I hold no opinion on that. DanielRigal (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm pretty sure it's not a hoax, on the basis of this. I'm going to need to do more research before I can decide if Konjic massacre is an appropriate article title, or if there are enough sources to support an article. I'm off to do more research (and probably some article editing), but we can almost certainly rule out a hoax. Vickser (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I examined the sources as well as summary Pete1900 (talk · contribs) contribution. This user made just a few edits, and wrote his first article based on Slobodan Milosevic web site. Probably the user is a troll. I think this is in the light of Radovan Karadzic arrest, because Serb nationalists are now angry and trying to present the Bosnian War as a genocide against Serbs, so they decided to use propaganda for that purpose. Regarding the fifth source - an UN court judgement - it is not related to "Konjic massacre", it is related to Čelebići prison camp - a camp for arrested Serb soldiers who conducted the siege of Konjic in 1992. Some of them were arrested and sent to a prison camp in Celebici. A few Serb soldiers were killed - Scepo Gotovac, Simo Jovanovic and Slavko Susic [10]. So the UN verdict is related to those murders, not to a "genocide", nor "massacre" against Serbs, and certainly not in Konjic, but in Celebici.
Delete Fails WP:NPOV and has dubious nationalist sources. No reliable sources. The creators edits are all on Konjic which is a bad sign. Artene50 (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a bit of research and it seems that Konjic massacre is not a widely accepted term. While it seems the contents of the article do check out factually, there's not an accepted Konjic massacre, and it's just that it was a relatively bloody province in which several nasty things happened, and those things are well covered in other articles. A NPOV rewrite would end up completely erasing the text, and as far as I can tell you'd end up with things that would be better merged into other articles. After a pretty careful examination, I don't think there's any way to save the article. Thus, I vote delete. Vickser (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not place for nationalism, propaganda and similar activities, and this is the case here. I vote delete. Kruško Mortale (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vickser sums it up pretty well. Live Forever (talk) 19:47, 29 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 an apparently lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. --jonny-m t 07:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Marriage Trail[edit]

Unreferenced orphan article, and always has been. It is possible this is significant in some way or could be sourced, but the article does not establish significance and as I say there are no sources cited. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From the now-added sources, this seems to have been a one-off week-end journey, involving just six couples. The organization domain name has fallen into the hands of resellers. I'm presently holding-off on a firm expression of opinion, but this event/organization seems to lack notability. —SlamDiego_←T 05:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Event failed to gain significant coverage --T-rex 19:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See my comment above. I am now declaring a firm opinion. —SlamDiego_←T 05:02, 27 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/WP:IAR. The fact that the subject requests deletion is not per se a reason to delete, as John254 points out. The article is well sourced, and many other users agree that it is not defamatory. Even if there are problems with PoV and sourcing (as Jossi points out), these could easily be fixed without deletion. Those arguing for deletion are merely comparing this to the Daniel Brandt case, which is apples and oranges — Brandt was borderline notable, but Berlet seems irrefutably notable per the sources. Overall, I feel that this should be closed now before it spirals even more out of control, as the consensus seems rather obvious. If this is in the wrong, please let me know; this was a rather WP:BOLD non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Berlet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The subject of this article has requested that this article be deleted.[11] This is a pro forma nomination and I do not endorse deletion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally might lean toward deletion if the individual wants it, but as this person seems to meet notability guidelines my guess is this would be deemed out of process. For now I'll wait and see on the matter.--T. Anthony (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So this is essentially a rehash of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giovanni di Stefano, but without the legal threats? We've been over and over this. Enigma ^message 21:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am Chip Berlet. The entry under Chip Berlet has, since it was created in 2004, been off and on a collection of biased, defamatory, and false information. It is currently biased and POV and fails the NPOV standard, much less BLP. It is currently under attack from conspiracy theorists and supporters of neofascist antisemite Lyndon LaRouche. Now being attacked are some entries where my work published in reputable journalistic and scholarly sources is being called unreliable and problematic. I have been trying to work within the Wiki guidelines on the entry Chip Berlet since December 2004. It is obvious that there is no interest in dealing with this ongoing problem and that Wikipedia's leadership ahs no solution to wikistalking and attacks by fanatics, which in my case has extended to a battle at Wiki quotes. Enough. Please delete the entry Chip Berlet. If it is appropriate for Dan Brandt, it is appropriate for me. Wikipedia has shown that it is unwilling or unable to enforce its own policies, and I have no faith that this will change in the near future. I have been through RFC's, Mediations, and Arbcom. It has been an utter waste of time. Please delete the entry Chip Berlet, and when that is accomplished. Please delete my user account. I have no interest in discussing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cberlet (talk • contribs) 22:00, 25 July 2008
Keep -- Despite Cberlet (talk · contribs)'s assertions to the contrary, the article is not primarily "a collection of biased, defamatory, and false information" that would require deletion pursuant to our biographies of living persons policy. The article is currently fully protected to prevent WP:BLP violations -- if some particular material is nonetheless problematic from a WP:BLP perspective, Cberlet should bring the problem to the attention of administrators, who will remedy the problem(s), if any are found to exist. The significant coverage of Chip Berlet in the numerous third-party reliable sources cited in Chip_Berlet#Notes clearly establishes a presumption of his notability per the general notability guideline -- we don't delete articles concerning clearly notable individuals solely because the subjects have requested such action. John254 22:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that Chip Berlet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has not been substantively edited since January of this year, though Cberlet (talk · contribs) has been actively editing for the last six months. If Cberlet really believed that a biography about himself was "a collection of biased, defamatory, and false information", then, having been aware of the existence of the biography for quite some time [12], he would have requested the deletion of this article well before today. John254 22:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John254. Notable and verifiable. Deleting would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. PubliusFL (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable per the significant coverage in reliable sources of him which is available. I cannot see how he could be described as a marginally notable person. Article has been fully protected since January when it was protected by Doc Glasgow, so I am struggling to see how it is currently under attack as described. I would also note that there does not seem to be much, if any, recent talk page discussion of ways the article should be improved. Have no problem with the article remaining protected indefinitely as there was pretty sustained problems before the protection was intoduced. Davewild (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am sure that there are a lot of people who would rather not be on Wikipedia. If they are notable, public figures then that is not their choice to make. This subject is journalist and a published author. I think that there is clear notability. Deletion seems to be a red herring. What is needed is to get the the article up to standard and remove any bias. We need to document the fact that he is controversial but we should not give his enemies an inappropriate soapbox. Are all the criticisms referenced to reliable sources or are they just people moaning on blogs? Are the book review quotes representative or are they cherry picked to give a bad impression? It would help if he would tell us what his specific objections are. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nominator isn't requesting deletion and is in fact nominating on another editors behalf. If Cberlet wants this article deleted there is absolutely nothing stopping them from nominating it. RMHED (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the fact that the article is fully protected and Cberlet is obviously not an admin... - auburnpilot talk 22:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't that what the article's talk page is for? A request could have been made there for the AfD tag to be added, Cberlet could then have nominated in the usual manner. RMHED (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Instead of making the request on the talk page for the article, he made it on the talk page of an admin (Will Beback) with whom he had some acquaintance. In response, Will picked up his mop and tended to this administrative duty. What's the big deal? JamesMLane t c 03:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy |Keep. Notability is a no-brainer, protection keeping attacks to minimum. No reason to delete. John254's comments are spot on. Minkythecat (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep, meets notability requirements, and the article looks neutral to my unrelated view. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The last time this went up for deletion, there was a loud clique screaming about how this was a bad-faith nomination and that the editor who did it deserved sanctions. It would be interesting to see which side those same people fall on this nomination. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good portion of those people don't edit Wikipedia anymore. Enigma ^message 22:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously notable, based on the number of citations of other Wikipedia articles that cite this person. And what Dan Tobias said. Kelly ^hi! 22:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons Seth Finkelstein and Daniel Brandt were deleted. Amerique^dialectics 22:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for the deletion of those articles were ostensibly that the subjects' allegedly marginal notability, when coupled with the subjects' requests for deletion, justified the removal of the articles. Such a rationale is clearly inapplicable here, where Chip Berlet's notability is firmly established, and where Chip Berlet is an intentionally public figure. John254 23:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have asked the closing admin to reopen this discussion[13] to allow an opportunity for those who believe the article should be deleted to be able to develop and present their perspectives. I see he has responded. Risker (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Couple dozen references, high visibility. Tan ǀ 39 23:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously Mr. Berlet has the right to remove any allegedly libelous info that does not come from WP:RS. Meanwhile the page is protected. If he stops editing here, and editing the page, he probably will become less of a target over time. Wikipedia can't have a policy where high profile people - especially people whose views are frequently quoted in wikipedia articles - can just demand that non-libelous articles be removed. Carol Moore 23:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Keep per John254. Enigma ^message 23:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's notable, even if he wants his page deleted. The references have me convinced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable, regardless of what he now wants. This is an encyclopedia, not a voluntary personal information repository. People should be able to use Wikipedia to find out who Chip Berlet is and what work he has been involved with. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Chip Berlet and User:Amerique. Ripberger (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep While I understand that Chip is unhappy with the project and the direction it has taken, that isn't a valid reason to delete an article. Chip is a willing, public figure, and as such it is not reasonable that such an individual be able to opt out of having a Wikipedia article. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - notable and sourced. Badagnani (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is about time we as Wikipedians accept the responsibility that comes with success. If we cannot keep at bay the hordes of POV pushers that hide under the excuse of "it has been published in an RS so it must be cited", to misquote, misrepresent or otherwise edit articles to assassinate the character of living people, then we need to afford LPs the recourse to have their articles deleted or at a minimum stubified and monitored. It is about time that we develop a process to deal with those editors that will use these excuses to slant articles in a way that portrays these living people in a biased light, forgetting that RS is not a magic word: NPOV is not attained by throwing a number of sources into a page. It requires diligence, respect, and effort to create a BLP that is indeed neutral in its presentation of the subject. There should not be any excuses for sloppy, malicious, and biased accounts of living people in our project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly read this article twice, spot-checked a half dozen references, and I don't see any sloppiness, maliciousness, or biased accounts in this article. It's unfortunate that published accounts have been of a negative quality; it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to ensure that BLP articles are "nice". If anyone is concerned that the article is overly negative, then they can discuss on the talk page and present alternative viewpoints from other significant sources. Tan ǀ 39 03:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is concerned - Are you? Because it seems that editors prefer to stay away from these articles and by default leaving them in the hands of others that may have huge axes to grind. Easy to say "others should fix it". What about you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cberlet has spent years on Wikipedia vociferously insisting on his notability. The price of fame is not having 100% control over how your notability gets interpreted. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 03:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Chip Berlet's comment that this is similar to the Daniel Brandt situation -- a notable person who prefers not to have an article. The Brandt article should have been kept, and so should this one be. The improper deletion of the Brandt article, in the manifest absence of consensus and after more a dozen or so tries, shouldn't be a precedent for anything. Of course, there are differences between the two -- Chip has contributed significantly to Wikipedia and has not engaged in off-Wiki harassment of editors. It's unfortunate that we are, in effect, rewarding sociopathic behavior. That factor makes this a difficult decision for me. Nevertheless, I come down on the side of following our policies, and hoping that the Brandt fiasco remains an unfortunate aberration that isn't widely emulated. (We have, after all, managed to keep the Don Murphy article.) JamesMLane t c 03:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:54, 26 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 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technitrous[edit]

Advertisement DimaG (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or reduce to stub~~. ~~Possibly an acceptable article could be written about this subject, but at present~~ it is exactly as the nominator says, an advertisement. —SlamDiego_←T 07:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since the author has expended the effort to falsify my statement of opinion and to detag the article, but not to genuinely improve it, I conclude that it is unsalvageable. —SlamDiego_←T 19:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non-notable event that currently is only an advertisment. -- Blake01 07:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can be useful Since this is an IT related topic one can know a little bit about from this topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.165.191.232 (talk • contribs)
Comment: I draw attention to the attempt by 59.165.191.232 to falsify my statement of opinion. —SlamDiego_←T 19:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Author name suggests COI. Adevrt. No attempt to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The fact that User:Technitrous deleted the AfD template doesn't help this case either. Notability, COI and verification problems do this article in. Themfromspace (talk) 18:48, 30 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:HEY, WP:SNOW. Failure of WP:BEFORE, it appears. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 09:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Catholic Library (London)[edit]

Unsourced orphan article with no real assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was a major uproar when plans to close down the library were announced. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . I personally feel this article should be kept. After doing a search on google there seemed to be several sites that discuss it. It seems to be relatively notable within British catholicism and theology and the source that User:Eastmain provided does establish some notability, however this is a borderline case. Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 00:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an important institution for British Catholics and is unique in its own right. Until recently it contained some outdated information but this has been cleared up (by myself, among others). The article should certainly not be deleted.Hohenloh (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --T-rex 19:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --However details of opening times should not appear here, but as a link to an external website that is (unlike this article) likely to be maintained. I note that the nomination is in fact for a redirect, not for the current title of the article. However, sicne this was its former name, the redirect should also be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:58, 26 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). A consensus has formed that the article satisfies notability criteria. Ruslik (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goatse.cx[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article fails the reliable secondary sources guideline which is essential in determining notability for both the general notability and website guidelines. To expand, nearly every citation is to goatse itself - the few citations there are only talk about its sale, while the article itself goes into much more. The other citation or two which are also reliable aren't about Goatse at all, and thus trivial.

This is a contested prod notice also. Izno (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - Further, nearly every nomination a cleanup has been promised, but not been delivered upon. --Izno (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just look at how many times this article has been nominated for deletion. Everytime it has been kept. Why is it any different now? Here is a reliable reference to its use on the BBC. Note that the BBC don't tell the readers what Goatse it (because it's so notable) and instead they give a link to this Wikipedia article. Without this article how would people learn about Goatse? bsrboy (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because consensus can change. Also, please reply with valid reasons to keep the article. --Izno (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice. That's a blog, which similarly does not meet the requirements for WP:RS. --Izno (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's from an editor of the BBC, who writes all the article, which you class as "reliable". The BBC wouldn't allow an article written about Goatse on the BBC, so he wrote about it on the blog section to tell people about it. Are you saying that what's written on that blog is incorrect? There is also a screenshot as proof that it was included and a video of the BBC news on youtube. bsrboy (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And blogs still aren't reliable. --Izno (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - And that wasn't an article. It was a comment from the editor apologizing for letting a link to a "shock site" slip through. there is no possible way to construe that as some journalistic coverage of the subject. Protonk (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Protonk, because he is the editor, he has the credentials to have what he writes to be considered notable and reliable. "Errata" sections of newspapers are reliable, after all. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing to note: of the four prior AfDs, only the first, from 2006, was an actual 'keep.' The other three since were each withdrawn by the nominator (two of them were nominations by the same person actually). krimpet ✽ 21:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the sources are primary, unreliable, or trivial (like the Hands of God one), and not really about Goatse itself. It's an, um, rather widespread internet meme. Just look into Encyclopedia Dramatica, there are a hole lot of Goatse references; best I could find was this, but it's auf Deutsch and is still only a trivial mention of Goatse. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Several of the sources being dug up just tie back to the Wikipedia page (like the Google Books link Yngvarr dug up), and the Wired links are only sort of about Goatse. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 21:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just going to call on WP:IAR as this is a valid internet phenomena, and also point out [14]. Sorry, I'm not going to argue pedantically about this one (oh that's just a blog, it's not reliable), how about things like [15] [16] or [17], all of which are considered notable enough publications. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The book mention is a trivial mention - it isn't about Goatse, but about attack sites in general from the preview that I could tell. Going by all the nominations for AfD that Encyclopedia Dramatica went through, a trivial mention isn't enough to establish notability. The ones on the sale of it further don't explain what Goatse is - they are similar in that they only trivially mention goatse.
  That said, I'm not sure what to say about the slashdot links. --Izno (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As my !vote says, I am using WP:IAR for this, which means I am not using policy for my argument in this particular AFD, but rather on the sheer weight of the fact that, yes, in this case, popularity does equal notability. This isn't your garage band which meets every friday, nor is it the local paid band which plays every night down at the local pub, but a phenominia which has enough oblique references to qualify. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that it is a phenomena (having been goatsed once...) — That said, I was rejecting your list of citations, which were meant to support your main reason, which is difficult to argue against at best without sinking into WP:ILIKEIT or other deletion discussion fallacies (as will follow in the next sentence). I don't feel that IAR is really in legitimate usage here, as I don't really know that this article is an improvement to Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This article is very notable, and while it may not have 3rd party sources. It is notable because so many people know about it. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-25-2008 • 21:24:41 21:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's rather contradictory. Here on Wikipedia, things are notable when they get coverage in third-party sources. I'm not seeing a lot here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 21:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment One of the (everlasting) problems is this is part of a List of Internet phenomena, for which many of the sources will be shot down, as I say above, pedantically, because they're just blogs. In this case, I consider this notable enough even given the oblique references. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addendum to the otters, notability != popularity. --Izno (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In addendum to that addendum: $\left\{\lnot \left[\lnot \left(N\Rightarrow P\right)\Rightarrow \lnot \left(N\Leftarrow P\right)\right]\right\}\forall \left(N,P\right)$ —SlamDiego_←T 20:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a strong Internet phenomenon. That's it's disgusting is not the issue here. JJL (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable part of internet culture. Towel401 (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - JJL:And nowhere has anyone mentioned that it is disgusting — That it is a strong Internet phenomenon is not a legitimate reason to oppose per the reason right about your response.
Towel: Notability states that reliable sources need to be found to support that assertion. The few there are, as explained in the nomination, are not used in a method compliant with WP:RS. --Izno (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Towel401. notable/famous internet shock site. User529 (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide reliable secondary sources which support that assertion. --Izno (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9ANHDwEss08 bsrboy (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - A YouTube video is not a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why not? bsrboy (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Because anyone can upload a YouTube video. See WP:EL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What does it matter who uploaded it. The source of the content of the video is reliable. bsrboy (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Not per WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 03:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Is it possible to change guidelines, with consensus, in WP:RS? bsrboy (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(undent)Comment I challenge that this is not a WP:RS, since the source is the BBC. That it happens to be posted to YouTube is irrelevant, because this is attributable to a reliable source. This isn't your old YouTube Poops argument, it's not a fan-authored video, but has attestment both via the BBC at [18] and [19] as well as the Goatse tie-in mentioned at [20]. And even though the BBC has pulled (and by the action, effectively denied this entry), it remains extant. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this article is worthy of inclusion. Outside of the internet, it isn't notable. It's also pornography, so unless there are articles for Meanspin, Tubgirl, and Harlequin Fetus, there's no reason for a Goatse article. ThomasOwens (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Goatse is far more popular than all of those outside of the internet. The London Olympics logo was outside of the internet. bsrboy (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As an inclusionist I would like to add that I'm actually in favor of having articles on Tubgirl, Meatspin and Harlequin fetus, while hinting to WP:IAR. — Ewald ^{(talk|email|contrib)} 06:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note WP:WAX. Axl (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reluctant but strong delete~~ Neutral per below Compare this to the Encyclopedia Dramatica article. That has 17 sources cited independent from the subject, ranging from non-reliable (the youtube video) to unimpeachable (Dibbell in wired). The subject is described (Again to varying degrees) in significant detail. Notability is satisfied. Goatse, on the other hang, contains one source that is both reliable and indpendent from the subject: a BBC mention noting that they were sorry they didn't pull an image link to goatse sooner. that isn't sufficient. None of this is about goatse being gross or bad or wrong. It just isn't covered by reliable, independent sources enough to satisfy WP:GNG. We can ignore all rules, but in order to do that we have to argue convincingly that keeping this page will improve the encyclopedia significantly. I'm not sure how it would, as little of the content of the page is compelling. >80% of it consists of a rundown of what the goatse website was/is in detail. The subject is not placed in a greater context (aside from the IPC section) and given current sourcing, doing so would require WP:OR. Sorry, this one doesn't meet WP:N. Delete it. Protonk (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from this being the fifth time Wikipedians will be voting to keep, I would like to make an additional note. The deletion notice states that Goatse.cx lacks notability (outside of the internet). For it's notability on the internet, please see the Google search results for Goatse (995.000) and Goatse.cx (52.500). Regarding the fact that it would only be notable online, not offline, I think you are missing the point of Wikipedia. First of all, there are many subjects on Wikipedia that are solely notable in a certain area of interest (f.i. Koiso Ryouhei) or in a certain geographic area (f.i. Moorfield House, Headingley). While these may not be of interest to everyone, there are many people who turn to Wikipedia for it's very broad range of articles on notable and less notable subjects. Which brings me to my second point. Even if you were to agree that it is solely relevant within the internet community (whatever that may be), it is still notable. Aside from the posted numbers of Google results, there are a significant amount of references 'in popular culture', which are also noted in the article itself in the (maybe not quite unquestioned) section with the same name. — Ewald ^{(talk|email|contrib)} 05:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits can not be used to establish notability — reliable sources must be used, and this article has not one which goes into the subject in detail. That is required to establish notability as I understand it and from viewing other AfDs (such as WP:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination)), there must be at least one source, if not multiple, which delve into the subject in more than a passing glance. This is in response to your second point as well. --Izno (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The keeps have not been dependent upon the cleanups, but cleanup is a recommendation that may always be necessary--considering the nature of the subject. Many highly objectionable things are notable/ The principle remains NOT CENSORED. Though consensus can change, it has not changed on this basic principle when repeated tested, and I doubt it will. I'd suggest regarding further nominations as disruptive--the fact that the nom had previously tried to prod this is indicative. . I think we're ready for a SNOW KEEP on this one. DGG (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am sorry that Goatse.cx is notable, but it is. The article may need clean-up, but Wikipedia needs the article. —SlamDiego_←T 07:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (reluctantly). I, too, am disgusted. However "Goatse" is a notable subject with many appropriate references. Several people above seem to be unaware of WP:WAX. Axl (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vital part of teh Internets Canadian Actor Expert (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like it or not, it's part of the culture of the Internet and has plenty of courses to back that assertion up. JuJube (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really fail to see how WP:NOTCENSORED applies here. We aren't saying "ZOMG, this is gross, delete". We are saying "it isn't notable per our guidelines, delete". Does the fact that the page is about a subject that might be censored mean WP:N doesn't apply? Protonk (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments to SlamDiego, Axl, and Canadian Actor - None of you have used specific reliable secondary sources to back the assertion that Goatse is notable. I urge you to reconsider your positions until such time specific sources can be provided which delve into the topic at hand, rather than give passing information on it. --Izno (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: For purposes of an AfD, I also wouldn't bother producing a specific “reliable source” to show that Karl Rove was “notable”. I'd instead wonder how in the world someone could actually believe or hope to persuade others that Karl Rove or Goatse.cx weren't “notable”, and move on as I do when encountering problematic people on city street corners. —SlamDiego_←T 19:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In other words, you either a) Do not have a source providing notability, or b) Don't care enough on the topic at hand to go searching for one, instead hoping that items are notable simply because someone(s) believes they are, much like truth. Further, there's more than a drop of sarcasm in that message — please keep that out of the discussion please. (meant in all seriousness - My post is not to be read as if I was being sarcastic). =) --Izno (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. Rather: (c) While any article requires “reliable sources”, the AfD discussions for some subjects simply do not. Demands that “reliable sources” in some AfDs (such as one about “Karl Rove”) may be summarily dismissed, like strange mutterings on street corners. Just as the fellow on the street corner has already lost in his attempt at persuasion, anyone seeking to have “Karl Rove” or “Goatse.cx” deleted as lacking “notability” or “reliable sources” has already lost. I am not being sarcastic; I am bluntly calling a trowel a trowel. Please keep the strange mutterings out of the discussing. We're just going to have many editors voicing “keep” followed by long and ineffectual threads where you try to argue that ~~“Karl Rove”~~ “Goatse.cx” lacks “notability” because there aren't “reliable sources” in the article. —SlamDiego_←T 20:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. The point of the WP:N guideline was to avoid this whole tea leaf reading about who is and isn't important enough for inclusion into wikipedia. If we can find reliable sources that cover the subject in a non-trivial fashion, it meets WP:N. there isn't some alternate definition by which AfD's should be rejected because "everyone knows" how notable a picture of some guy's ass is. If an AfD for Karl Rove came up the first thing I would do is mention that he has 2 book length biographies devoted to him, not that "everyone knows" about him. Protonk (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No one has proposed the reading tea leaves. The simple fact is that if the article on Karl Rove presently had no “reliable sources”, the proper response would not be to seek deletion of the article about him, but to work to improve it. An AfD for “Karl Rove” would fail, and this AfD for “Goatse.cx” will fail — because the vast majority of interested editors already know (regardless of tea leaves or “reliable sources”) that each of these is notable. —SlamDiego_←T 01:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, actually, if Karl Rove had no sources that would be one of the options - that or stubbing and then working on the article, due to BLP (of course, that is only because Karl Rove is a bad example - I see your point). That aside, it isn't up to the majority of editors to decide whether the site is notable - it's up to the reliable sources to decide, and then Wikipedia reports on what the reliable sources comment on. Unfortunately, from what I can see on this AfD, many of the !voters didn't !vote keep from a policy/guideline view - They didn't say "these sources are(n't) of quality, so we should do "x" per "y"", they said "Keep - Part of Internet culture". That doesn't work with what Wikipedia is. --Izno (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, Wikipedia could remove the Rove article, with or without “reliable sources”. But it won't, because too many editors have too much common sense for that. While it is not up to a majority of editors to decide whether to keep the article, the decision is made by consensus — even when consensus runs counter to policy and precedent. In this case, however, consensus won't run counter to policy. Even if there is some strained reading of WP:RS that would argue against “Goatse.cx”, WP:IAR would trump it. —SlamDiego_←T 03:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        No again. I'm trying to be perfectly clear. We would not keep an article on Karl Rove just because "everyone knows him". If a Karl Rove article had no soruces and came to AfD, someone would come along (like someone did with the scotsman) and say, "oh hai. I have 2 books about Karl Rove and about a bajillion newspaper articles, do those count?" We would (hopefully) not just ask around on the internet if anyone has heard of him. The purpose of WP:N is to make sure that the basis for inclusion is not "common knowledge" but reliable sources. Sometimes this means that stuff "everyone knows" gets deleted, but it also means that we can keep articles on the Ramsey Rule and Attic Greek. Poll the average wikipedia user and see if they know about that. Knowledge needs to be outward seeking, not inward looking. We build articles from sources and we keep articles because the sources exist. Protonk (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Being perfectly clear won't, unfortunately, keep you from being perfectly wrong. “Karl Rove” might have to be reduced to a sub with all sort of tags, but it would not be deleted, and the reason that it wouldn't be deleted is indeed that a sufficient share of interested editors know that he's important. “Everybody” knows the gaping asshole, so the article will stay. —SlamDiego_←T 04:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It wouldn't be deleted because there are secondary sources that cover the topic. If there were no secondary sources that covered the topic, it would be deleted. The fact that secondary sources exist can certainly be attributed to "everyone knowing" about Karl Rove, but the process isn't short circuited. I agree with you that knowledge and interest on the part of editors is necessary to build the article, but from a guideline standpoint, sources make the article. Protonk (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it simply wouldn't. Common sense would prevail. WP:IAR would be invoked over absurd invocations and interpretations of other rules. —SlamDiego_←T 21:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        IAR is certainly an option where no sources exist but it is plain as day that an article where sources exist is made notable by those sources, not by some appeal to fame or common sense. There are no "absurd invocations and interpretations". The simplest method to make a hypothetical unsourced Karl Rove article notable is to add sources. The simplest way to make this article notable is to add sources. Protonk (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:IAR isn't merely an option; it is a guaranteed response in the cases such as this. It is commonsense that “notability” can exist without “reliable sources” — things were notable in an era when there were no “reliable sources” whatsoever. The final two sentence of your comment exhibit a gross confusion that perhaps lies at the heart of your futile argumentation: “Notability” is a required attribute of subjects, not of the articles about them. We do not need the article “Karl Rove” to be notable; we only need for Karl Rove himself to be “notable”. We cannot make him “notable” by adding “reliable sources”, nor do we make the article itself “notable” by doing so. Likewise with “Goatse.cx” and with Goatse.cx. Further, an AfD should not be used as a whip to force the inclusion “reliable sources” when the subject of the article is already known to be “notable”. —SlamDiego_←T 01:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        this seems to be mirroring the discussion below. TL;DR, a reliance on folk decision for notability results in a systemic article bias based on the makeup of editors, a problem especially important where the makeup of editors is liable to diverge substantially from the makeup of the reader base. Reliance on reliable sources replaces this bad bias with a less bad bias. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No one is proposing that folk decision be treated as necessary for notability either; the systematic bias that one might fear from such an imposition is avoidable, and the systematic bias of the rules that you propose are also reduced. —SlamDiego_←T 03:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Outdent) See below, I figured out what you were talking about and responded. Sorry it took so long. As for the folk decision, my point there is that the proposal has already happened. the creation of WP:N was a step toward eliminating that element of systemic bias (really, replacing it largely with a bias toward material previously published). Without reliance on source material we don't have much to go on with regard to the inclusion/exclusion of articles as far as criteria goes. "fame" "importance" and "significance" are all pretty malleable words. Protonk (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOTE didn't tell us to ignore popular interest, nor that we must disbelieve that there is popular interest because no one has produced a “reliable source”. The effect of WP:NOTE is to counter conviction that Wikipedia should have content simply because a few editors are convinced that, in spite of lack of notice either from the public or from those with some institutional standing, the content is interesting or important. —SlamDiego_←T 04:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While Google cannot be relied on in general, I think in this case it suffices. In what way can 900k individual hits referring to the issue and it alone be *all* unreliable? And in what way is it unreliable? Do we have the suspicion that large proportions of them are made by people associated to the site itself? The answer, I'm guessing is no. Hence, the google search result in itself is a reliable secondary source providing direct evidence that goatse is a well known phenomenon on the web, and has driven the existence of a wide variety of sites relating to it. That makes it notable.--Fangz (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some more googling, surely this ought to seal the argument? [21] --Fangz (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a reference in The Scotsman. Axl (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - (2xec, before you produced a source which I will take a moment after I post to analyze) Have you read WP:GOOGLE, or the very first paragraph of Notability? "Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right."
    I can immediately take your 900k hits and make it 60,000 using google per goatse -site:wikipedia.org -site:goatse.cx. In other words, yes, I can manipulate Google to make it an unreliable source in this context, and in most. You can quote a number, I can quote a number, both of us twisting it to our ways — that makes it inherently unreliable. --Izno (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm. I'm not sure you can submit search syntaxes to google like that. Note that -site:goatse.cx and -site:wikipedia.org both leave around 650,000 hits. I suspect that your query breaks google in some way - in any case, it is flatly not plausible that there are 600k articles referring to goatse on wikipedia. (If that is the case, it'd be seriously disturbing.)--Fangz (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is a legitimate method to searching on Google — feel free to do it in that way yourself. However, now you're arguing the point of what the number is, when I argued that you cannot use Google in such a way because of the number can and will change depending on the search made. Whatever the number that pops up, it doesn't work. --Izno (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are of course confusing necessity with sufficiency. The fact that $X$ $X$ is not necessary for “notability” doesn't mean that $X$ $X$ is insufficient for “notability”. —SlamDiego_←T 20:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Refactor please. I honestly didn't get that, though I'm rather sure I should. :/ --Izno (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The policy that you invoke says that fame isn't necessary for notability, but you are reading it to say that fame isn't sufficient. —SlamDiego_←T 04:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No one is confusing anything. google hits aren't necessary for notability, nor are they sufficient. Neither one is the case. By a happy accident, google hits tend to correspond with notability (as google indexes what people are writing about), but it has nothing to do with the notability guidelines. Protonk (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, you are perfectly wrong. Not about Google hits being neither necessary nor sufficient, but in thinking that this somehow has any bearing upon the point that I actually made. Izno invoked a policy that says that fame isn't necessary as if it were a claim that fame isn't sufficient. I didn't deny that Google hits are insufficient; however, they would be sufficient if they were a better indicator of actual fame. —SlamDiego_←T 04:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not commenting on your top level point (where you find the scotsman source, which appears to cover the subject sufficiently. I'm referring to the necessary/sufficient back and forth. neither fame nor google hits are a component of Notability, only sourcing is. Protonk (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I've made no reference to the Scotsman article (prior to this sentence); if, in your flailings, you are going to scramble brute fact as well as logic, then discussion is going to be even more ridiculous. Your hastily reconstructed argument about fame and “notability” fails for two reasons. First, the claim to which you originally objected was not that fame implies “notability”, but a point of pure logic — that the non-necessity of fame did not imply the insufficiency of fame. (Izno's confusion is plainly exhibitted in his “!=” comment, which would only work if the implication were bilateral.) Second, it is only under a strained reading of the rules that sourcing would imply notability. Many subjects are extremely well sourced yet there would be outrage and ridicule if the size and number of Wikipedia articles on these subjects were proportional to the amount of sourcing, as they are supposed to be proportional to “notability”. —SlamDiego_←T 21:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh for fucks sake. I've gone through this whole exchange without insulting you or belittling your arguments. I don't need to be talked down to. I'm sorry I mistook your reply for the "parent" of this offshoot (which mentioned the scotsman). I'll try to be perfectly clear. the guideline to which we are appealing is WP:N, which does not require a strained reading to see that sources are needed. It is plain in the text. Above and variously, users have made claims about "common knowledge", "fame", "google hits" etc as being either sufficient or necessary for notability. My point was, and remains, that no amount of fame/google hits/common knowledge generates notability per wikipedia's definition. Whether or not fame paves the way for secondary coverage is immaterial. I am prepared (as you note in the other mini-thread) to accept that some certain level of fame within a subculture could lead us to ignore all rules in keeping the entry. that's a perfectly valid argument to make. It doesn't, however, have anything to do with notability. Protonk (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You've been talking down to multiple opponents for some time now; which wouldn't bother me in the least if in all that being “perfectly clear” you got the salient points correct. Again, you've read WP:NOTE as listing necessary conditions, when it merely lists sufficient condition. The reason that you haven't actually quoted a passage that says that reliable sources are necessary for “notability” is that you haven't found one to quote. We all know that “reliable sources” are necessary for “Goatse.cx” to be untagged and all that, but an AfD isn't about whether an article needs to be filled with tags; it's about whether Wikipedia should have the article at all. And, exactly as I explained much earlier, what we have is a bulk of editors here (using common sense) saying that of course we should have an article, and long threads in which a minority argues ineffectually. —SlamDiego_←T 02:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, it's moot with the scotsman article anyway. And I'll repeat. I never mentioned tags. WP:N refers to inclusion of an article, not tagging it. It's still not cool to bust me down like that. If I'm emphasizing that I'm attempting clarity it is because I have not been clear enough in the past. Clarity in discussion is a two way street. Either I am failing to convey, you are failing to understand or we are both falling short in some manner. I have no method of determining where the fault lies (and I don't really care), so for the sake of discussion I'm trying to make my points clear. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, I wouldn't give a d_mn about your condescension if you would actually make and address salient points. No one said that you had mentioned tags; I said that you'd been calling for deletion when tagging was the appropriate tool. I am not persuaded to treat you as the arbiter of cool. I'm not failing to understand you — I quite understand why you've neither produced a quote from WP:NOTE illustrating that “reliable sources” are necessary for “notability” nor admitted that there is no such quote. The fault lies in your cleaving to an absurd principle. —SlamDiego_←T 04:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Outdent) AHHHH. The light comes on. You are arguing that citing in reliable sources is sufficient but not necessary for notability. Now I get it. I don't interpret WP:N in this fashion. I can understand seeing lines like "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." and "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." and conclude that sourcing is a sufficient but not necessary condition. I look at sections like WP:NOBJ and lines like "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines." and come to the conclusion that the intent of the guideline is to require independent sourcing of articles in order to establish notability. As I said before, this is moot now (w/ the scotsman) and could still be ignored by IAR. but what the guidelines say is clear to me. Reliable sources are required, except in the cases where the daughter guidelines (WP:BIO, WP:CORP, etc) suggest inclusion. Protonk (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Imagine! All of my talk of necessity versus sufficiency was really about necessity versus sufficiency. Who woulda thunk it? Your gross misreading of the guidelines would to turn upon equating “verifiable objective evidence” with “reliable sources”, a confusion very much of the same flavor as assuming that a one-way implication is bilateral. —SlamDiego_←T 04:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - no need to be sarcastic. At the beginning I thought you were talking about necessity v. sufficiency with regard to fame, google hits, etc. Also, I hardly think interpreting WP:N to read: articles need coverage in secondary sources is a gross misinterpretation. Protonk (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The sarcasm may not have been necessary, but there was sufficient cause for it. If WP:NOTE was intended to claim that “reliable sources” were necessary, then it could actually claim that, instead of referring to “verifiable objective evidence”. Further, there would then have been no need for a WP:NOTE separate from WP:RS. As I said, your misreading is pronounced. —SlamDiego_←T 04:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Har har. what does this line mean, then "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines."? Protonk (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That “substantial coverage in reliable sources” is sufficient, that “published peer recognition” is sufficient, and that “the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines” are sufficient. Plainly, no one of these is necessary (because they are each sufficient yet not identical one to another), and nothing declares this list to be exhaustive. EoS. —SlamDiego_←T 04:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We aren't making some epistemological claim here. We are trying to run an encyclopedia. If the list of things constituting notability include RS, peer review and the criteria listed in the daughter guidelines how are we to interpret "Reliable sources are required, except in the cases where the daughter guidelines (WP:BIO, WP:CORP, etc) suggest inclusion." as a gross misreading. Apart from the criteria listed in the daughter guidelines, , where in WP:N do we get the idea that notability comes from something other than sourcing? It we assumed (for a moment), that goatse didn't meet WP:WEB and we couldn't IAR, then what part of WP:N would you appeal to to assert that it is notable? I don't see this split between sufficient and necessary criteria in WP:N. Perhaps you can show me where, precisely, the wording fits your interpretation. Protonk (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Epistemological claims are unavoidable here, and in the assembly of any proper encyclopedia. Your reading is a gross misreading because (a) it treats inclusion as equivalence; (b) the authors of WP:NOTE always had the option of making a simple declaration such as that which you put in quotes, yet no such thing appears in WP:NOTE; and (c) WP:NOTE would not need a separate existence from WP:RS if the intention was as you would claim. WP:NOTE does not seek to be precise and exhaustive for the same reasons that various other Wikipedia policies have a high degree of ambiguity — it is much harder to secure agreement for more precise and complete rules, and Wikipedia is largely in the hands of people who simply hate rules altogether. Wikipedia policies are not the product of formalists, and only a bad formalist or crazed nihilist would think that they were. Asking me to show precisely where WP:NOTE allows “Goatse.cx” presumes the fundamental falsehood, as I've already noted such things as Wikipedia's not declaring that list of criteria to be exhaustive. —SlamDiego_←T 06:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The scotsman article might be enough. Of course it is the only RS this article cites. Protonk (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure, but not because the source is unreliable. The page can't be accessed from within the site's search — only from Google on the outside. I don't know that this matters, but it's something I thought I might bring up. --Izno (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find that unfailingly common. Most site searching software is so bad, I just go to google and do a site: search. I wouldn't consider that a hit on the source. IMO, the scotsman is reliable, even if their IT dept sucks. Protonk (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGLY KeepGoatse is a significant part of internet culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zug.com reference added. I've spent a couple of hours probing around to fill the gaping hole in the article. Axl (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the word play - 'gaping hole' in reference to goatse Towel401 (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Scotsman article is good, and I think, when combined with the general infamy of the site, it is sufficient. I can't see anyone arguing that goatse isn't one of the most notorious shock sites online, and given that I can see real value in a Wikipedia page independent of notability. With a good RS added to that I'm happy to keep. - Bilby (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article now contains The Scotsman, Wired, and references to the BBC. Given the addition evidence pointing towards fame, and our common sense knowledge that it is famous, I think this is plenty to establish the notability of the site. - SeanL116 (SeanL116) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Izno, this article has had much cleanup. Plus, even without the cleanup the reliable sources prove that this subject is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Never forget 01-14-2004. pyksy (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for great justice! 75.75.0.69 (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget epic lulz. Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:34, 30 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. Non notable spam. Keeper ǀ 76 21:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Morelli[edit]

Non-notable biography. Only claims to notability are minor awards. TN‑X-Man 19:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Lots of references but all confirm he's just an apparently successful realtor. --TM 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure self-promotional spam. --Calton | Talk 16:13, 26 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. --jonny-m t 07:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guest appearances discography[edit]

Indiscriminate, rap-centric discography. No sources or context. Prodded but WBOSITG thought AfD would be better. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator, not much else to say really. JBsupreme (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This in indiscriminate, only focuses on one genre and only on music released this year. Pretty much touches alot of WP:NOT bases. Also, this isn't a discography, it's a list. I guess the creator thought "discography" sounded better. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:45, 25 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 - Seems to be the same gist as the prior AFD (recreation, but not the same exact content).. —— nix eagle 13:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Production discography[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Indiscriminate, rap-centric discography. No sources or context. Prodded but WBOSITG thought AfD would be better. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOT also this is a list and not a discography (there are differences) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as I can't imagine this being an encyclopedic topic of interest to a significant number of readers. Who muses "I wish there were a page where I could see a list of every album produced by every producer, ever!"? If this list is complete, it is impossibly long; can it be split? The only plausible split would by discographies by individual producers, which I would have no problems with for notable producers with extensive production credits. No compelling reason to keep this. Skomorokh 10:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, this is an improper list for an encyclopedia. JBsupreme (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete due to lack of reliable sources. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Like a Foxxx[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable album. I can't find any reliable sources for this album's history, and the Allmusic listing is a placeholder. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:37, 30 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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rap albums discography[edit]

Indiscriminate discography with a focus on 2008. No scope here; does Cowboy Troy count as rap? What about Kid Rock's rap breakdowns? Et cetera. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate information, Original research towards what would be included, does not go by any sort of standards of WP:DISCOG (instead of being by a band, it's a genre). All information in here so far is in 2008 in music. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of hip hop albums like its previous attempt, Hip hop albums discography. ~ Eóin (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per rationale given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Production discography. Skomorokh 10:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of hip hop albums like i seem to keep having to do with these so-incredibly-broad-as-to-be-nonsensical, o.r.-ridden, useless lists. tomasz. 10:31, 28 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 all. And just for the record, I love Family Guy, so please don't send a giant chicken to beat me up. --jonny-m t 07:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Blactually[edit]

Totally unsourced page about a future episode - not even the title is sourced. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Also added:[reply]

Three Kings (Family Guy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anchorwoman: The Legend of Lois Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Episode 420 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not All Dogs Go to Heaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Juice Is Loose! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ocean's Three and a Half (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tales of a Third Grade Nothing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Man with Two Brians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road to Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I Dream of Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Family Gay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love Blactually (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Baby Not on Board (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Delete all because I can't stand Family Guy because they're unsourced future episodes. Wait until there's more to say than just the titles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all no reliable sources, and there's not much content anyway. The only episode with an announced title and plot is the "Empire Strikes Back" parody. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be recreated when there is more discussion in additional WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all - to List of Family Guy episodes Ғїяеѕкатея^talk 10:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Nothing really to put in now, but when the episode airs the article will prove useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tezkag72 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source that these are even the titles of the episodes. As I stated before, the only confirmed episode title is "Something, Something, Something, Dark Side" the Empire Strikes Back parody. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - no content. Furthermore the articles make no claim of notability --T-rex 19:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Esn (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all They are upcoming episodes and not much is confirmed of them. Martarius (talk) 16:16, 30 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) 22:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros. Records discography[edit]

Mostly a barely-even-started list of albums; if complete, it would be indiscriminate in nature. I know of 30-40 albums off the top of my head just within the country music field alone that were released off Warner in the past five years. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If completed, it would be uselessly long. If incomplete, it would be useless too. The scope is just too broad. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another rap-centic LIST (it's not a discography in the slightest) made of indiscriminate OR. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jclemens. No version of this article could possibly be worthy of inclusion. Skomorokh 10:14, 27 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) 02:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abt Electronics[edit]

Largely self-sourced article about electronics store, written by employee. Includes such gems as "Another main attraction is the Panasonic Professional Plasma 103-inch 1080p HDTV which currently ranks as the largest consumer television". Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per this source Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 19:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How does that source meet any of the four speedy keep criteria? —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't like this article one bit; it's a textbook example of a conflict of interest attempting to misuse Wikipedia's open editing format for marketing. Yes, it's notable. Yes, sources exist. But nearly every sentence needs to be rewritten. Nobody would dream of sneaking into a library and pasting a press release into Britannica. That's what the single purpose account that started this article is doing to us. No comment on keep or delete, but if it stays this needs major cleanup. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Less bothersome now per changes. Durova^Charge! 19:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. The claim to notability is that they're the largest independent electronics dealer in the US. The article needs to prove it: WSJ article on them, ranking list somewhere, press coverage, awards, something independent beyond the blurb at Hoover. It could be a worthy subject; I don't think the current version is there. Source that, and I'll swing over to keep. —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added further sources including a WashPo article which names them as one of the largest in the U.S. and a Newsweek article entirely about the company. Gr1st (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also added WSJ.com link to a Wall Street Journal article about them. Naturally most of it is behind a pay wall, but the full text is on the Abt website. Gr1st (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the Newsweek article, I'm swaying to weak keep. That's significant media coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Verifiable, reliable sources prove notability even though the original creator had an obvious conflict of interest. We don't delete articles just on the fact that an employee or related person created them. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 05:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was nominated for deletion based on multiple concerns (see Durova's comment). It has been substantially improved by the work of several editors. The article creator has neither returned to improve the article nor contributed to the AfD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1,100 employees, over 400 news articles, numerous book references etc = Notable and verifiable from reliable sources. If the article has COI problems or is otherwise rubbish, stub it, edit it but don't waste time deleting it if it's about a notable subject. Good work by Gr1st and Durova on this one - Peripitus (Talk) 13:40, 27 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 21:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee shop philosophy[edit]

Original research DimaG (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As unsourced original research. TN‑X-Man 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tnxman. I've never heard anyone use the word "philosophy" to describe a kind of discussion. Maybe they were thinking of a "colloquy". Have a latte and look at the dictionary. Mandsford (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pour down drain. [1] Essentially a dictionary entry. [2] Neologism. —SlamDiego_←T 07:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional delete A search for this term in sources shows it's a valid concept, but as far as I have been able to determine, there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources from which to write anything more than a basic stub, if that. Will reconsider if more substantial sources emerge. Skomorokh 10:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remark: It would still be essentially just a dictionary definition, and then belong in the Wiktionary rather than in Wikipedia. —SlamDiego_←T 07:48, 28 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

50th Finance Battalion (United States)[edit]

Likely fails WP:ORG since I could find no secondary sources. Very few g-hits and zero search results for news articles. Samuel Tan 14:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Military organization does not follow ORG rule. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without real notability as a unit. We probably shouldn't be documenting units below regiment or brigade level in any case unless they have particularly unusual distinction. --Dhartung | Talk 03:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while individual combat battalions might be notable, a finance unit I think fails the test - in the most covered Army in all of en:wiki. Buckshot06(prof) 08:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve because this is a military unit. It might not seem notable but it seems to be the only military unit that deals with monetary policies. Financial Battalions are necessary for the Army and Army Reserve. There are also many other finance battalions under the command of the 18th Financial Management Center. This then makes the case that this should be kept as there is an entire section devoted to this. There is blatent copyright issues in the article and this should be addressed when looking over the article. In the end, I think that this will eventually be created again and it's probably best to keep the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added links that should suffice as secondary sources, such as Global Security and a Fort Bragg website for the 18th Financial Management Center.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kevin Rutherford points out the 18th FMC which is one of several finance-related units in the Army. I really doubt that any of these is technically notable, but I would be willing to support a generalized Army article below the level of Defense Finance and Accounting Service, which covers the DOD level. --Dhartung | Talk 19:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Though most of the article was copied from the Pentagon's website, since that's a work of the federal government it's not a copyright violation...right? I don't think it would cost us anything to delete it, but I don't have any real opposition to keeping it either. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge somewhere if possible, otherwise delete. Sources are there, but are not strictly reliable and not enough to write a verifiable, decent stub on the topic. Will reconsider if more substantial sources emerge. Skomorokh 10:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would other editors object if I upmerged this to become a page on the ~~18th Financial Management Center, a corps-level headquarters for such things?~~ United States Army Finance Corps? - would become a general overview with all Active and Reserve units currently active listed. This would fit alongside the others at [[22]]. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 09:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the page for the 18th Financial Management Center. From what I found, uploading might encourage people to added more of each unit (There are at least 30 of them) to the Center's page. The amount of information might start warranting splitting the page once it reaches that point. I think we should revamp the 50th and start creating other unit pages. Maybe the 18th can start looking having lists of the financial units that closely resemble USAF wing and squadron list pages. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly somebody created the 13th Finance Group. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:46, 28 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 a how-to guide. --jonny-m t 07:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dell DRAC Remote SSH Console Redirection[edit]

Blatant how-to article. Speedy was declined, PROD was contested, so here we are at AFD... Beeblbrox (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant How-To and sourced from a personal blog. Smeggysmeg (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In agreement with Smeggysmeg. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 18:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with deleting this how-to article, but would recommend placing a link to the source blog on Dell DRAC. I would, but I didn't see any personal blogs under the sources for these articles.--Wisesage5001 (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this revision the author made mention that he or she pulled the content from his or her blog, but unfortunately they do not provide the link. Smeggysmeg (talk) 18:08, 29 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 per WP:BOLD. Members of notable bands are automatically notable, per WP:MUSIC, but Paris seems at best to have been a backing singer. This is academic, as the article was a one-line stub, and did not need to be brought to AfD. Redirecting to the band article, because redirects are cheap no important material is lost, and the target article has information about the redirect subject. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 10:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London Paris[edit]

Non notable band or singer. Chafford (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I'm confused. None of the members of that quartet is named London Paris [24]. Is that a misnomer, or nonsense? There is talk about a "London Paris" here, and there's also a mention of "First Assembly Of God" somewhere on that page, but I can't really say that it's about this person. Speedy delete as A1: No context. --Amalthea (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Blackwood Brothers page, London Paris used to be a member but it makes it sound as if he is no longer. I have no idea if he is notable enough to have an article on his own and this article doesn't really help. Rnb (talk) 15:19, 21 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, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO; non-notable singer. Ғїяеѕкатея^talk 10:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - member of a non-notable singing group --T-rex 19:17, 26 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, WP:HEY. Nominator is reminded to research the topic before nominating. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 10:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Bedbury[edit]

Non-notable CEO. Katr67 (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep former Nike exec, board of directors for Jones Soda, et al. These definitely meet any standard of notability for corporate management, including Wikipedia's. Verification of these facts is needed, but that alone is not enough for complete deletion. Steven Walling (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be crazy notable. I added a couple refs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I de-prodded it in early January and added ((cite web)) format for three references. He seemed notable then and isn't any less notable now. — Athaenara ✉ 20:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs improvement but the subject appears notable enough. Artene50 (talk) 01:18, 27 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 15:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater security[edit]

Article is basically a collection of essay like passages that were made into an article at the same time as the AquaShield Diver Detection Sonar page that was deleted as spam, presumably as a way of justifying that article. I cleaned the page up, but having removed all the promotional links and POV text, I don't think it justifies it being an article, it could be merged into something else at best. Mfield (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just removed a significant portion from the article as a copyright violation from [25], but this *might have been wrong*: Are sources from whitehouse.gov automatically in the public domain? I mentioned it on the article's talk page, but it might be important for the this discussion. --Amalthea (talk) 13:10, 21 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, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything printed by the American federal government is public domain. My tax dollars paid for that web page dammitt! Beeblbrox (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless of course it's "redacted for reasons of national security" Beeblbrox (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I restored it, FWIW. --Amalthea (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an OR personal essay. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be synthesis, original research, etc...Beeblbrox (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Worthwhile topic name. No longer spam, but definitely poorly written, WP:SOFIXIT. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's not as obvious to the rest of us how you propose to "fix it". If it is so simple, please go right ahead and fix it. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want lessons in how to edit wikipedia, see here. MickMacNee (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok ok, I'll lay off the sarcasm if you will. My actual point was that I don't see how to undo a problem like this. If the article is WP:OR, how can we make it otherwise? Beeblbrox (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgy dossiers aside, I would think something covered on a white house page is going to have some basis in sourceable fact, don't you think? Even without that, is it realy a hard concept to believe that underwater security is a concept that exists? Surely all the systems listed under "Underwater Security Systems" were not made up by the author as part of a personal essay piece. Strip out the junk, source the factual information. MickMacNee (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. I can see a version of this article stripped off of the WP:OR, but it wouldn't be more than half a sentence remaining nor would it be notable. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:45, 31 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 to delete, defaulting to keep. Editors interested in discussing a merge are invited to do so on the relevant talkpages. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 01:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faline[edit]

Unnotable fictional character that fails WP:FICT, WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. The article is a combination of a short summary of Faline's roll in the Bambi books and the Disney films, and personal reviews and critics of the works. The characters role and relevance is already well covered by the individual work articles. This article adds nothing of value to any of these, and the character of Faline has not received significant, third-party coverage to justify her having her own article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a source. And that source is a specialized encyclopedia. Per the 5 pillars (do I sound like someone else?) we should have it. Another source would be nice. Hobit (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's encyclopedia fails the "third-party" requirement. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Reluctantly). The article is a mess of personal opinion and original research. However, Faline is a notable character. This does not necessarily mean that she should have such an article all to herself. However, having a One-Stop Shop for a character which covers each of her appearances (Bambi, Bambi II, Bambi, A Life in the Woods, Bambi's Children) makes for easier research for someone looking up her character rather than having to go on a click hunt through various articles. If Wiki was a paper encyclopaedia with space at a premium, I would burn the page myself. But don't let's be so over-expedient that we delete things which have a nice Convenience Factor regardless of what the "letter of the law" is. Lighthope (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Merge (with Bambi for eg.) along with a Redirect would provide the One-Stop-Shop mentioned by Lighthope. (Meaning that anyone entering the name into Go would be sent straight to the Bambi page and the relevant section on her. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed...unfortunatel, it was done with two other Bambi characters whose articles only covered the films, and the merge/redirect is continuously being reverted by IPs. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we did do a redirect to, say, Bambi, would it include all references to the character Faline or only her appearance in Bambi the film since that is what the Bambi article covers (and not very thoroughly, I might add)? And to Collectonian, I agree with your comment about anonymous IPs. Grrr! Lighthope (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would only cover her appearances in the film, though some of the book and other film appearances could possibly be merged to their prospective articles as well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I wouldn't be a fan of that. Any article which deals with a character should deal with all instances of that character. If it was going to limit itself to movie appearances, then limit the discussion to the relevant movie pages as that would be only two pages. (Bambi and Bambi II) But since that would eliminate her appearances in the books, that would be a loss of information and thus not well served. So still I favour keeping the Faline article. Lighthope (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her roll in the book would be covered in the book articles, where it belongs. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then we lose the one-stop shopping. Nope. Keep the article Faline . Lighthope (talk) 18:03, 22 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, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Bambi (character). A secondary character, not well remembered, and without demonstrated individual notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dhartung. Faline is not Thumper. JuJube (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what medium you are looking at. Thumper is a non-existent character in the books. While he has gained notoriety in the films, does this rate an article unto itself for a character that properly belongs only on the film page? On the other hand, Faline is in both film and book and is actually one of the main characters of Bambi's Children, Bambi himself arguably being a secondary character. If you are okay with Thumper having his own page, then by your own standards Faline must have her own page. Merging the Faline article means we lose all information on her for the books or, worse, put book information on the film page where it does not belong. Lighthope (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A sufficiently important character, and being covered in a number of the works is sufficient. The nom. cites a number of so-called guidelines" which are either disputed or very close to rejected. DGG (talk) 22:33, 26 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 and redirect to Seven Seas of Rhye - Nabla (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhye[edit]

This is literally a fictional world Freddie Mercury and his sister invented. Just because some of Queen's songs use Rhye as the setting doesn't make it notable. Xnux the Echidna 20:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Queen (band) and/or Freddy Mercury. -- Quartermaster (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Seven Seas of Rhye, a hit single by the band which is the only song with an instance of the word to have an article. The whole etymology of "Rhye" can be explained in that article. NN by itself. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Per nom. Strikes me as being similiar to Gamehendge. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:20, 22 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, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Seven Seas of Rhye. I've many times wondered WTF Rhye was on seeing the song title, and that's the best article to explain it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the song per Doc Strange. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above - the article about the song appears to be the appropriate place to explain this. 67.121.145.111 (talk) 02:21, 28 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 16:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worldvision Contest[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable video submission contest. TN‑X-Man 16:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why, exactly, is this not speedied as A1? Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, I thought I'd give it the benefit of the doubt and PROD'ed it. Contested PROD = AfD, but I have no objections to an admin being bold and stepping in here. TN‑X-Man 19:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google turns up nothing useful so this is likely completely non-notable. — Scientizzle 15:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus. Keeper ǀ 76 17:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Ricky Gervais Show episodes[edit]

unreferenced episode list, wikipedia is not a directory Rtphokie (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:NOT isn't grounds for deletion of episode lists, which exist for many notable and not so notable shows (see Category:Lists of television series episodes). The Ricky Gervais Show is perhaps the most notable podcast, and the list contains representative descriptions of the content, just as all episode lists do. The reason it is unreferenced is that it only covers the primary source, and lack of references, when notability is well established, isn't enough to justify deletion. To fix the lack of references a lead can be added using references from the main article (such as what was done with List of The Simpsons episodes). --TM 16:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like there aren't any references in the main article but I think lack of references still isn't enough justification. I'll look for some references if that's the issue. --TM 17:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The issue is notability. Lack of references is one problem yes, but there are concerns about the overall notability of this subject.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment It's the most downloaded podcast ever according to the Guinness Book of Records. What exactly are your concerns over its notability? --TM 17:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply' I have no concerns with the notability of The Ricky Gervais Show, the GBOR reference should be added there. I have a problem with the notability of this article. Perhaps the answer is to merge this article into The Ricky Gervais Show--Rtphokie (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply The notability of this article? Wikipedia articles must be notable in and of themselves in order to exist? I guess I don't understand your point. I still vote keep based on the length of the main article (which admittedly needs pruning). While you suggest a merge here, you've also proposed merging the show article into the even longer Ricky Gervais article, which I also don't understand. And as I said, the GBOR reference doesn't need to be added to the main article, since it was already there when you added a second unreferenced template, prodded it and nominated it for AFD. All I did was format it. --TM 17:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails to assert notability and is just a listing of episodes in a podcast Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-25-2008 • 17:05:45 17:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, I'll add a lead which will assert notability. It's in the Guinness Book of World Records as the most downloaded podcast, so notability isn't really an issue. --TM 17:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that reference establishes notability of The Ricky Gervais Show (which currently has zero references as well, you should add that reference there instead)--Rtphokie (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Actually that article did have a reference confirming its notability (which I added to the list). It just wasn't properly formatted. And why not add more references to the list in addition to the main article? Half of your justification is that it's unreferenced. So now we have notability established and more references on the way. --TM 17:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NOT#DIR tells us "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic" I'm not convinced that the entries on this list meet this criteria. As for other episode lists, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. They are subject to the same guidelines.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep WP:EPISODE has established that episode-list articles are encouraged in lieu of articles on individual episodes. There's certainly no denying the notability of this series. And yes, it's a podcast, not a TV series, but to be honest some Wikipedia policies need to be updated for the 21st Century. There's gonna be a heck of a lot more of these. And this isn't some guy in his basement with a webcam - this is Ricky Gervais. Notability is established by that alone. Further notability established by the Guardian connection. 23skidoo (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Episode lists of a notable show are perfectly acceptable. Jclemens (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ample precedence for episode lists of notable shows. Eusebeus (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Nominator appears to be disrupting WP with multiple spurious AfD nominations. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Perfectly reasonable subtopic of a highly notable topic, narrowly defined and discriminate. Has WP:PROBLEMS with original research, but these are irrelevant to the suitability of the list for inclusion in Wikipedia; has WP:POTENTIAL to be an excellent list. Skomorokh 10:44, 27 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. John254 00:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Bentley[edit]

fails to assert why this person is notable, lacks sufficient 3rd party references Rtphokie (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has an implicit claim to notability as host of radio shows. All three external links are 3rd party sources to some extent (including IMDB); a radio station's website is not a personal website.--ragesoss (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the article is about a radio show host, I feel it is slightly notable, and for its size it has an adequate number of 3rd party references. There are plenty other small larticles like this. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-25-2008 • 17:11:18 17:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment While this is true of licensed radio stations, I'm not aware of any implicit notability for radio personalities. WP:BIO applies and insists on significant coverage in verifiable 3rd party sources. This article contains only references to primary sources. The common name is making searches for news articles a bit challenging, Can someone more familiar with him can find some appropriate references to add to this article.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I've added a couple of more third-party sources to the references section. -- Bovineone (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently referenced as it exists now. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of inside links and outside references. Proves notability. Needs a little cleanup here and there, but most of all, more content. With all the references shown, the main author should have plenty of material at hand to expand this article and include a better background biography and, if referenced and available, a "personal life" section or some such. I am a firm believer in always giving every chance to prove a "person article" - because when it comes right down to it, the line separating notable-enough individuals from not-notable-enough (as we all are notable, I hope, in a way) is far too broad and hard to define. It's got all the basics of a good article, and, if tweaked and expanded a bit, will only get better. itinerant_tuna (talk) 03:54, 26 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) 22:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Neon Genesis Evangelion voice actors[edit]

Disputed prod. Information about voice actors and the characters they portray are already incorporated in the character summaries, either on the main article, a list of characters article, or the individual character articles, as directed by WP:MOS-AM#Sections. Because of this, there is no point in keeping a separate "cast list" article and the list does not serve a useful purpose. --Farix (Talk) 16:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the article overlaps existing information in another article, the information is redundant and unnecessary. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-25-2008 • 17:18:13 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the person who originally prodded it. Note that it was deprodded because "reasoning does not match contents" (something I can't see myself). —Dino guy 1000 17:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is redundant. Doceirias (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I still see some info that isn't in the character page, like the French, German, and Spanish voice actors, so merge that info.Westrim (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we typically do not include information on any language dubs or translations aside from Japanese and English; the most mention this information typically gets is within the infobox and maybe a few sentences in the prose. If anything, this information should be transwikied to the appropriate foreign-language Wikipedias. —Dino guy 1000 22:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Dinoguy1000's comment. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 02:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant information. List of voice actors (not only main characters or sub-characters) are suitable in some Anime News Network. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's helpful nomination. French/German/Spanish VA's are immaterial to the English Wikipedia. JuJube (talk) 13:05, 26 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 15:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Diya[edit]

Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOTE: Though someone has obviously but a good deal of effort into this article, Wikipedia is not a random collection of college clubs. Also, this organization has not demonstrated how it has externally-verifiable notability per WP:NOTE. Djma12 ^(talk) 15:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article has no links to reliable 3rd party sources, it fails WP:NOT and has no notability. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-25-2008 • 17:27:26 17:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sources are secondary sources, which means they cannot establish notability. I'm sure WP:V is satisfied; if sources were brought to bear which were independent of the establishment, and a thorough purging (by fire, of course) of the article were to be had (ie, to not use all those citations to Duke), then this would be a keep, but as it is, the article does not meet the requirements for inclusion. --Izno (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does wiki have a policy concerning college clubs? Looking at the wikilinks at the bottom of the this article, there are dozens of similar student groups, none/few of which meet WP:NOTE criteria. Djma12 ^(talk) 19:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Other stuff exists. If you think they do not meet notability requirements, do what you will with them. --Izno (talk) 20:39, 25 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 16:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Neon Genesis Evangelion topics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

- Articles for deletion/List of Neon Genesis Evangelion topics

VfD 13 September 2004

Disputed prod. List is redundant to the navigational template ((Neon Genesis Evangelion)). --Farix (Talk) 15:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the person who originally prodded it. Note that it was validly deprodded because it previously survived an AfD (a long long time ago when AfD was still VfD); I didn't check thoroughly enough prior to prodding it; if I had, I'd've taken it to AfD myself. —Dino guy 1000 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-25-2008 • 17:31:25 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the template covers the same grounds. Redundant. Doceirias (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Unnecessary. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why did someone bother to make this to begin with? (the list, not this AFD)Westrim (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being redundant to the NGE navigation template. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 22:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually yes, delete this like the plague; it's redundant and all that really happens on it is crazed fanboys trying to add in Evangelion fanfic to the list, as if to justify it as "legitimate" ugh.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the old VfD states why it exists, because it predates categories, and existed to link articles together (like the template does now). 70.55.85.122 (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 02:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment someone remember to archive the VfD since it's saved on the Talk Page. 70.55.85.122 (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it replicates both the category and the navigation template, as such it's been rendered redundant by the development of the nav-template and the category system. Alternatively, histmerge into the template. 70.55.85.122 (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly redundant to the templates. JuJube (talk) 13:06, 26 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, article failed to establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Busse[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article was deleted once. It was recreated last year and the issues addressed in the last AfD seem to still apply. This article appears to be used mainly for promotional purposes and is written like a press press release or advertisement. As a graphic designer he seems to have a thriving practice but not enough to make him notable. In other words, I don't see him being more notable than any other graphic designer. There are no third-party sources to satisfy notability and his publication record is indicative of a working designer like many others, but not one sufficiently notable to warrant an article here. freshacconcispeaktome 15:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconcispeaktome 15:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Where is the assertion of notability? When someone gets to the point of thinking their career has had so much success that they are "notable" in terms of wikipedia, they always still need to ask first if there is non-trivial reliable third party coverage on them. For Busse, that answers looks to be no, google news search all dates doesnt show anything relating to this Mark Busse. Furthermore, current claims about any importance regarding "debate over the title Graphic Designer" aren't backed by anything, and I can't find anything. Personal blog articles and company profiles are available for virtually any working professional, they aren't reliable or establish notability. Without something more, delete. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanispam monstrosity. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Non-trivial references include:
- "CBC Radio interview" (English) with Mark Busse about documentary film Helvetica (2007) (this is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
- Interview in documentary film Branding and the Human Billboard by filmmaker Sofie Rousmaniere (2005).

Non-print reliable sources are as reliable as printed ones. --Eastmain (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The CBS link was dead when I tried it, but it looks as if it's an interview with Busse, not about him. So although it could provide content about his views etc. it doesn't in itself establish notability.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not believe the external links and/or references provided show significant coverage in reliable sources that is sufficient to establish notability under WP:BIO. — Satori Son 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 00:43, 31 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 23:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zatch Bell! cast members[edit]

Information about voice actors and the characters they portray are already incorporated in the character summaries, either on the main article or in a list of characters article, as directed by WP:MOS-AM#Sections. Because of this, there is no point in keeping a separate "cast list" article and the list does not serve a useful purpose. --Farix (Talk) 15:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the person who originally prodded it. Note that it was deprodded with a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. —Dino guy 1000 17:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Gelmax (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Covered elsewhere, not needed. Doceirias (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article obviously couldn't be contained in the main Zatch Bell! article, and this does have a level of notability amongst teens. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-25-2008 • 19:00:15 19:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The information in the article is already included in the List of Zatch Bell! characters page as well as the pages for specific characters. That's why it's being put up for deletion, not because of notability concerns. Gelmax (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regretfully, because I worked hard on it (and was the one who removed the prod), but TheFarix made a valid point, unlike Dinoguy whose "redundant to other article" did not constitute an argument. In any case, prod's should not be placed on article deletions which may prove controversial and it should have been brought here from the start. JuJube (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the prod was in no way controversial - just to be sure of that, I put another, single voice actor list through prod a few days ago with basically the same rationale, and it was deleted at the end of the five-day period, which also invalidates your other comment. There are about seven or eight voice actor lists prodded ATM, and of the two or three of the original group that were disputed, this is the only one that was disputed for my rationale being a nonargument. —Dino guy 1000 16:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom --T-rex 19:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - information is redundant and as collected not notable. Or I could have just said "per nom" instead of blathering on. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Esn (talk) 22:20, 31 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 16:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ClueNet[edit]

Not notable. Reads like an advert, and every reference is self-published, and no references that could be used to verify this from a third party exist as far as I can see. Spacious, Comfortable, Enjoyable (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like someone created a website, then wrote an article on it, referencing everything back to the website itself. Ignores the whole concept of third party sourcing. When looking for any coverage of the website I found Zero hits all time on a googlenews search for "ClueNet". To sum up, it looks there hasn't been any real coverage for this website/community, ever. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no third party sources (all External Links go to cluenet's website), and appears to be advertising "ClueNet". Also, the article fails to assert notability. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-25-2008 • 19:08:05 19:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 19:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article looks like an advertisement, and the Google link to source 7 doesn't work. All of the references seem to be from ClueNet.org. I'd also like to hear what User:Cobi says about this debate. SchfiftyThree 19:46, 29 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 03:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naru 2 U[edit]

Non-notable convention that has not held it's first event. No reliable third-party source to support the article, as required by WP:V. Prod was disputed by original author. --Farix (Talk) 14:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure why this keeps getting marked for deletion. The con's official site is referenced. I've also submitted an entry to AnimeCons.com, which should be up within a week. --AceStarleaf (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you not read the reasoning I gave? The convention is not notable and has not held its first event. There are no reliable third-party sources that supports anything in the article or to assert the conventions notability. A single webPAGE with only a date and location can't be used as a source because anyone could have bought the domain and threw that page up. All other anime conventions have well developed sites that provide more then just a date and location. And AnimeCons.com does require more then just a single webpage, but a fully developed site before they add a convention to their list. But even a listing on AnimeCons.com isn't enough to establish notability as that site is an online directory. And let me also add that a Google search for "Naru 2 U" did not bring up a single hit. Not even from a web forum or blog. --Farix (Talk) 16:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google won't show the site yet as it's not cross linked on any other sites, and the domain itself is only about 2 days old. I have submitted the site to Google already, and a better laid out page is in the works. I figured a Splash Page with the date and location would be better than the "Under Construction" pages most domain hosts put up for a new domain. --AceStarleaf (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2008 (EST)

Comment And you just provided more evidence as to why this convention isn't notable yet. In probably now falls under the speedy deletion criteria. --Farix (Talk) 17:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you only just thought this con up yourself, it's too early to make an article about it. Right now, it's nothing more than just advertising, and considering that you kicked the internet advertising into full gear before you'd even finished your own site, one has to doubt whether the con will even happen at all, let alone perform well. Gelmax (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the article isn't up to any kind of standards now, but like the nominator acknowledged, it's about an event that hasn't happened yet. In other words, while there may not be any reliable sources now, there will be in a couple of months, and it will almost definitely be notable after it's happened. The question, then, is whether we need to go out of our way to delete an article that'll just be remade again before the end of the year. Since it's already here, per WP:WIP and WP:DEADLINE, I think it's worth taking the long-term view and letting it sit till the news articles show up; it's not like it's a stinking blemish on the perfection of Wikipedia or even just the anime/manga articles, after all. Of course, if this article was clearly going to remain this poor forever or even just for a long period of time, prodding it four hours after its creation would be justified. But anime conventions are considered notable, so it's really just a question of what to do with the article in the four months until it attains official and undeniable notability. Gelmax (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipeida is not a crystal ball. We can't assume that there may be reliable sources in the future. The availability of reliable sources has to be judge on what is presently available. BTW, anime conventions has to pass the notability criteria just like any other topic on Wikipedia. They are not considered notable by default. --Farix (Talk) 16:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure, according to a strict reading of policy that's the case, but it doesn't account for WP:IAR. It's guaranteed that any real convention will be reported on by news sites enough to be considered notable, since it a con is in fact a significant event. This isn't about whether the article meets the regulations NOW, but what we should do with it in the time until it does meet regulations. Deletion policies generally don't allow for future improvement and shouldn't be blindly followed in a case like this where future improvement is guaranteed. Besides, the page has been here for less than a day. Quick-draw deletions like this one should be reserved for undebatable, unimprovable trash, which this page isn't. Gelmax (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guarantee that a convention will receive coverage by a reliable source, and thus establish notability. I'm not sure where you are getting that from. --Farix (Talk) 18:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipeida is not a crystal ball. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yesh, if you guys want to be this Draconian about it then delete it. I will be re-posting it on Nov 16th after it meets the missing Notability Criteria your complaining about.--AceStarleaf (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not about being draconian, as you put it. We have Notability guidelines and deletion policies that reference them for a reason. If this becomes notable on Nov 16th (by meeting the guidelines for notability-- not just for having happened), then certainly repost it. Cheers! --Storkk (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TheFarix's reply to AceStarleaf at top of discussion: This is certainly not WP:Notable. It may become notable in the future, and this article can be recreated if it ever does. --Storkk (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... i've removed the speedy template, as an admin here can easily speedy if they see fit. Shouldn't be both speedy and AfD. --Storkk (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation once RS are published. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once it happens and people write about it, it can have an article. Until then the people trying to get this kept should familiarize themselves with why we don't have articles on stuff that has not happened yet. JuJube (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deltete per WP:ORG. Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:52, 30 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 author endorsement. Tan ǀ 39 16:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South African rock[edit]

Arbitrary category, unreferenced, speculative, original research Tan ǀ 39 14:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete South African rock music is a fascinating subject, since it combines European/American and African traditions into a unique sound (Johnny Clegg was a favourite of mine). There is also the backstory history of apartheid-era censorship of what could be played. If I can introduce an off-wiki link to bring interested parties up to speed on the subject, I would highly recommend this comprehensive web site on the past half-century in springbok rock: [26]. As for this article, it misses the WP:MUSIC boat. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know i created this article, but I sort of agree its not up to standard. I think this article should be deleted. I'm going to be spending some time doing proper research, and I'll find reliable sources (I'll check out that site recommended by Ecoleetage). After that, I'll redo the entire article and do a better job this time. If anyone can give suggestions, that would be welcome.--E2e (talk) 16:26, 25 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, for now, with no prejudice against a merge if not expanded and better referenced, per WP:BLP. Keeper ǀ 76 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy O'Grady[edit]

No evidence of notability or references Baboons are cool (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - I've added citations, but I can't see much notability beyond his post at The Week. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the editorialship establishes notability, but unless the article is expanded, definitely merge to The Week. This is a topic with an obviously notable overtopic and so never should have been brought to Afd in the first place Skomorokh 11:02, 27 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 there is no evidence to show it's notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.sport.soccer[edit]

USENET newsgroup of unknown notability. Since there is apparently no notability standard for USENET groups, I will judge by WP:WEB. Although there are admittedly thousands of Google hits for this and other USENET groups, nearly every one of said hits is to a web site that archives USENET posts, and not any sort of third party coverage. All references in this article are to the group itself, and not a reliable source per WP:RS. The first external link opens the group in the user's newsreader application using that reader's particular newsfeed. Google Groups is just Google's newsfeed. All in all this is just a discussion group for a particular subject, of which there are tens of thousands. It's presence on USENET merely predates the emergence of individual web forums, which by and large do not pass WP:WEB except in certain exceptional cases. I submit that this is not an exceptional case. DarkAudit (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable sources and lack of notability per WP:WEB. ~~Also delete Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation for the same reason.~~ Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 00:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation was spun off by DarkAudit into another AfD which I just closed as a snowball keep. The Foundation does seem more notable than the newsgroup that spawned it. Ten Pound ~~Hammer~~ Farfel and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 02:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd have to agree with the above suggestion. There is nothing inherently notable about a usenet group, and as pointed out by DarkAudit it's just a old-school forum which fails any sort of notability test. Q ^{T C} 00:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both; wholly unnotable. JJL (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per Sillyfolkboy if the target is to be kept, as appears to be the case. JJL (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, per a well-argued nom. Do not pass either of WP:WEB, WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the newsgroup and Keep the RSSSF article. It would be better to remove RSSSF from the header of this AFD (I think the nominator can do this since the nom was in fact about the newsgroup). Right now the listing gives the impression that both items are newsgroups while in fact Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation is an article about a notable sports association. Nsk92 (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Take a look at this Google News archive search. Many of the 22 articles are behind paywalls, but the previews and snippets seem to add up to significant coverage. --Eastmain (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is false positives and a trivial mention. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 02:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mostly references to "Rec.Sport.Soccer archive (http://www.rsssf.com/archive.html)" as a source used. Possibly a case could be built for its notability, but I don't see it yet; certainly Rec.sport.soccer doesn't get other than passing coverage though, as one example among many. JJL (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just linking to Google News archives does not prove anything. None of the articles cited are about the newsgroup. That is not significant coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure about the newsgroup, but a very, very strong Keep for RSSSF. That is the deepest and most reliable source for worldwide historical football information out there. - fchd (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rsssf is the single most important website for football statistics. Yes the references could be improved, but the site definitely deserves a mention. It is used as an reliable reference/external link on hundreds of football related Wikipedia articles. E P 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RSSSF ugen64 (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Since rsssf has been removed from this AfD I'm striking my comment. I don't feel strongly enough about the Rec.sport.soccer article to comment. E P 22:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep RSSSF When it comes to statistics, rsssf is indeed the most important and reliable website around. Clearly notable. BanRay 22:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the RSSSF article has been removed from the nomination, I'm withdrawing my !vote. BanRay 10:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split this AfD? My original nom was for the newsgroup's article. The article on RSSSF was added later by another editor. I'd prefer not to confuse the issue and have others come in with a blanket keep or delete when they are only talking about one or the other. DarkAudit (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And done, since my original intent was for rec.sport.soccer by itself. DarkAudit (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A new discussion for RSSF by itself has been opened so debate on that article may continue. see the top of today's log. DarkAudit (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation. Giant Snowman 16:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable USENET newsgroup (and the article is unsourced). --Carioca (talk) 18:46, 21 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, —Sean Whitton / 14:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ten Pound Hammer, we do not need to index every newsgroup on Usenet ever created. Not if they don't have non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources, that is. JBsupreme (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As we need a policy, I propose that all of the established usernet groups with substantial numbers of postings be included for wikipedia articles. We can make whatever rules for notability we choose, not being bound by either precedent or analogy or general guidelines. Given our central origin in the internet, we should cover as much of the early part of the internet as we can find acceptable sources for--though we are in fact bound by the fundamental policy of Verifiability, can can choose whatever way of interpreting it suits our requirements. We're not indexing usenet, but giving information about it. If we want to do it from the source of the newsgroup itself, we can do so. DGG (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They all have substantial numbers of postings, because of spam. Determining which have a large number of "real" postings would be very hard. I too suggested the need for a WP:NEWSGROUP at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alt.sysadmin.recovery. This may be needed (as a subsection of WP:WEB, presumably). JJL (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

certainly agreed about the spam, which is what killed them off. But we can filter out the overwhelming spam from list of ghits, so I suppose it's possible. someday I hope someone will do the necessary work. DGG (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation, minimal info on the group would best be presented as a short section in the RSSSF article. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a lot of sense in this if the target is indeed to be kept. JJL (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I split the nom to clear some confusion. RSSSF was snowball kept, as expected. Most citations are not for the newsgroup, but for the foundation. The group is still at it's heart just a message board. Big numbers of postings is not an indicator of notability. Some alt.* groups get hundreds of thousands a day. Until a separate standard is devised, WP:WEB will have to suffice, and by that standard, there's not a lot going here. DarkAudit (talk) 14:37, 31 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 20:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Composita[edit]

Non-notable programming language. Only sources found go back to the official site. TN‑X-Man 14:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to assert notability, no 3rd party sources, and low number of Google hits. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-25-2008 • 19:24:20 19:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems notable enough, Google hits doesn't reflect notability. Sure, the article needs a lot of work and sources, but I think it is a valid article. J kasd 05:01, 30 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 on Boss Hogg Outlawz and Serve & Collect. They may be renominated indiviualy for a clearer consensus. Delete the others. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boss Hogg Outlawz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I have declined to speedy delete this article. An article about this label was previously deleted at AfD here, but the label has moved on since then. However, the label may still fail to be notable enough for inclusion. Richard Cavell (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Continues to fail WP:MUSIC as well as the general verifiability codes. No evidence of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party pubs. JBsupreme (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Serve & Collect, Serve & Collect 2, Recognize A Playa, and Ride On 4's, unverifiable, unsourced releases from the label. None of it seems to come anywhere close to WP:MUSIC save for a notable founder. Even though Serve & Collect charted on the Billboard albums charts, I see no reliable sources for the label or album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 03:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Keep & Rewrite. Firstly, delete Serve & Collect 2, "Recognize A Playa" and "Ride On 4's" for lack of notability per WP:MUSIC. With that done, keep Serve & Collect for charting on Billboard, therefore, working backwards, keep Boss Hogg Outlawz as well, but as a band, not a company, because as it reads at the moment, they fail notability per WP:CORP. So rewrite the Boss Hogg Outlawz for more of a slant towards their musical exploits, and a lot less focus on the business side of things that the article currently has. I hope that makes sense, it's 4pm, I've just got up, and I've only had one coffee so far. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the singles "Recognize A Playa" and "Ride On 4's" to Serve & Collect; Delete Serve & Collect 2 for failing WP:CRYSTAL; Keep Serve & Collect and Boss Hogg Outlawz for easily passing criteria #2 of WP:MUSIC. I do not understand how anyone can suggest an album or group that has clearly achieved chart success should not have an article on wikipedia. It simply boggles the mind. Reliable sources? A mere two clicks away from the article. --Bardin (talk) 14:26, 22 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, —Sean Whitton / 14:11, 25 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 16:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get tough on crime[edit]

Nonnotable political blurb. We cannot have articles for each political rant, unless it has historical significance, not just dumb or cute or smart. Mukadderat (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The (clearly justified) existence of Property is theft gave me pause, but then again I might point to the lack of existence for the far-more-notable-than-this What about the children? Anyway, delete per nom, but only a weak delete because if there are notable 3rd party sources discussing this phenomenon, there may be an article here. I am guessing it is impossible to do so without running afoul of WP:SYNTH, but maybe I am wrong. So my WP:HEY criteria for this would be: Show at least three 3rd-party sources discussing in-depth the proliferation of this phrase as a phenomenon (a passing mention of the phenomenon, like "Blair used the tired old phrase 'get tough on crime,'" would not count.) If I saw that, I would change to keep. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnotable political catchphrase with many possible alternative wordings. User529 (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete nothing but a political rant --UltraMagnus (talk) 09:56, 27 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, given this close won't forestall an editorial merge. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated[edit]

Fork of a newsgroup that doesn't have its own page. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 03:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This one's different. The show's creator was known to participate in this group, giving it a little more notoriety than the other groups currently up for AfD. That said, the sources provided are from the newsgroup's own archives, and not valid as reliable sources as not independent of the subject. Google News Archive hits do exist, but are cited only as background for wider articles, not as the subject of any articles by itself. That "in passing" mention does not pass WP:WEB. Other Google hits, like virtually every other USENET group, is primarily archive sites which mirror USENET postings. Google Groups is nothing more than Google's newsfeed in web form. DarkAudit (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several game show personalities participated on alt.tv.game-shows and its article got deleted too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 03:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but redirect to jms or Babylon 5. His participation is interesting and there are some references to it out there but it doesn't really extend his notability to the newsgroup; otherwise every celebrity with a website would get an article for their website/forum/blog/myspace. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Babylon 5's use of the Internet~~ - since the creator of the show was a contributor, and it seems to be the most popular of the "uses of the internet", but lacks individual notability due to a lack of verifiable information given the absence of reliable sources. - Toon⁰⁵ 16:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep or Merge after sources have been added. Much better now. - Toon⁰⁵ 15:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the above vote to keep by Merging it with Babylon 5's use of the Internet. We should keep the current article's namespace as a redirect page. As for those who vote to simply delete, I don't think that most people understand how groundbreaking this newsgroup has been vis-a-vis artist-writer communications. Quite honestly, someone with time could write an actual college term paper on this newsgroup and its relationship to this subject. RK (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this page should remain as it is, as the extent that JMS has been contributing, and is continuing to contribute to this particular newsgroup is a remarkable point of difference between this newsgroup and most, if not all, other newsgroups. I would suggest that, perhaps, if there is no present link/reference from any page about the history of Usenet then a reference/link should be made to this page.

Personally, I am wondering why someone has even considered putting this page up for deletion when I can confirm that it does contain accurate information about a singularly unique aspect of the history of Usenet as this post by JMS himself back in 1997-05-27 confirms. I would hope that others who continue to be regular and longstanding valued contributors to this Usenet Newsgroup will be able to confirm this.

This page is not suitable for deletion, and merger is not suitable as it relates to both JMS as a writer AND to a unique aspect of the history of Usenet. Links would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.90.57 (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Unfortunately, all information on wikipedia needs to be verifiable - which means information needs to have been covered in reliable sources. Notability guidelines also requires that the subject has been covered in depth by reliable independent sources - i.e. random people asserting its importance is not sufficient, sorry! - Toon⁰⁵ 13:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

As a frequent participant on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, I can attest that J. Michael Straczynski posts almost exclusively to this USENET group. However, there are scholarly and notable sources that cite rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated as a source. Many fan sites also quote (with and without credit) information posted by J. Michael Straczynski on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated. However, incorporating these citations into the article on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated would be somewhat problematic, since they cite information from a selection of over four thousand postings by J. Michael Stracynski.

Here is a selection of sources that cite rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, there are many more:

Hop on Pop: The Politics and Pleasures of Popular Culture

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ABookSources&isbn=0822327376
By Henry Jenkins, Tara McPherson, Jane Shattuc
Page 226
There are specific mentions of J. Michael Straczynski’s use of the Internet and posting to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated.

http://library.ups.edu/research/guides/citeurls.htm
A Guide to Citing Internet Sources
No definitive guidelines exist for citing electronic sources. Many groups are discussing the issue and are producing guidelines for review. Citation formats suggested here are based on Beyond the MLA Handbook: Documenting Electronic Sources on the Internet by Andrew Harnack and Gene Kleppinger and the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. A list of web sites containing citation guidelines appears at the end of this page.

… USENET NEWS
Format
Author. [author's e-mail address] "Subject Line." Date of Publication. [newsgroup] (date accessed).

Example
Straczynski, J.M. jmsatb5@aol.com "Re: ATTN JMS: Is B5 Dead?" 19 Jun. 1996. rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (23 Jun. 1996)

http://movies.ign.com/articles/035/035905p1.html
Interview with J. Michael Straczynski (Part 2 of 4)
by Kenneth Plume September 6, 2000

He [J. Michael Straczynski] has been praised for "reaching out" to his fanbase and making them part of the creative process …, JMS' influence on the field of science fiction and Internet publicity is unquestionable: among other notices, he was voted one of the fifty most influential people on the Internet by Time magazine; was the subject of a significant write-up in Newsweek ("The Master and Slave of Babylon 5", June 1997.); …

Note: Links to the Time (magazine) and Newsweek articles do not appear to be available without a fee.

http://trekweb.com/articles/2008/07/15/J-Michael-Straczynski-Says-Babylon-5-Will-only-Return-as-a-Feature-Film.shtml
J. Michael Straczynski Says Babylon 5 Will only Return as a Feature Film By GustavoLeao / 06:43, 15 July 2008 / General Genre/SciFi

--Dan Dassow (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These are excellent sources that indicate how the newsgroup has intertwined with the creation of Babylon 5, how information about the show has been disseminated to the web, and how its creator has interacted with the viewers. However, the citations would need to be crafted in such a way that they can be added to the article to bolster its obvious notability. I'm tempted to try but I have little experience with formulating references (a recent experiment of mine failed). I'm worried that a rush to article deletion will pass before enough time is allowed to edit these refs and others which could be found into the article. --Captain Infinity (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that we close the AfD and revisit this a later point in time. There is at best a weak call for deletion, primarily because the article currently lacks citations from sources other than rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated. I further suggest that an experience editor and/or admin advise Captain Infinity on how to incorporate citations from other sources. --Dan Dassow (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No point in time is ever good to have a deletion discussion. There's no point closing this early, there's certainly no WP:SNOW situation, and no consensus. If the situation is the same after the allotted 5 days, there will be a decision by an admin on consensus, most likely "no consensus" looking at things in their current state.
  Looking at the stuff you provided above, however, it appears that the coverage is incidental - unless someone has that copy of Newsweek around (and even 1 article may not establish notability). Mentions in an article about Srac... aren't enough, and If we merged the article to "b5 and the internet", then it would just redirect there, where the article text could be read alongside other incidents of similar things. Also, with the debate bein open for another couple of days at least, it gives you plenty of time to cite the article, using these guidelines WP:REF, WP:CITE and WP:RS. If you want to message me on my talk page, I'd be happy to help you add citations to the article, and advise you on what sources are considered reliable etc, as I'm pretty familiar with full citations etc.- Toon⁰⁵ 12:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, as the creator of the article and as a Wikipedia administrator, I can say that it this discussion is nowhere near being closed. Secondly, because you or I can attest to the truthfulness of the article is not enough. The big flaw is that there are not a whole lot of sources in the article. You and I both know that the sources exist, its just a matter of getting them in the article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, by the way. I am a bit biased of course, but everything in the article is true and just needs further verification via sources, which is quite achievable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:43, 21 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, —Sean Whitton / 14:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no independent source to attest notability and accuracy of info. Mukadderat (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's notable and in need of cleanup. Deletion would be a travesty, since there's so much content here that doesn't exist in Babylon 5's use of the Internet. Jclemens (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what a merge is for. WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't really an argument if the real guidelines like WP:WEB aren't met. So far the only thing this article has going for it is that the creator posted in the newsgroup. It fails WP:WEB in almost every other important respect. DarkAudit (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. It's primarily notable as the first time a showrunner had used the Internet--the USENET at that time--to interact with fans. Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to applaud Jclemens' work on the article, and his recent improvements should be taken into account by the closing admin. The article still has a couple of issues, but it is by no means deletable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to applaud Jclemens efforts to improve this article.--Dan Dassow (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (see below ) I find the keep voters arguments impassioned but unimpressive. The threshold for inclusion is significant coverage in reliable sources ~~and I have yet to see any evidence of that.~~ The fact is that almost no Usenet groups, chat rooms, forums, etc are notable. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approaching the subject with such a prejudice virtually guarantees that no argument in favor of keeping would be found "impressive" by you. I apologize in advance if that sounds like a personal attack; I am only referring to the statemnet you just made. It leaves no open doors. --Captain Infinity (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly said "almost", I think that means there would have to be an "open door"... Beeblbrox (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added two references in books published by university presses, a couple of web site citations. Added a few more web citations, which can be added to the article if needed, into the Talk page. Take a look--none of them are fansites. The topic has always passed WP:WEB and WP:GNG--now the article does, too. Jclemens (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Now I don't know what's what. Those look to be reliable sources, but without being able to see them, how are we to ascertain for ourselves whether it is significant non-trivial coverage. Not your fault or anything, I just hate it when this happens. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got both off of books.google.com, search "Straczynski usenet" at books.google.com shows both of them, and a few more I have yet to investigate. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Babylon 5's use of the Internet. Great content, but doesn't need its own article. --Masamage ♫ 02:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of the recent improvements. Merging to Babylon 5's use of the Internet would unbalance that article. - Eureka Lott 20:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per expansion with refs to scholarly articles.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I just don't see there ever being enough unique content to warrant a separate article for this newsgroup. The article is well-written, but some of it is generic description (what flamewars are, how moderated groups work, etc.), and copy-editing could make the rest more concise. So I think this is best treated within other articles. Babylon 5's use of the Internet would seem ideal, and would in fact improve the result by providing more context. Bravo to the contributors for their work, though. It's good material, and well-sourced, I just think it belongs under another heading. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd rather have someone post a principled and well thought-out disagreement than a "per Jclemens" !vote. The level of discourse in AfD's would be improved if more people took the time to !vote like you. Jclemens (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completely correct Jclemens, people seem to misunderstand the whole consensus-based decision making process. Not that it matters, considering that closing admins do understand this and decide based not upon !votes. - Toon⁰⁵ 23:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (changed from above)While there are in fact reliable sources here, the article also contains sections that are somewhat over-detailed in their descriptions of rather mundane processes of the group. The notable aspect is the participation of a person involved with the show, not how long a moderator has to hold your hand. Anyway, I think the project would be better served by merging this content as suggested above. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and Redirect to Babylon 5's use of the Internet. Since the newsgroup itself has not been the subject of coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources, there are notability and verifiability issues that make a standalone article problematic. — Satori Son 13:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, if you look at the sources, a number of them DO cover the newsgroup itself. I'm confused about what additional "multiple, reliable, third-party published sources" you would like to see--It's got books, an MIT masters' thesis, and a number of news items referencing it. I'm pretty sure this is now among the most referenced newsgroup article in Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and a Wall Street Journal article that I just found on ProQuest. How about we merge Babylon 5's use of the Internet into here, hmm?Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Babylon 5's use of the Internet I think the real significance here stems from the creator's participation, which is an extension of the topic in the proposed merge destination. I agree it is certainly notable, and would perhaps be the most notable section of the resultant article. But, to my mind, this article is at its root a section of the parent, Babylon 5's use of the Internet. At any rate, the current article needs much NPOV love. Forridean 03:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has some reliable non-newsgroup sources, and they are used in key sentences. By the way, I suggest we no longer use notability guidelines , and only utilise WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR to determine whether an article should be deleted, just as Jimmy Wales,^{[citation needed]} Larry Sanger ^{[citation needed]}and many notable inclusionists suggest.^{[citation needed]} --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an AfD about this particular article. If you want to make such a major change, you should take it to the village pump or some other forum for discussion of policy changes. And by the way, Larry Sanger left Wikipedia to found Citizendium, which only allows experts, not regular users like me and you, to determine what stays and what goes. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This newsgroup, and it's predecessor rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 are famous. BBC were using it as a source years ago - [27]. Nfitz (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the citation. I just included in in the article Rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated#cite_note-BBC_B5_Film_Negotiations-26--Dan Dassow (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Babylon 5's use of the Internet, this is a good article, but merged with Babylon 5's use of the Internet it would be even better, and a good length. I don't believe it would unbalance that article, as Eureka Lott suggested - from what I know of the subject, JMS's participation on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 was for sure the most significant element of Babylon 5's use of the Internet. --Stormie (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It is notable and shows it quite well as JMS's involvement, &c.--DrWho42 (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Summation If I may, it appears that there have been no recent delete votes since a few of us started finding and adding RS'es. The question remains whether the article should be kept, or merged into Babylon 5's use of the Internet. A couple of editors have noted that this newsgroup makes up a very large portion of the unique, encyclopedic part of B5's use of the Internet, and I agree--WP:UNDUE would not apply. I'm beginning to lean towards a merge direction myself, in that can I see this work as the main section of that (currently smaller) article. Frankly, I think the combination, based on what we've found, probably has a good chance to go GA/FA with appropriate effort invested, while neither article can meet the criteria of comprehensiveness alone. Would that interest all the other editors who've been working on keeping the article? Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. B5's use of the internet, is separate from the specific, notable forum on which some interaction took place. The group's history and prominence are tied more closely to Straczynski than the Babylon 5 television series - it was Straczynski's involvement and interaction that makes the group notable both in terms of the historical impact (the proto-blog nature of Straczynski's interactions, the pioneering nature of a Hollywood producer being open with fans on all his projects) and current status as the go-to discussion forum on the works of an award winning writer/producer/director (of comics, novels and film outside of Babylon 5) frequented by the subject himself. To merge the articles does not increase their quality as they are really separate subjects, and as further justification for Rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated to continue in light of the broader article (Babylon 5's use of the Internet), well, there is a reason WP:Summary style exists... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see the distinction being as significant as you portray it. Most of Babylon 5's use of the Internet deals with how JMS pioneered the use of the Internet, both for promotion and fan interaction, with a TV show that just happened to be B5. JMS and B5 are co-joined concepts, for the purposes of that article. These concepts are better handled as part of a cohesive whole, not artificially separated. The existing B5 article isn't strictly about the Internet, either. (GEnie is not the Internet.) We can move the article to Use of computer media for promotion and fan interaction for productions associated with J. Michael Straczynski if we must have a perfectly accurate page title. ;-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, noting some editors believe a list like this is helpful and that the word cruft is meaningless in AfDs. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shoreliner Names[edit]

A listing of railway carriage codes and the names the carriages they are assigned. I am interested in railways myself, but this kind of stuff is too specific for Wikipedia, and belongs elsewhere. Wongm (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are plenty of websites/books etc that can provide this information. Chafford (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the railway itself would be notable, I suggest making an article similar to New Jersey Transit rail operations, which is linked from Metro-North Railroad. There's an article about ConnDOT which operates the railroad; this would be "moved" (i.e. renamed) to an article about Connecticut rail operations and more info about the . On the talk page, people can discuss whether they want the detailed info about the cars on the line. Mandsford (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the carriages already have a page at Comet (passenger car). Wongm (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that article too, but this is about a particular railway that is among several that use the the Comet II, Comet III and Comet IV cars. Mandsford (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:53, 20 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, —Sean Whitton / 14:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has worked on the main Comet (railcar) page, I'm kinda reluctant to say this, but I say delete. This is info that is uncited, but I believe accurate. However I have nothing that would qualify as WP:RS And it is too esoteric and crufty. I believe a brief mention at the main page, saying that Metro-North has this practice, (which already exists) is probably sufficient. oknazevad (talk) 07:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This should be sourceable and is valid information, interesting for specialists. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid fork of comet (railcar) for article size considerations, and its not exactly trainspotter cruft (if we have to use that sometimes offensive description of others work) as the actual names can be linked to their relevant wikipedia articles. If that gets done it becomes an extremely good index for further reading for someone researching the subject. I note nobody has raised any sourcing issues on its talk page. The name is rather misleading and needs to be more specific. Suggest List of Shoreliner railroad carriages or similar. MickMacNee (talk) 16:08, 28 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 straightforward consensus but Wikipedia has a systemic (and sometimes helpful) bias towards IT topics. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Edition[edit]

Contested prod. Article is about a version of Ubuntu that does not really indicate why it is notable, as it doesn't really appear to be any different than any other version of Ubuntu. TN‑X-Man 13:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent third party sources to establish notability. Appears to be a fair blatant attempt at promotion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Article on Debian distro that doesn't assert notability and appears to have authorship WP:COI/WP:SPA issues. Guliolopez (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know if this is the right place to put this, I'm sorry if it isn't. I added the third party sources that I used. This is my first Wiki and I though I covered all the bases. It is not meant to be an article of promotion, just an article of education. I have seen a few articles on Wiki that already help to promote Ultimate Edtion. Those articles always refer to it as Ubuntu Ultimate Edition. I saw that many of the other Ubuntu derivatives have pages here and thought it would be nice for Ultimate Edition to have one of it's own. There is no bias involved, I will admit that I still have some work to do on it, and if needed I can do that on my own page. Thank you for your time.

Keep just needs the refs sorted--UltraMagnus (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally do not believe in deleting this article. Point of the matter Ubuntu recognizes Ultimate Edition as another OS. The facts are correct and I hope more information will be added, and not taken away from the public. Acowboydave (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep or redirect. Redirecting to List of Ubuntu-based distributions is probably the best thing to do for now. I think just deleting it may be to harsh, since it is mentioned at "List of Ubuntu-based distributions" SF007 (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per User:SF007 because this article really does not have anything that makes itself notable. Also, lack of inline citations didn't help. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused as to what makes one think this article is not notable. After browsing through other Ubuntu based distros I find that very few if any add anything of real value to be considered notable. Example: Linux Mint is not very much different from Ubuntu. It uses a different theme and 1 panel bar instead of 2. It also comes with a few new tools. OZOS is Ubuntu using a different desktop. If these are considered notable, and note neither of these use any inline citations in the articles, then how can Ultimate Edition not be considered notable. Also note, both Linux Mint and OZOS use the Ubuntu repos. Linux Mint has it's own repo but only contains Mint tools. Ultimate Edition has it's own repo with newer packages than Ubuntu offers. Also while Ubuntu locks their repos, Ultimate Edition's repos are not locked. Please explain why OZOS and Linux Mint would be considered notable while Ultimate Edition would not. I'm really confused as to what you are looking for. I followed examples and wrote it in a factual on unbiased manner. I listed my sources. I dotted my i's and crossed my t's. Sorry, but I really am confused as to what is considered notable here when I see other articles that show that they are really no different from Ubuntu at all. I don't mean to sound harsh, but it is very frustrating reading comments like this when I'm only trying to make a new artcle to educate users. Everywhere else only post that Ultimate Edtion is just Ubuntu with more software added, when this is simply not true. ZeroPrime0806 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroPrime0806 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per reliable sources with significant independent coverage (especialy the linux.com article). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete mostly because of a daunting lack of independent sources and moreover only the article creator, whose contribution history is very short and limited more or less to this article, asked for the article to be kept. I'll be happy to put a copy of the deleted content into User:Avestriel's user space pending a further search for meaningful independent sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Leslie[edit]

Poorly written, unreferenced article about a possibly non-notable magician. I've removed one section as copyvio, but looking at the external links I noticed that a couple of them appear to have nothing to do with the subject. Fair number of ghits for "jay leslie magician", but most are for magic-related products sold under his name. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~Keep referenced notable subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avestriel (talk • contribs) 20:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it poorly written? Please give helpful advice as to how I may improve it, or else edit it yourself. From where I'm standing that is simply a rude comment. I have found a few more references, and am continuing to search for more. This has been my first wikipedia entry and I am trying to learn how to uphold the standards set by others before me. I'm open to criticism and working towards improvement. You do not have to be mean. From my POV Jay Leslie is AWESOME. --Christa Driscoll (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO; non-notable magician. Very little media coverage, most of which is not directly related to the subject. Majority of ghits are simply listings of him performing at an event. Jезка (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If said magician is most notable for inheriting Jim Swoger's act, and inventing a device for producing an illusion which he holds the patent for, then doesn't it stand to reason that most of the links you'll find for him are his products for sale? Hasbro has a wikipedia article, they own the Tonka brand of children's toys. They are products he invented, or improved. He would also hold the rights to any products left him by James Swoger. Has anyone found patent information from the 1930's-1960's on James Swoger. I don't think it's appropriate to say "non-notable magician" for example if you are thinking in the literal sense then clearly the subject has been "notable" to you. Voltaire the current Musician has a wikipedia article, largely listing events he has performed at and things such as toys and comics which he has sold, yet his page is not in question.

Jay Leslie has just as much notability as many articles which are not being deleted in wikipedia, such as Harald Norpoth about whom there are only two paragraph and those only to express that 1. He won a silver olympic medal and 2. he is related to someone even less "notable." Certainly this person did something more notable than Voltaire (Musician) or Jay Leslie - yet he has a much less involved article.

Perhaps a warning at the top of the page is sufficient, a bit of editing, and perhaps some more research. It should not be deleted outright. He has won several awards & etc. Perhaps the D.A.R.E people have more information as he created an anti-drug school campaign for them. Don't be silly. Also, a word of advice; there are tissues, there are photocopies, and there are search engine results. Also, the internet does not contain all of the information on any given topic. Hopefully it will someday, that's why we're all contributing to Wikipedia voluntarily, right?--208.40.160.51 (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Leslie is "notable." my kids loved him on PBS, I remember the that show he was a storyteller on played around the same time as "between the lions" and I'm pretty sure I remember him from one of those talent shows because he came back for finals. Anyway I've definitely heard of him. He hasn't exactly filled stadiums like David Copperfield but he's certainly worth a wikipedia article. We should just clean it up and find more references. Or keep the warnings at the top of the page about the article needing to be cleaned up and being unreferenced. I don't think it's poorly written Christa, it just looks like you didn't have enough source material to write in the full entry that you obviously wanted. Jay leslie is definitely an interesting character and fun magician, but we do need the facts and not just a statement of how "great" anyone thinks he is or was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.120.120 (talk) 00:16, 25 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, —Sean Whitton / 13:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some Comments on the above. 208.40.160.51, you said "doesn't it stand to reason that most of the links you'll find for him are his products for sale?" Maybe it does, but the point is that finding his own promotional materials doesn't harm his notability, it just doesn't help it. We need to show that he's been mentioned in reliable sources, as explained in the policy I linked to there. Since his own material doesn't count as reliable (as it's not independent), we can't use it to establish his notability. Speaking of notability, you said that in a literal sense he's notable because we've all noticed his article. But Delicious carbuncle was using the word 'notable' in a technical sense which Wikipedia uses: the policies Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) explain our criteria for determining that. Basically, we have to establish significant coverage of him in 'reliable sources' as I mentioned above. It doesn't matter how famous he is if we can't find reliable mention of him in books, magazines, newspapers or the like. Finally, you made the argument that "Jay Leslie has just as much notability as many articles which are not being deleted in wikipedia". I know this can be tempting to say, but that's actually an argument which we try to avoid (see Wikipeida:Other Stuff Exists). One reason is that we could make that decision based on comparisons to other articles which aren't themselves worthy of inclusion, and are fated to get deleted next week! Because millions of people edit Wikipedia and often upload articles on un-noteworthy topics, it's safer to avoid that kind of comparison and decide each case based on our policies - in particular the ones I linked to above.

On notability - In my opinion the links to his webpage should count. Take a look at them. They are not his words which he has written about himself, they are scanned letters of recommendation from places such as Samsung America, KDKA, the International Brotherhood of Magicians, Busch Gardens, & etc. It is not as though I have programmed a website about myself which simply has a picture of me saying "I am AWESOME" and then written a wikipedia article about Avestriel citing that website as proof that she is awesome. These are genuine and separate articles which just happen to be found at the source. Where else would they be? There are other references, and I am still finding more. Thank you. Help would be welcomed. -Avestriel

To Christa: I understand that it's distressing to be told your work is poorly written or that it should be deleted. I think when Delicious carbuncle said it was poorly written he was referring to some grammatical errors you made - but that's not something to worry too much about, because the collaborative nature of the project means that those sort of things will get fixed over time, and articles are never deleted on those grounds. The important thing to think about is the issue of notability, as I described it above. If you can find some reliable sources such as news media or books which cover Leslie's career and add them to the article or mention them here, you should be able to save it from deletion. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Olaf: Thank you, that was helpful. I am attempting to find and add more external references. I do think the links to magic related websites selling his products should count because they are not his website. This shows that other companies and performers use and recommend his products which should count toward notability and not (as I had to remove them since the article was initially deleted as "blatant advertisement") an attempt at advertisement. I admittedly do not have the best grammar skills, but I am full of random information. That's why I made this account. My boyfriend on the other hand is a technical writer and only ever makes grammatical and spelling corrections. Thank you for your help as I think this article can be salvaged and have been editing it whenever I have the opportunity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avestriel (talk • contribs) 00:25, 26 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 nothing to stop this topic from coming back later. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odeen Eccleston[edit]

Actress with only minor roles in TV and direct to DVD movie. Probable vanity article. Appears to fail WP:ENTERTAINER. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her IMDB profile asserts more notability than this article does, but it is still not enough to pass. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 17:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 03:08, 22 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, —Sean Whitton / 13:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER; roles are too minor. —97198 talk 15:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - recurring character in a TV show. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 31 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) 20:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of G-rated films[edit]

(contested prod) List of loosely associated topics. There are thousands of G-rated movies with little, if anything, in common beyond the fact that you can let your 3-year old watch it. Complete list would be ridiculously huge and would not provide any substantial content. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Objective criteria for inclusion? [x] yes [ ] no. Notable subject matter? [x] yes [ ] no. There is no deadline, and arguments aimed at the {lack of} diligence of editors do not justify deleting content. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apparently, this only applies for MPAA-rated G movies. Should G-rated films that have been labelled as such after going through the OFLC get their own list? Black-Velvet 14:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "List of" articles shouldn't be for lists that can be as long as this one would be. On top of that, any lists like this are much, much better handled as CATEGORIES... that's what they are there for, use them. DreamGuy (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmaintainable, way too broad a topic, plus it might require some element of OR because virtually every movie made before 1962 or so defaults to G anyway. And then of course there are movies that were G and were upgraded to PG and vice-versa. I don't seem to be able to find any similar lists for PG, R, etc. There is nothing particularly notable about a film being rated G. 23skidoo (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LIST does allow lists that are redundant with categories, however I feel that the list must provide something of value that the category does not -- organizing by something other than alphabetical, for example. Without seeing anything like that here, I have to say delete, but I will change my vote if the list is changed in any way to justify its existence alongside the category. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rated D - for Delete The MPAA kicked off its ratings in 1968, and this list is nowhere no complete. Pending a full listing of all G-rated films over the past 40 years, this article cannot be considered encyclopedic. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is exactly the kind of article that shows that lists and categories aren't strictly interchangeable. Nom's reasons are sufficient to warrant deletion even if there's no strict criterion to warrant it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed the prod, partly to see what people in general think, but the argument for keeping would go that given that we can write an article about a movie, and that would include tits rating, we can make both a list an a category of them without much trouble, and without any particular difficulty to maintain. The advantage of a list is that it immediately provides context--date at least, and could be expanded to cover director and notable stars. Is it relevant information that some people might expect to find collected together--I think it has, and therefore it violates no policy to have it. Those not interested can ignore it. there's no list too long for the mediawiki software to handle, or clever technical devices like alphabetization to organise. Given the difficulties of searching, and the value of browsing, we should have every such list we can. DGG (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me DGG, what is the "tits rating" for a G-rated movie? ;p Anyway, I'd have to actually see some effort and/or a plausible automated method to add the contextual information you suggest before I'd change my vote away from a "delete". The article you propose is worth keeping, but it is not this article. --Jaysweet (talk)

Delete Since the ratings have been around for 40 years, this list would be very, very long (longer than three Longcats), and would have no real value. The films have nothing in common save for their MPAA ratings; why not a list of every film that's been PG (all DreamWorks animated material), PG-13, R, NC-17 or X? Heck, why not even list the stuff that had the now-extinct GP rating? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of fact Nothing is longer than longcat. Even three longcats is only as long as one longcat. This list might just be wider than widedog, though. Protonk (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everything above. I'm glad that the author tested this out before adding to the list, which would go into the hundreds, if not the 1000s (particularly since re-releases made before 1968 get a rating). Granted, since the current MPAA system began, there have been fewer "G" films than "PG" or "R", but this would never be more than an indiscriminate list. Is Cinderella more "G"worthy than Happy Feet? Mandsford (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too overly broad to be useful. Jclemens (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this list gives no encyclopedic content. Even if it were completed, it would be nothing but a listing of movies that are only tangentially related. --T-rex 19:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comments, also: a) would be USA-centric (are we going to maintain general audience film lists for every country?), b) IMDb already has a search function for this, why waste human effort on maintaining it, keeping it current. User529 (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given that "G" ratings are creatures of a US body, it's hardly USA-centric to make a list of films so rated, any more than it would to omit Canadian provinces from a list of US states. (They'll be there eventually, but not yet. We're working on it.) Moreover, there is nothing at all that prevents other countries' rating systems from generating similar lists. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This whole discussion has kind of Grated on everyone's nerves... Mandsford (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How very, very cheap. Black-Velvet 09:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you hated it. Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This list is poorly organised and USA-centric. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias will have something to say about it if it stays. Black-Velvet 09:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This information should be in a category if we have it, not a list. Inclusion is a binary characteristic, suitable for categories, and it eases the maintenance headache. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:10, 28 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 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dub Police[edit]

Non-notable record label, home to dozens of non-notable Myspace artists. Fails to establish notabilty and reads like an advert. Lugnuts (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Unnotable at present. Most web links are its own. Artene50 (talk) 21:50, 20 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, —Sean Whitton / 13:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP is not free advertising for upstarts to astroturf themselves. User529 (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Primary editor appears to be an affiliate of this record label. Fails WP:NOTE. NSR77 ^T_C 01:39, 26 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, although an editorial merge with List of animal films might be more helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of films about animals[edit]

(contested prod) List of loosely associated topics. Complete list would be rendered useless by its own size. The introductory sentence (notable films that are primarily about and/or feature animals) contains vague keywords like "notable", "primarily", "feature". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While it doesn't exactly (testing my literacy skills here) fail WP:LISTS, I don't think it could ever conceivably pass WP:NOR - unless you can find a reliable, published source listing every film about an animal or animals that has been made, which I highly doubt exists for reasons you've already outlined. Black-Velvet 13:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I declined the prod, on the basis that it was not indiscriminate. I added the keywords notable and primarily that Pascal objects to, bcause in fact they are the usual criteria for inclusion on such a list--notable meaning they have articles in Wikipedia and primarily being the rule to avoid listing every film with an animal in it. Both good common sense criteria, and the absence of a bright line for primarily does not invalidate it because matters of editorial judgement can be disscused on the talk page. Further we have no limit to the size of a list--if necessary, they can be subdivided, either alphabetically by title or by type of animal, or other criteria such as age group intended. There are some very long lists in Wikipedia--and short ones are objected to at AfD as being too short--any list can be objected to as being one of either. I'd even argue that the longer the list, the more need for it. I do not see how it is not maintainable, as we can look at each film articles in Wikipedia and see if they fit. If we can write the article, we can certainly say if its about animals. DGG (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Although I am not weighing in on this as of yet, the above phrase is why I love participating in WP: contains vague keywords like "notable", "primarily", "feature". If notable is a vague keyword then there are an extraordinary amount of vague positions in these deletion debates. If I were to agree (not likely) with the notion that Notable is vague then Not Notable and Passes the Notability test are really pretty meaningless positions and contribute nothing to a deletion debate.IMHO--Mike Cline (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The vague keywords are what have me here. Is any Dr. Dolittle film "about animals"? What about all the CGI animation films that we see? Sure, Over the Hedge has almost nothing but animals. But what about Ratatouille (which is fun to say) which had animals and humans in near equal measure? What about films like Air Bud which feature one animal character? There's no clear criterion here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of animal films. Not surprisingly, it's been done before, and the older list has enough in it to survive the "first-kid-on-the-block" nomination that is sure to follow now that I've betrayed its existence. I can see some potential for this, since it mentions what type of animal is on the silver screen. I suggest that the author try to add to that article. Mandsford (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG has got it right almost. What this list needs is just a better lead-in explaining the criteria for inclusion. In preparing to make my input I discovered three lists that make for interesting comparision: List of movies about horses - Movies about heroic horses constitute a popular film genre. Some examples include: All one needs to do is define a heroic horse! Francis the Mule??; List of films about mathematicians - This is a list of feature films that include a mathematician (or scientist who uses a lot of math) as one of the main characters. (What scientist doesn't use a lot of math?); or List of firefighting films - (criteria too long for this but pretty unambiguous). Where the lead-in for this list is a big sweeping and somewhat ambiguous statement, the other lists mentioned have increasingly better definitions in their lead-in. I believe when we encounter lists such as these, our task should not be to delete the list, but refine the lead-in so as to make it a better list. Very few WP guidelines get nominated for deletion (although it would be nice to see some go). However when we encounter guidelines that are ill-defined and ambiguous we change them and make them better. Same principle ought to apply to list lead-ins. Make em better, less ambiguous so that editors know what the add, how to source and how make the content better.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What scientists don't use a lot of math? Few IRL. Jane Goodall perhaps being an example IRL. But, it seems to me few movie scientists use any math at all.
Keep -- In addition to DGG's excellent points I get concerned (no offense) over what I regard as a fundamental lack of appreciation of where the major power of a project like the wikipedia comes from. The real power of a project like the wikipedia lies in the links, not the text. Lists of indiscriminate links are worthless. Organized lists of links are useful. This is an organized list. Geo Swan (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - impossible to maintain --T-rex 19:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it on down with list of animal films, or merge that all down with list of films about animals, or just set all the animals loose together to interbreed or fight King of the Fondue (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFI's 8th studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/AFI's 8th studio album

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Come back when it has a title and a release date, at the very least. shoy (reactions) 22:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 23:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Oh, and a little bit of WP:HAMMER for good measure. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link redirects me to discography, which should not be deleted. If unreleased album reappears, should be deleted, but redirect does no harm.Yobmod (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've changed this back to the previous version of the page: making a redirect like this is not appropriate while an AfD is in progress because it then removes the AfD notice. —Sean Whitton / 13:12, 25 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, —Sean Whitton / 13:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER. If you don't know the title, there's no need for an album yet unless you can, you know, actually source your info (and fansites and rumors are not sources). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. WP is not an AFI fan wiki for future album info User529 (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - album article with no title, tracklisting, or release date --T-rex 19:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as arguments above - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:05, 26 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 but this article is still written like an advertisement. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take Care of Texas[edit]

Organization with no information or claim to notability, largely a copy/paste from another article. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Apparently created by the organization itself. I removed the ruft and text copied from Texas—G716 <^T·_C> 23:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge with Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. TruthbringerToronto has done a nice job cleaning up the article. No longer COI, but this program still does not meet notability. We can't have a separate page for every state gov't initiative. —G716 <^T·_C> 13:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot delete and merge, as that would violate the attribution terms of the GDFL. Regards, Skomorokh 01:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 23:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP and a WP:COI violation. Created by a user named Take Care of Texas. Wikipedia is not advertising nor a social networking site Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a program of a Texas state government agency, and the article now has references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was still created by that government agency and is still a WP:COI violation. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that nothing in that guideline states that the article should be deleted, especially not after it's been wholly rewritten. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is referenced, conflict of interest can be addressed by editors other than the creator of the article and it is a govt organisation in the largest state in the US. WP is not paper so there is no harm in an article, which may remain short, to exist here. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article doesn't merit an article on Wikipedia and has major WP:COI issues. Artene50 (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Writing "This article doesn't merit an article on Wikipedia" is redundant to writing "delete", and COI issues are resolvable problems with the current version of the article, unrelated to the notability of the subject matter. Skomorokh 01:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to TCEQ rather than delete. If keep, there should be an article about different governmental initiatives to clean up the environment. "Take Care of Texas" at one time was "Don't Mess With Texas", and there are other U.S. state and national provincial programs. Even if not keep, there still should be such an article for such programs and ad campaigns. Mandsford (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has has a significant amount of info added since the afd was placed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure how notable it is, but it makes claims to notability, and now passes verifiablity with sources. COI has no bearing at all. Merging Don't Mess with Texas, Take Care of Texas, Texas Campaign for the Environment into TCEQ would be better, but this is a topic for the talk pages, not AfDYobmod (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. If you check out the three nonaffiliated links, only one actually works and mentions TCoT, and it seems rather trivial. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:25, 27 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, —Sean Whitton / 13:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as currently referenced with multiple, non-trivial reliable sources. WP:COI is not a valid reason for deletion. Any problems with the current article are cleanup issues. Jim Miller (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get it! This article has "cleanup" issues. Good one! Mandsford (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. If you check out the three nonaffiliated links, only one actually works and mentions TCoT, and it seems rather trivial. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fully adequate sources for notability. DGG (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. If you check out the three nonaffiliated links, only one actually works and mentions TCoT, and it seems rather trivial. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you just said that.
Wow, you just said that.
Keep - I've cleaned it up a bit. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 31 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. Synergy 11:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diverse Harmony[edit]

Meets notability? User0529 (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to GALA Choruses rather than delete. It ain't the Vienna Boys Choir. Mandsford (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been working on other articles so haven't addressed this one as yet. My hunch is that it should be kept as it does assert notability; Many members of GALA also have articles but this is one of the very few and first youth groups. Banjeboi 23:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Gay and Lesbian Association of Choruses. Does not assert notability - membership of GALA does not confer notability, the other choirs with articles are notable AND are GALA members, not BECAUSE OF. Thousands of youth choirs exist, this one has to have proven notability through sources. It doesn't so should be deleted until they do something notable.Yobmod (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- changing vote to keep after major improvment and addition of many sources.Yobmod (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 13:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article rewritten. Banjeboi 14:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Merging seems to be the same as deleting as there really is little to no room in the parent article to explore individual choirs. I believe there is hundreds of organizations in GALA if not over a 1000. In any case this group, the world's first in many respects, was the only youth group to be featured in a full-length documentary along with three "grown-ups" choirs and that documentary is making the worldwide LGBT film fest circuit. In addition it has been shown on 300 PBS stations around the United States. I think I've filled in enough for now to demonstrate notability. Banjeboi 14:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction, they seem to have 120+ choruses and over 7,500 singers. Banjeboi 00:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – now clearly meets WP:N guidelines thanks to Benjiboi's excellent work on the article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent job of adding sources to establish notability. Kudos to User:Benjiboi for the expansion and sourcing! Alansohn (talk) 05:14, 30 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, defaulting to keep. Tan ǀ 39 14:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Daly[edit]

Contested prod. This article has no sources, no proof of passing WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. El on ka 21:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tough call Would easily be a keep if there were sources, since he seems to have worked with numerous notable artists, as well as being a member of Whiskeytown. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Therein lies the problem. How do we WP:Verify the information for factual accuracy if there are no sources?. My Google-Fu finds multiple responses to the search "Mike Daly" -wikipedia shows that there are multiple people with the same name - volleyball players, painters, short filmmakers, and a different musician by the same name. Our MD is listed at Major Bob Music as a songwriter. Swisscharts.com lists three Plain White T's songs co-written by someone called Mike Daly, while Allmusic lists a respectable collection of tracks. Googlenews-fu for "Mike Daly" "Whiskeytown" -Wikipedia brings up 59 results]. The article could be a keeper, but those interested in seeing it remain need to show that the article passes the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources policy by using external references to verify the factual accuracy of the information. -- saberwyn 22:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd like to see some reliable sources, because what Beeblebrox mentioned and because he released an album on Bar/None Records (which is misspelled in the article). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've tried to shore it up a little and hopefully at least (start to) take care of the sourcing issue. CitiCat^♫ 22:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or more accurately redirect to Whiskeytown based on current version. Three sources are tenuous and don't establish notability as a musician (or anything else really) in my mind. You don't get a wikipage for writing a single book, breaking up a bar fight or a promo piece asserting writing with other artists. Major Bob Music's link is the closest Daly gets to notability, but it's not independent. WLU (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' I went through and added a number of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamdaly620 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 14 July 2008
Redirect back to Whiskeytown per WLU, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. The references, even the new ones, only mention him in passing, or focus on the fight. Nothing there establishes his individual notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing the new sources, I would still redirect to whiskeytown and the musicians Daly co-wrote songs with get a "co-written with Mike Daly, keyboardist of Whiskeytown". Coverage in each still reads as trivial to me. WLU (talk) 18:13, 14 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, Tan ǀ 39 23:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per the found sources for verifiability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, someone's been on a sourcing rampage :-). Would be nice if this ever happened before the AfD!Yobmod (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage is still trivial - Daly is a sideline of the articles, or it's non-third-party sources. A link to the book he's selling on Amazon, his manager's website, CD sales sites. All could easily be covered by a redirect to whiskeytown and a comment in the linked pages "Mike Daly of [[Whiskeytown]]" WLU (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is this http://www.majorbob.com/writers/current/daly.htm, not a 3rd party source with non-trivial covorage? I can't tell - does he work for them?Yobmod (talk) 12:33, 25 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, —Sean Whitton / 13:01, 25 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 although an editorial merge would likely be the most helpful way to deal with this. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Danny[edit]

Delete as a non-notable fictional creature per WP:FICTION. Can be merged to List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts as well. Tavix (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm tempted to support the merge, but this article looks a lot nicer than the target article. If we can talk the author of this article into improving that article, it's a clear win-win. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:51, 7 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, Skomorokh 03:42, 12 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 01:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already. Not even worthy of a redirect, just a minor variation on the title character. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 02:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's Danny Phantom's evil twin (or whatever he was, I don't watch the show), not much more you can say about that or elaborate on. Nate • (chatter) 02:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem true as a lot more has been said in the (fairly-well written) article. Hobit (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge as reasonable breakout article per WP:SIZE. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn per WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 18:49, 24 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, —Sean Whitton / 12:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JUST DELETE IT ALREADY! This AfD has been open for 3.5 weeks and there has been a pretty good consensus to delete the article. All information that needs to be merged is already on the List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts article. So can an admin please close this AfD thing and delete the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavix (talk • contribs) 23:31, 30 July 2008
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Esn (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts. -- Ned Scott 06:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into ~~The Ultimate Enemy and~~ List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts. A number of synthesized conclusions need to be removed from the article, but other than that there's some good information in it. Since it basically talks about a character who is present in just one episode, it would make sense to have a separate section in that episode's article talking in more detail about some specific traits of the character that it would be awkward to mention in a mere plot summary. Never mind, I see now that the character was present in a video game as well, so that wouldn't work. I'm leaning toward "keep", simply because I prefer to have more info rather than less, and merging it into "List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts" would mean the removal of most of the text in the article. Esn (talk) 05:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Cruises[edit]

Non-notable corporation. A Google search turned up no reliable sources (and not even any unreliable sources) for this company. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Added some sources which just about establish notability. Gr1st (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They have currently just one ship, no claim whatsoever to notability apart from the fact that they can time-travel: they launched their first ship 2 years before being founded... :-) --Crusio (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That appeared to be an error. Added a couple more references to the article. Gr1st (talk) 20:14, 21 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, —Sean Whitton / 12:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whats this cruise line done that was notable? I'm not seeing any assertion of notability outside of existing. And we all know that doesn't get very far. We sail ships to and fro is not notable. Synergy 15:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has received coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which is WP:N in a nutshell. Gr1st (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, apologizes. I'm aware that there are sources. But the sources claim it exists, has ships, has ports and is owned by someone. What it doesn't establish, is what this cruise line is notable for. Its not notable because it exists. I exists, I work for someone, I go from place to place. This doesn't make me notable at all (even if I can locate secondary sources to prove my postulate). Synergy 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if you could locate reliable secondary sources to prove your postulate, you would be notable per WP:N, no matter what it is you do. The difference between you and Asia Cruises is that they have been the subject of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Gr1st (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but I'd be notable for a reason, not just because I existed. WP:CORP tells me that any of the mentions in the article are in fact trivial at best: The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books... except for the following: Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories. And thats all this does. Again, it reports they exist, are owned, have ships, and dock at specific ports. But no individual act they have done is notable outside of existing. Synergy 18:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources cited describe the company in terms anywhere near as trivial as meeting times, extended shopping hours, telephone numbers, addresses, etc. WP:GNG defines "significant coverage" as "[sources which] address the subject directly in detail". ~~All~~ Six of the seven news articles cited do just that - they are primarily about the company or the services they provide. None merely state "Asia Cruises exists" and nothing more. It doesn't matter if the sources talk about who owns them, what ships they have, what specific ports they dock at or something entirely different, so long as the coverage is significant (and I believe it is per WP:GNG). Gr1st (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have quoted the whole sentence. Those are just examples. I'm more concerned with the such as. The list is not exhaustive but display what other trivial mentions will look like. And as far as I can tell, they show me what I need to see. Synergy 05:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - not a huge corporation, but large enough to be notable --T-rex 19:26, 26 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 19:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InteLib (software library)[edit]

Non-notable programming library. Article probably created by the inventor, and all references are to his own works. Prod contested by author. BradV 16:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A quick search of Google Scholar and the ArXiv turn up no evidence of this library being used as the basis for further work. Googling on "Intelib" itself fails to turn up reliable source reviews, although it does seem to be a reasonably widely distributed library. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayAYang (talk • contribs) 17:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 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, IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 03:05, 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, Protonk (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per lack of notability. Artene50 (talk) 09:24, 18 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:32, 23 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, — Sean Whitton / 12:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this already. It seriously lacks secondary sourcing independent of the subjects origin and fails general notability(all five bullet points). Do we really need to see this relisted a fifth time? Synergy 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Synergy. There is no assertation of notability, nor are there any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:19, 25 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 delete as a non-notable individual (WP:CSD#A7). PeterSymonds (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Sexton[edit]

Non notable person Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is another one that was tagged for speedy deletion where the tag was removed because the article supposedly asserts notability. Personally, I don't see that assertion. In the meantime the subject as 0GNews hits (using all dates), 135 Ghits using ""John F Sexton" Texas" as the search term (very few of which can be confirmed as about this particular person). Removing the F provides this hit [28] but, not sure whether that counts as reliable 3rd party sourcing of a non-trival nature. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and really I think the CSD#A7 should have stood up. Being the CEO of a state savings bank is not an assertion of notability (notice we don't even have a Wikipedia article on the bank, and if we did it would probably be deleted under A7 or G11). Anyway, even if we count that as an assertion of notability, it falls flat. No 3rd party mention. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:14, 25 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, —Sean Whitton / 12:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No assertion of notability, per above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I believe that CSD A7 applied and still applies this very moment. JBsupreme (talk) 20:30, 25 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 16:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki Bhagavan[edit]

Bio of a non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:non notable godman in an ocean of godmen. Me thinks that the very fact that no one has bothered to come around and even vote(either way) on this topic speaks volumes about the notablility.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: although i guess notability is asserted, it is not backed up by anything resembling reliable sources. --Storkk (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable present-day self-proclaimed "avatar" (of which there are many) who has not done much that would be notable other than proclaiming himself as an avatar. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 03:15, 27 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, —Sean Whitton / 12:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. ~ priyanath ^talk 21:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable lightweight waste of WP space. – Shannon Rose (talk) 21:44, 28 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. -- tariqabjotu 20:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Flight 30[edit]

I do not feel that the QF30 incident meets the notability criteria for accidents and incidents as per WP:AIRLINES. It was not a hull loss or any serious damage beyond economical repair. Not a single passenger was injured. It certainly pails in comparison to the Qantas Flight 1 runway overrun. There are two other discussions on this very page about similar incidents. We could include the numerous 747-300 incidents that have occurred but we don't. See discussion at Talk:Qantas#QF30 Incident Mvjs (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate this article for DELETE per request. --ApprenticeFan (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There have been worst incidents then this and is still early days for it to be notable. ATM it's just typical media hype much like the heavy landing at Darwin Airport. No one as killed or severely injured, the aircraft didn't crash and it's repairable. 220.240.144.75 (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was only a minor incident. No one even got injured. Jackelfive (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. This can go into articles about the type of aircraft, airline etc as a sentence. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Qantas --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Qantas, where it's already mentioned under "incidents and accidents". Indeed, the only significance of this might be that it happened at Qantas, which still has the same claim to fame that it did when Dustin Hoffman talked about it in Rain Man. As Qantas fatal accidents confirms, the Australian carrier has never had a fatality in its jet service, and hasn't had a fatal accident since 1951. Mandsford (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "merge" is that Qantas Flight 30 has already been removed from the Qantas article. So, at this point it's no longer "already mentioned," which really sucks for people that are coming to wikipedia for information =(. When people here about these things, they do come to wikipedia, and it's disappointing when they can't find the information they need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.154.250 (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Response It was there when I posted, but I sympathize. We've all had to deal with the "jealous lover" editor. The solution, I've found, is to put the information back in, and on the edit summary, write something very prominent, like "Deleted Qantas Flight 30 information added back in". That way, when someone looks over the history of the article, they can see the information-- and they can also judge for themselves whether the person who took it back out is a control freak. Mandsford (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a news site. Wikinews is a news website. Bidgee (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, wikipedia isn't a news site. It's an encyclopedia. But the magic of wikipedia occurs when a total newcomer can come to wikipedia and find the exact information or link to a source from something they thought they sort of remembered, but for the life of them couldn't. And in these cases, wikipedia can be far more effective and faster than a google or qantas.com or newspaper website search. That is truly magical, and completely appropriately encyclopaedic! (wish I knew how to emphasize or bold "encyclopedic." =)
Try putting three apostrophes on each side great, huh?
Delete This incident has not proven itself to be notable in the long-term as it hasn't resulted in any change of policy that can influence other aircraft. It doesn't have the criteria that WP:AIRLINES has for incidents and accidents either. Currently it is being influenced by media coverage as the incident has only just occurred in the past day, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. NcSchu_(Talk) 13:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is WP:AIRLINES a part of WP:POLICY? Plasticup ^T/C 16:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Less than 24 hours would seem to be a very short term in which to prove long term notability! I'd suggest giving it at least 6-12 months before any long term assessment can be made. Changes of policy in aircraft operation can take a while to be implemented after an incident. It is six months since the BA Flight 38 accident but that may still result in a change to the design of 777s (eg the fitting of louder evacuation alarms) 80.176.88.21 (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFD is decided on the basis of consensus discussion. Our notability guideline is the most commonly used criterion, and as a guideline it is also not policy. If you want further thought, see WP:IAR. --Dhartung | Talk 17:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why my first sentence states that I don't believe the incident has proven itself to be notable (yet) and is only thought to be so by sensationalist media drama. My WP:AIRLINES statement is in relation to its status as a major incident/accident. I suggest contributing to this Afd in a helpful manner instead of an utterly pointless one, thank you! NcSchu_(Talk) 16:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it turns out later that this is a symptom of a major weakness in the plane or the airline, we can re-add it, but with no injuries, it's not a notable incident.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate this article to remain. It is reminiscent of the United flight from Honolulu to Auckland, and the Aloha flight from Hilo to Honolulu. Although fortunately there were no fatalities on the Qantas flight, it is important if it is a similar kind of failure, because metal fatigue fuselage decompressions shouldn't be occurring anymore now that there is knowledge from the previous incidences. It is also currently front page news on the New York Times webpage, which is significant. There is also no need to delete right away, as it just happened, and we will be finding out more information later which may add or detract from it's significance. So, please keep. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.154.250 (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United flight from Honolulu to Auckland, and the Aloha flight from Hilo to Honolulu incidents are not the same as QF30. We don't know the cause of incident and is likely to take a month or so before we know. Bidgee (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One important similarity, even if we do not yet know the exact cause, is that they are all decompressions. The United flight and this Qantas flight are both 747s. And, they are both flights over the Pacific Ocean. The NYTimes article at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/asia/26qantas.html?hp says "The Australian Air Transport Safety Board issued a brief statement on its Web site Friday, describing the forced landing as a “serious incident.”" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.154.250 (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing stating that it was a it was the same as “United flight”. AATSB Media Release. Bidgee (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the first line of the news release you kindly provided is: "The Australian Transport Safety Bureau was advised this afternoon of a serious incident involving a Qantas aircraft." Why is it necessary to jump the gun so quickly? http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2008/release/2008_22.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.154.250 (talk)

Oops, I don't know what happened there--it seems like a line was lost. I hope I didn't erase it by accident. Anyway, the NYTimes article never claimed the Oz Transport Safety Board media release said Flight 30 was the same as the United Flight. However they are both 747 transpacific services with a fuselage decompression necessitating an emergency landing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.154.250 (talk)

States nothing about “United flight” and read NcSchu comment on the bottom of the page. Bidgee (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prior of these 747 decompression accidents and incidents, Aloha Airlines Flight 243 (which was a Boeing 737) suffered an explosive decompression 15 minutes after it take off from Hilo International Airport in Hawaii which the fuselage had crippled on the air. The route was over the Hawaiian coast. --ApprenticeFan (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and United Airlines Flight 811 the cargo door failed in which the Qantas 747-400's didn't. Bidgee (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you're going to post here, please try to follow the same format as the rest of the voters, also, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not a legitimate argument. Comparing this incident to others that are similar will not influence whether this article is kept or deleted. No two incidents are exactly alike and one incident doesn't influence another's notability. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, QF30 isn't the same as Aloha Airlines Flight 243 and United Airlines Flight 811 therefore shouldn't be used as an argument. Bidgee (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so maybe I shouldn't have brought up those other flights. But if comparisons to other incidents do not influence keeping or deleting this article, then please keep that in mind when looking at the first and 3rd votes for "Delete" at the top of the page! They all compared Flight 30 to other incidents as well, with: "It certainly pails in comparison to the Qantas Flight 1," and "There have been worst incidents then this" I believe Flight 30 is notable on its own without any comparison to other flights whatsoever, and even with only the initial information we have right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.154.250 (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This meets the definition of Aviation accident, it is not just an incident. There's no need to rush to deletion. If further substantial references can't be developed over the coming days, it can be revisited. Most of our articles on accidents start during the day of the event and initially rely on news coverage, later adding more authoritative content.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not an Aviation accident. If it was the aircraft what have had more damage then what it has, didn't crash, had issues landing which it didn't. It's more of an Aviation incident then an accident. I would rather wait for the AATSB to complete it's report which will be at least a month or two (maybe more). Bidgee (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take another look at the definition, please. LeadSongDog (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've read the link above but you can't use an Wiki article (which needs more sources) to try and state it's an accident. ATM it's been classed as incident (See the AATSB Media Release which uses incident) Bidgee (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare this accident or this one (from US NTSB site)LeadSongDog (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about QF30. Bidgee (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that The Flight Safety Foundation's aviation safety net calls it an accident too. The US Federal Regulation defining "Accident" and "Incident" is here. The ICAO's Annex 13 is available here at a nominal cost if you really want it.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First link is a Wiki and the second link is to do with US law which has nothing about QF30 and the same goes for the third. Bidgee (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We follow ICAO definitions, which you can see repeated on this ATSB page. I would be surprised if the ATSB doesn't upgrade the definition from Serious Incident to Accident during the course of their investigation, because the structural damage was not merely a fairing nor small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin. This is speculation though and as per my comments further down, I think this article satisfies notability in any case. -- Rob.au (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing to indicate this event is particularly notable. There weren't even any fatalities (fortunately). While I disagree with the opinions of some that Wikipedia should never do articles on any breaking news stories, there's really nothing here to peg a viable article on. Had it crashed and all 300+ people died, then it would have become a notable air disaster. As it stands, it rates, at best, a paragraph in the Qantas airline article. The fact it has managed to keep its fatality-free record in intact even with such an incident is notable, but only as a footnote in the main article, not on its own. 23skidoo (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a fatal accident in Boeing 747-400 history, Singapore Airlines Flight 006 which was a 747-400 bound from Singapore to Los Angeles via Taipei-Chiang Kai Shek. The plane was scheduled to take off because of the typhoon and it collided with a construction site between the runway. --ApprenticeFan (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about Qantas' history and not the Boeing 747-400 history record. Bidgee (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Bidgee and the Admins. This flight had no fatalities, only Aloha 243 and United 811 had 10 fatalities and 103 injuries in two flights. --ApprenticeFan (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see a lot of people talking about "X many people weren't hurt" or "XYZ fell out of the plane". None of this is relevant. This deletion proposal claims that the subject is not notable. Unfortunately the nominator tried to show this by linking to a wikiproject rather than an actual wikipedia policy, and maybe that is why the discussion has become sidetracked. The purpose of this discussion should be to establish notability or lack thereof. Plasticup ^T/C 16:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: an explosive decompression is a (thankfully) rare occurrence, and to my mind that makes it notable. (That everyone survived perhaps contributes to the notability, rather than detracting from it.) There is a precedent for having articles on such cases (e.g. British Airways Flight 5390). Given that this only happened today, then obviously we will have to wait for reliable sources (as opposed to over-hyped media speculation etc.), and an official investigation to produce a report. The lack of patience shown by the deletionists concerns me here: we had the same with British Airways Flight 38 earlier this year, which was also quickly taken to AfD within hours of the accident. --RFBailey (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You shouldn't brand users (Such as deletionists) whether they're for or against. Also you should base your comments on a neutral point of view. BA38 isn't the same as QF30 and I'm sure this article could have waited until official investigation releases it's findings that way this article is about fact not media hype and spin. Bidgee (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV refers to only the content of articles. Comments should be referring to wikipedia policies, specifically the notability policy. So far no one (on either side) has made an argument based on official wikipedia policy. Plasticup ^T/C 17:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree and disagree. There are some ok statments but there are some that have I when this isn't about opinions. The above statment was for everyone and not just the above editor. Bidgee (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AfD was issued not just within 2 hours, but also within 6 edits of the original article. Strange? Over zealous? 82.69.27.224 (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would consider an explosive decompression, even one that resulted in the loss of no passengers or crew, quite notable. We aren't talking about a minor mechanical failure that caused the masks to drop, this plane suffered some major damage and as of yet it's not known whether it's due to some sort of mechanical flaw or a bomb - either of which would be notable. Ayocee (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A bomb has been ruled out No Sign of Terrorism In Qantas 747 Blowout (ABC NEWS) and Qantas emergency landing could have been caused by spilled coffee (Telegraph). Bidgee (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of terrorism or sabotage emerges; otherwise this is just a more-dramatic-than-most in-flight incident that resulted in no injuries. --Dhartung | Talk 17:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Strong Keep - This is highly notable because explosive decompression had occurred, similar to United Airlines Flight 811. It shouldn't require the tragic death of a passenger for a catastrophic incident to be included! Thanks! --Inet^pup_:o3^{⌈〒⌋▰⌈♎⌋} 17:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't have to have people killed but don't see how this is highly notable for an Encyclopedia ATM. Yes explosive decompression is rare but it has to be caused by something and we don't even know the caused by. Also we shouldn't base it on other articles such as UA811. Bidgee (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see how it is notable? Does it not meet every element of WP:NOTABILITY? Plasticup ^T/C 17:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a cause, why it happened in midflight and not at take off, cost of repair, where it will be repaired and by who. ATM all we have is a small media release by AATSB and the rest is from the media but what are they basing it all on? Bidgee (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I don't think that you understand the article deletion process. Please read Wikipedia:Notability. You will see that this article satisfies the requirements of significant, reliable, and independent coverage. Plasticup ^T/C 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the lack of a cause suddenly an issue? If we only wrote articles about cases where the cause was 100% certain, we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia. Seth ze (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To me the article satisfies WP:NOTE easily and (although not as relevant) the comments on WP:AIRLINES as well anyway. The incident has - for the time being - been classed as a Serious Incident by the ATSB on the initial basic incident report. It involves not merely the loss of some fairing panels, but rather these appear to have been lost due to a significant rupture of the aircraft's skin. This rupture resulted in an explosive decompression, which is a rare and significant event. Obviously there will be a glut of media coverage at this time, but this includes signficant photographic evidence, video evidence, first hand passenger accounts and airport official accounts of the incident, on top of statements from Qantas and the ATSB. Regardless of the root cause and the inevitable ATSB report, this is already a article about a notable event. Regarding WP:AIRLINES - the event involved serious damage to the aircraft, satisfying one of the example criteria on that project page. Being repairable does not mean it is not serious damage. -- Rob.au (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Upgrading my view to Strong Keep in light of the ATSB confirmation that the aircraft lost an oxygen cylinder in mid air. Regardless of this turning out to be cause or effect, this is an extraordinary circumstance at all levels - for Qantas, for the Boeing 747 and commercial flight in general. -- Rob.au (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I thought I wanted to point out that QF1 wouldn't that 'pale in comparison' because it wasn't written off either. - Mailer Diablo 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Rob.au. Addeum : BBC, CNN, NYT, Forbes. - Mailer Diablo 18:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for several reasons: 1) It's silly to say that someone has to die for an aircraft accident/incident/whatever to be notable; 2) Qantas has a tremendous record for flight safety and this certainly is noteworthy in that light; 3) There has been a good deal of buzz in the media about the event--enough to make a tiddlywinks tournament notable, 4) There seems to be a lot of "dancing" around notablity on the side of the deletionists for this article, and I don't dance.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This makes things interesting Qantas plane suffered corrosion. I'm not a deletionist but someone who is yet to make up their mind. Bidgee (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bidgee, this isn't the place to discuss the event itself. That belongs on the article's talk page. This is the place to discuss whether or not Qantas Flight 30 meets wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Please stop spamming this AfD with information that belongs in the article. Plasticup ^T/C 18:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why you just telling me? What about others who are doing the same? Assume Good Faith please! Bidgee (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so concerned about being (or called) a deletionist even when it is meant for no-one in particular? - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am? I said I've not made up my mind and interested at other thoughts, I didn't say that I was concerned about being called one. Bidgee (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am assuming good faith. Obviously you aren't editting maliciously (i.e. the opposite of good faith) and I am helping direct your efforts towards a useful goal. Plasticup ^T/C 18:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling me a spammer isn't helping nor is it good faith. Bidgee (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said that your last few edits would have been better posted on the article's talk page. Here they are spam. That does not mean that you are a spammer. Forget it, I am not going to argue semantics with someone intent on being offended. Plasticup ^T/C 18:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

intent on being offended? I'm not but it's the way you said it! Bidgee (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I am surprised that this hasn't been kept under WP:SNOW. There are hundreds of independent, reliable sources referencing this event, and there will be thousands more before it is over. Plasticup ^T/C 18:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that you're surprised. Seven people urged a delete before anyone even said "keep". Mandsford (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of them gave a rational that referenced a wikipedia policy. Plasticup ^T/C 20:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's snowing now.... Mandsford (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are good and are improving, now makes it more notable then it was orginally. Bidgee (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on WP Aviation Style guide's Notability clause - It involves unusual circumstances, so speaks rohith. 20:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was lucky that nobody was killed or seriously injured! TurboForce (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This article meets the WP Aviation Style guide's Notability clause, and has good references (noting only a small amount of time has passed since the incident). It is also of a rare, and notable event. [as an aside - not related to the 'Strong Keep' argument, everybody 'SHOULD' have died on this flight. a 3m hole caused by explosive decompression is very lucky not to have caused a breakup like the Lockerbie incident]. Finally, it should be noted that this article was nominated for 'delete' when it was first created, and now is a very different article to when the article was created. I guess that is what happens when someone nominates an article for deletion during the first hours/minutes of development. This http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qantas_Flight_30&oldid=227815023 Is the article nominated for deletion (within the first hour of creation). I think it would be safe to say that most Wikipedia articles are *less* well written / referenced than this within the first hour. I suppose this is what happens when someone trolls the new pages list for 'junk' pages, and destroy many pages that would have helped Wikipedia before they even start. :)Buckethed (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This wasn't a "mundane" accident such as a birdstrike or even terrorism, it was an unusual form of mechanical failure, with the implications for future safety procedures that implies. It's notable as being unusual for Quantas, for perhaps being related to recent concerns that Quantas aren't as spotless as they've previously been reported to be, as being an unusual cause of accident, and mostly for being a serious structural failure that was survivable by some robust engineering from Boeing (I have to move town now after saying anything good about Boeing) Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This incident was probably more serious than Pan Am Flight 125 and no-one has suggested that should be deleted (yet!). If QF30 turns out to be another cargo door failure or similar problem with the Boeing 747 then this article might be very relevant to a series of articles about 747 faults/problems. I also agree that an article about a current event should not be up for deletion so soon after creation. At least give it until more is known about this incident and then think about deleting or merging this article. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough that it's on the CBS Evening News tonight as a "headline" story. If Katie Couric notices the "Midair Scare", that's proof enough for me. Mandsford (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Probably the closest that Qantas has come to a fatal accident since 1951. 82.69.27.224 (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep For those who insist that it isn't WP Aviation Style guide's Notability clause, I suggest you read it again. Don't read between the lines. Read word for word. Planenut (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets all Wikipedia:NOTABILITY criteria. Following the investigation and any consequent actions taken it might turn out to be even more significant an incident than it appears at the moment.Richard Taylor (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to suggest once again that we evaluate this by WP:SNOW so we can get the item into In The News Plasticup ^T/C 00:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Delete) At the moment, it is a media exaggeration. Maybe when some hard information and evidence is released, which includes information that satisfies the final WP:AIRLINES criteria, the article could be recreated. But at the moment it is extremely hard for editors to shuffle through the fact and the fiction. It is no where on the realms of the United cargo door blow out. a) it proved malfunction of the cargo locking device that provoked and industry wide shake-up b) it was fatal enough that people got killed c) the cargo door blowing off as well as the side of the cabin sucking people out is different to a small hole in the fuselage. In regards to comparison the Qantas 1 runway overrun incident, I still maintain that this incident pails in comparison. An aircraft falling off the end of a runway into grassland colliding with ground equipment is much different from a small hole in the fuselage which obviously did not prevent a clean emergency landing. At the moment people are getting caught up in the hype of the media that a Qantas 747 suffered something out of the ordinary. Yes, something out of the ordinary happened. But this is one of many incidents a year worldwide that do not need to be included in an encyclopaedic article. Just because something is over-reported in the media does not mean it should be in an encyclopaedic article. Mvjs (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exaggeration are you referring to? If it is in the article, then edit it. If it is in the media, what part of the media reporting are you referring to? Most of it seems pretty factual to me. There is significant coverage of this event because it is highly unusual which reinforces why it should not be deleted. As for the need for hard information/evidence, it is there in photos of a 744 with a gaping whole in it - ie strong evidence of an explosive decompression. If you are talking about the cause, then what policy states that we need to know exactly what the cause is before we can have an article? Not knowing the precise cause would actually make the incident more notable, not less. In any event, the article can be updated once more is known. As for United/QF1, this is not a contest. Incidents/accidents may be more or less notable than others. WWII is more notable than the Boer War, but that doesn't mean that the Boer War article should be deleted. Obviously there needs to be a cut-off point. A good practical example is the recent wheel door failure on a Qantas 738. This has clearly been carried along by the QF30 incident. It is certainly not notable in itself and I would support a proposal to delete an article devoted to it. QF30 on the other hand is different in many key respects. It is not, as you contend, "one of many incidents a year". It is one of a handful of explosive decompressions in the history of civil aviation. It is also unusual for an explosive decompression in that it did not result in loss of life or serious injury. Seth ze (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Something described as a "hole the size of a small car" (as it was on National Public Radio this afternoon) in the side of an aircraft sounds like something significant. My feeling of the WP:AIRLINES guidance on incidents is that it is really meant to exclude more routine types of incidents, e.g. medical diversions, birdstrikes, precautionary diversions after a warning light came on, etc. If in the long term this does turn out to not have really been notable, we can always come back and reevaluate whether a standalone article is deserved. Since to me this is an incident that would lean towards long term notability, however, I'd like to keep it and build it up now, rather than having to come back in the future when sources can be harder to find (for example, some news sites move articles into pay archives after a few weeks). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at this stage. May be rolled into an article on Qantas or Aircraft hull problems at some later date if this incident - that could have easily been a disaster - proves to be not noteworthy in the WP Airline sense. Ariconte (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hold to a very liberal interpretation of NOT NEWS, but ongoing news events that are not clearly to be of permanent interest where the facts of the matter are not yet known are--like this one--exactly the sort of material that should not be included in Wikipedia. At some time in the future, possibly even the near future, it may well be possible to write an encyclopedic article, but this kind of detail and uncertainty does not even remotely qualify. I am somewhat surprised at the extent of defense of this article. The need for prompt coverage stated frequently above implies a place in WikiNews, not here. DGG (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Delete) Two people have so far indicated here that the hole was "three metres" or better yet "the size of a small car". Both of these are complete and utter fabrication of the facts. There was a 1.5 metre hole on the leading edge of the right wing. [29] Doesn't have the same ring to it now, does it? This is exactly what I'm talking about when you're sorting through the thriller movie script the media is reporting and the facts. Once this dies down in the media, this crash will be no different to the Darwin incident mentioned or the numerous 747-300 incidents. Mvjs (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, no such fabrications exist in the article. Plasticup ^T/C 02:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I just removed them. The Times has a good list of incidents on Qantas Boeing 747s that have occurred recently. [30] There have been six incidents since 1999, including Qantas Flight 1 and several of those have been more significant than this incident and are a testament to what happens after the intense media scrutiny concludes. Bar QF1, none of these have an article. Just back in February, a Qantas 747 near Bangkok lost all four engines and landed on battery power. Back in March, a window popped on a 747-300. Back in 2003, a pilot feared the plane had caught fire and everyone was evacuated on the slides. And of course our 1999 incident, where the plane slid of the end of the runway crashing into grasslands. These have all disappeared from our memory, haven't they? This will be the same fate for QF30. Mvjs (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting that. I see that you easily found a significant number of independent and reliable secondary sources to verify the information. Plasticup ^T/C 02:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did find some independent sources, not all of them reliable though. This is just a testament to the over zealous media coverage of the incident that has occurred, which is exactly what I am trying to point out. After we all take a deep breath, this incident will descend in to the minor incidents basket that I've previously mentioned. ^^ Mvjs (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those incidents you paraphrased were a little beat up, the Bangkok incident wasn't a loss of all four engines, it was a loss of electricity from the generators on all four engines due to a leak in the forward galley. The window pop incident was just a cracked window (reason enough to divert yes, not reason enough for world wide coverage). I think you'll find that traditional print editors world wide have their collective finger on the pulse that is good enough to recognise a story when they see one. 82.69.27.224 (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the article meets the notability guideline for Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Notability "Aviation accidents" as the incident "involves unusual circumstances", those being loss of a section of the fuselage and the resultant rapid decompression of the cabin. Melburnian (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This obviously has been a major incident, not simply a flock-of-geese-in-the-turbine kind of thing. It also needs to be seen in the context that there's a general feeling now that the airline industry is at a major breaking point, because of tremendous pressures brought on by fuel costs, deregulation, and critical views on its being a sustainable mode of transport. So they've got to cut corners where they can. In fact the article mentions concerns about outsourcing of maintenance work, and though I do realise this may be a red herring, since other scenarios for this near accident are still viable, further investigation may bring facts to light that may bear on safety and other issues that are highly relevant and notable. Reigndream (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps I should clarify my above statement regarding the relationship between airline safety and its economical downturn in recent times and its bearing on the notability of the current entry. Incidence like this may add up to—or subtract from, depending on the investigative outcome—an overall picture of the effects of this downturn on industry standards and safeguards, which may spawn encyclopedic entries in the future (or expand current ones). Seeing that transport costs and its effects on safety are hot-button issues and are likely here to stay, entries like the one now debated would be a valuable source for these articles.Reigndream (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm starting to get the feeling now that maybe this incident might be of more significance than what was initially reported. Some pretty interesting stuff has been coming out since the initial a door has popped. It's just that between now and when the ATSB/NTSB release their reports, the article will be including information that it simply based on what the media is saying, which in a lot of cases, is spur of the moment journalism and includes factual inaccuracies and inference. Once the reports are released, we'll be able to get some solid encyclopaedic facts. It's just the window of time between now and then will leave us with an article that is really of no encyclopaedic merit. Mvjs (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTE - "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable". BBC, Reuters, ASN, ATSB, NY Times, all cover it. This is in the same category as Aloha 243 and United 811, it was just fortunate it was part of the baggage fuselage and not passenger compartment. XLerate (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to see a note in Cabin pressurization under Notable Incidents, even if this article is deleted. As stated in that article, these incidents are very rare and all but one of those listed have resulted in death of some or all of the occupants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaseoldboss (talk • contribs) 07:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)--Jaseoldboss (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a great amount of international interest, especially in the United States where Boeing is headquartered, of the the cause of the damage as this could impact all 747-400 series aircraft, much in the same way the structural failure of United Airlines Flight 811 caused modifications to all early generations 747s. There is no WP:MUST_BE_DEATHS guideline to our inclusion standards as a lot of the delete voters near the top seem to imply (ie "No one even got injured"). If that were the case, the British Airways Flight 9 and the Gimli Glider articles are doomed. --Oakshade (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an explosive decompression is a highly unusual accident. I would expect either the airline or the manufacturer to have messed something up somewhere, but regardless, I can only think of two other nonfatal explosive decompressions (not counting truely tiny incidents with small holes) and both are very important. I might have been swayed towards delete if only a cargo door had gone, although, again, I would not be prejudiced against recreating the article if the inestigation showed up something interesting. If you get unlucky in an event like this, and the wrong bits are taken out, you can lose the entire airliner. Suggestions the passengers were never at risk are entirely false. They were fine once the air had gone and wasn't going to do any more damge; until then there was only luck in what did and didn't break. There's always the risk the wing could have been damaged and/or the engines damged by the crap coming off. A suitcase would be enough in the wrong pace. Finally, there are plenty of reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 09:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and recreate if this turns out to have wider implications. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the best option. Delete now and if, in the future, when the ATSB/NTSB reports are released wider implications are found, the article should be recreated. Mvjs (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Moondyne 10:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The international coverage, the challenge to Qantas's safety record and coming so close to the Qantas engineers' industrial action move the incident beyond WP:ONEEVENT to establish notability. WWGB (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:21 Delete:15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.27.224 (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polls are evil, Polling discourages consensus. Bidgee (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, down to this point it's Keep:27 and Delete (including nom):14 (the Comment (Delete) is simply the nom adding comments). Might as well be accurate with this evil poll.--Oakshade (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An explosive decompression on a scheduled passenger flight alone is a serious enough occurance, and this event also ties in to questions raised recently about Qantas' maintenance record. Seems pretty notable to me. tgies (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge - still not notable for an article of its own suggest delete and add information to Qantas. If the official report/s indicate it was caused by maintenance error or the like then the article could be created from reliable sources rather than not always reliable news reports. MilborneOne (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given Qantas' good flight safety, and also professionals saying that's a near-disaster, that's already notable. After all, a huge piece of metal was pulled off from that plane. – PeterCX&Talk 15:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge with Qantas. Several flights make emergency landing due to some or the reason. An Air Mauritius flight made an emergency landing in Delhi couple of days back because its engine caught fire and it had an even more miraculous escape. This incident received more coverage because of the uniqueness of the type of damage the aircraft suffered. But still, a mention about the incident in Qantas article should be more than enough. --Emperor Genius (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quantas#Aircraft incidents and accidents has now been enriched for a mention of this incident/accident (classified as such by ATSB/NTSB), despite an apparent initial edit war sustained in order to keep it unmentioned, now that expert wikipedians in aviation have spoken. Deleting the article now would not be as damaging to the cause of serving the average reader, assuming my addition sticks. It is well-sourced, factual, informative and neutral. It expressly mentions the preliminary ATSB/NTSB status given this event. --Mareklug ^talk 16:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No deaths, no injuries, no evidence of lasting notability beyond a couple of news cycles. By all means mention in the Qantas article - we do that already - but no need for a separate article. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment) I would note that there was a massive edit war on the Qantas main article (mainly that people kept removing a link to this article from that article, and were removing any reference at all to the Qantas Explosive Decompression incident! I do not understand *why* the position changed, but I do note that the moment that reference got inserted into the Qantas article as a tiny side-note, then more Delete calls from the editors of the Qantas article ('We') appeared here! Wikipedia is not censored. Buckethed (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP with Substantial Damage to the airframe due to explosive decompression during a flight loaded with passengers, it's classified as Serious Incident by ATSB http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/aair200804689.aspx {Howardchu (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

DELETE. The investigation has not been concluded or published yet, so any comments about explosive decompression are original research and do not meet Wikipedia stds for reliability. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, explosive decompression has been established. That was the easy part. In fact, that's the only bit of the investigation that is availible to the public. Trying to pin down a cause - that is OR. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Socrates2008, if we use the rule that any articles where the investigation has not been completed should not be included in Wikipedia, we may as well delete the last year or two of this aviation accidents/incidents page!. So, your delete vote is discounted :) Buckethed (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, just because an article contains original research doesn't mean the subject of the article is not notable. Remove the OR and consider what remains. --RFBailey (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Greetings, Socrates2008. Whether we should label the occurence as "rapid depressurization" or "explosive decompression" has actually taken place, if a "hole" is large enough to expose the cargo hold along with the separation of a section of the wing root fairing which has been classified as "substantial damage" to the airframe by ATSB[31], then leading to another "hole" appeared in cabin floor AND losing cabin pressure in a sudden, it's a notable event even it's not ended in disastrous outcome with any loss of life or the aircraft itself. The reliability of using materials of original research can't discount the exhibit of these substantial damages. {Howardchu (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment - the most recent ATSB press release says this is a rapid decompression event. Doesn't quite sound as sensational anymore as the explosive decompression event everyone was initially talking about, does it? Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Socrates2008, with all due respect, are you deflecting the critical issue of the subject? Once again, it's a rare occurence in aviation whether we should label it as "rapid decompression" or "explosive decompression". If a "hole" is large enough to expose the cargo hold along with the separation of a section of the wing root fairing which has been classified as "substantial damage" to the airframe by ATSB[32], then leading to another "hole" appeared in cabin floor AND losing cabin pressure in a sudden, it's a notable event even it's not ended in disastrous outcome with any loss of life or the aircraft itself. The reliability of using materials of original research can't discount the exhibit of these substantial damages. {Howardchu (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

I thought explosive decompression was a form of rapid decompression? One's just more ambiguous, but I thought here they mean essentially the same thing, the latter just also covers a bit more. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between rapid decompression and explosive decompression is one of degrees. As per the references on the explosive decompression page, it's a question of speed, with explosive decompression typically taking less than 0.5 seconds with a high risk of lung trauma. It is also compartively unlikely to occur in a large aircraft, with the larger volume of the vessel involved. This said, I don't think a rapid decompression is any less sensational - it's still an extraordinarily rare and potentially dangerous event. People and crew have been torn out of aircraft in rapid decompression events and it is fortunate - and notable - that this did not occur on this occasion. -- Rob.au (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This is getting lots of news coverage and is well covered. This sort of things seems to catch the publics imagination, even more so than some traditional fatal accidents. I guess its the nature of a "big hole in my airplane" thing. The accident is unusual, notable and well well covered by RS. Slam dunk keep. Dman727 (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an accident, and agreed with the above points of satisfying WP:NOTE and the fact there shouldn't be fatalties/injuries for inclusion. Have seen similar articles. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 02:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Going purely by the guidelines, this accident seems to fall into WP:NOTE, which defines what deserves its own article, moreso than WP:AIRLINES, which defines what information should be included on an airlines' page. Thus, the event seems to definitely belong in its own page, and may or may not be appropriate for the Quantas page depending on what comes out of the investigation. In any case, a gaping hole of any size forming spontaneously in the external fuselage of an aircraft seems like an event noteworthy of inclusion even if it becomes a somewhat obscure article (only of interest to researchers) in time. And if it's really as mundane as some posit, it can be deleted later, but at this point I'm convinced it's noteworthy. --Sam (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is well-referenced and clearly establishes notability as an important incident in the history of one of the world's most well-known airlines. - Mark 05:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can I just remind contributors that an AfD is not a vote please refrain from adding up scores. The closing admin will make a decision on the arguments put forward not on the number of deletes and keeps. Thank You. MilborneOne (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Widespread media coverage means a wealth of reliable sources, which means that the event is notable and verifiable. -- SCZenz (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is an extremely serious incident. The only reason this aircraft did not break up in flight resulting in a total loss of life was because of the airframe design that incorporates strengthening ribs throughout the skin of the aircraft, so if a sections of airframe is damaged such as this, the ribs stop the damage from spreading, and splitting open the whole aircraft. From the looks of the pictures, this aircraft very nearly could have broken past these strengthening, and become a total loss. If this Boeing aircraft was not designed with such good safety mechanisms built in, it would have been a different outcome, but the accident is still extremely serious. I believe there is very valuable lessons to learn from this accident, independent of the fact there was no loss of life, so this article should be kept so the results of the investigation can be included in the article as the facts become available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.238.65 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's notable and important.--Avala (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are you suggesting somebody needs to die before an accident qualifies for Wikipedia?! This incident is major in every way except the sensationalist, and should definitely be kept! CapnZapp (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The accident is being described as a Serious Incident with the damage described as Substantial by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Part of the side of a 747 falling off is an extremely rare incident, which will remain notable, whatever the cause.--Lester 20:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There were no casualties on British Airways Flight 38, but that is still notable and its article has not been deleted. This article is interesting and cites many references, it should definitely be kept. 212.159.69.172 (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a major event which has made news around the world, and this may even cause an airworthiness directive to be issued by various bodies around the world for the 747. It's just speculation "eg an internet forum said this" type talk should be removed as soon as possible, as these are not reliable (or authoritative) sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvyk (talk • contribs) 23:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose any ,pves at tring to remove this article. QF 30 mwas a major aviation accident where an aeroplane and peope were saved only saved by luck. We can not give in to false Aussie pride nor to the love of Qantas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anteres101 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice. I think that, for the time being, the most useful thing for Wikipedia is to have an article on the incident. It's easier than fighting a running battle against article recreation, and the current article appears to be robustly sourced. A few months down the road, let's revisit and see if it still warrants an article to itself. —C.Fred (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a noteworthy event, with ongoing ramifications for the Australian aviation industry and flagship airline. I don't subscribe to the interpretation of WP:NOTNEWS being touted above, and disagree with such rapid deletion based on such an interpretation of same. --Canley (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A noteworthy event with worldwide ramifications. Schmoul Aschkenazi (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has sufficient references to warrant its retention, as well as significant media coverage in the Philippines, Australia and abroad. (Note: this article is now part of the Philippine WikiProject deletion watchlist.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aviation history, with international significance. - DaughterofSun (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough citations, and I saw this on TV, and the news. Qsung (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I personally think the article should be kept for say, 6 months and then have a revision. This will have 2 benifeits, it will mean that the media coverage should have died down, and some "official" studies will have been done, allowing a more unbiased descision to be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.36.167 (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not think events like these require a casualty for them to be notable. Starczamora (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. For an incident which fuels lots of attention because it has the potential of putting the future of the Boeing 747 in question[33], I would think it fulfilled the notability requirement easily on its own. While some guidelines established by a clunch of individuals in WP:AIRLINES may be well-meaning, taking them literally to the last when determining the notability of an aviation incident is plain silly, as many have pointed out. I recall how a few of them insists the first A380 commercial flight ought to be deleted[34] too because it describes a piece of good news and no one is dead. I hope wikipedia is not becoming an aviation orbituary page!--Huaiwei (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For crying out loud, does every aviation incident (including those without any fatalities or even injuries) need an article now? Wikipedia is not the place for news reports. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't every aviation incident - it's a unique event. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has said ""As far as we can determine this has never happened before on a passenger aircraft. There's no reports of it anywhere, so it's very, very unusual and obviously understanding why that happened will be absolutely critical to making sure it can't occur again". [35] -- Rob.au (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think fatality or injury count should have any bearing on article notability-- in fact I'd say it's the opposite. Over-emphasizing fatalities, I think, that makes wikipedia sometimes seem like news reports and requires the WP:NOT#NEWS guideline. There are a tiny number of cases where an aircraft has opened up in mid-flight, and thus each one probably deserves its own article so researchers can easily dig into the analysis and details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samkass (talk • contribs) 13:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Aviation_accidents as an unusual incident involving an otherwise extremely reliable airline. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I highly doubt this discussion will end in anything other than a no consensus, but my two cents and gut feel is that this is going to be forgotten about by the public in a week or so. WP:NOTNEWS and all that. Certainly would be appropriate to expand the brief article on wikinews though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 15:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

No, it wouldn't. Wikinews is a news site, not an encyclopedia. That article is over 24 hours old and should not receive any more major edits. New developments get new articles, and they are welcome. Also, notability isn't measured by memorability anyway. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This incident has lots of prominent international news coverage, and can be revisited several months later if there's no lasting effects. Galatee (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think Galatee and MickMacNee have it about right: let's revisit this at a later stage if needed, but it's certainly too early to consider this for deletion. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The latest Qantas incident is in my opinion an example of the sort of news item that does not warrant an entry in Wikipedia. It is exactly because of the significance of QF30 that minor aviation incidents are today being reported. The chief executive of Qantas is today reported as describing the QF30 event as "a very, very bad accident." I still say keep. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Strong Keep - This is highly notable because explosive decompression had occurred, similar to United Airlines Flight 811, and Aloha Airlines Flight 243. People should not have to die, for an article to be included in wikipedia.--Subman758 (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Strong Keep - why not keep? it's there already —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.27.8 (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Flashing things on webpages are offensive - Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this article is pure sensationalist news. The incident was not notable nor serious enough (relative to aviation incidents in general, not relative to Qantas' history) to get a whole WP article. It should be a paragraph, or a section at absolute most, on Qantas. --BG (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New section[edit]

Keep. Structural failure or incidents caused by "routine" operation are notable. The difference between life and death is something of luck. And in a time when we focus on aircraft security, it is important to also keep our eye on the continuing, long-standing problem of operational problems. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Scanlan (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Explosive decompression in civil aircraft is highly unusual and this instance may even be unique if, as postulated, it is due to an exploding oxygen cylinder. "An oxygen cylinder had never before exploded mid-air on a passenger aircraft, a Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman, Peter Gibson, said yesterday. He confirmed the oxygen cylinder was missing, and would be a key focus of the bureau investigation." ^[1] I cannot believe that this article is even being considered for deletion. This seems to be part of a disturbing trend to use notability concerns as form of censorship. Seth ze (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Censorship"? Nice way to get attention, but I'd be surprised if any of the people nominating "delete" (myself included) would mind this being on WP. We just don't think it is notable nor serious enough to get its own article. A paragraph or section on the Qantas page would be far more suitable. --BG (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, I agree with you Seth ze! It's pretty absurd that this article is even being discussed on AFD. It's very insulting to my intelligence that this even on the table and taking up my (our) valuable time and space. I am very skeptical of this deletion nomination by users ApprenticeFan, Mvjs and other early editors that responded. However, I am heartened that Mvjs hints at some regret about this AFD request in his later posts: I'm starting to get the feeling now that maybe this incident might be of more significance than what was initially reported. I believe there is a lesson to be learned from this experience: an article that really shouldn't have been an AFD candidate was nominated; this led to a cesspool that we see now. The lesson is: we should pick and choose our AFD battles very carefully; battles that are not meritorious (such as this one) turn into a polarized cesspool of editors arguing against what they perceive as the 'other' side. Hundreds of wasted hours (that could have been spent to have dinner with family, play in a golf match, have a lunch hour with colleagues, have a few brewskis during happy hour) have disappeared into this oblivion of a black hole that we call the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 30 discussion page. Thanks! --Inet^pup_:o3^{⌈〒⌋▰⌈♎⌋} 07:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's happened and can't see how this is an issue and this page is about why you want to delete or keep not the above comments (Nor my own). The AfD opener may have done it a little early but they may have reasons for doing so. I also doubt hours have been wasted on this AfD. Bidgee (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was looking at a news video about this incident, and I went to Wikipedia in order to get a good summary and a really good compliation of the currently available sources. I got what I wanted. This article is useful and encyclopedic. - Enuja (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - notable enough for an article and interesting. Wikipedia is not paper and can afford to keep articles like this. And although this is not a vote, the number of persons who want to keep this article strongly suggests that this should be kept by consensus. JRG (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable notable incident that was not within the ordianry run of events - come back in 6 months time and try again - perhaps with hindsight it won't be notable but right now would appear to be so. --Matilda ^talk 06:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Going by current investigations, the explosion occurred because of an oxygen cylinder. Does that make this particular incident notable? Accidents happen everywhere. So many aircraft hit birds because of which they have to make emergency landings. We cannot have articles on all such incidents. I've gone through all the arguments in favor of keeping the article and couldn't find one which was convincing enough. --Emperor Genius (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that does make it notable from what I heard on the news last night there has not been any similar explanation for an explosion before. Bird strike would not have been notable. --Matilda ^talk 07:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bird strike would have been notable IFF (if and only if) the bird splatter caused explosive decompression. Of course, for that to happen the bird would have to hit the cockpit glass head on. In such cases, there are much more serious problems, such as the pilot's face going missing, which would be very notable. Thanks! --Inet^pup_:o3^{⌈〒⌋▰⌈♎⌋} 07:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I point out that Qantas had to go over all their 747s to check the cylinders and the brackets that hold them? That on its own is close to meeting the guidlines WP:AIRCRASH had been working on before it became inactive. Also, the 'unusual circumstances' part seas this. I should point out, though, that against my argument there is the fact that those guidlines were still considered incomplete last I knew, although they were reasonably close to it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the fact that other airlines have become worried and are doing similar checks on their Boeing 747s.[36]--Huaiwei (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone through the WP:AIRCRASH guidelines. But I have one question: is rapid decompression enough to make this particular incident noteworthy? Let me remind that if this particular incident occurred because of the explosion of an oxygen cylinder, it is not an unusual incident because such incidents can happen with any aircraft. What about an aircraft's engine catching fire due to a bird hit? That is an equally dangerous scenario. Talking about unusual incidents in aviation history, a Garuda Indonesia plane turned back to its starting port after the pilots saw an Indian missile go past it barely few meters away and it also caused a brief diplomatic crisis [37]. Such particular incidents have little encyclopedic value and are just newsworthy. --Emperor Genius (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is in direct contradiction to what CASA has said about this. "As far as we can determine this has never happened before on a passenger aircraft ... There's no reports of it anywhere, so it's very, very unusual and obviously understanding why that happened will be absolutely critical to making sure it can't occur again". [38] -- Rob.au (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: wouldn't this contribute an even greater cesspool of AFD because other users would from that other project would start adding their input? Just wondering. Thanks! --Inet^pup_:o3^{⌈〒⌋▰⌈♎⌋} 08:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting maybe that more people might get to offer their input? Your statement seems to suggest that you consider that a bad thing... --BG (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or that posting it in specific area might look like soliciting. Plasticup ^T/C 12:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Incidents are generally news stories and subject to higher notability standards than other subjects since Wikipedia is not a newspaper. However, explosive decompressions are very rare, and very serious (like American Airlines Flight 96). This was not just a malfunctioning engine or oxygen tank which is handled routinely, this was a serious explosion which caused serious damage to the aircraft. (If you look at the pictures, that is a big hole near the wing.) These things are taken very seriously by aviation authorities, and bring up safety questions on par with a fatal accident. The interest and seriousness in something like this is well enough to support inclusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Newsworthy but not noteworthy (or should that be newsable but not notable?) If and when the outcome of this leads to a change in 747 operations, we can always reinstate it. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreation once the ATSB and other inquiries have reported on it. Orderinchaos 11:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we apply that logic, then we would need to delete most of the 2008,2007 articles from aviation accidents / incidents!. That aside, I agree that Westerm Australia is a lovely place to be and I do hope to visit there soon :) 166.83.21.221 (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The unusual nature of the accident makes this notable. AP via San Jose Mercury News: "Blyth (a senior ATSB investigator) and other officials say they are unaware of any previous cases in which an oxygen tank caused an airline accident." and it's not like the ValuJet crash. Philadelphia Inquirer: "Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Les Dorr cautioned, however, that the only thing the Qantas mishap and the ValuJet crash in 1996 'have in common is the word oxygen.'" Balsa10 (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a very notable event, furthermore it was covered by many independent sources --T-rex 14:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia commonly includes articles on contemporary news events, and even has a section on its home paged which mentions these events. This article is no exception to the standard applied to dozens of other articles, and is in fact very newsworthy in our age of worries about flight safety and the viability of the commercial airline industry. That is is being discussed on other major newsites lends credibility to the article's existence. If Wikipedia is indeed not a news website, as Wikimedia is, then the entirety of Wikipedia's news articles should be scrapped. This article must not be singled out as an exception for the sake of fairness and consistency. 9:59, 29 July 2008 (CST)
Keep' this is a notable incident and covered by ATSB and NTSB. Jer10 95 Talk 17:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It fits WP:Notable without question. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - adequate notability. Barnabypage (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - This was potentially a serious incident. It is very recent and we await hearing developments in the investigation. Its retention may need to be reconsidered when the outcome of the investigation is known. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on revisiting. Surely any assessment of notability is a one time thing. i.e. notable now = notable forever: per the notability guideline, we do not revisit an article once it has been established as notable and then delete if certain developments don't happen. That would be the violation of WP:NOTNEWS here if anything, and also a bit of crystall ballery. MickMacNee (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am starting to think that this meets notability requirements just for all the fuss it is causing from it's AfD nomination. "Methinks thou doth protest too much..." Also, it was a potentially serious incident that ended without death or injury when other similar incidents have resulted in those very things. Wikipedia articles don't exist to just feed the "ghouls" that want to read about death and misery. I dunno though... and Emperor Genius, the difference is that the other plane returned to its port by choice not because of a life or death incident. Radiooperator (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I just came to Wikipedia to find more technical facts about this incident over the somewhat exaggerated stuff being put out by the UK media and was somewhat taken back that it had been marked for deletion. This is certainly a serious incident which may have implications to all areas of aviation. At least wait until firm facts are known before deleting. Dsergeant (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep meets WP:V. Honestly, could you guys start actualy building articles rather than simply deleting them? I thought Qantas had a reputation of havindg no accidents, though that may be just me. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 12:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pretty much as per LeadSongDog and others, above. Also because there is a story reported by the BBC, here, that the cockpit voice recorder was wiped in the incident. As and when further evidence about that comes to light, the unexpected consequences of this incident may become more notable (i.e. there may need to be an investigation of the security of these important devices in this aircraft type). Therefore, as has been said, it's too soon to decide on the article's noteworthiness. – Kieran T ^(talk) 12:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The evidence is leaning very strongly, according to the ATSB, towards an exploding oxygen tank (debris was found in the passenger compartment). This would make the incident unique, particularly in light that it was ultimately non-catastrophic (similar to the Aloha Airlines Flight 243 incident, though for a different reason). If the incident is unique, that should automatically make it noteworthy.—WhosAsking (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Amended to Strong Keep. This article meets the Notability criteria, as it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject (we're talking sources like the BBC, Associated Press, New York Times, and CNN to name a few).
Amend to Strong Keep. Even the ATSB now calls this occurrence an "Accident". It appears to be a near-miracle there wasn't an oxygen fire in flight. There will clearly be several good lessons learned from this investigation. Full disclosure: I've been actively engaged in improving the article. LeadSongDog (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a news item, not an encyclopedic event.--Dmol (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amend to Strong Keep. Looking at WP:NOT#NEWS, I don't believe this accident can be considered a routine or trivial news event. I'm referring to the damage sustained to the aircraft coupled with an ultimately non-fatal result, as WhosAsking partially says, the likelihood of the unusual cause of the accident, as Balsa10 says, and that Qantas checking all its 747s has influenced other arlines to do the same, as Huaiwei said. I've revised my original opinion, and while its notability can be revisited later, believe it is notable regardless of future repurcussions or lack of same. Galatee (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is a modern news item - there are a total of 40 refs, which establish its notability. There really isn't any reason to delete anymore, since the article has been improved dramatically. --haha169 (talk) 19:58, 30 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 Piazza Fontana bombing due to a lack of notability independent from that event. It's unclear what, if anything, could be merged - therefore, any merging from the history would be an editorial matter. Sandstein 08:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Carrett[edit]

Nominating in order to reach consensus. While Carrett might be an evil man whom all should be warned against (through wikipedia, no less), the fact seemingly remains that he's only notable for 1 event. The bombing surely deserves a page, and Carrett surely deserves mention (and a redirect)... The reason I am nominating is that author of article seems quite new and enthusiastic, and a little miffed that his article was redirected, so in the spirit of WP:BITE, here goes. Storkk (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Piazza Fontana bombing, as nom. --Storkk (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete: as the fellow responsible for the redirect. The article creator claims numerous foreign language sources for this alleged conspiracy, but so far seems to be pushing hard a POV in several articles to claim dire roles for Mr. Carrett, the refs in question don't actually seem to say so beyond the bare (and trivial) mention that among others, Carrett is under suspicion. See diff [39]. WP:BLP generally, and WP:BLP1E specifically, mandates we tread very lightly, and so far no reliable sources claim anything beyond that Carrett was one of those indicted by an Italian court for this 40 year old bombing. All sources turning up his name so far are trivial mentions as per WP:BIO. Ravenswing 09:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical question: were he ever convicted, would that change your opinion on redirect? --Storkk (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Redirect and maintain. "David Carrett" may not even be his real name but his "nom de guerre". But even so...? Yep I claim 3 articles (written in italian, a "foreign language" that could be translated with several online free translations softwares) from La Repubblica, the most sold italian newspaper, but also an article written on The Guardian (in english!):

(in English) "The Guardian", Monday March 26, 2001: Terrorists 'helped by CIA' to stop rise of left in Italy. Under the 1 event rule also Gavrilo Princip anarchist and Abu Hafiza psychiatrist (that respectively started WWI and have been the master planner for Al Qaeda should be deleted then. Please read David Carrett discussion page[40] before voting.

Absolutely Trustworthy (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Time out here ... are you saying that there's doubt whether this fellow actually exists, or if so, doesn't have that name? Ravenswing 14:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's trying to convey that nobody knows whether his last name is "Carrett," "Carret," or "Garrett". Again, i know next to nothing about this, so take it with a grain of salt. --Storkk (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This guy is a secret agent NOT a politician... of course I do NOT know what this guy real name is and which one of his nom de guerre is the right one (maybe "Carrett"?). I do NOT know if this guy is still alive or not. That's why I think this article should be published: in order to globally convey as much info about him as possible. Anyway keeping on insinuating that La Repubblica italian newspaper publishes trivial and not reliable stuff is starting to get "heavy" towards italians in general I think, and towards the judge Guido Salvini that has prosecuted him in 1998. Do you know how Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino italian judges ended up in 1992? Sacrificing their lives for justice. As I said in our discussion pages there are plenty of free translations softwares around. If you are really interested about getting the truth in the whole discussion and/or if I find spare time and/or if you ask me kindly I can translate the three articles for you (computing translations are not good enough I guess).Absolutely Trustworthy (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that WP:BLP1E mainly concerns Living people... Also, although it is a notability guideline, a main point of reasoning behind it is that people notable for one event generally do not have enough reliable, verifiable information about them to warrant an article to themselves. Gavrilo Princip is quite dead, and there is a ton of independent, verifiable, reliable information about him simply because of his clear historical significance. Of course, WP:COMMON SENSE also applies for people such as Princip (his action set off WWI, after all) as well as Sirhan Sirhan, etc. Again, grain of salt, 2 cents, etc. --Storkk (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find it very strange that NOONE has mentioned Abu Hafiza so far... Do we all want to give a real answer to terrorism in general living and maintaning democratic dialectics and open societies in the countries and the world where we live in? Do we want to follow Karl Popper heritage or not? In my personal internet surfing about the matter I found this interesting web page State-Sponsored Terror in the Western World. Please read it if you have a chance and also remember that the anthrax attacks have NOT been solved yet (The other two wikipedia users that have voted so far "sound" from U.S). Absolutely Trustworthy (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I recommend you review WP:NOT, particularly Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The sole purpose and point of this AfD is to rule on whether an article on this subject passes verification and notability standards. It is not, and Wikipedia is not, for education about terrorism, maintaining open societies, following anyone's "heritage," or any other irrelevancy. It is sure as hell not about globally disseminating information about him: in like fashion, Wikipedia is not a webhost, and no doubt you can put up your own website to publish whatever about this fellow you wish out there. Ravenswing 09:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Soapbox? Huh? Ok Ravenswing I think I am going to ignore from now on your attempts to offend me... You have ignored most of my points anyway... BTW if you search for "David Carrett" on the French Wikipedia you will find two entries (Attentat de la piazza Fontana and Gladio) that have this guys name hyperlinked but the article is not existing. Please check for yourself [41]. From my humble point of view this means that according to french wikipedians the article is NEEDED. Absolutely Trustworthy (talk • contribs) 10:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Or, probably more accurately, it means that while the French Wikipedia's editors might feel his name worth mentioning in the main article concerning the bombing (a stance with which I agree), Carrett can't sustain a standalone article. In any event, I'm inclined to let them make their own decisions about what notability and verification standards they themselves wish to see. Ravenswing 13:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Internationally notable carer. Could use some expansion. DGG (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I'd be interested in your basis for asserting that Carrett has an internationally notable career, or indeed a notable career on any level. Heck, I'd be interested in your basis for asserting that he even exists. Ravenswing 09:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete - per WP:BLP1E and the fact that a simple google search doesn't return many relevant (in fact, the fifth result as of 17:36:27 (UTC) is this AfD). Definitely should be included in the relevant article, however. Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 17:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dear Kodster. As I said in David Carrett discussion page [42] also Abu Hafiza should go for AfD then because of WP:BLP1E. Anyway your "simple google search" using "David Carrett" keywords will return you 56 million results (and, no, I did NOT find this AfD at the the fifth place result). Again, as I pointed out in "David Carrett" discussion page the keywords should be more specific... Have you tried "David Carrett" CIA Piazza Fontana" keywords for example? This last search [43] will return 1,040 results... whereas the search for "Abu Hafiza psychiatrist" keywords[44] will return *ONLY* 293 results. This should make people think (for those who have this target obviously). Thanks for your attention. Absolutely Trustworthy (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Could we please have some non-slanted methodology, please? Googling David + Carrett turns up every hit that has either word. Googling the phrase "David Carrett" turns up many, many, many fewer hits. That aside, I'm still trying to figure out why you keep pushing the irrelevant Abu Hafiza in this discussion; it's a classic straw man argument to insinuate that their relative notability is linked. Beyond that, I still have neither seen (a) any reason why WP:BLP1E does not apply, nor (b) any biographical information on Carrett whatsoever. Ravenswing 10:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After there's been a chance gven to build up the article, merging might be sensible, but likely might not. This book in Italian (neither in the English nor the Italian article's refs) on the bombing mentions him on 5 pages, all but one viewable, spelling name with one "t". Probably a good source for the main article too.John Z (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This pdf degree thesis in italian "An italian contemporary history (now posted in the "external links" references) written by Laura Picchi mentions "Carrett" in 30 pages.Absolutely Trustworthy (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did you mean that the word "Carrett" appears in the document 30 times? (It's actually 23 times.) May I ask upon what basis this is considered a reliable source? Ravenswing 10:54, 24 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, —Sean Whitton / 11:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect until and unless significantly more worthwhile content is produced. Commend Storkk for handling of the deletion. —SlamDiego_←T 07:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SlamDiego. Needs something worthwhile to base an actual article on. --Calton | Talk 21:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - notable for only 1 event. PhilKnight (talk) 07:03, 31 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. Synergy 14:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed al-Nami[edit]

Al nami is only notable for his minor role in the Flight 93 hijacking. He isn’t the primary subject of any reference on his page. WP:ONEEVENT says, If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Also, the page for Flight 93 passenger Edward P. Felt was recently deleted even though more is known about Felt’s role in the incident (his phone call was recorded) than is known about Al nami’s role Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward P. Felt (2nd nomination).Steve8675309 (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, unless we're going to delete Lee Harvey Oswald for only being notable for a single event as well. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I made the same point here [45]. What's different in this case is that no reliable source covers al-Nami as an individual. He's always discussed as a member of a group. Nothing is known about his actions during the hijacking. His page is just a long boring discussion of his travel and visas. Nothing there is notable. Steve8675309 (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect I keep waffling on this one (almost was gonna !vote a "very weak keep"). Note that since the guy is dead, many of the WP:BLP concerns go away -- but the points in WP:BLP1E about increased maintenance overhead for the redundant material is still valid. The source seem reliable enough, but the notability of the content they cover is pretty borderline. I don't think it will hurt the project significantly to keep it, but on balance I'm going for the redirect. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is silly. There's tons of well-sourced information about this obviously notable figure. The 9/11 Commission Report does cover Al Nami as an individual, from his origin to his recruitment and training to his activities in the U.S., to his appearance in various videos, to his newsworthy death. There are many, many reliable secondary sources. Like Herostratus and Tank Man, Al Nami is primarily remembered for one event, which is the way he wanted it, and like Herostratus and Tank Man he passes our notability guidelines with flying colors. Does anyone really think it would benefit Wikipedia in any way to delete a thorough, meticulously researched article on one of the 9/11 hijackers? The mind reels. (By the way, WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply at all, since it's a part of WP:BLP and Al Nami is quite resoundingly dead.) – Quadell ^(talk) 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I made most of those points in this deletion debate for a Flight 93 passenger [46]. The page was still deleted. If wikipedia is going to follow its “non-negotiable” neutrality policy then this page should be deleted as well. Steve8675309 (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And perhaps the best way to make the relevant points was with this AfD (WP:IAR trumps WP:POINT), but I hope that we'll see Deletion Review instead of more of these AfDs. —SlamDiego_←T 05:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This individual is plainly someone whom many people will want to research, and there are abundant “reliable sources”. The Felt article should, of course, not have been deleted; its AfD was grossly mishandled. —SlamDiego_←T 08:05, 26 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. Synergy 13:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bradshaw Mountain High School[edit]

Does Not Seem Any Difrent for any other high school CelesJalee (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question I was under the impression that all high schools (or equivalent) were considered inherently notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Seems sufficiently notable. Being different seems an odd criteria for notability.—RJH (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.
Keep. The article now has enough references. --Eastmain (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on added references which might of made a difrence. Mandsford (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on recent revisions which demonstrate notability (in the Wikipedia sense). JBsupreme (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not only as a high school but because sufficient sources are available to easily meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools are to be considered inherently notable. There is no requirement to "be different". Being as it is not different, it should be kept like ALL other high school articles. The article has sufficient references for verifiability of its encyclopedic content. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its more clear with the new sources. CelesJalee (talk) 13:33, 29 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. Synergy 13:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edwards Coaches[edit]

Repost from speedy. Newer version contains notability claim - "one of the largest privately owned coach companies in Wales." Seems a very weak notability claim. Happy to speedy keep if any reliable sources attest to genuine notability of what I'm sure is an excellent, honest, hardworking company that just doesn't seem very notable. Dweller (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~Keep although I can find lots of stuff that verifies they exist I'm not currently finding anything that shows them as notable according to our policies and guidelines (I'm thinking specifically WP:CORP and WP:V). with the recent changes to the article I think notability is established and verified. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There doesn't seem to be much about them online - surprising for a sizeable company that's been run by the same family for 83 years. But the company seems as notable as other Welsh bus/coach operators which have articles.Mhockey (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "making it one of the largest privately owned coach companies in Wales." seems to be more promotional than notable. WP is not free advertising for non-notable companies. User529 (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some newspaper articles as references, and I think notability is now demonstrated. --Eastmain (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per recent changes. I don't think industry awards automatically make a firm notable to those outside of the industry, but given that their other competitors have articles (as well as every pokemon & fetish under the sun) i guess the bar is pretty low. Plus they apparently also transport local school children, so i guess that is worth something to the average joe. User529 (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:RS, as per Eastmain's input (great job, again!). Ecoleetage (talk) 12:51, 26 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 is that the article is notable, but please expand and reference the article. Davewild (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esteban Abada Elementary School[edit]

Non-notable elementary school. ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article only lacked sources, but the subject is a "Model of Excellence" public school according to the Philippines' Department of Education here. It is also the first MOE school to be funded by a private company here and one of the few public schools in the Philippines to have access on electronic media here. Starczamora (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article, given precedents with other Philippine school articles (such as Amaya School of Home Industries and Amparo High School) and even with school-related AFDs in general, is already inherently notable from my point of view. Philippine school articles, whether elementary or secondary, are listed for AFD usually because they are not notable outside the Philippines (or that schools in general are not always notable), but given that the basis for AFD would most likely be the content of the article (the locale and who the school is named after) and/or the lack of sources, I'd say that this article only needs a good bit of expansion. In addition to consensus over these types of articles, the school, as cited by Starczamora, has independent sources which back up its notability. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Those nominators only use the non-notability tag because subjects like these are not "Anglo-oriented", which violates WP:BIAS. Starczamora (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We keep saying "usually because they are not notable outside the Philippines". Is this school even notable inside the Philippines? Or is it even notable within Metro Manila? --Howard the Duck 14:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently you didn't read the previous comments, Howard. It is a DepEd-recognized model of excellence school and the first MoE school to be partially privately-funded (the position on electronic media access is questionable given the fast pace of adding computer labs in public schools). It has sufficient outside references that allow it to merit its own article. Then again, this is my POV. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after notability established by User:Starczamora. The sources must be added to the page, though. TerriersFan (talk) 20:00, 30 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 withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Jclemens (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing

~~tagged with reference concerns for over 1 year, this article fails makes many claims but does not back them up with 3rd party references. Can this article meet WP:N?~~ Rtphokie (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator's assertion of improvement tagging is invalid: the article was untagged from January 2008 until about an hour ago. As for the unsourced claims, a better solution is to research them and find sources (which one hour is insufficient to do). If an exhaustive search proves fruitless, I'll reconsider, but as of right now, deletion is premature. —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN article - which was already linked within the text - notes that the podcast has been ranked as high as #2 by iTunes Music Store. —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. After a cursory search, it's a winner at the Podcast Awards (2007, Best Education Podcast). This is criteria #2 of WP:WEB: the award is significant and independent. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A notice of this deletion discussion was made on Talk:Mignon Fogarty. —C.Fred (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep -- This deletion is part of a veritable blizzard of prods and AfD noms regarding podcasts and other broadcasting topics. This podcast is award-winning. Citation to third-party sources is not required by WP:N. Individual consideration has not been given to each deletion proposed or nominated by this nominator. By my count, there were 93 deletion proposals or nominations (out of 122 edits) made in the span of 138 minutes, many of which had inaccurate edit summaries. That's one edit every 68 seconds & one deletion every 89 seconds. --SSBohio 18:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn article has been sufficiently referenced to meet WP:N, thanks to those who improved it. It's a shame this article sat for a year+ before any references were added.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:33, 25 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 withdrawn. Rodhull andemu 18:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honorific titles in popular music[edit]

AfDs for this article:

POV beyond belief. What is this "Quick facts:" thing? Honorifics are by definition non-neutral. What about honorifics that have been debated or applied to different people. This is trivia. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Irrespective of the article's merits, starting a new AFD discussion only 9 days after the last one closed seems a bit pointless. Article has been actively edited since decision to keep last time - why not give it time to settle down before reopening the deletion discussion? Having said that, I'm not really convinced that bringing all this information together is worthwhile as it seems more appropriate to mention these honorifics in the individual artists' articles.--Michig (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Michig is 100% right on the haste with which this second AfD has been proposed. Just because the "in construction" template was taken down doesn't mean a new AfD should be filed immediately. A lot of good faith work has been done. Let's respect that and give it time. It does no harm, for now. Giving it six months to get into shape before nominating it again seems a decent interval to me. David in DC (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A pointless nomination by Tenacious D after the first debate was closed not to long ago. The article has had a good faith effort by so many to maintain itself everyday. THERE IS NO POV ON THE PAGE, everything is SOURCED AND REFERERENCED and if the alleged "point of view" is the basis for the nomination, THEN THAT IS A SERIOUS lack of putting an investigation into the references and sources that are clearly there and redirect to what any sentence is talking about. It's a pointless agrument

that tried and failed. That POV/Trivia stuff just never holds in the Court of Wikipedia lol its not true. Its still new but looks good. If theres any problem its probably small and can be fixed but nominating it deletion is ridiclous Kelvin Martinez (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced and of interest to many people, and does no harm to anyone. I have a feeling that the problem is that the article is a bit "low brow" for some people's taste.Steve Dufour (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the extent of effort and energy put into this by the contributor(s), the most favorable outcome would be for the article to remain and for those interested to request involvement of a few more experienced WP editors. The content reflects a lot of effort, but it could be improved a little for style and Encyclopedic tone.

Also, I would strongly encourage those who have not yet done so to review:

Sobriquet article in main;
Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron;

On balance, it is better to keep than delete if there is evidence of significant good-faith effort to both improve content and the value of contributions in general, which seems to be the case here. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article isn't bad at all, although the writing could use a little toning down in places and the "Quick Facts" sections may be superfluous. The nom is on a deletion rampage through the music articles, and most of the nom's complaints are really off-base on this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my "deletion rampage" has anything to do with anything. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears a reasonable article, and certainly useful. I wish someone could think of a more obvious title. DGG (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I mentioned in the previous AfD, the subject of the article is actually not addressed at all. This article is merely a list of musicians who have been given a title at one point or another. There's no information about "honorific titles in popular music" at all. There's little to no citations for titles applied to the artists themselves. There's not prood that "honorific titles in popular music" is a notable topic in of itself. All there is a constantly-expanding series of statistics that belong in the individual artist pages. Additionally, these facts are being used to validate the supposed "honorific status", which is original research. I ask that those who have voted "Keep" take a closer look at this article, because under close scrutiny it falls apart. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have just flagged the article for rescue as I believe it needs the considered opinion of non-involved editors/administrators. As I have mentioned before, even though the subject matter is of no interest to me whatsoever, I consider the article to have been created in good faith and it evidently concerns notable subjects - trivial, popular or non-highbrow - but notable none the less. The fact that so much time has gone into making it well-referenced and as wikified as possible - as opposed to so much energy wasted in trying to pick it to pieces and nominating it for deletion justifies it being given a fair "hearing". Have copyed & pasted this from the article talk page. --Technopat (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt the article was created in good faith, but it's assembling facts in a very unencyclopedic manner. All those "quick facts" have to go for one, because they have no bearing on the topic and belong in the individual artists' articles, where those facts would be in the proper encyclopedic context. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I voted "weak keep" in the previous AfD which just closed, but the article has improved since then. Perhaps, to acknowledge WesleyDodds' points, a slight name change is in order. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AND I WAS THE PERSON WHO NOMINATED IT THE FIRST TIME - I'm sorry, even though I absolutely think this article is pointless, a consensus was reached to keep the article less than two weeks ago. More time should have passed before a second nomination to give the editor more time to improve it (if actually possible). — Realist² (Speak) 19:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was no consensus reached in the last AfD. No consensus does not equal consensus of keep. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 21:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As per Wikipedia:Deletion process: No consensus - default to keep --Technopat (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the points raised by Technopat and Realist. There is plenty of room for improvement, but nominating this article after it cleared AfD so recently is in extremely poor taste. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it didn't clear AfD; there was simply no consensus. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an interesting, well-referenced article on a narrowly defined topic of interest to our readers. As Wesley notes, the article's title is misleading as it is not devoted to analysis of the use of honorifics in pop, the focus should be shifted away from "list of highly successful genre artists and why they are so great" to the titles themselves, and I'd prefer to see the "quick facts" done away with, but these are surmountable WP:PROBLEMS that do not bear any relevance to the potential of the article. Skomorokh 00:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is notable. Perhaps it may just need cleanup and/or wikification.Kitty53 (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - Per overwhelming consensus. I would like to see how this article turns out, and perhaps I was a bit to speedy in renominating this. I don't appreciate Wasted Time R's comments in describing my AfD efforts as a rampage. Have a go at the nomination, not the nominator. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, during certain stretches you've been putting music articles up for AfD so rapidly that I don't think you're fully studying the article, the article's subject, what its potential is for being a decent article, what the article history is, etc. This is an example where I don't think you did due diligence. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is withdrawn, would an admin please close? Thanks. Best, David in DC (talk) 18:43, 28 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. No rationale for deletion and no consensus to delete. Possible disruptive AfD nomination since it was pointed out that the nominator was the substantial contributer to the article. In terms of notability, the subject is highly notable and there really is no consensus to delete. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Leonwood Bean[edit]

Fails WP:N. CindyAbout/T/P/C/ 05:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy ~~Strong~~Keep hard to see how the founder of LL Bean is not notable (maybe nominate Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone next). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I see a ton of sources, and I fail to see how the founder of a company as notable as LL Bean is non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep of course, by reason of the fact that no reasoning is necessary to have an article on the founder of L.L.Bean. Frank | talk 18:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in making some grammatical improvements to the article I was surprised to find that the nominator was also the principle editor of this article. I am not sure why that editor now reckons that the subject is now non-notable. Suspected disruptive AfD. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:35, 25 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. (And no, prod doesn't count for G4.) — Scientizzle 16:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telejano[edit]

This article has a rather strange history. It was first prodded back on April 25th 2008 with concerns around a lack of sources to demonstrate notability, and deleted on May 1st. The article was recently recreated, still with no third-party sources, only it has a ((primarysources)) tag dating from March 2008 added to it. I've searched for good quality sources from third-party publications, but have been unable to find any. Additionally, the author of the article, Tei (talk · contribs) is also mentioned as the developer of the software in the body of the article, creating a conflict of interest. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 13:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete ignoring the COI as it isn't a valid reason for deletion the article still seems to fail the notability/verifiability criteria because of the lact of sourcing. Although there are 11,900Ghits on the word and most seem to be about this engine the sources appear to be blogs and such. There are no GNews hits at all (even searching on all dates). Someone else might be able to find better sources that I missed hence the "Weak". Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- if an article was recreated after deletion by discussion, it should be CSDed per G4. But we need to confirm that this article is substantially identical to the deleted version. Nom: do you have a copy of the deleted version?-Samuel Tan 09:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, a PROD isn't a deletion discussion. I think only those things that have gone through AfD (or its forebears) counts for G4. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh yeah... forgot that prod is a quick slide down the garage chute with your mouth duct taped. -Samuel Tan 04:05, 23 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, —Sean Whitton / 11:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apparently no reliable sources exist. What we have is by far not enough. Huon (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage from reliable sources on Google (web, books, and scholar) can be found for this game modfication. It is simply not notable at all. Jappalang (talk) 09:31, 29 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 nancy ^talk 13:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Million Minute Family Challenge[edit]

A non-notable challenge / website and non-notable event. Both thinly veiled spam for Patch Products. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:03, 18 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, —Sean Whitton / 11:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Patch Products. It's one of those feel-good programs like "Make Tuesday night game night" or "Have a home-cooked meal once a week", or even "Reach out and touch someone". Public service ads are great, especially if there's a potential to increase sales.Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete Delete Wikipedia is not free advertising. User529 (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability hasn't been established, so it's still just advertising. --Several Times (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the author. Both observances promote families spending time together and do not promote one specific game company. Wikipedia has pages for other special week/day observances; National Games Week, Star Wars Day and National Corndog Day are a few. Barbuebelacker (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because other special events have pages does not mean that these particular events are any more notable. Besides, National Corndog Day actually has quite a few good references. --Several Times (talk) 16:40, 30 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 but an editorial merge by an editor who understands the sources on this topic would likely be very helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Björk b-sides[edit]

Non-notable B-sides. All information is forked from respective singles. Fancruft. Please see the AfDs for Garbage B-sides| and List of Coldplay's b-sides. Any useful information about songs which have not been released on Björk singles or albums can be merged into Björk discography. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge if you have to. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Björk discography --T-rex 00:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or complete merge as this is not an unreasonable level of detail for as highly notable an artist as Björk (the discography article is not approaching size limits).Skomorokh 13:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-side lists in discographies are discouraged. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Skomorokh 14:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style, and no featured discographies have B-sides. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, but a proposed guideline written by one editor carries absolutely no weight, and omission does not imply proscription. You will have to do a little better than that to convince me, I'm afraid. Regards, Skomorokh 15:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, it is a proposed guideline, but there is significant consensus behind it. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, it shouldn't be long before it becomes an established guideline and discographies and songographies (for want of a better term) are decisively separated, but it would be premature to act before then, as there is no deadline. It seems like AfD's like this could benefit from being postponed while concrete guidelines are hashed out. Until then, there is no compelling arguments to delete such lists as this. Regards, Skomorokh 15:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Unlike the remixes, this really is useful. Although still better in discography article. The singles table there has easily enough space for a b-side column. A list helping readers to track down these songs is a good addition to wikipedia.Yobmod (talk) 09:47, 25 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, —Sean Whitton / 11:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is this re-listed? All 4 comments say merge. Sounds like consensus to me. Certainly is not going to get to consensus delete with an un-biased closer.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 08:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eklektikos with John Aielli[edit]

Is this local music show notable? Theres mention of a local award but does that establish it's notability? Rtphokie (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Actually, the awards appear to be for the host and not the program. It's not a very convincing case for notability right now. —C.Fred (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local awards for the host prove nothing at all about the show.DGG (talk) 03:44, 20 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, —Sean Whitton / 10:47, 25 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 nominator withdrawal.[47] Article has been cleaned-up to verify notability. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Starstreams[edit]

~~article fails to assert why this radio show is notable. Lacks 3rd party verifiable references.~~ Rtphokie (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - as far as I know, an article failing to assert why it is notable is not a reason for deletion, unless the article is a biography of a living person. However I still recommend delete because I can't find reliable secondary sources that cover the subject substantially.-Samuel Tan 07:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 'cos of Paul Erik's new sources. -Samuel Tan 01:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the requirement for notability does not apply only to biographies. All articles must be notable and the article needs to make it clear why the subject is notable.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:42, 25 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, —Sean Whitton / 10:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Rtphokie, while the requirement for notability applies to all articles, it's lack of notability that qualifies an article for deletion, not failure to establish notability. An article about a notable subject shouldn't be deleted even if the article does a poor job of conveying that notability (except for articles on certain topics which are eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7, but I don't think radio shows fall into that category). Olaf Davis | Talk 15:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The article needs to make it clear why the subject is notable and include 3rd party references backing that up. This article does neither.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - True. But it's only a reason for deletion if a subsequent attempt to find references fails. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no clear indication of notability. Eusebeus (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally dozens of newspaper articles, mostly from the 1980s, that have non-trivial mentions of this radio show. Just now I've added a sampling of eight of them. There's easily enough for WP:N requirements. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Is this nomination some sort of joke? Starstreams is one of the longest-running and most highly regarded ambient music radio shows on the planet. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn article has been improved to the point that it satisfies WP:N, thanks to the editors who added references (there were none before), and located information about syndication (which certainly makes it notable). Please continue improving this article. Are there any awards it's won, that would also help cement it's notability.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:08, 27 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mariah Carey b-sides, bonus tracks, and unreleased songs[edit]

Non-notable B-sides. All information is forked from respective singles. Fancruft. Please see the AfDs for Garbage B-sides and List of Coldplay's b-sides. Any useful information about songs which have not been released on Mariah Carey singles or albums can be merged into Mariah Carey discography. Also fails WP:V and WP:RS. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per lack of notability and accumulating precedence. Drewcifer (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mariah Carey discography - we don't need a list on non-notable songs --T-rex 00:16, 19 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, —Sean Whitton / 10:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Useful information, but just as good included in the discogrpahy article. otherwise KeepYobmod (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. fancruft, would have place on a M. Carey-specific wiki. User529 (talk) 22:43, 25 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Farrell[edit]

Non-notable, has not played in a first grade match, is only in Under 16 academy side. No more notable then any other school age rugby union player. Only reason his article exists is because his father has played professional rugby union and rugby league (Andy Farrell) Shudde ^talk 10:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has not yet played in the Guinness Premiership, but has played other matches.Londo 06 10:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability criteria at WP:ATHLETE. —97198 talk 15:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ATHLETE nancy ^talk 13:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE, fails WP:BIO (no significant coverage). He *is* part of a squad playing in a fully professional league. The next season will not start till September though, if I'm not mistaken, so unless it can be shown that he will almost certainly compete, I'll stick with WP:NOTCRYSTAL. --Amalthea^Talk 10:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Guinness Premiership not the only rugby competition out there, and he has played in other games besides that competition. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you add a source for that that, to fulfill WP:ATHLETE? --Amalthea^Talk 10:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Amalthea^Talk 10:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Amalthea^Talk 10:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), Consensus seems clear below. Protonk (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Ravens[edit]

Fictional organisation whose only notability is through basic plot elements of Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War. The Chapter itself is covered in sufficient detail in the parent article. This article fails to establish any notability through independent third-party sources; primary sources can be used to verify information but not to establish notability. Nomination was accidentally missed when nominating a slew of identically-sourced sister articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War for the nom's reasons. I don't care a whit about the article history. By the by, it's different from the mass AFD before; this group only appears in the licensed video game, and not the board game (other than a handful of tie-in promotional articles in the publisher's magazine. This makes it an ideal and easy redirect candidate, whereas the others were not.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. A non-notable chapter with no real-world references. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I'll admit the game largely influenced their development, but shouldn't we just add a small bit about the Blood Ravens at the end of Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War such as just saying founding or something? Nemesis646 (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some cacpacity as titular (i.e. notable as not all fictional organizations are titular) subject, i.e. legitimate search term. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect If some content from this article is judged important for inclusion in the article on the video game, then we can merge it. If not, we can delete it and then remake as a redirect. Again, White Dwarf is published by GW and is therefore not independent. Neither are the fictional works. these are brigade level unit of a subfaction in a game. I didn't know that we could get something less notable than the brigade level fictional units of a subfaction in 40K, but these are it. As AMiB points out, they are only in the video games, not the miniature games. Either way, no independent sources establish notability per WP:GNG. Protonk (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - although lacking in real world sources, its a decent redirect title for the game. Redirect it to Dawn of War#Factions. Any coverage of the subject should be developed there rather than in a separate article. -- Sabre (talk) 17:46, 25 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. It's basically a new article now. Non-admin closure. --Amalthea (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhry Akbar Ebrahim[edit]

Based on this search and the list of departments in Azad Kashmir where there is no ministry of "Forest, Wildlife & Environment", and since the article was created by SaqibChaudhry (talk · contribs) who has created a number of non notable articles and at least one case of *extreme* WP:CRYSTAL or WP:HOAX (Articles for deletion/Click2Mail), I believe this too is a hoax and should be deleted. Amalthea (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Amalthea (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now referenced. --Soman (talk) 20:56, 26 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) 22:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esoteric forms of persuasion[edit]

Not specifically sourced, no reasonable assertion of notability. Google scholar came up with nothing. Beeblbrox (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is an essay, and does not satisfy WP:NOR. Reyk _YO! 08:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a plug for a not notable book. See [48] --Pmedema (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a candidate for WP:DAFT? Totnesmartin (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR, and not particularly thorough OR at that, as the section on subliminal communication does not really reflect the current scientific consensus (see Subliminal advertising). The only thing that is troublesome is that it does have extensive sourcing, but my spidey sense says the sources are just the bibliography for the book dug up by Pmedema, being WP:SYNTHesized into a different message. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment The article looks completely different now than when I nominated it, but upon seeing the changes, I had the exact same thought. The abundance of sources looks impressive, but they don't seem to be sources that are about the particular concept of "Esoteric forms of persuasion", but more about examples of what it might entail, making it now a synthesis violation, and original research on top of the concerns I expressed in the nomination. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is a violation of the no original research policy and synth guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
- What makes you think it is a plug? It references the book a number of times, but alongside many other books and sites.
- Doesn't look like original research to me. As far as we can tell, it's not HIS book and he doesn't draw any conclusions not drawn in his citations (thus not qualifying for WP:SYNTH)...

Ultimately, this article is poorly written: It is too much like an essay than an encyclopedic entry and the references section is badly constructed. But the user is brand new to Wikipedia, probably doesn't know any better. The article needs a lot of work, but thats not a reason to delete it. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 09:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if those sources do not use the term "Esoteric forms of persuasion" it is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR... If I thought it was just a clean up issue, I would just clean it up. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point; but they are forms of persuasion and - they are documented. I think the word 'esoteric' was the writers description of the forms of persuasion he (or she) was going to write an article about. 'Esoteric' is a bit non-standard, perhaps it could be changed to 'alternative' or 'unusual' or something you might think more wikipedic. But I stand by my stance that the article is not synthesized or original research and should be kept. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 03:50, 28 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurashiki NET Program[edit]

This was originally deleted as an attack page it has subsequently been recreated in a more neutral fashion but the topic is entirely non-notable being a teaching program participated in by a grand total of 30 people & a search for reliable secondary sources has turned up nothing but blogs. The topic of foreign teachers in Japan is already more than adequately covered by JET Programme and there is a paragraph in Kurashiki, Okayama about the specific implementation within that city. There may be a case for the article name to remain but as a protected redirect to JET Programme. nancy ^talk 08:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, and a case could almost be made for A7 as I don't really even see an assertion of notability here. No independent coverage, small participation, etc. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This does seem to be a government sponsored program, separate from JET for that I think it seems legitimate and should be kept. It does need more reliable sources. 211.19.51.123 (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC) — 211.19.51.123 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment As a total newbie I will refrain from voting. I joined WP after seeing this AfD, hoping to provide info useful to the other editors: Kurashiki NET Program and the JET Programme are not affiliated or related, so I think a redirect would be inappropriate. The article describes the KNETP as a municipally run program. The homepage for the KNETP [49] also provides a link to an online application process. Compare this to the JET Programme [50], which is run by the national organization CLAIR and whose website instructs applicants to obtain applications through Japanese embassies/consulates (application not available online). I hope this helped, and I welcome instruction if I've said anything untoward.Silverneko (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this page should be deleted. Although it is true that it is Kurashiki NET Program is indeed a program of the City of Kurashiki, it is certainly not note worthy enough to have it's only Wikipedia page. There is nothing written about this program on the Japanese Wikipedia page of Kurashiki which means that the Japanese do not consider it note worthy. The NET Program is also listed as a major city initiative on the main Kurashiki English Wikipedia (this section should also be deleted) page but again there is nothing mentioned about this on Kurashiki's Japanese Wikipedia page. This page and the section on the main Kurashiki page will just end up being turned into another battleground between those that dislike the program's manager and Wikipedia moderators. Nancy has first hand knowledge of this since she was one of the moderators having to delete all of the inappropriate content added to that page. Personally, I think this page was just created for that very purpose.I have seen links given to it on more negative pages which only means that it is a matter of time before another edit war starts. I also think that this page might being used as a way to make the program seem legitimate for recruiting purposes to counter the already existing negative sites about the program. The Kurashiki NET Program has nothing to do with the JET Programme and is no were near the same scale or same degree of importance. This is just some local program (of currently only 30 odd teachers) which is only relevent to the Kurashiki Board of Education. The JET Programme is a major national intiative that involves thousands of teachers each year who are sent all over Japan. Can't compare the two. Cityhallnemesis (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, weak consensus that an article on this topic should exist but it needs improvement and more sourcing. Davewild (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood fetish[edit]

Fails WP:N. Google search for Bloodfetish shows 24,200 ghits [51], scholar shows 7 ghits [52], but no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Hematolagnia returns no ghit in scholar [53], haematophilia shows only 7 ghits in scholar [54], Vampire, Fetish returns only 3 ghits in scholar [55]. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources Fails notability guideline. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Overliteral search. Blood as a sexual fetish is a rather common phenomenon, as the linked articles show. The title terminology is parallel to the other similar articles in Wikipedia and is justified. I suppose it would be helpful is a few sources were added, but they need not use the same wording. A good start would be the 7 GS hits found. Seven academic articles discussing the subject is enough. They do not have to be mainly on the subject, just have significant coverage. DGG (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Ghits and Google scholar hits which I looked at show it as part of Vampirism, so this article could be replaced by a redirect. It has been noted in several AFDs, which deleted someone's particular fetish, that people can become sexually obsessed about literally anything, but the obsession of a few does not make their sexual interest notable enough for an encyclopedia article. If there are reliable sources with significant coverage, please cite them explicitly, rather than relying on links to websearches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talk • contribs) 12:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (redirect by no-name is ok too) This one is a lot of bloody original research and no sources, though I like that the author threw in a book called Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection to give this an air of sophistication. Technically, anything can be a sexual fetish. I had a friend who got sexually aroused whenever he rode a roller coaster, and he couldn't wait to get off. Anyway, we have to look at what's notable, and nominator has made the point that it's one of the lesser thrills. Links to other Wikipedia articles mean nothing when it comes to this particular page. Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a friend who got sexually aroused whenever he rode a roller coaster, and he couldn't wait to get off. Did you intend that to be a double entendre? Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. You win tickets to Madonna: The Ride and the Corkscrew at Six Flags Over Gomorrah. Mandsford (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of many overspecific fetish articles on the WP. While I don't doubt there is a cluster of fetishes centering around bloodplay, vampires, and the like, it should really be handled by a line or two in the sexual fetishism article ( which itself used to have paragraphs about the different types of fetishes, and would have been a great candidate for a many-to-one merge, but it's become a mass of psychoanalytic prose and concentrates only on the disease view of fetishism ). As far as the Egypt book, that's about what fetishism means in anthropology, not about sexual fetishism. Anyway i recommend a delete not a merge because delete will mean one less entry in an overly long list. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am generally for deleting articles like this when they're something ridiculously niche like balloon fetishism or suffocating a bird in a box fetishism, but bloodplay is a fairly standard paraphilia. While I don't know anything about the topic, I do know it is a common concern among practicioners of BDSM whether they accept bloodplay or not. The article as it stands is a bit ridiculous (as Mandsford points out) but that can be fixed. JuJube (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per user DGG. As Otolemur crassicaudatus admits, 29000 hits on google. 58 on Google print, 16 on google news. All of his other links are Google scholar, which his mention actually boosts the reason we should keep. Inclusionist (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not a rare fetish at all, and a sensible article on this subject should exist. Currently it's not this one, but I'm reasonably confident it could become it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems like standard practice to have articles about specific paraphilias on Wikipedia, just see List of paraphilias. This paraphilia is particularly notable. See [56] for a quick scholarly source. Themfromspace (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a real and notable thing, but the article definitely needs help. Almost a CSD as fundamentally non-encyclopedic. Frank | talk 15:47, 29 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, though time will likely tell. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Péter Gulácsi[edit]

Contested prod, reason: "Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully professional league and consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability." Purely procedural nomination (I don't like to touch soccer AFDs with a 10-foot pole, but I'm doing a favor). UsaSatsui (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to nit-pick, but the nom here doesn't support a delete. :) --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, well delete per prod rationale :) пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep On the Liverpool FC squad is notable enough even if he is on loan and isn't full team yet. Expand and reference. Unfortunately there are thousands of similar stubs on baby footballers. Yes they play football for so and so team but if you delete one then they should all go ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ATHLETE is quite clear, a player has to have played in a fully competitive league, this player hasn't therefore his article should go, as should others on youth team players with no pro experience (I dispute utterly, however, that there are anywhere near "thousands" of such articles on WP) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ChrisTheDude; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional competition or league. Recreate if and when he does. --Jimbo^[online] 17:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. He has been selected for the Hungary national football team although he did not play. Although he fails WP:ATHLETE, I think that selection means he is notable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As he was called up as the back-up keeper in the national team match against Croatia then he is notable. Nfitz (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep called up to his national side.Londo 06 20:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is notable notwithstanding WP:ATHLETE due to news coverage. Further, the national team call-up as stated above. --Friejose (talk) 21:29, 31 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 delete as an WP:IAR extension of A7 by KFP. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walking by your grave[edit]

A non-confirmed non-released album that may appear next year by a non-notable group. Would speedy, but this has been recreated several times and speedied before under G11 and A7 (which shouldn't really apply). Best to get some community input. Recommend Delete. Pedro : Chat 07:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even close to meeting WP:Notability (music). WP:Autobiography recreated repeatedly by sockpuppet XrockerrogersX/XockerrogersX/Rockerrogers/Sweetrevenge hardcore. "Walking by your grave" is a self-admitted home made "album", not picked up by any publisher at all, made by Sweet Revenge (hardcore band) that has been speedied ~~repeatedly~~. --Closeapple (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I misread the logs: Sweet Revenge (hardcore band) has only been speedied once; however, Walking by your grave (the subject of this AfD) has been speedied twice, and Across the sky (another "album" attributed to the same band) has showed up on a user warning before but has no apparent logs. --Closeapple (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable band and unreleased album - not a good combination. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - Fails .... well all the aforementioned... Recommend salting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs)
Delete home-recorded albums by non-notable artists? Gimme a break. If this survives, I'm putting all mine up. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN album by NN artist. COI violation (created by a user with the same name as the artist). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creation of a sockpuppet. Non-notable album by red linked artist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:25, 25 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) 18:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Singles Chart[edit]

Suposedly a world-wide singles chart. Utterly non-notable or hoax - the only Google hit is Wikipedia itself. There is no explanation about who produces this chart, where and how it is produced, where it is published etc - in fact, nothing which would make the article encylopedic at all. Author removed the speedy tag but has added a bit more to it since so I am bringing it here - however with so little context I believe this is still a candidate (csd-a1). Speedy Delete. Ros0709 (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete all - no sources provided which prove that these charts exist. Likely a hoax. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Interesting hoax by User:Tokiohotelclub. According to Tokio, the number one hit worldwide of 2000 would be Britney Spears' Born to Make You Happy, which wasn't released as a single in either the U.S. or Australia. Check of the contributions shows that he/she hasn't contaminated other articles with this nonsense. Mandsford (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 all as hoaxes. No proof that this chart even exists. So tagged. (Thankfully, the author hasn't contaminated song pages with this bogus chart, unlike some other hoax charts I've seen. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:32, 25 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 16:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Limerick Law Society[edit]

Non-notable student club, 17 Google hits, deprodded. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. It's too bad, as someone obviously spent a lot of time on this article. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 06:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of it is about the Law School, not the club. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And it's copyvio from here [57]. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Phlegm Rooster. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Masonpatriot (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Masonpatriot (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rooster. User529 (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:30, 26 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 is that the article does meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ara Dinkjian[edit]

Unnotable musician that fails WP:BIO. Failed PROD with PROD removed by article creator with no reason given. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are links such as imdb.com and an official website,which prove the authenticity of the bio.Also sites which have information on the albums of the artist.

The article will be expanded,this is being rushed to deletion by the user Collectonian.

The article uses other artists names which the artist is linked to,thus showing the links between the facts about the article.The artists album pages on Wikipedia credit him as the composer,there is also an article about his band and those are not up for AFD.

I removed PROD,because it said remove when the article is expanded,i did not see that an explanation is needed to remove the PROD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayaser (talk • contribs) 14:15, July 17, 2008

No one said the bio wasn't "authentic" but that doesn't make the artist notable on his own. The band article I haven't looked at, but often times a band may be notable as a whole where the artist individually is not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The artist has many compositions which i have mentioned in his article that are notable,which makes the whole entry notable.

The song "Dinata" which was played at the closing ceremonies of the 2004 summer Olympics is his composition.He has worked with artists such as Arto Tunçboyacıyan and elefteri.He has been to tons of music festivals,which you can find videos of on YouTube and reviews on the web

Comment Heres a few links of him, A bio from a music festival site
He is listed in the top oud players of Armenian descent on answers.com
Ara Dinkjian's page on Amazon Click read more once you're on the page, here is a quote from Amazon "Dinkjian is ranked among the premiere oud players in the world." hows that for notable
Here is his bio on last.fm
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayaser (talk • contribs) 21:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

he is mentioned in the bio of Arto Tunçboyacıyan
Here his bio is on a music record website
Here is an article about him on a jazz site
Heres a quote from the article

"The concluding concert, “An Armenian in America,” featured American-Armenian oud and cumbus player Ara Dinkijian, who led the Night Ark band with master percussionist Arto Tunçboyaciyan, who is of Armenian-descent. Night Ark is still very popular in Israel, to the extent that some of Dinkijian's compostions have been arranged as local TV series theme and pop songs. Dinkijian's songs indeed have very simple and catchy motifs, but during his Night Ark period he used very skilled players such as Tunçboyaciyan, pianist Armen Donelian, and bass player Marc Johnson, who added the necessary volume and depth to Dinkijian's themes through their joyous improvisation. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayaser (talk • contribs) 20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how many of those are actually reliable sources that can speak to notability? (hint, neither IMDB nor Amazon establish any notability at all). Directory listings are just that, and again do not confer any notability on its listing subjects, nor do his company bio's and other stuff from those who are in the business of promoting him. See WP:BIO.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Notability:

1. The state or quality of being eminent or worthy of notice.

2. A prominent or notable person.

How is it that what Amazon says about the artist not a "worthy of notice" to you, Amazon a trusted and reliable source,gives the artist a very high status."ranked among the premiere oud players in the world" is that something you can disregard,then i suppose any text which i may find can have the same response from you.Almost every site mentions the same thing about him,it's all consistent.

How about being specific about the kind of "source" you are looking for?

I am comparing Arto Tunçboyaciyans article and i see all kinds of similarities.I suppose that article could be debated as well?

I search Arto Tunçboyaciyan name and i find the same sites which talk about Ara,i am comparing the two because they are both in the same band and have made albums together,which the creator of the band Arto plays in is Ara.

I also would like opinions from other users before a final decision is made on the deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayaser (talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not use your definition of notability, but your own. Again, see WP:BIO which is the notability guideline for people. See WP:RS for what qualifies as a reliable source (as well as, again WP:BIO, which also discusses specific types of sources for showing notability or people). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band Night Ark, article fails to establish individual notability as per WP:MUSIC.

Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia uses the words worthy of notice,i still don't see how you can not use the links i offered as a reliable source,you are being very short with explanations.You are making it seem as if you are targeting this article to improve your editing rank,i will make sure to complain about your method if this is the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayaser (talk • contribs) 20:58, July 17, 2008
Delete Article lacks significant independent reliable sources. Claim to fame regarding Olympics is not backed up by article on song in question. Subject appears to not be notable. I remind all contributors to the discussion to sign their comments. RayAYang (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The artists band is notable and he is the creator of the band,all the bios on the web have a quote like so "Ara Dinkjian is best known as the founder of the highly influential and groundbreaking instrumental group, NIGHT ARK" thus makes him notable for the creation of the band.Also for the Olympic song which is Dynata,you can see his name being credited on the wikipedia page of the song as the composer Dynata Dynata,You can also see Ara Dinkjian being credited on the Greek singers official website(Eleftheria Arvanitaki) for the olympic song Dynata Click here for the site Here is the video of the performance at the olympics Video of Dinata Dinata at 2004 Olympics And here is an article talking about the song being played at the Olympics while it credits the songs composition to Ara Dinkjian Click for article,search 2004 olympics in the pdf article for the specific line. Hayaser(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:N. IMDB link mentions that he was a musician in only 1 single film. Hardly notable. Artene50 (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB does not mention a musicians albums and everything he has done,only movies.That was just an extra link to show the authenticity of the article not notability.You have ignored my above post which proves notability,about the hit song and about the band,which the user RayAYang asked for an Article and i provided it Hayaser(talk)

Keep - Two articles in the Jerusalem post about the Jerusalem International Oud Festival in different years [58], [59] call him out for attention. The Boston Globe has an article behind a pay wall. There are lots of other news search results for him indicating that notice of him has been made by maintream press attesting to his notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thank you Whpq,someone who finally realizes what Ive been pointing out all this time.I even added this article,it also talks about a festival and credits the artist for the Olympic song Click for article heres another article talking about the connection with the singer at the olympics Ara Dinkjian Is One of Featured Musicians in Eleftheria Arvanitaki's New CD and another article where he is mentioned in the Los angeles Times Jazz Review; Sophisticated Sounds With Romanian Twist

When you search in newspaperarchives.com you find this There are 7 results on that site but it's with pay To see more news archives visit here Hayaser(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article needs more references. Plus why does this musician have such a large article when the band has such a small article? More people would view the bands article since the band played the song and the musician is just a member of the band. – Jerry^teps 06:47, 25 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, KrakatoaKatie 05:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article lacks a few really good sources, he's obviously (to me) sufficiently notable to have an article here.--Michig (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if article's claims are indeed true, then this artist is definitely notable, being the founder of a notable band, having media references, and writing songs for several notable artists. The article is badly written and sourced, but this is not a reason to delete. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not your usual self promoting DJ article born 1992 that we regularly see speedied. I believe there is enough evidence and source to suggest he is a notable musician even if he isn't world reknowned ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Answer to Jerry,the artist has done other things outside the band,solo.Creating and being part of the band is one part of his musical career.He composes songs for many musicians thus he collaborates in many different albums and attends shows under his name,and he releases albums under the bands name.

Comment I've been giving links from the beginning pointing out the artists notability,there are many articles about the artist in mainstream press,there are articles which talk about the artists career and his collaboration with well known musicians.He is a world-renowned Oudist and is considered one of the best Oud players10th paragraph another reference to being world renowned 5th paragraph,and one more on an event page4th paragraph Hayaser (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, only one !vote per editor. Subsequent discussion can be prefixed with "Comment". -- Whpq (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I don't think he's actually !voted yet.......... Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure i have,it's above the line, Whpq and i were the only ones to vote to keep the article before it got re listed for deletion.Hayaser (talk) 02:22, 27 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 is that with the sources found the article establishes notability. Davewild (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Titmus[edit]

Non-notable former regional television presenter turned real-estate agent. Mattinbgn\^talk 05:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't look like he did anything other than be a good news anchor for a few years. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 05:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The article as it stands is unreferenced, so it doesn't deserve to stay.--Lester 08:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep, looking at the references that have recently been added, I change my vote from delete to keep. However, the article content needs to be reworked to reflect both positive and negative elements of Titmus' career. As it stands, it's a glowing CV, but that can be fixed.--Lester 20:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails to establish sufficient notability for an article in WP. All but one of the claims is unsupported by any citation of a suitable source. This looks like original research. Dolphin51 (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people:
- There's already two sources independent of the subject, and doubtless more can be found.
- The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.- presenting the weekday news on a state-wide TV stqation for five years obviously qualifies him for that.
- Per WP:ENTERTAINER, which covers TV personalities, Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions., he was on TV five times a week for half a decade. Passes easily. Reyk _YO! 08:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per refs added which meet WP:N and is WP:V. State awards would look better referenced.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, secondary coverage exists, was a statewide television personality for a number of years. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Lankiveil and Sting. —Giggy 12:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing general notability (if it didn't then, it does now). Synergy 14:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Reyk the revised article meets biographical guidelines for notability now. JBsupreme (talk) 20:32, 25 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 deleted. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 09:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cplc education center[edit]

Corporate spam for a training center. The first editor of the article is User:Aequor; this "vocational institution" is run by Aequor Technologies, Inc. and is not a notable educational institution in any sense. Even the Mission and Vision statements are creepy. Google gives no secondary sources, just posted links advertising it as an "ESL training school" and such. Sorry, but articles like this make Wikipedia look trashy. -IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 08:55, 25 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, notability comes from meaningful coverage by independent sources, not from creating content for notable publications. There is nothing to stop this topic coming back if those sources show up one day. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Val Chadwick Bagley[edit]

Neutral - see below. Was deleted as nn-bio but has been around for some time. Total absence of external links. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability has not been established. The no links to the page (links). Has no references at all. – Jerry^teps 05:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Creator recreated within hours of it being CSDed under the A7 criteria. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A 10 month old with no reliable sources. Creators should be stopped from recreating banned articles within a few hours. Wikipedia should have guidelines here. Artene50 (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a newspaper article about him. --Eastmain (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A single local newspaper mention does not meet WP:BIO. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Does being a cartoonist for two notable magazines count? --Masamage ♫ 19:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I raised this AfD to protect myself from complaints of recreating speedily deleted material. The article has been around for ten months and no-one had seen fit to provide references or create incoming links. So I am not going to change to an enthusiastic keep. But I will modify my "vote" to "apathetic". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:00, 28 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 delete by KFP. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome To Brem City[edit]

Article does not assert notability of the album in question. To top it off, the band to whom the album belongs does not even have an article yet. JPG-GR (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable album. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Band is non-notable and does not have an article of it's own. – Jerry^teps 05:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The act is red linked so their album definitely isn't notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:33, 25 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) 09:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonism[edit]

Self-admitted personal essay/WP:OR being reprinted here by the author from[60]. Wikipedia is not a web host, a mirror of other websites, nor the place to publish one's original works. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian -- That article was originally written AS an encyclopedia article. It's notably low-key and general, without any personal opinions included. It was writen in encyclopedia style and was created specifically FOR Wikipedia and the like. KyZan (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan[reply]

KyZan, that's the problem. You've written a lengthy treatise on "reasonism" at your own website, and copy & pasted it here. That does not fall under Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. Basically what we need for that policy to be satisfied is proof that "reasonism" is known outside your immediate circle of correspondents. Where are the newspaper articles that talk about your theory? Where is it discussed in a textbook or magazine article? Where is any sort of independent evidence that your theory matters? A reason we insist on this stuff is that anyone can write a website pushing their opinions, but merely saying something doesn't make it notable. I could write a long diatribe about my social and political views on my own website, and copy & paste it to Wikipedia going "OMG! This is true and important!" but since it's unlikely anyone else knows or cares about my views then, no matter how worthy and in-depth my analysis is, it doesn't belong here. If I could demonstrate that my opinions were well known and publicized by reliable and independent sources, then I could make a case for putting it here.

If I do a google search on reasonism "kyrel zantonavitch" I can find nothing but proof that this is, in fact, nothing but a personal essay about your personal opinions. And that is not what Wikipedia is for. Reyk _YO! 02:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk -- If what you say is true, then the standards and values of Wikpedia are almost certainly flat-out WRONG. If an article is true and hugely important it should be included. Small neologisms and new synthesises shouldn't count against it. If the standard you cited applied back in the 1700s, then the GREAT French Encyclopedia of Diderot, Voltaire, etc. would never have been written. They commissioned many new articles about new subjects which featured original and even revolutionary analysis. Their high standards were: "Is it accurate? Is it relevant and important to life?" Wikipedia may well need to rethink its standards and values. At the least, someone needs to create a NEW encyclopedia based on these notably superior criteria. KyZan (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan[reply]

This discussion is no longer worth my time -- if it ever was. KyZan (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan[reply]

Delete Personal essay, original research, synthesis, soapbox, the works. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 03:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer -- You forgot a few: true, important, teaches, informs, fills a lacuna, supplies knowledge from an expert on the subject, improves Wikipedia, etc. KyZan (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan[reply]

Delete per TenPoundHammer. It can come back when it gets publish in a real journal. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celarnor -- It won't be available then. KyZan (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan[reply]

Delete, personal essay. JIP | Talk 05:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- it clearly violates Wikipedia's policy of no original research because it's a personal essay. Reyk _YO! 07:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk -- It is NOT a personal essay. It's an abstract article. It's an encyclopedia entry written by a single person (not a magical ghost) which is subject to revision by editors. Did you read it? No. KyZan (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan[reply]

- KyZan, a personal essay is something written in essay format by a person, not an essay about something personal. And I don't think you can say whether or not he read it unless you live inside his head; when I first saw the article "personal essay" was definitely my first thought. Ironho lds 20:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a personal essay. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 08:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meditation rather than proper encyclopædia article. —SlamDiego_←T 08:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain, and self-evident junk, despite the creator's repeated attempts to prove otherwise by harassing every editor in this AfD (which ironically have the opposite effect). JuJube (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JuJube: Here's more "vane vanity" and "self-evident junk" for you: I likely understand this phenomenon and issue better than anyone else on this earth. And the article written and issue delineated is STUNNINGLY important. It's probably TOO GOOD for Wikipedia. Take your best shot. KyZan (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan[reply]

P.S. I haven't "harassed" a single good editor, contributor, or person here -- let alone "all of them." You can't name ONE. I'm respectful and polite to every semi-decent person I meet -- always. But I'm not a sycophant either. And I don't beg. KyZan (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan[reply]

Final Note to All: When it comes to this stunningly important issue, you're going to be left with only the poor articles on Reason and Rationalism. You're going to lose the knowledge this encyclopedia entry presents. No-one who consults Wikipedia will understand the relationship between the reasonist PHILOSOPHIES of Aristoteleanism, Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Objectivism. No-one who consults Wikipedia will comprehend the relationship between the reasonist CULTURES of Greece, Rome, Western Europe, and America. No-one will grasp the nexus between all of them, and that of the avant-garde ideologies of Austrian economics, Objectivist philosophy, libertarian politics, and reborn classical liberalism. This understanding will be lost, and the readers of Wikipedia will walk away ignorant. KyZan (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan[reply]
Final note to KyZan: When it comes to this stunningly important issue, we're going to be left with only the articles on reason and rationalism. We're going to loose the knowledge that this encyclopedia entry presents, and it will then be created by one of the other seven million wiki-users, most likely one who 1) understands how to make it look like an article and 2) can accept that he's sometimes wrong rather than having the attitude "I am always right, X disagree's with me, therefore X must be wrong". Ironho lds 22:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonism-worthy delete This article states, and I quote: "Reasonism is also a kind of clean, clear, legitimate, logical version of philosophical 'rationalism'..." Well, this article, is not clean, clear, legitimate, logical version of philosophical rationalism. It is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. It offers no references, external links or reliable sources. And, sadly, the writing is a bit of a muddle. Sorry if I am...dare I say it?...unreasonable. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:41, 27 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 delete per WP:CSD#G3 by User:Happyme22. Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 04:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atical[edit]

Delete - unsourced article, non-notable virus. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 03:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's not even any evidence that it exists. Based on the comments on Talk:Atical and the description, I think we can safely destroy this article's Internet chip. Notice how Torii sent the author the "virus". Does anyone actually think that that action doesn't imply its being a hoax? Computer viruses don't destroy motherboards. It looks as if Torii got some secret promise out of the author for removing a virus that didn't exist. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 03:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Delete as original prod'er. The article originally said "destroys your Internet Chip." Because there is no such thing, I called it out in my prod [61]. The article creator first removed the prod and hoax tag, then removed just the "chip", almost as an attempt to prevent the prod from being taken seriously [62]. I must apologize for not knowing that removing a prod is standard procedure for contesting it. However, this is nothing more than a unsourced hoax. Paragon12321 (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 as hoax. A virus can't destroy hardware, just software, and I don't see how it could destroy just instant messenger programs. Other than that I see no proof it even exists. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 03:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fake. If it was real there would be alot more media coverage on it. Plus I doubt a 13 y/o could create a virus more powerful than any virus ever created before. – Jerry^teps 03:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, malware can theoretically destroy hardware--for example, by writing garbage to a flash/updatable BIOS. Having said that, if such a virus existed in the wild, I would have heard about it in my professional capacity. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 as hoax. Theoretically, a virus could do damage hardware by writing to EEPROM (although that's technically firmware); but this would be more widely known if it did exist. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:35, 25 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) 10:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space Legion[edit]

An article about the books should be made rather than an article about something in the books. This topic can be a section in that page, but this is not notable by itself to be an entire page. Crazyjoe (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article should be merged with the main article. Is there even a main article? I didn't see any links to it except one which was a dead link. – Jerry^teps 03:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The book doesn't have its own page, for crying out loud. This in-universe element is, then, doubly non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally I'd say merge it to the main article, but there doesn't seem to be one, so I guess that we don't have any recourse other than deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable outside the book, and even the book doesn't have an article. JIP | Talk 05:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 06:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phule (character). Anything of value can be merged therein. (The Phule page is linked from Robert_Asprin#Phule.27s_Company_series.)—RJH (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional entity. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:01, 30 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. Synergy 13:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsches Theater, Oslo[edit]

Non-notable Norwegian theatre with a brief and relatively undistinguished history. As the article is written, it was (and remains) of no obvious importance to Norwegian culture. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if it is non-notable, why would it be covered in reliable, third-party, published sources? Punkmorten (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the brief history, the German occupation of Norway was itself "brief". Nonetheless, this is a notable part of Norwegian occupation history. Hence its inclusion in the Norwegian war encyclopedia. Tons of newspaper articles must have been produced about this theatre some years ago. Punkmorten (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly notable within WWII in Europe and the occupation of Norway. Not notable within the history of theater, presumably, but that's not the point. Curious bits of history like this make me want to look further. Were there new German theaters in other occupied countries? Did Norwegians boycot this theater, as audience or as employees? A keeper. --Hordaland (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unfortunately the theatre wasn't around for too long but I think the article could be expanded and meets requirements. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep patently notable.Elan26 (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

Keep Covered by reliable, third party sources, clearly notable. Not all stubs need to be deleted. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hordaland makes some very good points. It's clearly a small, but still notable, footnote in the history of the German occupation of Norway. Occupations are about culture as well as arms. 203.220.38.17 (talk) 04:31, 29 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. Tiptoety ^talk 03:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Threads Of Destiny[edit]

The PROD and any csd has been denied, so it's here. Non-notable fancruft film; those actors/writers/whatnot who's internal links dont resolve as red are links to people of different names. Ironho lds 02:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me clean it up? Its a serious article. Please. (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful Delete Not a happy vote, since the film looks like fun, but sadly it doesn't pass Wikipedia's notability requirements. If you can get some qualified press coverage, this could find a place here. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Film hasn't been covered in reliable sources, just seems to be a home-brew fan film with almost entirely red linked actors. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 02:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's worrying when one of the only bluelinks is English language Sceptre ^(talk) 03:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I lol'd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this substitute IMDb page. JJL (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned and cleaned. Please give me a chance to find an independent source now. Sajberkg (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost all fanfilm lacks notability. All resources are unreliable youtube and myspace. This article is not suitable in Wikipedia. Maybe in Wookiepedia, the Star Wars Wikia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it is clear the creator oif the article is acting in good faith, the sources provided do not qualify as reliable third parties as required by WP:RS Beeblbrox (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more references now, I hope its enough. Will add more when I find them.Sajberkg (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Wikipedia is not a place for fan based material ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fanfilms are almost never notable, and this one isn't even done yet! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fanfilm. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sourcing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In agreement with Ecoleetage. If Sajberkg can find suitable mainstream press coverage, it would be a happy addition to Wiki. So even though it will likely be deleted now, Sajberkg should copy the article to his sandbox and keep working at it. I would hope it to be a much stronger article when it returns. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I seem to be the sole dissenting voice here... But here goes. The only reason we have an AfD is because we agree that it is human judgment that is needed to decide whether we should keep something or not. Do consider the few dozen non-notable Hindu godmen that we have on Wikipedia who have sourcing from dubious sources, and then consider this nomination again. A google search yields 271,000 results and a Live Search 284,000. To those who say, come back later... If it is good enough for later, it is good enough for now. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see the logic in "if it is good enough for later, it is good enough for now". We have set notability guidelines; what "if it is good enough.." means is for the article writer to come back after the film has, say, been created, if the film has independent media coverage or any kind of award and create it there. You can't leave an article on the grounds that "oh, it might fulfill the criterion in 4 months". Ignoring that Google hits are not an accepted way to gauge notability, lets take a look. If we put it in brackets so only that term is searched for (since most of said hits past page 3 are likely to simply be pages with "star wars" in them) we come up with 546 pages minus repeats. Of these nearly all of them are youtube trailers, forum posts and the films myspace site. Those don't indicate that the film is notable, they indicate the film creator can type. Ironho lds 04:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I want to keep citing this AfD for a long time to come. Cheers ChiragPatnaik (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As? Ironho lds 05:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fanfilm without significant outside coverage. The end. JuJube (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Make that two dissenting voices! Forego (talk) 00:13, 30 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 16:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gantry Youth Theatre[edit]

Non-notable youth theatrical group, of no obvious notability in regard to British theatre or education. Sorry, kids. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to establish notability. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete As above. There is little evidence to suggest this is a little more than a community based youth group of which there are thousands dotted around the country ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability not established, article reads like it could be their web site. User529 (talk) 22:27, 25 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 deleted as A7. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proton Proton (band)[edit]

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. I am a bit surprised this one slipped through the CSD process when it was first submitted. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Just using a custom made instrument isn't anything special, nor is anything else these guys have done. Clear-cut non-notable here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 02:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 02:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per TenPoundHammer. A7 appears to apply perfectly to this article as a criteria to speedy delete. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 02:51, 25 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 blatant advertising and as an article about a commercial business that makes no showing of particular importance: Quack Web has attributed much of its success from their low prices, overselling, and fast connection speeds. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quack Web Internet Solutions[edit]

When it comes to WP:CORP and WP:RS, Quack lays an egg. Serious observations and ducky puns are welcome here. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even duck tape wouldn't fix this article. And it doesn't assert notability. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 03:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Send me the bill. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 05:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a feather of notability or coverage in reliable sources, as far as I can see. I don't see a reason why this article shouldn't go down. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 09:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Oh dear. SHould have been a {db-advert}/company in my view, I would have done so if I had patrolled it ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see any improvements that could be made to turn this ugly duckling into a swan. Pedro : Chat 12:59, 25 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. John254 00:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saville Australia[edit]

Non-notable developer. A speedy deletion tag was removed by an editor who slapped a few links on the article, however, these are mainly puff pieces involving particular developments rather than about the developer itself. Certainly none of the articles support the actual claims about origins and size. Mattinbgn\^talk 01:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article was created by Savilleaustralia (talk · contribs), an indefinetely blocked user with a clear conflict of interest. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company appears to be involved with a number of major projects, and this is confirmed by the four references I added. The references are not press releases but news articles that appeared in reliable sources. I don't think the article is an advertisement. The company passes the general notability guideline as shown by the references. If there are style problems with the article, they can be fixed without deleting the article. And Savilleaustralia (talk · contribs) was blocked for having the wrong sort of username, not banned for vandalism, and is welcome to come back and contribute responsibly under any other username that doesn't suggest a company name. I should mention that I am located in Canada, and my involvement with the article was to add references and a logo to an unreferenced article. --Eastmain (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair point about the username (although we should add the editor should be discouraged from editing this article under WP:COI) but I query your comment about the press releases. Each one of those articles reads exactly like a lazy journalist did a minor reword of a corporate press release. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's encyclopedic content there despite any COI, and it seems to be a pretty significant development company, which makes it notable. There are sources that establish this. Wikidemo (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not demonstrate that the company meets the primary criterion for notability specified in WP:COMPANY. All but one of the claims in the article are not supported by a citation. Content looks like original research. WP is not a trade directory. Dolphin51 (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - expand and make it encyclopedic rather than appearing as a portfolio ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's enough information here from which to build a sourced article about their work. TravellingCari 15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:RS and WP:CORP. The problems relating to the article's creator should not disqualify the article from being included here. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, how does "Saville Australia’s current portfolio is valued at more than $1.7 billion[citation needed] and includes the $1.2 billion Capital Square development, which will see the redevelopment of the historic former Emu Brewery site in the Perth CBD into a residential and commercial precinct housing over 500 residents and 60,000sqm of office space." make a non-notable developer? Ironho lds 02:57, 26 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 although it's likely an editorial merge into The Hills (TV series)#Cast would be ok with most editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Pratt[edit]

Contested prod removed by IP. Article is about a person whose only notability is derived from their relationship to Heidi Montag. Most of this article is OR and the only reference here is to a song he did with his fiancee. Article should be deleted or, more likely, merged into The Hills (TV series)#Cast where it can be given appropriate coverage until such time that he actually does something worth writing about. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~to Heidi Montag. Only notability claims are tied directly to Montag.~~ to The Hills (TV series)#Cast per below. I never considered that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 01:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Hills (TV series)#Cast I don't want to create a situation where if Heidi and Spencer break up (and I can't believe I'm even saying that to assert a WP AfD opinion!) we have to break this article out again and we're back to square one. There's no way this article can be properly sourced with anything NPOV, and the guy's only famous for being a supporting player on a reality show, like Brandon Davis was a supporting (and constantly deleted article because he does nothing of substance) player to Paris Hilton. Nate • (chatter) 01:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As was Jason Wahler, which has now been merged to the article for Laguna Beach cast members. I'll support the same for this article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Hills (TV series) - All his notability stems from his appearances on this show. Clamster 18:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, the guy's received a ton of attention through his participation in the show and warrants an article based on that. The available sources are multitudinous. Everyking (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Google news hits, i.e. named in article titles (not just referenced in random articles, but is the subject of them) for Los Angeles Times, MSNBC, FoxNews, etc. Surely there is enough there to expand the article further. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming majority of those hits feature Heidi's name first and are about his interactions with her. Those that aren't are about his petty feuds with other Hollywood celebrities, which isn't encyclopedic information. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aspects of celebrity's lives are encyclopedic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this isn't People magazine and it certainly isn't some third rate celebrity rag. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it would be citing the reliable news sources mentioned above and present the information in a straightforward encyclopedic manner and not in a biased manner like the articles found on the link you indicate above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinking this article doesn't make any sense. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Hills (TV series)#Cast, plausible search term but not independently notable. RFerreira (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What degree of external attention would warrant an article, in your opinion? Everyking (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral in general. Thanks! --Inet^pup_:o3^{⌈〒⌋▰⌈♎⌋} 07:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not wikipedia material. Just hollywood fodder. --mm3guy 10:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirct to Heidi Montag - a clear case of WP:INHERITED --T-rex 18:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While the sources overwhelmingly discuss Spencer in the context of his relationship with Heidi, it doesn't follow that he has no notability in his own right. Everyking (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 based on article improvements and located sources. Content issues can be solved outside of AfD. — Scientizzle 15:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animation Mentor[edit]

A private animation school. This is almost identical to a previous version deleted as spam and created by Mrtriviamaniacman who has been identified as a for-profit spammer. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep because of this, this and this, all of which turned up in a Google News search Not entirely convinced but I think it might pass. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 00:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. What screams out at me on this one is the affiliation with Sony Pictures Imageworks, the awards, and the alumni (those of which need articles). It needs to be cleaned up, but spammers are not always a reason to delete. This seems legit, and the otters diff's above seal it for me. I recommend cleanup and additional citations for further verification be added to the article. Passes notability with flying colors. Synergy 14:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite or delete subject is fine, the article is not. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've done some cleanup (I still question the long section listing the credentials of the co-founders, but I've deleted my share of PRcruft, so I'm stopping); I too dislike how the article came about, but I think the notability (and sources) are there. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:30, 31 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. Tiptoety ^talk 03:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chastisement (band)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, in my opinion. Group has self-released an EP, studio album, and a live album. The studio album was later reissued via Rage of Achilles Records, a label which cannot be categorised as "one of the more important indie labels". Furthermore, "two albums" would need to be issued either via a major label or a more important indie label to qualify under that criteria. Some will merely point to the fact the group have an Allmusic bio as a reason to keep, although the WP:MUSIC criteria asks that a group is "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable", should it qualify under that specific criterion. Also, Allmusic only lists their sole release via a label. These published works would have to qualify under WP:RS. The group's official website is indefinitely offline, whilst their official MySpace page lists them as being unsigned. In addition, their official biography doesn't chart their history beyond 2002. Per the aforementioned reasons, I vote to delete. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable sources other than Allmusic (unless Metal Archives is notable), but the total lack of News hits pretty much has me convinced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 00:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 00:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There doesn't seem to be hardly any published articles about this band. Black-Velvet 15:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NSR77 ^T_C 01:34, 26 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 since this term fails WP:N and given this lack of sources, the closing admin feels ok about saying the whole notion is utter codswallop. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigm piracy[edit]

term is a self admitted neologism, an attempted merge met with what seems to be a keenness for an article which seems to be barely-disguised advertising for a non-notable book with a similar name. Concept exists but not notable independent of other articles such as chaos magic. Attempted merges by several editors keep being met with reversion so this needs to be resolved via the wider community at AfD. Sticky Parkin 01:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the page stands there is little to recommend it, plus the term 'Paradigm piracy' is not widely used in Chaos Magick, and is therefore not notable. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indifferent. I know of this term in occult circles. I've never heard of it called paradigm piracy though (more like Paradigm shifting; which is what its usually called). I think the material can be used in a different article altogether. Even still, we could merge whatever isn't at Chaos_magic#Magical_paradigm_shifting and redirect it there. Synergy 03:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many people who identify as paradigm pirates, but not as chaos magicians, most notably from the Discordian movement. Tsuzuki26 (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say most notably but the only reference being used specifically for discordianism is one members website on geocites. The rest of the sources are primarily from chaotes (i.e. chaos magicians). Can you prove this assertion? Synergy 06:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the chaos magic movement and Discordianism are sometimes hard to separate, with many people belonging in both camps, but the notion of "free belief" has existed in the Discordian movement without any magical implications. As such, it deserves its own entry. Tsuzuki26 (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find a source for "paradigm piracy" that we can all easily look up and verify in WP:RS please. For instance, there are no google news hits.[63][64] so the likelihood is that the term hasn't been mentioned at all in the mainstream press. And it needs to be not a book by the person promoting the term, but discussion about it by a mainly uninvolved party and in a reliable newspaper or a book by a mainstream press, for instance. Not only that, but can you prove this term is more notable than the existing alternatives to which it could be merged, such as to be part of the chaos magic article, or the paradigm shifting article?Sticky Parkin 12:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the section of paradigm shifting currently located in the chaos magic article is a far better place to merge, since it already exists. If a source cannot be found I'll confirm my position to merge. I'd rather that option than ooutright deletion of a clearly used term. Synergy 13:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could support a merge for the time being in the hope that it would get it's own entry when more information is gathered. Tsuzuki26 (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this impressive-sounding but, it seems, little-used name for a preposterously banal notion. -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment to synergy Yes, that's exactly the problem- of course the concept is real but unfortunately all attempts to merge it into terms by which it's far more well known have been undone as they wouldn't advertise this book or promote this neologism. So something needs to be done about this page under this name, because it keeps being recreated. Sticky Parkin 12:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats why we're here now. To determine its fate. :) Synergy

Weak delete - Unless someone can find some proper sources to back this up - I want page numbers for those books, thank you. Black-Velvet 15:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - attested and well-sourced. Substantively nonsense, but it appears to be notable. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 31 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. Tiptoety ^talk 03:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting arm sleeve[edit]

Delete per WP:N Initially PROD'd, but the template was removed without explanation. The subject lacks notability, and the article does not cite any sources. The article has been around for almost two years, with little improvement or exansion since, save for the uncited list of players who wear this accessory and the occasional spamlink. Mosmof (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not finding any reliable references for this, mostly sites trying to sell them, and I don't see that this is notable enough to be covered. "Target for advertisement" isn't a reason for deletion in itself, but there's not enough context to maintain an encyclopedic article on this. Maybe redirect if an appropriate target can be found, but I see no reason for this to remain without some significant work. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 03:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; while the subject certainly exists, there isn't much in the way of sources that could be used to write an encyclopedic article about it. It can come back when some reviews or articles in relevant periodicals come around that discuss it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, thereby failing WP:N. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 05:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -wikipedia isn't a dictionary or a place for basketball jargon. How this could be globally notable I don't know. However if it is of note and "all the best players wear them" and I am wrong then it certainly should be expanded and reliably referenced to prove its worth. Looks like WP:OR to me. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried rather pathetically to find some sources for this article and couldn't come up with much beyond use of it as a general term in basketball related discussion, nothing specific. It may be a candidate for transwikiing to Wiktionary. Black-Velvet 15:26, 25 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. PhilKnight (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard County Public Schools[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory. PhilKnight (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. School districts are inherently notable. RS coverage usually can be found about them. Besides, they are where non-notable schools get merged/redirected. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this was an encyclopedic article about Howard County Public Schools, then I would agree with you. But, at the moment, it's nothing more than a list of phone numbers and external links. PhilKnight (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if this article can be improved beyond a mere telephone directory. Which Wikipedia is not. JBsupreme (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but revise per WP:EL and WP:NOT#DIR. We do generally keep articles about school districts, especially so we don't have articles about every elementary and middle school in them. Yes, this is a WP:USEFUL argument. --Dhartung | Talk 20:54, 25 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.