< July 27	July 29 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Bryan[edit]

non-notable radio personality. While he has a history is the business, the references I'm finding are trivial "Gary Bryan is not doing mornings on KXXX" type of articles. Not the kind of significant coverage WP:BIO insists on. Tagged with reference concerns since Feb 2008, it seems unlikely that sufficent references are going to be added. Rtphokie (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems like just another deejay Ohconfucius (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs a ton of work but there are sufficient non-trivial sources from The New York Times [1], New York Daily News [2], Orange County Register [3], and other places that a useful article about this notable radio figure can be salvaged from the wreckage. Plenty of sources exist that go mostly to verifiability, too. - Dravecky (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've just finished an initial overhaul of this article including wikification and integration of the references I mentioned above. There's certain;y more that could be done to improve this article but given his career, his recognition from the NAB, and these non-trivial references I feel strongly that Bryan meets the notability standards. - Dravecky (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has improved considerably and now clearly meets the requirements of our notability guideline.--ragesoss (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has improved (though it still requires major cleaning), and I think it fits WP:N reasonably well now. IceUnshattered (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article satisfies notability guidelines and has multiple third party sources for verification.Nrswanson (talk) 06:28, 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. Wizardman 16:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Bruno[edit]

Article appears to be created by the subject. At first glance appears notable, however on further inspection I can find little evidence to support notability in the Wikipedia sense. Article is currently sourced entirely from the subject's own writing, and I have been unable to locate independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in any detail. It is possible I am mistaken in this nomination, but would like to see the opinions of other Wikipedia editors. Leivick (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Bio.-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 23:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Darth Mike RogueNinja_talk 00:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written like marketing/promotional material. Theshibboleth (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. JFW | T@lk 06:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete per Dianablee 29 July 2008 I commented on the talk page regarding this article. As a member of this field of medicine I am aware that the signigicant awards and history of Dr. Bruno are accurate. I do not know who wrote the article, but I do know that several very notable accomplishments have been left out. One one of them i will add.

That is, Dr. Bruno founded the first, non-profit scholarship fund for students of acupuncture and Oriental Medicine. The fund is call the Trudy McAlister Fund and is a donor fund of Triskeles Foundation (triskeles.org).

I understand that Wikipedia has certain standars to adhere to in its evaluations of articles. I also find it odd that editors who do not know this field have such strong opinions about one of its leading professional. I looked at the interview articles in Acupuncture Today and find that several are interviews of Dr. Bruno by Acupuncture Today. I don't understand how it can be said that it is his own article when the major publication in the US seeks out one of the leading members of the field and interviews him.

I am also aware that Dr. Bruno is planning to retire next year and spend his professional time dedicated to the Trudy McAlister Scholarship fund for which he receives no compensation, so I do not see any motivation as implied above regarding self promotion.

Dianablee2 (talk)

Comment The fact that he's a generous person is irrelevant. We need independent, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party Sources American Association of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine Exeutive Director-Rebekah Christiansen 866-455-7999

Editor of Acupuncture Today Marilyn Allen [redacted]

Dr. Will Morris - Pres. of Austin Academy of Oriental Medicine

Dr. William Prensky Founder of the National Acupuncture Assoc. and Founder of College of Oriental Medicine at Mercy College, NY [redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianablee2 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:RS which describes what a reliable source is. Wikipedia articles are not sourced from personal testimonies, but from written verifiable sources. I also strongly suggest that you remove these phone numbers as they cannot be used to establish any kind of notability and there is a potential for misuse. --Leivick (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Daniel is right. We need published statements -- something in a big newspaper, for example. Otherwise we have to assume that he's a private citizen who deserves our respect for his privacy, and not a public figure who wants the details of his life splashed all over the internet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have redacted two of the phone numbers above, as one appeared to be incorrect and I was unable to verify the other. The other two are publicly available phone numbers irrelevant to this discussion. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

&Comment. There is a possible path that could provide some evidence for notability. If a notable expert in the field publishes, even on a blog or other source that can be clearly identified with the expert, a review of the subject, which would show notability if more formally published, it could be considered source for notability; it would be a matter for editorial judgment if this were usable for this or not. Likewise a notable organization could publish something on an official web site. So, instead of the phone numbers (which were redacted out, properly), someone could contact one of the experts involved and request such publication. That would be better, even, than a phone call, because it would be widely verifiable. An email from the expert, if verifiable, could also suffice, but is even more of an "experimental" approach. Direct communication with experts, though, is what encyclopedias classically did in making editorial judgments. While there may not be time to arrange such in time for this article to survive AfD, AfD, we should remember, is only temporary, it is reversible at any time. --Abd (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think this person just rests on the right side of notability. Just. I'm undecided. I do think, however, the article contains very much notworthmentioning junk that can be cleared out. IceUnshattered (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage by independent sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent verifiable sources can be found.Nrswanson (talk) 06:31, 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. Wizardman 21:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ENCOM[edit]

Short article consisting primarily of in-universe information and trivia. While this is a primary entity in the movie, it has little to no demonstrated real-world notability and is already summarized at an appropriate level in the main Tron article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage, meaning "that sources address the subject directly in detail" (emphasis mine). Any useful information should be imparted on the parent article, Tron (film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor and non-notable in real world. Already covered in Tron article. No seperate article needed. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary of a non-notable fictional company which has not received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tron (film). A major plot element in a relatively popular film that gets referenced by Kingdom Hearts II and the Gorillaz should be considered a plausible search term. There is no good reason to delete this article for lack of notability when an appropriate merge and redirect target exists. DHowell (talk) 19:12, 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. Wizardman 21:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual girlfriend[edit]

Arguments NOT to Delete

Should not be deleted, an important new emerging market in the field of Ai, robotics, human/technology relationship. I think its very important Virtual Girlfriend & Virtual Boyfriend have their own unique article.

I believe that this is an emerging technology and that the companies leading this revolution should all be granted a fair mention. These companies include Aritifial Life, the makers of V-Girl & V-Boy, Lhandslide Studios, the makers of Kari Virtual Girlfriend and Sergio Virtual Boyfriend, and CyberPunk Software, the makers of Virtual Woman. You won't find any University working on this technology, granted, but the Ai technology that is being designed by these companies may very well lead to intelligent cyborgs and robots who will someday give the lonely some companionship. Its very short sighted to delete this article in my opinion. As a person who is very involved in virtual girlfriends, love dolls, and virtual companionship I can definately say that there is a 'movement' taking place in this field. People need to be aware of cornerstones of this market. Part of the reason there may not be enough source material is because this is a brand new field that is currently developing. It is a new facet in the human/technology equation. I see it my perogative to make issue with the deletion of such an important facet of an emerging paradigm shift. - Shineling

Actually, it is not a brand new field that is currently developing. Virtual Woman has been out since 1987, according to it's article on Wikipedia. My college roommate had a version of it that ran in DOS which I thought was older than that, but I'll defer to the referenced entry here as opposed to my shaky memory. Since then I've seen quite a few such programs, (such as Lulu or even Microsoft's N.U.D.E.). Most of them were more like chatbots, with none of them making much of a splash. The remaining programs listed in the article seem like newer, non notable variations on those, not "the most notable" in an "emerging field" to quote an earlier Revision. The Japanese Dating Sims seem much more popular and upcoming these days. Also, I see that you reinserted all the software listings and much of the program information on Kari, despite the consensus from the other editors that it should be removed: "You can hold real conversations with her ...the more you talk with her, the more she understands, and the more she grows. Kari's strengths lie in complex pattern and word relationship matching. It can be a great tool for lonely men who need that one-to-one connection". Intentional or unintentional, it's just flat out marketing and not acceptable on Wikipedia. I think the almost immediate reinsertion of these kinds of claims in the article shows the problem with keeping it. 72.84.238.77 (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments to Delete

Delete does not assert notability; lacks references; seems to promote a product ——Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 23:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once I removed the spurious marketing jargon for the software Kari there is almost nothing left to this article, and that piece of software is not notable (no long history, no significant mention in the press, no proof of popularity, not original to the field, etc.). Seems like a back door attempt to get a mention/marketing link into Wikipedia. 72.84.238.77 (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge with artificial human companion while the references to specific products should be removed (unless one becomes clearly significant), the concept itself is perhaps of interest, and something that I personally have seen mentioned before (for instance, discussion of whether robots could replace human females. Perhaps though it could be moved to virtual companion. Theshibboleth (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that the stub virtual companion should be moved to the fuller Artificial human companion. Also, removing the product references, while a good idea, leaves us with an article with just two (unsourced) sentences, except for a link to an article which simply refers to the deleted products again; recreating the original problem. Even the note (Peter Plantec's Virtual Humans) has very little if any relevance to this subject...I'm not sure why it is there at all. 72.84.238.77 (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above (I had not realized the other article existed). Theshibboleth (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Artificial human companion as a subset of a more broad, more comprehensive article. I have already boldly merged virtual companion to the former. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The guy that created the article just reintroduced his original text. Isn't this not very wise? ——Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 18:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That absolutely needs to be reverted. While I like to give new Wikipedia editors the benefit of the doubt, this article appears to be simply being used as a promotional vehicle, as I noted above. The parts that aren't being used for advertisment are largely factually incorrect. That's why I'm worried about simply merging it into another article and am supporting a full delete. I think a merge would just give the person involved a new place to reinsert the same claims and promotional links, despite an obvious consensus against that. We would simply be moving the problem to a new set of editors. 72.84.238.77 (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is nothing more than product spam. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:58, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Hollygrove[edit]

Above person is mentioned in several articles on wikipedia, is found on itunes and various other media outlets, why is article deleted? I whole-heartly have fully knowledge of this person has I have did an interview for a New Orleans based magazine on this person Ocean504 (talk) 16:15, 15 Dec 2012 (UTC) This article has a bit of a past. It was successfully deleted via PROD, then later re-created. Then marked for speedy deletion and challenged. I contend that this person still fails WP:MUSIC and thusly should be deleted, again, and possibly salted. JBsupreme (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - entire discography is a couple mixtapes... no sources other than YouTube and MySpace... only claim to fame is that he is dis-liked by real artists for chopping and screwing their music... sounds pretty non-notable to me... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:42, 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. Nicely cleaned up.--Kubigula (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City Link Ltd.[edit]

Just an advert, tells you nothing of note about the company, not neutral, attracts vandals, company isn't all that notable. Mnd999 (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Cursory Google and Google News search shows that the company appears to fail WP:CORP. Will change !vote if notability is shown. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changed to Keep per clean-up mentioned below. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 17:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Company and its "parents" have coverage in reliable 3rd party sources here. I agree the article needs some rewriting and more references (and that it seems the target of vandalism) but, none of these are valid reasons for deletion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Removed non-neutral text and added a few references (of which two or three give significant coverage), so should satisfy both WP:N and WP:SPAM now. "Attracts vandals" not a reason to delete in itself. Gr1st (talk) 13:26, 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 --JForget 23:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Castilian American[edit]

There is nothing written in this article. Also, Castilians are the Majority in Spain, and the word Spanish and Castilian are interchangeable. I don't know why there is a separate article. There is already Spanish American. Lehoiberri (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh no, not this junk again!! The horror!! The horror!! Delete this as being a content-free article based on an arbitrary combination of countries. Get rid of the Andalusian one below, as well. Reyk _YO! 00:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being arbitrary. Why no Flemish-Americans or Alsatian-Americans or Bavarian-Americans? This is also borderline WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can we just block John Paraskeva Rushton (talk · contribs) already? I think he's worn out his welcome. JuJube (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- that would be overkill, and unfair. As annoying as they are, these articles are probably well-intentioned. Reyk _YO! 01:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I already warned John Paraskeva Rushton (talk · contribs) to work on his basically blanked articles on July 8 (See here [4]), or I will send them to WP:AFD. This user hasn't respond to me, nor he worked on his articles, they are still nothing but almost blank pages. Not only that, this user is creating even more of these articles, like this Castilian American. Lehoiberri (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another non-notable article. Artene50 (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete followed by cease and desist and block user--this has been quite the annoyance and is disruptive to Wikipedia. The user knows that these types of articles are deleted (ten or so? how many? can we get a count?) and continues to do so.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:16, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andalusian American[edit]

This article has nothing written. Not only that, most Andalusians in America view themselves as Spanish. And they are fully integrated in Spanish culture. They are not similar to the Basques or Catalans. Not notable. Lehoiberri (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rita Hayworth does not justify this generic category article. It just unnotable. Artene50 (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete followed by cease and desist and block user--this has been quite the annoyance and is disruptive to Wikipedia. The user knows that these types of articles are deleted (ten or so? how many? can we get a count?) and continues to do so.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no content. We really need to be more strict on XX-YY mixed nationalities in articles and categories. --Soman (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator.--Dmol (talk) 17:15, 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. Wizardman 21:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing performance measurement and management[edit]

Reads like a random jumble of marketing buzzwords. WP:OR essay and/or spam for whoever may be behind this. Sandstein 22:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article by User:Visionedge also reads like a thinly disguised advertisement for visionedgemarketing.com, for which there is a convenient link. Reference is also made to Marketing Metrics in Action: Creating a Performance-Driven Marketing Organization (Racom Books, 2008), which, according to the website, "provides a vital framework for Marketing to garner the support of the C-suite and to build its leadership.” Mandsford (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too am very familiar with this area and think this is an excellent overview. It provides valuable points for consideration for any marketer trying to implement MPM. The references all come from reputable sources. The suggested providers adds a nice touch and serves the purpose of a wikie, a great place to start your research on a topic. Lrtp (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC) — Lrtp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Basically, unsourced, though "references" are given, they are inadequately specified to establish the text. Language is promotional, and list of resources doesn't establish anything more than the author's opinion that these are important. Maybe an encyclopedic article could be written, but this is far from it. I'd encourage the author to learn about Wikipedia articles and consider what might be proper. Start with adding appropriate information to existing articles, neutral point of view, properly sourced, etc. And don't register accounts to vote in an AfD, it can get your IP blocked. --Abd (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete borderline spam, but definitely an essay (original research), and likely copyright violations in part. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any article I cannot understand. If whatever-the-article-is-about has notability the article needs to state what it is, in its opening few sentences, and provide a reliable source which demonstrates it. AndyJones (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, logorrhea full of glittering generalities, vague to the point of evasiveness, and therefore a wall of text devoid of information. Words fail me; they failed the author in a different way: marketing paradigm that calls for alignment of marketing activities, strategies, and metrics with business goals in order to make marketing more effective and efficient. What we need is a paradigm that makes marketing less effective and efficient. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete- I'm a student at Vanderbilt studying marketing and business. The topic of marketing accountability and measuring marketing performance is very top of mind these days and something I’m working on right now. When I went to Google to do a search on marketing performance management there were over 373000 hits. Having a Wikipedia page provided a good starting point and the references were very helpful next steps. For those of us working in the area, the terms are meaningful and as a student explain some of the vocabulary I’m learning. After having gone to some of the analyst references suggested it seemed that the entry provided the right level of introduction to the topic. There was nothing in this article that read like “spam” or self promotion to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandystudent08 (talk • contribs) — Vandystudent08 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and merge to a page to be determined. Tan ǀ 39 20:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sark (Tron)[edit]

Short article consisting primarily of in-universe information and trivia. While this is a primary character in the movie (and in Kingdom Hearts II), the character has little to no demonstrated real-world notability and is already summarized at an appropriate level in the main articles for his respective appearances. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage, meaning "that sources address the subject directly in detail" (emphasis mine). Any useful information should be imparted on the parent article, Tron (film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor and non-notable in real world. Already covered in parent articles article. No seperate article needed. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor non-notable character that has not received coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Article is almost entirely summary of the character's role in the plot. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some capacity. If information can be placed in the main article or already exists in the main article then it can be merged and redirected, but I see no reason for outright redlinking this article, especiallly due to improvements and notability to a real world audience. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge; there may enough content to warrant a separate article, but I'm unsure whether there's significant room for expansion. Everyking (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Merge into Characters of Tron. This is a well-known movie that has real-world popular cultural success. The main article has no characters section, likely because these minor character articles exist. Marge them together as a split off the main Tron article. Banjeboi 09:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the Nominator's comments - being the main character in Tron and Kingdom Hearts II is an obvious indication of notability. Lack of sources, excess plot summary, and trivia are not reasons for deltion, they are reasons for improvement. Edward321 (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge and redirect to Tron (film) or a new Characters of Tron article per Benjiboi. Sark is a main character in a relatively popular film, and the article cites academic sources. Even if the notability of this character isn't sufficiently independent of the film, there is no reason to delete this article for lack of notability when an appropriate merge target exists. DHowell (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability via significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually not true based on the improvements to the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the sources are referencing the film he appeared in, his actor, and that he will appear in a future film. That is not "significant coverage". sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is significant enough for Wikipedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it is not, and until you understand what does constitute significant coverage, then there's no point in continuing this discussion. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It is significant by any reasonable standard for a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        By your standard, not by Wikipedia's standard. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        By Wikipedias standards as interpreted by all the editors arguing to keep above, as well as who created and worked on the article, or who come here to read it. A vocal minority wanting to delete should not trump that reality. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Argumentum ad populum. WP:NOTE is a fait accompli. Change NOTE or don't bother trying to act like it doesn't exist. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, especially ones that lack actual community support. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        IAR is not carte blanche to blatantly ignore any rule you see fit. And the opinion of one random user means squat here. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Considering that editors can't even agree whether or not to mark that formerly proposed fiction notability guideline an essay or historical, etc. suggests that there simply is no actual community consensus on what constitutes fictional notability. The opinion of the quoted editor is an opinion shared by others, i.e. he's not alone in the sentiment and I care most about the opinion of those who work on these articles and come here to read them as they contribute to other articles, become donors, etc. So long as the article is not a total hoax or something, I see no reason why it couldn't exist as a spinoff or sub-article or at least be redirected. What I don't see is some pressing need to redlink it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Argumentum ad populum, again. And if you want a redirect, make one if the article is deleted. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia:Editors matter. You don't need to delete an article to redirect; redirectable articles should not also be deleted unless there is some serious issue that prevents the public from seeing the edit history. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you even read the essays you cite? That one deals specifically with pages in the userspace that go to MfD. It has no relevance to this discussion. And I don't care about the redirect, it's irrelevant to the discussion. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The essay states right on top, "Wikipedia's most important resource is its contributors. When considering the value of content in projectspace and userspace, don't just inflexibly apply policies and guidelines; think about the impact of the content on editors' feelings, and whether deleting the content may drive them away." (my italics) Redirecting is relevant, because it shows that if anything we should have a redirect discussion on the article's talk page, but that we don't need a deletion discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps merge into characters of Tron. Sources exist to meet WP:N's requirements. Hobit (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete , default to keep. The sources provided by Graeme Bartlett are mostly good, but the Times Daily one is a WP mirror. The other three should be added to the article. lifebaka++ 13:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Shahbazi[edit]

Non-notable suicide. Fails WP:N. Only numbered reference is a letter to the editor, which is less less reliable a source than a blog (and blogs are not accepted as reliable sources often in Wikipedia). Alternative is to merge with the Shell Oil Company article (which is already mentions the man). Furthermore, this man is known only for his death, not his biography. However, even a "Hunger Strike of Mehdi Shahbazi" article is not very encyclopeic.

Wikipedia is also not a memorial. This man was not known for anything other than the hunger strike. People looking for the hunger strike information may look to the Shell article but they are not going to remember the man's name and type it in. Presumptive (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - In contrast, the Murder of Joseph Didier has been written about for the last 35 years, including every year between 1999 and 2008 and drew the protests of over 50,000 people in a city of about 80,000 adults and this article was deleted as being non-notable despite what I think was a lack of consensus. This article is far less notable in comparison and nothing has been written about it in 2008, even a year after his hunger strike in contrast with the Didier article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Joseph_Didier_%282nd_nomination%29 This isn't WP:Point but simply using other articles as guidance. Presumptive (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, so nominated ukexpat (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable for his hunger fast. He is not just in a letter to the editor, but actually in may blogs as well, if blogs count, but he actually has his own newspaper stories to establish his significance.

http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=NEWS&template=wiki&text=Shell_Oil_Company Times Daily
http://www.sfchroniclemarketplace.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2007/11/20/BA80TFHKP.DTL San Francisco Chronicle
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/19/local/me-passings19.s1 LA Times
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20061103/ai_n16830536 Oakland Tribune

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:39, 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, Keeper ǀ 76 22:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of new sources found by Graeme Bartlett, I feel this needs to be relisted. Delete #1 uses an otherstuff argument, delete#2 incorrectly uses a speedy tag, basically saying "he's just not notable. Need stronger consensus one way or the other. Keeper ǀ 76 22:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This man is so obscure that no administrator would close it! How about the new administrators? They all promised to use the tools. Where are they! :P #1 isn't just the "other stuff" explanation. Shouldn't it be "The suicide of Mehdi" and even that is a stretch to be WP material. Presumptive (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only press coverage that I could find on this topic was a very limited pool of local news. This didn't even spread state-wide. In addition, it appears to be the same Associated Press article showing up again and again. Searching within a news pool, I thought I struck gold when I read the headline "Shahbazi quietly becomes a giant" in the Boston Herald. However, the article was actually about a set of office buildings. I am not a very experienced editor here and am only just dipping my toes, but this doesn't appear to be notable. I can't find any evidence that Shell were particularly bothered by this protest, not even a slight mention that the oil giant was concerned, or fighting, or even very interested. If the protest had hit their profits or their publicity, then perhaps Mehdi Shahbazi had achieved something. Also, the fact that he died as a result of the liquid diet really isn't relevant. Liquid diets don't kill people (I don't think so anyway, if they are done properly); it was stated that there were "complications" which were down to the state of his health prior to, and during, the fast. I suppose that bears about as much relevance as if he had died in a car accident. As was pointed out in a previous comment, he hasn't received any mention in 2008, even though his death was in late 2007. And no, blogs don't count. (I write about all sorts of crap on mine! :))) ) Maedin (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mehdi Shahbazi got quite a bit of press coverage before his death and before the hunger strike. He was on Lou Dobbs on CNN and he was featured on the front page of AOL under the title "who's having the worst week ever". Mehdi had lost his ability to sell gasoline from shell after his posting of signs and handing out flyers with information that big oil companies (he never mentioned shell specifically) were as he said "profiteering and gouging consumers". He was spreading information from sources like the EPA and saying that the price hikes around Katrina had nothing to do with shortage of supply. As a result shell revoked his ability to sell gasoline and then his home. It was local news at first but then it attracted quite a bit of attention. The news not only spread state-wide, but nation-wide. Shell was very bothered by his protest, according to Mehdi Shahbazi's last press release Shell hired Bingham McCutchen LLP who put five lawyers and a number of paralegals on the case. Shell was interviewed a number of times by the press and continued to deny Mehdi's claims. I don't think it matters if he is still getting news articles, It matters that he did and if anything, it has made quite a bit of people feel ripped off when they are paying the extremely high gas prices with huge quarterly earnings reported by the oil giants. Mehdi's liquid diet wasn't a proper liquid diet, he basically simply drank Gatorade, fruit juice and occasionally some vegetable juice. His diet lacked protein, fat, and sufficient calories (I know this because I knew him personally). The so called "complications" was liver failure from the lack of food that doctors said may have been caused by long dormant hepatitis that he may have obtained when he lived in Iran.
The article could use some rewriting and more references, but deleting it is totally unnecessary. The article wouldn't be appropriate for a traditional print encyclopedia's, but wikipedia covers extremely diverse topics that would never be in a traditional print encyclopedia. People and things that have no real significance besides for briefly being on tv or in pop culture are all over wikipedia without any consideration for deletion. News articles and information about Mehdi Shahbazi are more difficult to find online now because many of them have been archived. --Kwhubby (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kwhubby wrote "(I know this because I knew him personally)." This person has more personal knowledge of the man than most people but WP requires reliable source and notability. WP:NOTMEMORIAL prohibits memorial article on people but lack of a WP article does not imply that the man's life was worthless or not touching to some people.Presumptive (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Persumptive wrote "WP requires reliable source and notability." I will dig up the old newspaper article to cite with some of the comments from his doctor about his fast. My personal knowledge is covered in news articles, interviews, court cases, and articles written by Mehdi Shahbazi himself before he died. Just about everything I said I can backup with a citation if this was for the actual article. But I was simply arguing with the incorrect assumptions made by Maedin about his media coverage and liquid fast. Also, this isn't or shouldn't be a memorial, but an informative article about this man's story of his quixotic campaign against big oil. User:Persumptive wrote "worthless or not touching to some people." I'm trying to say that this man grabbed the attention of more than just "some people" but people followed his story throughout the national and even in different countries through the nation-wide and even world-wide media coverage he got. Although his story might not have been noticed by everybody, his story is significant to more than just a few people. Gas prices are something that affects everybody in the civilized world. --Kwhubby (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few links here to some the things I was talking about:

http://www.aan.org/news/monterey_county_weekly_story_picked_up_for_aol_s__worst_week_ever__poll/Aan/ViewArticle?oid=165239 appearance on AOL's front page
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/02/ldt.01.html Mehdi Shabazi on Lou Dobbs
http://web.archive.org/web/20070812185630/http://www.pumpinmad.com/ archive of Mehdi Shahbazi's website (pumpinmad.com is currently unaccessable)
http://kwhubby.com/mpressrelease.pdf the press release Mehdi was distributing a few months before he died
http://montereycountyweekly.com/archives/2006/2006-Jun-08/Article.news_4/1/@@index a good local news article that has some very good information.

The San Jose Mercury News had quite a few articles on Mehdi Shahbazi, but to access them now you need to have a pay subscription on their website. I will post some more links later.
I think merging is a bad idea, because Mehdi was never trying to target shell specifically about gas prices, but all oil companies in general. [5] --Kwhubby (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Notability is hanging on one event and that event was his death which, like most deaths, was reported on the local news. Slightly unusual deaths do not warrant Wikipedia articles. This is not Deathopedia. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coram Ranch[edit]

Non notable ranch Burningjoker (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - unsourced vacation ranch spam... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:43, 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 and merge to a page to be determined. Tan ǀ 39 20:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit (character)[edit]

Short article consisting primarily of in-universe information and trivia. This is a very minor character in the movie. The character has little to no demonstrated real-world notability and is already summarized at an appropriate level in the main Tron article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Great, a call to obscure information about Tron just in time for renewed public interest in light of the sequel. I just had a look at the current version of the main article and the Bit isn't mentioned at all, is that what you meant by an "appropriate level" of coverage? I disagree, Keep. Bryan Derksen (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Bit has a bit part (if you'll excuse the pun) and really doesn't need any specific mention, hence my assertion that it has an appropriate level of detail is, in my opinion, correct. If it does have some notability such that it warrants mention, it'll probably be limited to one or two sentences at most, which can be easily merged into the main article's plot summary. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. If this character fails to be mentioned at the film article itself, then it surely does not deserve its own article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, far too minor a character to warrant an independent article. JBsupreme (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If keepers want the information, they are welcome to source the info and add it to the Tron article. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the only reason I can think of is "I liked bit!" and I know that WP:ILIKEIT isn't really an argument... DANG!--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Merge into Characters of Tron. This is a well-known movie that has real-world popular cultural success. The main article has no characters section, likely because these minor character articles exist. Marge them together as a split off the main Tron article. Banjeboi 09:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I question whether the characters really need their own separate descriptions, or if they just need a slight bit more description in the plot summary. The major characters already have what I believe to be enough of a summary description in the plot summary for the average reader to understand who they are and what their roles are. I would argue that the Bit is such a minor character that it doesn't need to be mentioned in the plot summary at all - it's something pretty to look at, mainly, but it serves no significant purpose in the plot - it floats around and goes "Yes" and "No", and that's pretty much it. The current text in the Bit article goes MUCH more into depth about the Bit's construction and behavior than would ever be considered appropriate for an encyclopedia, and when you strip out the inappropriate trivia-level detail, you're left with, at best, one or two sentences which could easily be merged into the plot summary. (And, as I said, I think it's just going to make the plot summary crufty.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A thoughtful look at each character from a non-universe perspective can certainly be helpful and go beyond cruft. Bundling all the characters together would also be a bit neater. I'm no expert in regards to this material but Tron has some enduring real world success and crossover so instead of deleting these three articles combining them would seem to make sense. Banjeboi 23:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge and redirect to Tron (film) or a new Characters of Tron article per Benjiboi. Even as a relatively minor character in this popular film, Bit gets significant coverage in reliable sources as an innovative use of vector graphics and morphing, such as in Creative Computer Graphics ("Unfortunately, Bit's extensive role in the film was curtailed to two minutes for scheduling reasons, but it remains one of the most memorable characters in the film - not bad for a pint-sized polyhedron.") and Meta-Morphing. Even if the notability of this character weren't sufficiently independent of the film, there is no reason to delete this article for lack of notability when an appropriate merge target exists. DHowell (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. I don't think the article fits notability by itself, but it might be an idea to merge it with the main Tron (film) article. IceUnshattered (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DHowell's evidence that the chracter was innovative in the history of CG. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the issue is the Bit's impact on computer rendering, that still sounds more appropriate for the Development section of the main Tron article (where there is plenty of other text about computer rendering already) than a full-fledged article about the character. The Bit is not and never has been used to sell the film, promote a company (be a mascot), etc., which are all examples of out-of-universe context about the character. Discussion about the CG rendering is a separate facet that doesn't necessarily apply to the Bit itself, but to all of the computer rendering in the film and of the period. Since that's largely covered already, mentioning the Bit would seem appropriate as an example of the groundbreaking use of CG as art in this film. But I still think that the character article should be deleted. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DHowell's sources, but no objection to a merge and redirect to a single character page. Probably a good idea actually. Hobit (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect and merge to a page to be determined. Tan ǀ 39 21:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master Control Program (Tron)[edit]

Short article consisting primarily of in-universe information and trivia. While this is a primary character in the movie, the character has little to no demonstrated real-world notability and is already summarized at an appropriate level in the main Tron article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Considering the article's list of other media where the MCP is spoofed or referenced, I find the claims of non-notability and in-universe-onlyness to be dubious. Keep. Bryan Derksen (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but if you go and take a look at the edit history for Tron (film) and see how two entire sections of trivia were removed, and those were mostly about pop-culture references and spoofs, I think that the pop-culture references in the MCP's article will likely suffer the same fate when given the same scrutiny. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with tron (film) and redirect. Unreferenced and no evidence of true independent notability. Minor use in film-associated game doesn't seem to me to be sufficient.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage, meaning "that sources address the subject directly in detail" (emphasis mine). Any useful information should be imparted on the parent article, Tron (film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If keepers want the information, they are welcome to source the info, prove notability, and add it to the Tron article. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasonable topic for spinout article per WP:FICT and WAF. Hobit (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also: [6] would indicate notability. 100 books that use this phrase (apparently in the context of Tron) isn't bad. And 64 news articles with the same search? [7] I suspect there are some RS in there. Hobit (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N requires that the topic must have significant coverage, meaning "that sources address the subject directly in detail" (emphasis mine). Your examples only mention the Master Control Program in relation to the film Tron (film), not as a separate entity. There is no reason to spin off a separate article. WP:WAF even says, "Very rarely should such spinout articles be about a singular topic; either that topic has demonstrated its own notability, or should be merged into the main article or existing spinout articles." If anything, Benjiboi's suggestion is more realistic, but I still think that there can be a better effort to expand detail about actors and roles within the film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My search included the word Tron, so of course that's the case. Also, I think your argument is somewhat flawed. Luke Skywalker is only discussed (I'd imagine) in the context of Star Wars. But I think we'd all agree he meets WP:N. Where is the line? Searching for "star wars" "Luke Skywalker" turns up only 700 books. If this is 1/7th as notable as Luke, I personally think it belongs here. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the difference is we are talking about a character in one film and a character who has made multiple, significant appearances in different works under a large franchise. I really don't think using search engine tests really work here because the terms pop up in different manners. "Master Control Program", from what I can tell, is repeatedly mentioned as part of the film's synopsis but is not directly analyzed. On the other hand, Luke Skywalker is critically examined as a character. That's the key difference. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However this term has also shown up in parodies and a few other spots. I didn't look through all 100 books or 64 news articles, but in my experiance, that many hits in books or news are likely to have some critical analysis. I only looked at 1 book and less than 5 news stories... Hobit (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provided that there is supple coverage about MCP's role in Tron, is there a reason why we have to separate the content from Tron (film)? Even with parodies and so forth, everything related to MCP is in the context of film and never apart from it. The film article isn't very extensive (ignoring the Plot section that needs trimming), so why not have all film-related content there? For what it's worth, check out "Sign of the Times: The Computer as Character in Tron, War Games, and Superman III" in Film Quarterly. It's good information, but it's still very much related to the context of the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of something needing to be notable outside of a context. Most athletes are only notable in the context of their team (for example). So I don't see that as a barrier to inclusion. Merger might well make sense, but that's an editorial decision. There seems to be enough information and sources for the article, and that's what the AfD is trying to determine. Hobit (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything related to Yorick is in the context of Shakespeare's Hamlet, but for being just a skull in a play, I doubt anyone would question that character's independent notability. DHowell (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hobit. Seems to have substantial cultural recognition. Everyking (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Merge into Characters of Tron. This is a well-known movie that has real-world popular cultural success. The main article has no characters section, likely because these minor character articles exist. Marge them together as a split off the main Tron article. Banjeboi 09:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that would be a good idea. Everyking (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you can pull that off without violating WP:FICT and WP:TRIVIA, be my guest. But I have my doubts that that will be possible. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How cany anyone violate WP:FICT, given that the community has yet to even decide if it is historical, an essays, etc.? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We may not have a full consensus on that one yet, but the overall spirit of the essay/guideline is to ensure that articles about fictional content don't go into an unnecessary level of depth about the fictional universe, characters, etc. In general (and in keeping with the core policies, WP:NOT, etc.), we want to keep such info limited to what is necessary to understand the topic as a whole. Trivia and in-depth descriptions are rarely appropriate - not to say they are never appropriate, but it's not very often that they are. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see who's to say what is and is not necessary. Obviously those who created, worked on, and read this article believe comprehensive coverage to be appropriate. Plus, as a sub or spinoff article, I am not sure why we shouldn't cover particular aspects of a fictional work in this fashion so long as we are able to source the content. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tron (film). It seems that Tron is a popular movie and a large article, so this article would be a nice addition to it. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least merge and redirect to Tron (film) or a new Characters of Tron article. As a major character in a relatively popular film, it's notability is certainly suggested by being a character in Kingdom Hearts II and being parodied on South Park. Please also note that the searching for "Master Control Program" and Tron gets 34 hits at Google Scholar, showing academic notability. While I don't have access to most of these items, some of the search results suggest more than just incedental coverage of the subject in relation to the film, e.g. the title of the article 'Sign of the Times: The Computer as Character in" Tron, War Games", and" Superman III"' suggests that it probably does have analysis of the character itself. But even if the notability of this character weren't sufficiently independent of the film, there is no reason to delete this article for lack of notability when an appropriate merge target exists. DHowell (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tron was a groundbreaking movie and MCP's influence on subsequent popular culture, is indeed notable. RMHED (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my arguments expressed as replies above as well as per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomo Polachek[edit]

~~Declined speedy (though I fail to see where importance or significance is asserted). Subject is not notable. ukexpat (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)~~ WITHDRAWN -- thanks for the additional references and templates. – ukexpat (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any major student of the famed Chaim Soloveichik or early Rosh Yeshiva of RIETS is likely to be notable, and this is no exception. Sources include:
- W. Helmreich, The World of the Yeshiva: An Intimate Portrait of Orthodox Judaism, Yale University Press, 1986 (Revised Edition, 2000).
- M. Sherman, Orthodox Judaism in America: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook, Greenwood Press, 1996.
- YU Commentator article

Also, the article appears to make several assertions of notability, including his association with Chaim Soloveitchik and his role in RIETS. --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Rosh Yeshiva of a major yeshiva (i.e. a dean of a major school) is notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A student of Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik and Rabbi Chaim Ozer is clearly notable, though I can forgive Ukexpat for not knowing that. Jon513 (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this notable rabbi and rosh yeshiva because he started as one of the most notable alumni to graduate from the famed Volozhin yeshiva in Eastern Europe, he is included in Template ((Volozhin Yeshiva)), and he ended his career as one of the earliest and most notable of Yeshiva University's RIETS rabbinical school rosh yeshivas and is included on the Template ((YU Roshei Yeshiva)). It is impossible to exclude him without destroying important chapters in the history of the yeshiva world and Orthodox Judaism. It has now been substantially improved, upgraded and wikified as a legitimate ((rabbi-stub)).
Note: The nomination is misinformed and the nominator is requested to withdraw his nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I beg to differ - please assume good faith. At the time of nomination it was not misinformed, the article on its face was not clear to a layman as to the notability of the subject, it is now much improved and the nomination is withdrawn. – ukexpat (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per IZAK. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 10:41, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DiBella's Pizza Shop[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/DiBella's Pizza Shop

This article about a "small family owned pizzeria" doesn't pass the basic guidelines for Notability and notability for organizations. A quick search on google shows no articles that discuss the pizza restaurant, there are no search results on google news and again no relevant articles on google scholar. Themfromspace (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Although it's a cute article about a pizza shop, it fails WP:N. It was tagged for PROD and then removed by the author. Truthanado (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This pizza is for carry out. Delete per WP:N Mandsford (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yummy, do they deliver to Kansas City? Too bad it's not a notable location.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is some articles related to DiBella's on a quick google search. Don't delete it. User:Juve10(talk)

Delete per WP:CORP. Google search yields routine directory listings. No evidence of 3rd-party RS interest. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. --Angelo (talk) 13:09, 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 Merge with The Crying Boy. Ty 23:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Amadio[edit]

Anonymus Painter only known for drawing The Crying Boy, a Paranormal. Not-notable enough for Wikipedia. Possible merge to The Crying Boy. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A google books search shows that he took part in the 1941 Cremona Prize, established in 1939 to promote Fascist art [8] but this source [9] states that no serious artist competed in the prize. The Crying Boys are the artist's best claim to notability, so merge to that article.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 10:54, 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 Mockumentary. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary style[edit]

It seems to be redundant to Documentary film. I would suggest it be redirected to that if possible. Howdoyouturnthison (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to mockumentary, which appears (to me) to be the same thing. PC78 (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per PC78. Howdoyouturnthison (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:PC78. The article describes a mocumentary. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 03:52, 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 Merge content to Bermuda Triangle.--JForget 22:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda Triangle source page[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bermuda Triangle source page

Wikipedia is not a directory. At best this should be merged into the respective articles. Joelito (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I never thought I would question an article for being over referenced, but this is nothing but reference. The list of sources belongs on the Bermuda Triangle page. Given that Bermuda Triangle has a tag for additional citations for verification, I think that this move would be welcome. Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Czar Brodie. I think that merging this back in the articles is a good idea as well; if someone has relied upon the source for a fact, include it in the citation. It's a bad precedent to create a "source page" for anything; and it's not as impressive as it might seem at first. Essentially, it's a list of headlines seen not long after an incident happened. Flight 19 disappeared on December 5, 1945, so one might as well say newspapers wrote stories about it 2 or 4 days later. If I have to register on a website to see those articles, then I suppose that I can use search terms and find the news without knowing the headlines. Mandsford (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge these back into the Bermuda Triangle page. There's no reason for there to be a whole different page for sources. There's a tag on the Bermuda Triangle page for more sources and these seem to be sources so merging these into that page would make alot of sense. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems an excellent idea, to remove all that would clutter the main article, to a separate, and sub-Article. This is not a new idea, it has been suggested in several AFD's prior to this one. A Merge, IMHO, would make the main Article unwieldy and excessively long. (Comment: have those suggesting a merge looked at how long the target of any merge already is?) This page is prominently linked from the Main Article and seems fine to me. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 16:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no size limit to articles. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but Wikipedia:Article size does outline several size related issues that hinder Article readability. (Please note the "Rule of Thumb" section that I am specifically referring to, and the current size of Bermuda Triangle) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 15:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A simple solution might be to move the page to Bermuda Triangle/Sources and possibly transclude it onto Bermuda Triangle. Or something similar, as it looks like the page could use some trimming and other work to be useful. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems a simple and sensible solution, a Move if I understand you correctly. Much better than loosing encyclopedic information altogether. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a list. The sources cannot be used as they are to directly source content (because we don't know what the sources say, esp. the news articles, or if the sources given are reliable), so merging them doesn't solve the sourcing issue with the main article, which would not have a source list that big anyway - most of that would be "further reading", and what was in the refs would be in much smaller refnote size font. MSJapan (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that because "we" (your word, not mine) havent checked the references it is useless, and therfore should be deleted? Your only assuming they havent been checked. On the surface many are to the New York Times & Washington Post, I would tend to think that they are reliable sources and Verifiable. I am not sure what you mean by "...which would not have a source list that big anyway", please explain why? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Bermuda Triangle.-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 22:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or weak merge to Bermuda Triangle, as lists of newspaper headlines aren't really appropriate for an encyclopedia. The problem with merging is that it may give the article possibly undeserved authority by implying that its contents have been checked against these sources. -- Jll (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - References do not "clutter the main article"; on the contrary, they are an essential part of it. An unreferenced article is not particularly useful, since anyone is able to write anything at any time (that's the main drawback of a wiki, after all). Only with references can we quickly check whether the content of an article is accurate. Splitting references from their articles only creates a maintenance nightmare. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:13, 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 speedy keep as neither the nominator nor anyone else favours deletion. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 01:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kobin[edit]

Prod tag removed by page creator, a SPA. Non-notable producer about whom no non-trivial coverage can be found. One of many vanispam pages created by/about/for very minor entertainment industries individuals. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as apparently worked with Tim Sulivan on many projects. Whoever removed the prod apparently did not understand that IMDb is only a tertiary source and should be supported by other 3rd-party sources. If the article is re-prodded, I'll see about improving it as well. The body of work would seem to indicate that the sources are out there. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment i have created a sandbox for this article. Will work to improve it over the next couple days. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Additionally I found lots to prove notability for Tim Sullivan and will improve THAT article. I found almost as much about the work of Kobin during my Sullivan search and will be able to impove his article as well. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I think I have shown a minor notability HERE. Comments? Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment it looks considerably better and I haven't objections to keeping it now. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will move the info from my sandbox to the article. I have done even more since your comment. Thank you much. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 19:25, 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. I don't see a firm consensus for merging the content, but one can be formed later outside of the AfD process. --jonny-m t 03:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logitech Attack 3[edit]

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:IINFO variously. Does not establish notability in any respect. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a product guide - unless notability for this particular one is demonstrated. Possibly merge if there is a suitable place for it, but I can't find one. Terraxos (talk) 02:51, 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, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What makes this any more notable than the next? Unless notability can be asserted, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. J kasd 05:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Logitech#Products. No claim in article of enough notability for a stand-alone article. (Delete would be my second choice.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect without deletion. Notable company, so reasonable chance such products are covered in game magazine previews/reviews (I've seen Logitech products in such magazines in the past). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it meets the notability guidelines. [10] [11]. RMHED (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Alright, there is some coverage. However, I don't think it's of the appropriate nature to pass WP:PRODUCT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:26, 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 (non-admin closure), nominator has change vote to keep. Paragon12321 (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Sullivan (director)[edit]

Prod tag removed. ~~No sources, novice director with no evidence of any notability. Likely vanispamicruft.~~ Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did a quick web search and found that Sullivan is a bit more notable than the article stated.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18], et al. There's a lot to work with to prove notability. Kind of a shame that no one took the time to source the article. Care if I have a go and making it worthy of Wiki? Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll be glad to change my mind if notability can be established. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have created a sandbox for this article. Will work to improve it over the next couple days. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Check HERE. I have definitely found enough to prove notability and improve the article. Now to work.... Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Addendum Have moved the informations from my sandbox to the page in question. I did a few format/style tweaks to give it some polish. I invite cleanup. Thanks folks. It was fun. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the various sources uncovered by Michael Q. Schmidt; seems like a clean-up issue now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's notable enough to have a listing here. The original argument for deleting this was that he only directed one straight-to-video film, which was untrue. PNW Raven (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new sources unearthed by Michael Q. Schmidt. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:05, 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 21:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TrueCombat: Elite[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previous AFD was a no-consensus keep. Fails to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. No reliable third-party sources to assert notability within the article, or were found via web search or news archive. Existing sources are self-published information from the makers of the game itself, or other unreliable sources, and therefore cannot be used to assert the notability of this mod. Randomran (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 21:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Someone another 12:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not a game guide. Article also has not improved any from the first nomination. MuZemike (talk) 02:16, 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 keep, especially due to the evidence of ugen64. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jong AFC Ajax[edit]

Declined speedy. As the reserve team of the clearly notable AFC Ajax, the reserve team fails notability. I did ask over at the Soccer Project if they had any views on this and to date no response. If we allow this reserve team, then presumably all other reserve teams would follow. Seeking consensus. ukexpat (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As shown by the "Former players" section, the Ajax academy has been responsible for a large number of notable footballers, and presumably the Jong AFC Ajax team is a big part of that. – Pee Jay 23:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the same applies to pretty much every reserve team of every leading club, are they all worthy of articles separate from the article for the club itself? – ukexpat (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into AFC Ajax. The farm team isn't necessarily notable on its own, but could be mentioned as part of the overall team structure. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 15:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - once you strip out the listcruft there may not be much left to merge! – ukexpat (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PeeJay. Other major clubs such as Arsenal and Chelsea have seperate reserve team articles, and IMO Ajax's youth system is much more notable. Giant Snowman 16:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - this club has reached the semi-finals of the Dutch Cup in the past... ugen64 (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though I dislike the list of lists nature of the article, that's not a reason to delete it, and it passes the notability test for me. --Friejose (talk) 21:39, 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, socks discounted. Sandstein 17:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Alternatives[edit]

CLOSING ADMIN: Vote stacking here, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MatthiasKnab — Rlevse • Talk • 16:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very unencylopedic article that seems to serve only to host spam links. Contested prod. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Article presents subject as a new term for a class of investments with no sources clearly cited to back up use of the term. —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REJECTED - Alternative Alternatives are an important concept, the article is starting to evolve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedgewiz (talk • contribs) 21:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC) — Hedgewiz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete it was me that Prod'd it as it looked like advertising attempt for the one firm linked at the time [19]. To be fair to the IP that's recently added links they do seem to be trying to reference it. But even the Mercer article [20] that uses article name puts it in quotes, implying its not a commonly used or defined term, eg its a non notable WP:NEOLOGISM.-Hunting dog (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NOT#OR, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE and WP:SPAM ~~and possibly~~. Possible WP:OWN and WP:COI violations. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:OWN is never reason to delete an article. WP:OWN is strictly about contributor behavior, not article content. Conflicts of interest can obviously lead to article content issues, but WP:COI specifically states that they are "not a reason to delete an article". I do think this article has issues which might warrant its deletion (as you imply with those other links), but I think you're painting with a bit too broad a brush. Just some (hopefully) constructive criticism; nothing personal. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I completely know this. I was going to mention that the article violated WP:OWN and WP:COI, but I didn't i'm just making clear that I know that. Neither of them, however, helps an article's case for keeping and I was pointing them out as problems. I somehow misssed that I submitted it without clearly stating that I was grouping those with the other four and as such i've changed my wording. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait guys, this has some relevance now. Has Hunter Dog read http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/investment/docs/other_docs/trends_en.pdf page 73? With the United States Patent and Trademark Office having granted a word mark for a first use in 20070101, "alternative alternatives" is not a neologism but a categorisation for institutional investors seeking diversification and uncorrelated returns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.154.7.21 (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 84.154.7.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - you don't need to convince me specifically, this is up for community discussion. Anyway I've looked through the references that have been added. Although they mention the term they generally do it in inverted commas eg. 'alternative' alternatives. Alongside other phrases like 'new' alternatives. I still think that is failing under WP:NEOLOGISM which says To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. The references given also say things like "We have called these and other similarly new and/or complex vehicles the 'alternative alternatives'." which doesn't imply its already a clearly defined term. I also think that its wandering in to WP:Original Research by synthesising snippets of information from primary sources. -Hunting dog (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - article is evolving and will continue to do so

The article is well sourced and the concept is relevant. For those who are not familiar with CAIA, that is the CFA for Alternatives (Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst). The CAIA survey on alternative alternatives from May 2008 is confirming the "alternative alternatives" concept. We will see this article evolve nicely - as the alternative alternatives, which are a frontier concept. Oh, "frontier investing" is another investment concept missing on Wikipedia (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=TxG&q=%22frontier+investing%22&btnG=Search&lr=) (just kidding ;.) MatthiasKnab (talk)

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

Keep article The issue here is that non-experts try to shoot down others who collaborated to add value and content to Wikipedia. But maybe such articles need to be listed in http://www.marketswiki.com/mwiki/Main_Page instead, where the understanding is there. But not adding such articles on Wikipedia would be wrong too, as this discussion shows how necessary it is to share the concept of alternative alternatives. See here from this FT article:
"Many institutional investors will allocate 10-15 per cent of their total portfolio to alternative investments within the next decade," says Nick Griffin, a partner at KPMG. "US endowments have led the way, but UK pension funds are moving in the same direction, albeit more slowly."
The range of alternative investments is also expanding. Mr Griffin includes infrastructure and natural resources in the mix; others talk about "alternative alternatives" - forestry, art and even wine. And these investment options are no longer the preserve of institutions. Retail investors are getting in on the act too. "It's getting hard to tell the difference between institutional and retail investors," says Greg Ehret, a senior managing director at State Street Global Advisors.
Who will succeed in this new paradigm? The received wisdom is that a barbell structure will emerge with large global firms at one end and small lean boutiques with specialist skills at the other. But it isn't quite that simple....http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?sortBy=gadatearticle&queryText=hedge+fund&y=4&aje=true&ct=0&id=070409000580&x=13
I also believe that people who say stuff like "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. It does nothing but promote some entity" - are they actually looking at this article? Hedgewiz (talk)

Son once again the FT, IPE.com, Opalesque.com, Mercer, KPMG, CAIA etc. and actually with them already hundreds of institutional investors are following the alternative alternatives concept.

Why is the concept important? See the London Times: "With the property market collapsing and commodities at extreme levels, is there anywhere left to make money?

Many advisers have long recommended clients interested in art, fine wine and collectables put a token part of their portfolio in these areas. However, professionals and private investors are increasingly seeing the potential in alternative assets.

City “superwoman” Nicola Horlick plans to let clients invest in music rights in the belief the sector will beat the downturn, while Clem Chambers, chief executive of stocks and shares site ADVFN.com , has sold out of equities and into collectable coins.

Gary West of Port Funds, which runs the Wealth and Fine Wine fund, a fund of funds for investment-grade vintages, said: “We're in a bear market and the traditional equity funds which have always taken the core in any portfolio don’t have the right to have that place anymore.

“Alternatives are no longer the abstract 1%-2% of a portfolio; they’re fundamental — into the realms of a 20%-30% split across a mixture of non-correlated alternatives.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/investment/article4321599.ece

The FT write about an Guitar Fund, being pitched to investors by Anchorage Capital, a London boutique investment bank, aims to profit mainly by buying electric guitars and classical guitars, plus mandolins, banjos and amplifiers. The fund is the latest in a series of non-traditional investments known as alternative alternatives, sold on the basis that their performance is not linked to stock and bond markets. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/77d8e68c-f7b1-11dc-ac40-000077b07658.html

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

Neutral: The article obviously has some serious quality problems (grammar, organization, markup, style), but it doesn't appear unsalvageable. Some serious copy-editing could fix it up. It seems like some legitimate sources have been added. Does not seem like typical spam; the initial version had no external references at all, and the current links appear varied (i.e., not promoting anything specific). I'm somewhat concerned that MatthiasKnab (talk · contribs) and Hedgewiz (talk · contribs) might be the same person, but perhaps that person didn't understand the purpose of Wikipedia accounts. In my book, WP:SPA violations alone don't automatically mean all contributed articles must be deleted. I'm most concerned with the actual subject matter. If the term is so new that it's not well-defined, that suggests it might be too new for an encyclopedia article. I also find most of the cited usage is casual mention of the idea, not a formal treatment or study of the concept. Assuming it is well-defined, is there enough for a full article? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Perhaps the concept should be merged into some more general article. Ultimately, I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter, which is why I can't come down firmly one way or the other. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reason (mentioned on author's talk page) but I forgot to list here, that I thought it was initially a clear spamming 'attempt' is that most of initial text is identical to that suggested by Special:Contributions/Opalesque which was refused at Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2008-07-22#Alternative_Alternatives. The Opalesque link shouldn't actually be used at all as a ref on this article as none of the content related to this subject is visible without payment. I'm sure the evolution of this type of investment could be mentioned as a section in Alternative investment, but this term doesn't seem well enough defined for a stand alone article. -Hunting dog (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Established term:

Alternative Alternatives are discussed since 2005 (I read the references source: "Already in 2005, the INVESCO and FRCs European Institutional Asset Management Survey noted (page 16) that alternative alternatives are the fastest growing asset class among Continental Europe's institutional investors"). IMO the term fully qualifies for an encyclopedic entry.

I also checked the Opalsque link mentioned by Hunting dog http://www.opalesque.com/index.php?act=archiveA2&formsearchorder=category - it is the most encompassing list of such investment options I have seen on the web. It adds value as "list of alternative alternative investment options" and should be kept.

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

Comment: This is not a vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Outcome depends on the quality of the points raised, not the quantity. So far, the only arguments in favor have come from MatthiasKnab (talk · contribs), Hedgewiz (talk · contribs), and Endangeredspecies (talk · contribs). To date, those accounts have only been used to promote this article. In particular, the last has only made one edit -- to this discussion. This suggests (but does not prove) all three accounts are under the control of a single person or group. Said singular edit was made after the concern about single-purpose accounts was raised in this discussion, so ignorance is no longer an excuse. Parties involved in this discussion should read the Wikipedia policy "Wikipedia:Sock puppetry", if they have not already done so. I will be reporting this . —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:NEO, WP:NOT#OR, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE and WP:SPAM indeed. Channel ® 23:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Channel R. Edward321 (talk) 23:57, 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 Redirect . Non-admin closure. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nar Shaddaa[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply a stubbish in universe plot repetition of elements of the Star Wars expanded universe. As such, it is duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Star Wars planets, and probably do the same to other independent articles on Star Wars planets. Reyk _YO! 22:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Someone another 12:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also fails to demonstrate any out-of-universe notability. MuZemike (talk) 02:17, 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 unanimity of responses to the apparently procedural nomination. No advertising concerns with the present version of the article, WP:HEY seems achieved. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 01:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOZA, Inc.[edit]

Speedy delete (as advertizing) queried by page's author.Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references, and I think notability is now clear. --Eastmain (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started this company article and others have added to it. I hope the decision will be keep. Notability is shown; the citations are to "Social Edge," a program of the Skoll Foundation which is broadcast nationwide on public radio stations; several articles in "The Nonprofit Times," "Investment News," and several other legitimate publications. Leoniana (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:57, 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. Wizardman 21:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Many[edit]

Per WP:GNG, this fictional element does not satisfy the requirement for multiple non-trivial sources independent of the subject; a beefed up mention of the faction could be made in the relevant game article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Someone another 12:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — A man from Mars cannot understand what this article is about within five seconds of looking at it. MuZemike (talk) 02:19, 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. Wizardman 21:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum bridge[edit]

Article seems to be promoting, a not so popular firm. Once being deleted speedily. Apart from that, References cite partial facts. Hitrohit2001 (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original version of the Spectrum Bridge entry needed to be fundamentally rewritten after initial speedy deletion. During the rewrite, more references were added and will be readdressed for their coverage of material. The company itself is well known in the wireless spectrum industry and key FCC circles. Threewinds (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2008
New changes to the article have been made, including deletion of a statement which could not be referenced correctly. Threewinds (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2008
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:48, 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, BJ^Talk 02:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional external link added to the Spectrum Bridge article about the FCC official rules adoption concerning secondary leasing of wireless spectrum. Threewinds (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of actual notability (though plenty of “reliable sources”). BTW, if article is not deleted, then it needs to be moved to “Spectrum Bridge”. —SlamDiego_←T 21:06, 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. Wizardman 22:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Deeper European Tour[edit]

Not-notable. Fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:17, 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, BJ^Talk 02:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply non-notable. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 20:06, 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 redirect to List of state-named roadways in Washington, D.C.. Since the content of the original articles is used in this list, deletion is not an option because the history needs to remain for licencing reasons. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakota Avenue (Washington, D.C.)[edit]

Non-notable street without sources. Note: previously prodded. —D. Monack ^talk 19:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Comment The prod on ND Ave was removed with the suggestion that these two pages be merged. This is a bad idea. First, because these two streets have little in common with each other, second because even a merged page would have nothing to say beyond a geographic description of their routes. Wikipedia isn't an atlas or a road map. —D. Monack ^talk 19:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Among the dry statistics, there appears to be enough information in [21] to write a decent article. --NE2 20:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Looking at that study, I think there may be enough to write a basic article about SD Ave. I encourage anyone to do that and I'm willing to withdraw my deletion request for the SD Avenue article.~~ That study, however, doesn't cover North Dakota Avenue and I think that one is a pretty clear candidate for deletion. --—D. Monack ^talk 21:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, looking over that study, it seems like a standard traffic study that could be about any street in America with nothing demonstrating the notability of SD Avenue. I have to reaffirm my call to delete both articles. —D. Monack ^talk 21:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per NE2. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment History of the article and the user contributions shows that this is someone's project to make a page about each of the streets in Washington DC that have been named after a state. There are five so far, these two and New Hampshire, Kansas and Nebraska. I don't see that there's a need for a page about a street that runs for three blocks, as is the case for ND Ave. I would support an article about the streets in Washington, D.C. that are named for the states; we all know Pennsylvania Avenue, and I imagine that there's a good reason for some streets being honored with the names of states. As with the Atlantic City streets on the Monopoly board, I think that, individually, most of those streets would be non-notable. Together, however, they would be worthy of an article. Mandsford (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See List of state-named roadways in Washington, D.C. —D. Monack ^talk 21:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. In that case Merge to that. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and BEBOLD and start changing that from an indiscriminate list into a better list. Mandsford (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Wikipedia is not a street directory. Mandsford's suggestion makes sense: it might be possible to scrape up enough material for a combined article. What we don't want is a project to fill in all the red-links in that list even if, like these two, there's nothing above directory-level to say about them. JohnCD (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just basic city streets, nothing to distinguish them from streets in Amarillo or Denver. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is common to designate neighborhoods by their bounding street names. This does not render the streets notable for Wikipedia, unless we really are going to change Wikipedia into an atlas. RayAYang (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the list article indicated by D Monack above. --Polaron | Talk 00:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to List of state-named roadways in Washington, D.C. TravellingCari 02:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete per above. Seeing that there is already a larger article in place, it is entirely appropriate to fold these two articles into it. Trusilver 00:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Frank | talk 15:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most Influencial Songs of The 21th Century[edit]

Subjective topic which appears to be original research composed from vaguely specified sources. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious WP:OR, unsourced, and probably POV, too. If this were some official list I'd be game, but it's not. 23skidoo (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete title is spelled wrong, and that's not the worst of it. JuJube (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, no clear criterion for inclusion. JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someday, Madonna's song, Hung Up, may indeed become the most influenchal of the twenty-oneth century. When Mahmoud Abbas sings to Ehud Olmert, "I'm hung up, I'm hung up on you, Waiting for your call, Baby night and day, I'm fed up, I'm tired of waiting on you" it might usher in a new era of peace in the Middle East. Until that day, however, it's OR. Mandsford (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously Original Research-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 21:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced opinionated list made off the top of someone's head. I don't see any reliable sources to confirm this informatio and Billboard throws up blanks on this information and these songs in this order. A couple spelling errors (Influencial? 21th? takin?) suggest the compiler might not have English as a first language. The other contributions by the user suggests user has something to do with promoting something called "Areschart". Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:40, 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 redirect to Ajax Starglider , merge left to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 14:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Class Artisan[edit]

Non-notable, just-released album, fails WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2008 UTC)

Comment: Now identified by Corenbot as possible copyvio. – ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC at present Artene50 (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:MUSIC#Albums, "articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article". Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ajax Starglider, as per Esradekan. Bondegezou (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merging would be acceptable were there anything to merge. In this case there is nothing appropriate on this article to fold into the artist's article. Trusilver 00:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Hmm. Not exactly on top of things, that production label. According to their website, this is soon to be released. Amazon says it came out on July 29th. I can't find anything else reliable. I don't see anything here, really, to merge in the traditional sense--the tracklist is not GFDL-protected and can be added independently if deemed appropriate, and there's no source for the release date (which is contradicted at Amazon)--but it seems that the article should at least be redirected, since the artist is apparently notable and it is a valid search term. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spider House Cafe[edit]

This is original research. There is no independent reliable third party sources to support that this place is "considered a center of culture in Austin, Texas" or anything else notable. Nv8200p talk 19:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think hosting a local event makes the place notable. -Nv8200p talk 02:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable establishment, fails WP:ORG. This small business was written about in a local rag, then somebody comes along and writes this up in a weaseley manner. Take that away, and not much is left. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A local coffeehouse that lacks notability, fails WP:ORG. Being the one-time host site of a minor local event does not give this subject the cred required by Wikipedia standards. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Article is borderline spam. Lacks sources to support notability; as an additional point, I know this is not authoritative, but I've been there, and see little to distinguish it from just about every other mid-sized club around Austin. RayAYang (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any information in local publications to support any claims to notability.EagleAg04 (talk) 21:57, 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 all . Single keep argument is invalid and single merge comment does not provide evidence. Creation of redirects after deletion left to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 14:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Gurung[edit]

This article is being nominated for deletion along with 11 other biographical pages, all in the category Miss Nepal Contestants. The winners and the second runner ups of the Miss Nepal beauty contest may be worthy of mention, but they are already present in the larger article, Miss Nepal. Maedin (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I am also nominating the following related pages for deletion:
   :Ayushma Pokharel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Bandana Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Sarah Gurung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Malvika Subba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Prerana Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Payal Shakya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Ayusha Shrestha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Sitashma Chand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Sugarika KC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Usha Khadgi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Shavona Shrestha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

you want to merge all of the pages or delete them? Protonk (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Either. I thought a merge seemed reasonable; but I am not a very experienced editor, and others may feel that deletion is more appropriate. They all appear to have been created by a single user; I thought that he may be willing to table them into a single article, if that is the consensus here. Maedin (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just asking. You'll find at AfD that editors and admins tend to frown upon up front merger requests. this is because AfD is a community process with enforced results. In other words, at the conclusion of this, some admin will delete or keep the page without further discussion. Mergers done this way tend to A: be inartful (as the admin is not likely to be a subject matter expert) and B: be contentious (as normal merger discussions have no time limit). so you may want to modify your nomination to reflect that deletion might be an outcome you desire as well. Also, please note WP:BEFORE, which gives suggestions (not necessarily binding) about what avenues to try before coming to AfD. Protonk (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I see. I will make it clearer. Maedin (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sure thing. If you have any other questions about the process you can ask them on the talk page for afd or on my talk page. I've linked your category link above. If you think that was not appropriate, let me know or undo it. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Maedin (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Although I noted to the nominator that a merger suggestion in the AfD nomination is usually avoided, I think one possible outcome from this AfD could be a redirect from the listed articles to the parent article, Miss Nepal, presuming they aren't notable or are not sourced well enough for BLP. So in this case I'm provisionally supporting a redirect. Protonk (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:NepaliBoy7, the creator of the articles, has been going around removing AfD tags, and posting bogus protection templates in order to subvert the deletion process. I have left a warning for him on his talk page, asking him to some here to defend 'his' articles Ohconfucius (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though there are not notable. I guess all should be merged into something like List of Miss Nepal something like that. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or substantially cut down on the information and merge). While no objection to a list of the winners of a contest (which contest may itself be notable) these articles fail to meet numerous guidelines including notability (entertainers), people notable only for one event, and what Wikipedia is not. Feel free to weigh in on a similar AfD discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Ann Suinner.Bongomatic (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An IP address (maybe NepaliBoy7?? is removing the AfD tags again and protecting the pages. Am I able to revert these edits? Maedin (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup you can revert his edits. Be Bold--SkyWalker (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn biogs. Mayalld (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Notable enough for single article certainly, this is important event in Nepal Sherpa from Nepal (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because they are very beautiful women NEver yer PAL (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge & redirect to Just Be (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiësto - Just Be: Train Tour[edit]

Non notable 'tour'. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the album article. Just a tour in support of an album release. — Gwalla | Talk 17:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect per Gwalla. Even cut in paste into a new section of the album article. -MrFizyx (talk) 23:19, 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. Wizardman 16:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

220 (song)[edit]

Non-notable song, fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to this the song has rotation on Russian television. The Tatu article says that it has already entered radio syndication.-Wafulz (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - None of that brings it past WP:MUSIC#SONGS. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:40, 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, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete', fails WP:MUSIC#Songs, as of now will never pass stub status.-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 18:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a song/music video that has apparently been widely viewed in Russia. Apparently, there was also some sort of controversy over it. It seems notable to me. Theshibboleth (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Apparently, none of this seems to be verifiable or notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inadequately sourced, vague claims verging on WP:OR, no indication of passing songs criteria. --Dhartung | Talk 06:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: I think we should merge it to T.A.T.u.#2007–2008: Waste Management / Upravleniye Otbrosami and then redirect it there. — Navy Blue ^{formerly iDosh} 17:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While not necessarily notable in America or wherever, it is notable in Russia. t.A.T.u. is a very popular Russian band, so the single will probably have some sort of chart positions when the album is released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tezkag72 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 30 July 2008
- Comment - That information from the crystalball does not satisfy the criteria under WP:MUSIC#SONGS. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:18, 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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Jordan Records[edit]

nn local record label, prod removed to add sources in good faith, but sources do not support notability either per N or per MUSIC. All the current sources show not only no coverage outside of the Cincinnati area, but also no real significant coverage within the area: out of 10 citations, 2 are from the label site, 4 are ads for upcoming shows in a "coming attractions" column on a once every two years basis, and 1 is a survey. The rest are articles on a pay site that only shows the first few sentences, so depth of coverage cannot be established. The article states the label has 19 album releases in 12 years; not only is that a very low number for a supposedly notable label (which has no press on these albums on-site at all), but there is no way to verify any of that because the label doesn't maintain a list on-site, nor do any of the artists linked off the site. Notability by having a famous artist is not established - of those artists not redlinked, Katie Reider survived AfD as "no consensus" (and was created in the wake of her death, not during her career) Wild Carrot (music group) is notable only because being named Cultural Ambassadors to Chile in 2006 can be considered such (but has nothing ot do with the label), Janet Pressley is notable for having founded the label (and if the label isn't notable, neither is she), and the others are prodded for no assertion of notability. There is also a case of what I would call "false loop notability": the artist and label articles create blue links for each other (which would superficially show notability for the label and vice versa), but the artist articles only say that the artist released albums on that label, and the label article only has a list of the albums. The shows and events listed would be notable if they were long-term, but they are written to imply a standing that is not there - the Spring Festival was a one-off show, as was the Christmas Show (the only press for which is the aforementioned show ads - there are no performance reviews). They only featured a few artists, and was nothing more that what a local nn booker could do. The Living Room Shows are quite literally two artists in someone's living room. The quote-unquote "big" event, The Blue Jordan Festival, is written to say "ran circa 1998-2001", so there's no available press (not even solid dates!) aside from coming attractions notes. I know these are suppposed to be short, but it takes some digging to show the extent of the supposed notability imparted by the sources. Even those events that might make the article borderline notable have no real coverage, but are blown up out of trivial mentions. MSJapan (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: David Wolfenberger is also an artist on this label, although it appears his notabliliy is also now being indicated as questionable. -MrFizyx (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did the rewrite of this. If feel the current article is NPOV and the statements made are factual and generally well sourced. I think the festivals and other events created by this group of musicians are notable and clearly a subject of published comment. It is true that only a very small amount of music on the label has had national reviews (Dirty Linen, PasteMusic.com). while being thoroughly covered in the local press (Cincinnati Post, Cincinnati Enquirer, CityBeat) It wouldn't be insane to argue notability either way. The relevant guideline here is: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." I feel enough reliable independent sources have been found (see on-going talk page discussions for others) and I do not promote a "false loop of notability." -MrFizyx (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —MrFizyx (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —MrFizyx (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —MrFizyx (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adequately sourced. Seems sufficiently notable. I don't see any benefit to the project from deleting this.--Michig (talk) 21:10, 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 Speedy Keep (non-admin closure), nomination was withdrawn as shown in the discussion below. In addition, the consensus has been to keep the article. MuZemike (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Gaming Classic[edit]

Lack of reliable sources in the article and zero Google News hits would indicate this is not a notable event. Addionne (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search for "Midwest Gaming Glassic" gives over 9000 hits, so I think that alone passes notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Mike (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 July 2008

Comment Number of Google hits is not a metric for determining notability, see: Wikipedia:GOOGLEHITS. swa q 18:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the contrary, it also states "can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is". Being a non-industry (I.E. not E3 type) fan based convention, it clearly demonstrates notability among the show's target group. As do the plethora of blog, podcast, and other coverage. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but that alone does not show notability. No one will agree on what number of hits should be the threshold for non-notable vs notable. Notability is established by independent reliable sources. I'm not saying that this particular article should be deleted, as I haven't looked at the references, just that the number of search results can not be used alone as a metric for notability. swa q 20:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per a few GNews hits in the archives. Clearly gets independent coverage. Three are even a couple of mentions in Google Books. Frank | talk 19:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it certainly needs reference improvement, the convention is long running, currently the largest fan based video game convention in the US, and well covered. Coverage was easy to find with a simple google search, here's a few - here, here, here, andhere, among the 9,060 hits that include extensive blog and forum hits (which denote notability among video game fan base). There's also been coverage and mentions in long running magazines like GameInformer, Electronic Gaming Monthly, Pingame Journal, Gameroom magazine, as well as with sites like Twin Galaxies (who also attended and spoke at this year's show regarding King of Kong, and GamaSutra. The IDGA also held a meeting at the show in the past and lists it on its Game Preservation SIG/Resources listing. This article simply needs a reference improvement, which is certainly long overdue. I also find it ironic this was brought up for AFD immediately after it was mentioned to said AFD caller in another releated AFD. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did nominate this after you mentioned it in a previous AfD discussion for another article. However, offering this event as a justification for another article opens this article up for critique as well, I think. I also wonder if you should disclude yourself from both arguments as one of the event's organizers. (See WP:COI) Addionne (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its an issue as long as I'm not self referencing, which I'm clearly not with the links provided above. Nor am I COI editing here, which the COI page is in reference to, i.e. the editing of content in the actual article (i.e. controversial content). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion This article prominently features your name, website (both in the lead paragraph!), and includes links to more than one website owned/maintained by you. According to the COI page, you have a conflict of interest when...

Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors.
Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles. Addionne (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which also states "If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias." and simply further establishes the already known fact that the article needs references. Likewise "avoid, OR exercise great caution when involved in..." with regards to AFD discussions. It does not preclude me from being involved in this AFD discussion, nor does it preclude me from voting here and providing the 3rd party links I provided above. In actuality, it simply comes off as a cheap tactic on your part (the person who filed the AFD in the first place) to remove a keep vote and silence any insight I may be able to contribute to the matter. This is not the article itself, its an AFD discussion pertaining to the article. It also assumes I'm a bad faith editor not capable of being neutral, when in fact I'm a long term contributor here and a very active member of the same video games project as your self as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marty - I totally concur that COI is not a reason to delete, and I expect any closing admin will know that. However, I would add that because of your COI, you're probably best off letting the facts speak for themselves. You've provided some info here; if you spend too much time and effort being the only one arguing for keeping the article, I think you risk having the opposite effect. If it's notable, that will come out in the discussion. Also, I'd like to point out that blog and myspace hits and the like do establish popularity...but do not establish notability. Remember that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. And, if my comments seem a little strong, bear in mind I have already expressed a keep opinion in this discussion, so I'm certainly not trying to argue against you; rather just suggesting a bit less...enthusiasm. These things usually run several days; give the system a chance to work! Frank | talk 20:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank, I completely understand what you're talking about. I've said what I have to say on the matter here, and leave it to my capable peers in the video game project and Wikipedia itself to decide the fate of the article. If it is decided to keep it, I'd be happy to work with whoever wants to be involved in bringing this article up to par for 3rd party references and neutrality. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The convention is, for a non-industry gathering, a very large event. It has gained some mainstream and gaming media coverage. The article needs sources, yes. However, I don't think that the subject is so devoid of reliable sources as to revert to AfD. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with the above. There is coverage at least to show notability does exist to an extent.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found several sources with a quick google search. Asher196 (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have left this on the article's talk page. Those articles alone from reliable sources establish a notability for the event (certainly not one-sentence mentions). What the article needs is a rewrite as it resembles more like a chronology than an encyclopaedia piece at the moment. I do hope the primary contributors to the article heed this AfD and the contents brought up to rewrite the article to avoid another such incidence. Jappalang (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by Nominator Addionne (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Someone another 12:52, 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 04:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess DisneyMania[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided (amazon link is not "coverage"), none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is almost certain to be released (all the major retailers have it as a pre-order) and all previous albums in the series have been substantial hits. With that said it seems like pointless beaurocracy to delete an article just to re-create it in a couple of weeks. No objection to deletion if it somehow fails to be released, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - First, per the article, this is not part of the Disneymania series, it's the first in the Princess DisneyMania series. How does the article know this? It's in the crystal ball. The tracklist is also from the crystal ball. It will be followed by DisneyMania 9 in 2009, according to the crystal ball. From non-crystal sources, we have a title and a release date. If that is "information ... confirmed by reliable sources", I'm Peter Pan (I'm not). And, per WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS: "Until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future album, early information about it should be in the artist's article only, not in a separate article about the unreleased album." Granted, there is no "artist's article", unless we select one of the names from the crystal ball. The chronology listing on DisneyMania 6, though at odds with the idea that this is a different series, at least doesn't create info from magic pixie dust. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Andrew Lenahan. Voices4ever 14:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment again, in what way does this article meet notability requirements? Is anything but the title and release date verifiable? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have just restored the AfD notice to the article for the third time and requested semi-protection to prevent a fourth removal. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Looks like a fourth removal happened anyway. --- Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per nom. There are no reliable sources to be seen (Amazon isn't a reliable source and should never be linked on Wikipedia IMO). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 01:43, 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, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CRYSTALballery. No comment on the notability of the album, however. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just restored the AfD for the fifth time and requested page protection again. Also noted the appearance of a completely different tracklisting and the re-post of DisneyMania 7. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing, no apparent notability.
Kww (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Restored the AfD for the sixth time. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:12, 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. Wizardman 04:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 NFL rookie symposium[edit]

This article has no references, is uncategorized, orphaned, and fails WP:V. Tavix (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Move - There are lots of reliable sources that mention this event [22], but personally I think this article should be moved to NFL rookie symposium with its contents included as a section for the 2008 event. Then subsequent years can be added to that article with notable events from each year listed, such as the fight that occurred at the 2008 event. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Reliable sources that verify the existance of something doesn't make it notable. --Pinkkeith (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move - I don't believe this to be a notable event to have its own aticle. Perhaps it could be moved to 2008 NFL Draft. --Pinkkeith (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What is your opinion on changing the article to NFL rookie symposium which would cover all of the yearly events and making this a section? I don't believe the information in this article would fit in 2008 NFL Draft. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This has nothing to do with the 2008 NFL Draft, so it should not go there. However, an article about this specific year's symposium is not worthy of its own article. If anything, it should be in an article on the event in general, as has been suggested above.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At best, there can be an article on the NFL Rookie Symposium in general. But I don't see how an event that's essentially a glorified job training seminar is really notable for anyone but the participants. matt91486 (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as copyright infrintement of [23]. --JLaTondre (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homestore[edit]

Unsourced, somewhat convoluted promotional essay. The sources given don't mention the topic. Wafulz (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as bizarre promotional material of no encyclopedic value.--Boffob (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep This article is a terrible mess, but seems to be on an important notable subject. so i would say this needs a complete rewrite, but not deletion--UltraMagnus (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources on it? Right now we have two or three paragraphs in the NONFOODS article. Maybe a merge to Category management is feasible?-Wafulz (talk) 16:14, 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, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:58, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave McBridge[edit]

Prod contested by an IP address without comment. A hoax, does not exist beyond this Wikipedia article Nuttah (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX The last 2 footnotes don't even mention McBridge while the third ESWP Award footnote only starts from 1988 whereas the footnote refers to 1987. How convenient. Fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:V. Artene50 (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely fails to verify. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete take this out with the trash. JuJube (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete moronic hoax. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax.John Z (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. Edward321 (talk) 22:23, 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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vbuzzer[edit]

Previously deleted article. Not a notable company Ernestvoice (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. swa q 18:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you discredit WP:GHITS votes often, yet your WP:JNN vote is equally unhelpful. Please expand. SashaNein (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to it not meeting the notability guidelines (significant coverage in independent reliable sources), not that it was "just not notable", and I have already expanded on this below. swa q 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Clearly non-notable, verging on spammy. ukexpat (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of those is just a passing reference, not convinced that the other two amount to significant coverage. – ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree. The second and third reference seem to only mention Vbuzzer in a group of other VoIP (though I can't read German very well). The first reference is very short and is almost more about Skype than Vbuzzer. swa q 20:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Page looks alright, doesn't seem to be selling anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MMuzammils (talk • contribs) 19:31, 23 July, 2008 (UTC)
Keep sufficient sources for notability. DGG (talk) 23:09, 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, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search gives over 100,000 hits, that to me passes notability. Doesn't seem to be trying to sell you anything.-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 18:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the notability guidelines a topic is presumed notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The number of Google search results means little to notability, see: Wikipedia:GOOGLEHITS. swa q 18:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete 10 hits on Google News; all English-language news paper sources (2 of them) are from Globe and Mail, which appears to be its hometown paper. A grand total of 7 hits on an all-English Lexis search, only one of which mentions it anywhere except in passing. This one really does appear to be marginal, and the page has been up for a year and a half. I wouldn't call the coverage by reliable sources significant. RayAYang (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient sources to establish notability. Note that the Globe and Mail is not a hometown paper. It is a national newspaper and the second largest daily circulation newspaper in Canada. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 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. Wizardman 04:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pucovský[edit]

Delete unreferenced article about a Slovak surname without indication of why it's notable; WP is not the Bratislava phone book Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until at least we can hang one notable individual off this article. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:06, 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, Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:02, 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) 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't really explain anything about the name. Hmrox (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A surname stub, which is accepted as notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a genealogy project and there's no evidence this is a notable name. TravellingCari 02:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I don't like to argue with my best-wiki-friend, there is something very similar to a genealogy project at WP and its called Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I don't think the existence of a project, albeit one with a fancy name, trumps precedent (some examples from my watchlist, by noo means exhaustive, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oltian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ablat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baali (surname) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fortuna surname.) There may have been some that were kept, but these were on my watch. Feel free to disagree. I told DDG on another AfD, I'm wrong at times. Always willing to see other sides of the coin. What are your thoughts on it, Brew? TravellingCari 03:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well "precedent" is kinda like a "other-stuff-exists" argument which an afd veteran like yourself knows doesn't fly. To the same extent that there are precedents for deletion there are precedents of non-deletion with thousands of Category:Surnames in existence.
    - I see surnames as geographic locations (which are considered inherently notable). If there are lots of people going around with the last name its conspicuous proliferation is itself a basis for notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agree but disagree. Have they all survived AfD? I see there existence as otherstuff as well. Speaking just for myself and not other nominators, I don't actively seek out names to delete but if I find them somewhere, I will nominate if there's no evidence they're notable. I think ones that dab petween those of the same name, i.e. Photios, serve a purpose but ones that just go on about the name aren't inherently notable. Some names may be, i.e. Bin Laden family, Astor family, Rockefeller family, etc.may be notable for the people -- but I don't think names are inherently notable. Then again, I disagree with the schools status quo too. TBC tomorrow, bedtime for me. TravellingCari 03:37, 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 . No sources written primarily about Sokol are forthcoming—the text of the FT top story ([24]) has not been provided—though I am willing to reconsider if such sources are found. lifebaka++ 14:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Sokol[edit]

Unreferenced; doesn't appear notable. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: There are some sources: [25], [26],[27],[28], but not sure they are sufficient. – ukexpat (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm underwhelmed myself. The man clearly exists, is making good money, and has earned passing press mention. Still, no conclusive evidence of notability. (And it would help if the uploader had provided sources, but perhaps not surprisingly, the biography is his only contribution.) Biruitorul ^Talk 02:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:42, 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, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Reflist was missing from the article, so the references didn't show up. I think notability is established with the coverage of the transactions he has been involved with. --Eastmain (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? He just seems to be a middleman. Someone has to sign off on big checks, and of course his name gets in a few papers for that, but does it really confer encyclopedic calibre on him? Biruitorul ^Talk 22:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just a case of signing the cheques. These are reports of the subject's achievements in negotiating these deals. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are not as far as I can see about him. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few trivial mentions does not notability make. Most of the text is unsourced, and may not be verifiable. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he is notable enough to be reported on in the business section of the Telegraph when he switches jobs, and is identified as a top story in the Financial Times when hired by Vodafone. -- Whpq (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all clear to me that the FT story is about Sokol if one reads the summary. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The headline page linked by Whpq says, "Top story: Andre Sokol (pictured), was hired to run Vodafone’s corporate finance department...". It seems pretty clear from that that the article is largely about Sokol. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article as written, minor notability aside, fails Wikipedia:BLP. Needs many more cites and sources to prove statements. Anyone up for the challenge? Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Someone once referred to an accountant as a "mental athlete". The skills involved with doing major deals and doing them properly are relatively rare, so the comparison with a top-level professional athlete has some basis. --Eastmain (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see some shred of notability, but nothing that makes it pass WP:BLP. Simply put, Wikipedia is not a collection of every single businessman of minor importance. Trusilver 05:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources show that the subject was responsible for much of the expansion of one of the world's largest corporations in the years that he was there. That's far more than a "businessman of minor importance". Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm French and I studied the case of Vodafone Group's acquisition of Mannesmann AG. It's clear that the man had a main importance in that sale. cbastie (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)— cbastie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep. He is clearly a very important financier and has led some enormous M&A transactions. Sources provided are sufficient for someone in finance, where sourcing is notably difficult given how secretive the finance world is. Paul Hoggins (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have found it very difficult to research important people working in private equity and this kind of contribution would be helpful. Henry1970 (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)— Henry1970 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to Admin: User:Henry1970 added the stricken KEEP signing it with a non-existent user of Paul Hoggins. -- Whpq (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Avenue (Washington, D.C.)[edit]

Bring it to AfD since we've been having so many about streets here lately, I figured it might be controversial (otherwise, I'd have prodded). I hold that Wikipedia is not an atlas, or a directory of streets in major cities. RayAYang (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing notable about this street. There is not likely to be any source material on this street other than in maps and atlases. —D. Monack ^talk 19:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This page was previously prodded and deleted. —D. Monack ^talk 19:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 13:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of state-named roadways in Washington, D.C. TravellingCari 19:02, 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 per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Sport Law[edit]

Notability is not shown DimaG (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is called the International Association of Sports Law, search for sources by that name. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right now i cant rename the page to International Association of Sports Law (account active 2 days only), and also there is no sources or other articles at Wiki for that. Ctfreak (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Phlegm Rooster (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Add sources above and some others Ctfreak (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:38, 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 (non-admin closure), as per the affirmative consensus of this decidedly non-angry discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angry white male[edit]

The article just seems have original reseach in it and doesn't exactly explain what it is. Hmrox (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It did exist, and it was a notable political term. The article does need cleanup, since there are POV issues. There always are POV issues, it seems, with racial classifications that attach pejorative adjectives. RayAYang (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The term was, and to some extent still is, a notable term. I agree that the article needs clean up.-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 19:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been AFDed before. The result last time was to keep. Here's the archived discussion RayAYang (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep If the nominator actually read the article I am not sure how they could have come to the conclusion that the article "doesn't exactly explain what it is", when the first sentance reads Angry White Male "is the designation of a voting bloc of white males". And then goes on to describe the characteristics of the said voting bloc. While the current source is not properly noted using inline citations, all the information is laid out in one of the better bibliographic notes that I have seen, showing that it is notalbe and verifiable. It is currently in need of cleanup, but it doesn not meet deletion criteria.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this formerly widely used pop-demographics term (hopefully it is now an artifact of an era). Article needs more sources and inline citations as well as cleanup, but that is normal. --Dhartung | Talk 06:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I AM ONE ANGRY GODAMN MOTHERCUKING WHITE MAN DON'T GODAMN DELETE THIS ARTICLE OR ELSE I'LL VOTE REPUBLICAN! -- see that's what an angry white man sounds like. this is a notable term so lets keep it.^MY♥_INchile 06:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per our editing policy. Numerous sources for this exist. Note that it has been at AFD before. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:34, 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. If someone wants to transwiki I'll provide the contents. Wizardman 04:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Crescent[edit]

Fails to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. No reliable third-party sources to assert notability within the article, or were found via web search or news archive. Randomran (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Perhaps a merge into the article for the game? Maybe Transwiki if we can find the right wiki? RayAYang (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but first, transwiki — I do not think merging is much of an option here as it wouldn't fit anywhere within the parent article. MuZemike (talk) 02:22, 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 apparent lack of notability. --jonny-m t 03:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Stars (video game)[edit]

Fails to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. No reliable third-party sources to assert notability within the article, or were found via web search or news archive. References in the current article are currently self-published and/or unreliable, and thus cannot be used to assert notability. Randomran (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really notable. It could probably be merged somehow into the Modding of Command & Conquer article itself if real sources can be found. Addionne (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does have reliable third-party sources attesting to its notability: see the Publicity section.--ragesoss (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Someone another 12:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But none of the references are reliable. The interview doesn't mention any real people (i.e. just usernames are mentioned). The next three sources are from fansites, all of which are not reliable sources. The last one is simply a forum poll, which is a textbook failure of verifiability. Please reread WP:V as well as WP:VG/S on what sources are acceptable for inclusion in a Wikipedia video game article. MuZemike (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes an acceptable source depends on context (as both the policy and the guideline note). I think in this context, fansites for the main game can be reliable sources for a specific mod. The fact that the interview only has usernames is not particularly relevant, since going by usernames rather than real names is common practice in game mod communities.--ragesoss (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:V for the reasons I have stated above. MuZemike (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing even hints to notability - Nabla (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per snow in July.. TravellingCari 02:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to survive being a military's child[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/How to survive being a military's child

Article fails Wikipedia is NOT a publisher of original thought, or manual, guidebook, or textbook. Also screams of original research. Delete. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Tell creator to post in WikiHow. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A How-To personal essay. Wikipedia is not your personal webspace. 17:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:NOT#HOWTO and WP:OR. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is Wikipedia not Wikihow. Hmrox (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's snowing. JuJube (talk) 20:16, 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 redirect to Kissology Volume Three: 1992-2000. --jonny-m t 03:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KISSology Volume 3 (1992-Present)[edit]

This page is not needed as there is already a page for this DVD Edgehead5150 (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written, out of date, press release-esque duplicate of already existing article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect we can never have too many redirects IMO. Doesn't need outright nuked. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kissology Volume Three: 1992–2000. No need to bring this to AfD -- next time just boldly redirect, or place a ((mergeto)) tag if you aren't comfortable doing it yourself.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:50, 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 as G12 blatant copyright infringement. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C Tycho Howle[edit]

Appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:40, 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, Davewild (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:59, 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) 16:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as copyvio - Googling the name gets a nice copyvio hit here. I'll tag it.

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poda podi[edit]

Future film, fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 16:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. Can be recreated when it is needed. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Fails WP:NFF, but as filming is apparently due to begin in little more than a month, I suggest moving it into user space as opposed to outright deletion. PC78 (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Principal photography has not yet started. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails NFF and CRYSTAL. Any interested editor chould move to his sandbox and work on the article until it is needed... or add the information to existing articles about the producer, director, or cast. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability guidelines for future films since filming has not begun. No problem with recreation if filming does begin, and the film meets general notability guidelines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails NFF and CRYSTAL. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:46, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. I think two relistings is sufficient. --jonny-m t 03:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adelynn Cupino[edit]

Makes a couple claims to notability, which is why I undid an A7 tag I put on it. Still, there're no reliable sources to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 04:01, 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, Davewild (talk) 19:23, 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) 16:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I have no idea what passes for notable in the world of beauty pageants, but there are a few bits and pieces on the web ([29], [30], [31]). PC78 (talk) 17:43, 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 delete. Wizardman 04:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7th Age of Computing[edit]

Appears to be a neologism coined as marketing campaign for future products (see last paragraph). Content is an original research essay promoting said products, or at best a summary of one company's promotional literature. I listed it as spam for speedy deletion initially, but it was referred to afd by reviewing administrator. Mycroft7 (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears to be some sort of viral ad campaign/spam that has been popping up all over the internet in recent days. Please delete. WildCowboy (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update, author statement copied from talk page:

OK this article is factual in nature not promotional. It is seeking to explain the historical development of computing tools in a conceptual history. There are many companies mentioned in the article not one. It is modeled on the history of the microprocessor article in wiki.

If we remove all mention of companies who have contributed to the different ages of computing tool development there would be no context and no meaning.

Finally I would ask this question does this article contribute to the discussion of computing history, does it not throw light on the current and past developments and does it not conceptualize it in an original way which has never existed before.

Finally wiki was always meant as a mechanism for people to share views and I think a discussion on conceptual history of computing should be something you guys would be keen to support.

If the people who read it think we have overstepped the mark anywhere into self promotion the article will be rewritten anyway by readers.

I would urge you to foster this discussion. [unsigned]

comment: The second to last sentence of this statement seems to affirm that it is self-promotion (if not necessarily bad-faith), but even if it were rendered neutral it would still at least be original research, neologism, and unverifiable prediction (WP:NOT#OR, WP:NEO, WP:FUTURE). I stand by the nomination. Mycroft7 (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone finds some reliable sources that demonstrate this is not just a self-promoting neologism. I'm not holding my breath. Reyk _YO! 22:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marketing spam. Large parts of the text are copied from www.infini.com. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is a vehicle for spam. -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Delete regardless of whether this is considered spam or not. It's not shown that these concepts even exist outside the marketing campaign. There are no sources at all and nothing else that would indicate even minor notability. Averell (talk) 08:25, 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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Ashbrook[edit]

I tagged this for speedy deletion on 3rd July under CSD A7 in that notability was not asserted. Another editor later legitimately removed the speedy tag after this message left on the talk page promised an improvement; however in the intervening13 days I can't see any real improvement and the single external link is nearly 6 years old, which whilst is not the only reason for deletion, would suggest a lack of recent activity to establish notability beyond the only album which is mentioned.

As such I believe that the article fails WP:N due a lack of widespread coverage. BigHairRef | Talk 05:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional articles- The creator has created a number of related articles; if this article is deleted, the album articles should be deleted also:
- Satellite (Stephen Ashbrook Album)
- About Last Night (album)
- Navigator (Stephen Ashbrook Album)
- White Balloons
- American B-Sides
- Drive (Stephen Ashbrook Album)
- Double Live @ Long Wong's -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:15, 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, Davewild (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 for this, this, this, and maaaaaaaaybe this, but probably not. The albums should be merged into the Stephen Ashbrook article for lack of independent coverage, and being little more than a track listing per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:13, 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, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that this should be kept because there's (just) enough evidence of coverage and the album articles should be merged into the main article.--Michig (talk) 21:23, 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 consensus . Discussion is not forthcoming, I doubt relisting for a third time would create much. lifebaka++ 14:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O fracas[edit]

Doesn't meet my reading of WP:MUSIC AndrewHowse (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly scrapes through per WP:MUSIC#C1 for this, this, this, and sort of this. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Those are mostly blogs (btw, you linked one article twice). The only reliable source I can see there is the Guardian, which is just an album review. — Gwalla | Talk 20:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I tried to cover my arse on that by using the word possibly..haha. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: there is one source, the Guardian article: it's the "band of the day" page, not an album review. There is coverage on leedsmusicscene.net but that is a local website so it is not enough for notability. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:55, 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) 16:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper ǀ 76 21:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Drowned in Sound is an online magazine, not a blog. Along with the Guardian article and the review in NME, this might just scrape by WP:N. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:54, 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. Two relistings is sufficient time for discussion. --jonny-m t 03:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syntext Serna[edit]

Delete nn software package, referenced only by a press release. Mayalld (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references to third-party independent sources have been added. Sernauser (talk) 13:15, 15 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, Keeper ǀ 76 21:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:35, 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, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:49, 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. Wizardman 04:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matias de Tezanos[edit]

Doesn't appear notable, and article appears to be a coatrack for advertising companies that he is involved with. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:32, 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, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not many hits on Google, turned up mostly things like facebook, linkedin, blogs, etc. Nothing reliable independent of him to indicate notability. I also agree with nom that this is a coatracking for his websites. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:34, 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 no consensus , further relisting unlikely to generate much more discussion. lifebaka++ 14:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol Underground[edit]

Contested Prod. Original deletion reason:article fails to assert why this internet radio station is notable. Lacks 3rd party verifiable references.

Procedural nomination. Gwernol 09:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Arguably notable web site but article needs significant changes. Apparently this web site formerly licensed the "American Idol" name and received news coverage. Washington Post But it's no longer called American Idol Underground; it's now Artist Underground, and all references to American Idol have been removed from the site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability requires multiple sources. As it is they've changed their address and website name so in effect old news coverage is meaningless because it really isn't about the same site anymore. For the article to be kept there needs to be another article presented and it would have to be a historical article as that site is now closed.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the article could be revised to focus on the site as it was when it was more notable, as opposed to covering the site as it is now when it is arguably less notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is my point about a "historical article" it should be written in the past tense. There still needs to be another source though to establish past notability. If the Washington post article is the only reliable source, this might be better merged to the american idol main article.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing my recommendation because the title of the article has changed since this AfD began. I would have preferred that any move of the article be delayed until after the AfD was completed. No opinion.

Notability is not temporary, any references to 'American Idol Underground' should be past tense but references including that name do show notability. The article should refer to it's current name and any references to 'American Idol Underground' should be part of it's history.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be more than just a fan website, it's pretty much a small media company at this point. I'm finding articles in the New York Times, Canadian Business, in addition to the Washington Post article mentioned above. Also there are a bunch of press releases about some partnerships with Sony.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
very weak Delete OK, while this meets our notability precedents it fails the smell test and the common sense test. Do something first.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 13:10, 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, JForget 23:26, 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, Tawker (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Um, how many times are we going to relist this? This looks like a case of no consensus to me. --Rtphokie (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree. Someone should close this as such.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 04:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In-depth coverage in the New York Times and other publications certainly points to notability and notability is not temporary. -Dravecky (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Although the arguments that the article should be deleted based on the overwhelming presence of original research are persuasive, so too are the arguments that the topic is sufficiently defined and notable enough as a concept to warrant its own article. Toss in the rough split between commenters, and it seems there is no firm consensus one way or the other. --jonny-m t 04:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving (address)[edit]

When you remove the list of reasons for moving, which is textbook original research, you are only left with a dictionary definition. I can only see this article as serving as a generic See also placeholder to more specific and factual topics such as for example estate agent, moving company etc. MickMacNee (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: fixed. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not just a Dicdef. Is referenced in that it is found on the Holmes and Rahe stress scale. This alone goes beyond a dicdef. (Even if the link found here falls short of WP:RS, the Holmes and Rahe scale is found in many locations that do meet the criteria, I just could not locate one myself). I could not find a reference for other information in here, so I marked it as a stub. Being a stub or short article is not grounds for deletion, per WP:DEMOLISH.
- I was of course was not suggesting that moving house doesn't exist as a concept, so I don't see what relevance 'souring' it has. You can source the existence of any and every dictionary definition, that is what makes it a dictionary definition. MickMacNee (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apologies to anyone who has worked on this article, but as it stands it's absolute rubbish. There have been several guides to moving house published, but the encyclopedic stuff should already be covered in articles about conveyancing and surveying. I don't see the potential for a useful article here.--Michig (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable event, although a rename (I really don't know but "address" just doesn't sound right) and a major original research removal is needed.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I agree with the above. The so-called original research need not be removed but rather sourced. It sounds accurate to me, and I'm sure it could be found somewhere. Sebwite (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If there are no good ideas for a rename, it should be atleast be renamed: Move (address). There's no reason for it to be in verb form. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that Moving by itself could be the title of this article, and all other uses be listed under Moving (disambiguation). But I cannot make that change myself. Tatterfly (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur. Without the OR in the article, you are reduced to nothing more than a dictionary definition. The title is always awkward and unsuitable. Trusilver 22:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow delete, inherently unencyclopedic.. TravellingCari 02:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akasa is Quanta[edit]

A difficult-to-read personal essay that isn't encyclopedic. It appears to be showing that the "quanta" energy packet discovered by planck was already known to indian philosophers/intellectuals X thousands of years ago. Wikipedia is not an essay repository or webhost. Ironho lds 16:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOR and WP:NOT. The "This paper was submitted by Rahul Ashok Soor" at the end of the article says all that's necessary about the creator's confusion. Ravenswing 16:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteStraightforward OR essay. Mycroft7 (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay full of synthesis. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 16:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personal essay. Wikipedia is not your personal webspace or publisher. Also seems to be in vio of WP:OWN. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crap. JuJube (talk) 20:17, 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 as nonsense by PeterSymonds. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pluton, Nevada[edit]

Looks like a hoax to me. Google hits for it are geological entities, not a town. If it part of some TV show, still looks like a hoax/not-notable. Any other contribs by its main two editors need to be examined, I haven't got the time. Speciate (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: as unsourced nonsense. As it happens, the two contributors are SPAs for whom this represents their sole contribution to Wikipedia. RGTraynor 16:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 There are sources (the ((reflist)) was missing), but they don't even mention the town at all. Between that and the otherwise dubious nature, I'd say it's a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 16:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GNIS at http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic does not have a listing for this supposed community. --Eastmain (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw it as CSD but wanted to check here first. Nonsense on the face of it. DGG (talk) 18:35, 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. Wizardman 04:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Know (Jessica Simpson album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Only sources are a YouTube video, a handful of primary sources, and a Yahoo! source that doesn't even mention the album's name. The only hits I'm founding online are leaks of the album, or sources that just mention that she's recording it. I haven't found anything that verifies anything at all, besides the name, release date, and lead-off single. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 16:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page was deleted back on July 1 for lack of sources as well. This version is sufficiently different that I don't think a db-G4 is applicable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 16:21, 28 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!)} 16:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a future album without a confirmed track listing --T-rex 16:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL ... and as this is going to keep on happening, I'd advocate temporary Salting until and unless some confirmatory reliable sources turn up. Ravenswing 16:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, too forward looking and too many WP:CRYSTAL issues at this juncture. RFerreira (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seem fairly well referenced. Although all lot of stuff in the article should be removed the album itself has been confirmed. Buc (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all from her own website. Wikipedia articles should always include secondary sources, not just primary. And yes, the album has been confirmed, but all we know is that it will exist, it will be produced by Brett James and John Shanks, and that "Come on Over" is in Top 20 on the country charts. That info's fine for the "Come on Over" article and the Jessica Simpson article, but not for a whole 'nother page yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous noms. Spell4yr (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 04:50, 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 speedily deleted by Anthony.bradbury per CSD A1 (no context). Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prolly kiss[edit]

neologism Aletheon (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A1 Barely even a stub, and a dicdef anyway. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 16:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Is it a neologism? A dicdef? No, wait, kids, it's both! RGTraynor 16:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NAD and WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prolly delete JuJube (talk) 20:18, 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. Wizardman 04:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business gold coast[edit]

Subject is not notable, much of info could be included in main Gold Coast article. Written like an advert. Contains a spam type listing of subject's advisory board and projects. Article's original author had objected to PROD template, and promised to improve. One week later and no improvement made since. Dmol (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's Vanispamcruftisement all the way through. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like spam; non-notable corporate extension of city government. Merge what's useful into the city's own article. Note: I was the original author of the PROD. RayAYang (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as WP:SPAM. I'm surprised it wasn't speedied. Ravenswing 16:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Do any other departments within local councils have their own article? I don't think so. Delete! --Lester 20:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: This article is merely corporate promotion of a kind that may have a place in a prospectus or corporate plan, but has no place in an encyclopedia. The originator of this article, Edmp1, has contributed to WP on only a small number of occasions; mostly in relation to this article, but one or two other contributions to related articles. This is likely a WP:COI situation. The article is not written from the perspective of an objective observer. I see nothing notable about the business venture on which this article is based. The business venture does not meet the primary criterion for notability of an organization or company specified in WP:COMPANY. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is of public interest to Gold Coast residents and businesses who are interested to know what their government is doing to stimulate employment and economic opportunities, given the city's rapid population growth rate. Have added some further info. Other Council's do have seperate pages for their business units (see Brisbane City Council).Edmp1 (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "of public interest to Gold Coast residents and businesses" is not a reason to put this information in an encyclopedia. We are not a business directory, nor do we publish lists of business people or their strategies and agendas.--Dmol (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being of public interest is irrelevant to whether an organization or company qualifies for an article in Wikipedia. There is only one criterion by which such an organization can qualify, and it is the criterion of notability described in detail at WP:COMPANY. There are many activities, organizations and companies that are of public interest, and there are documents and web-sites which cater for that public interest; but in the majority of cases Wikipedia is not appropriate. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:18, 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, there is certainly no consensus to delete this article. Any Merge proposals are an editorial matter. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen bovine semen[edit]

Reads like an essay - and do we really need an article on frozen bull semen? Katharineamy (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ The current article is unsourced, and does not explain the importance of the subject, if any, in addition to being essaylike. There are also bits of inappropriate humor. I have a suspicion the subject might be of some scientific or livestock interest, but it's so far out of my field I wouldn't know where to begin looking. RayAYang (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following remarks by those with knowledge of agriculture and animal husbandry, change to Keep. RayAYang (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The standard isn't whether the article is unsourced, but whether it is unsourceable. The odds that there are fewer than a hundred reliable sources about artificial bovine insemination are close to zero. Whether the subject is notable above and beyond any other cattle breeding articles (of which I could find none) I leave to WP:AGRICULTURE, but stylistic problems are inappropriate for AfD. RGTraynor 16:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If someone wishes to produce an article based upon reliable and encyclopedic sources, then so be it. RFerreira (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The main issue of the AFD is whether we need an article on this topic, not the stylistic issue. I felt it should at the very least be on a broader topic, if it's needed at all. Katharineamy (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Torn Man, that's a poorly written article. But darn it, it's a legetimate topic in the dairy industry... it can surely be improved or merged to something more general like Animal Husbandry?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Artificial insemination in livestock and pets. Frozen bovine semen is a vehicle for artificial insemination of cattle and the informative parts of this article should be saved and merged into the corresponding section in the AI article (which could do with an expansion). --Zlerman (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject in the cattle industry. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To answer the nom's question, yes, we do. The subject is highly notable in the field of animal husbandry. Just because a subject fits under WP:EWWWW doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. Eauhomme (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is notable, to be sure, but this article does not meet core verifiability polices. Wipe the slate clean and start over. JBsupreme (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A two year old article on a clearly notable topic in animal husbandry and it remains frozen in the poor condition its in. There is not one word on the talk page by experienced Wikipedians giving advice on how to improve this article. We should be ashamed of ourselves and thaw this one out.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Artificial insemination in livestock and pets, as per Zlerman. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:28, 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 Speedily gone. A7/G11, take your pick. . TravellingCari 02:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bigblue Product Design[edit]

Contested prod: notability not asserted, written promotionally, author has conflict of interest for neutrality Maxim_(talk) 15:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete—Actually, I don't think the PROD was contested. Another editor added ((prod-2)), basically backing up the PROD, then you deleted both and applied the AfD templates. [32] Regardless, I think it barely fails notability for companies. The first reference is from a trade pub and is nontrivial coverage, but the other refs are rubbish, and so the subject fails the "significant coverage" test. Livitup (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Prod was contested on my talkpage. Maxim_(talk) 19:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Which I did once. Advertisement without notability nor reliable sources. —EncMstr (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: as plain WP:SPAM. Ravenswing 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lovely spam wonderful spam. JuJube (talk) 20:19, 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. Ty 23:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grigori Maslov[edit]

This biographical article on a tattoo artist, created by a single purpose account, does not offer reliable sources to verify notability. I can’t find any. The “notability” tag was removed by the creator without notability concerns being addressed, which prompted me to investigate further. A search for the westernized version of the name on Google produces 18 unique hits, none of which seems usable (and several of which are obviously to other individuals). For the most part, I see “facebook.”A search of the Russian name brings up 7 hits, here.

The subject of the article has evidently self-promoted at the Russian Wikipedia, one example translated here, and been cautioned for it. He seems to have a userpage there, *here, but no article that I can see, although he does have one at a Wiki called “tattoo world”, here. Lacking reliable sourcing to verify notability, I believe that we may be looking at promotion here, and that this article should be deleted. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention. He is more known as. "Grisha Maslov" and"Гриша Маслов" --Schantal-kosch (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, I don't see any reliable sources under the 175 distinct hits for Grisha Maslov or the 22 distinct hits for "Гриша Маслов", either, although I see that on June 27th, User:GrishaMaslov was cautioned against "conflict of interest" editing at the English language Wikipedia as well. I also note that your first edits were to his user page, which would lead to questions as to whether or not you have yourself a conflict of interest. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. I don't find anything that looks like a reliable source myself. RGTraynor 16:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI like his creativity. I think that he makes for art tattoo more than some...Is the bright representative " contemporary art "--Schantal-kosch (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AfD, however, is not a popularity contest. Do you have any policy grounds you'd like to advocate upon which you base a Keep? RGTraynor 17:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:In your opinion in article is not enough? The works of tattoo artist do not speak for themselves? works Own club uniting all Russian tattoo artist --Schantal-kosch (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: No, they don't. Since you're a newcomer to Wikipedia, I recommend you look over WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:RS to gain a greater familiarity with the particular policies we're discussing here. WP:PILLAR is also a good place to start for newcomers. RGTraynor 19:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are many excellent artists in many fields who do not meet the guidelines for Wikipedia articles. With respect to the forum, though it seems very well organized, I don't see any independent evidence that it is notable, and in fact it seems to have been deleted as lacking encyclopedic significance at the Russian Wikipedia, about a month ago (machine translation, though you'll have to follow the link to the club from the userpage). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's back, and up for deletion again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another vanispam monstrosity. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Themfromspace (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the history of the subject to self-publicise on Russian WP, this conflict of interest article created by a single purpose account with the sole aim of publicising a little known artist. What's more, the reliability of the sources would warrant further investigation if this article were allowed to stay in wikispace. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Note that in the Russian article he was only able to find two "sources": a site advertising the St. Petersburg tattoo festival, and a discussion forum. --Themfromspace (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nonnotable, the article is edited by the person in question. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:54, 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. Wizardman 14:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S Club Party 2001[edit]

Non notable home nation concert tours. Little context is provided to assert notability. No sources or references means no reliability. Fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The band, of course, is notable. I'm failing to see how these (relatively brief and uneventful) tours are. RGTraynor 16:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no refs and tours should not have their own articles. Buc (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete: I was only new when I wrote that article. And most pop bands on Wikipedia have seperate articles for their tours. Personnally, I don' thonk it should be deleted just because it is a tour - Kinda stupid really. Liam (talk) 17:17 29th July GMT
You could try to merge this to another article, but unless you add some sources I don't see how this can stand alone. -MrFizyx (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major group, popular tours, clearly notable. Everyking (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). The ref1 is reliable enough and this afd can not last forever. Ruslik (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Said Gafurov[edit]

Procedural nomination. Article was speedy deleted per CSD G10. This was overturned on deletion review per consensus, as the article was not entirely negative in tone. I have made an effort to remove WP:BLP violations and remove a large number of superfluous quotations, but there is still likely work to do. The article seems to be a poor translation of the Russian wikipedia article, and it still needs a massive amount of stylistic editing. There are WP:COI and WP:OWN concerns as well. I am concerned though that the sources that are provided may not be reliable, and it is also questionnable if the subject meets WP:BIO. Comment from editors with a knowledge of Russian would be especially appreciated. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Protonk (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Protonk (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and needs some work. DGG (talk) 03:13, 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, JForget 23:38, 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) 14:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable figure within Russia Theshibboleth (talk) 21:41, 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. Wizardman 14:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taller in More Ways Tour[edit]

Non notable home nation concert tour. Any context would fit perfectly in the relevant album. The following article also lacks context to prove notability.

Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - no claim to be notable --T-rex 17:15, 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 consensus to delete per unanimity of responses. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 01:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inside the Head of John Peel[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an official recording by the band for John Peel. While the release itself is a bootleg the band includes it on their official discography. Many Peel Sessions albums do not recieve substantial 3rd party coverage but are still on WP because the band is notable and the Peel Sessions are notable. BeastmasterGeneral 14:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, other stuff exists. However, many other Peel Sessions are actually on WP because they were officially released. This one was not. Recordings that never see the light of day are not notable without coverage and bootlegs aren't notable without coverage. Without the bootleg, it isn't notable. As a bootleg, it isn't notable. Cobbling two non-notable things together, without coverage gives us another non-notable thing. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Man or Astroman?. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria for a standalone article. I didn't realize that they had so many albums, they're probably due for a discography list. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query - can anyone clarify what "This is a bootleg release but it is not a bootleg recording of Man or Astro-man?" actually means? Is it a bootleg or isn't it..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The recording is not a bootleg recording. It is a professional recording done with the consent of Man or Astro-man. The recording was then taken and released without the band's permission. So the actual release is a bootleg. BeastmasterGeneral 00:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:49, 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 Anybody Killa#Discography , merge left to editorial discretion. Further relisting seems pointless. lifebaka++ 14:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black EP, Holiday Jingles and Devilish: Black Orange[edit]

Short, unreferenced articles that do not establish notability. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:35, 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, JForget 23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Anybody Killa#Discography for lack of independent coverage, and being little more than a track listing per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:25, 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, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:09, 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. Wizardman 06:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems people want an explanation of this close, so I'll provide one. While there were 7 deletes to 6 keeps, that doesn't matter in and of itself, but rather, what matters is what those comments said. The keepists were saying that AAA-level ball seems to automatically establish notability (there has never been consensus for that) and that an all-star appearance is notable as well. The delete arguments stated that the person is not notable despite the AAA appearance. At this point it may seem like a no consensus close, however, BRMo's comment effectively explains why the keep arguments don't hold water. The all-star teams were of an unaffiliated league, which takes away the notability that the keep arguments were explaining. Note that after BRMo's rationale, the only "votes" that followed were to delete, which seemed to show that others came to the same conclusion, that the delete argument trumped the keep one in this instance. Wizardman 20:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelley Gulledge[edit]

Delete. Another career minor-league baseball player. Now in 9th (or 8th if you don't count the year he apparently took off) year across three different organizations, not including some independent league activity. He's finally made the AAA level but is apparently 0-for-18 so far this year. Fails the sensible parts of WP:WPBB#Players. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NDelete - fails WP:ATHLETE.--S_RX 14:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays AAA baseball and has appeared on minor league all-star teams. Spanneraol (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could go either way here. He's made three different indy-league All-Star teams, and Baseball America has tagged him at least twice as one of the best indy-league players in the country. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the suggested notability guideline at WP:BASEBALL. Townlake (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Contrary to widespread belief, the "competitors who have competed in a fully professional league" clause of WP:ATHLETE does not pertain solely to the major leagues. This fellow's been an all-star in three separate leagues? I'd advise nom to reread WP:WPBB#Players, because that holds that someone playing in a minor league all-star game is notable. RGTraynor 17:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This player was a minor league all-star and triple A player. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep You nominated several baseball players under Wikipedia:WPBB#Players, yet you've proven that you didn't even read it once again.

From Wikipedia:WPBB#Players

Have played in at least a whole season in AAA baseball, played in the All-Star Futures Game, won a notable Minor League Baseball award, or been selected for any minor league baseball All-star game in the affiliated minor leagues.

Please stop this, or at the very least, read before you nominate. SashaNein (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, calm down. All of the pro-minor league folks have had a chance now. Let's see what the rest of the world thinks. And I clarified my nom. a bit. I'll have a run at changing the sillier parts of that guideline soon, esp. since it now seems that it was assembled by two or three folks heavily biased to one side, one of whom was a sock of a banned user. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that it meets WP:ATHLETE as it stands. However, there has been some fairly detailed discussion about changing WP:ATHLETE so that minor league types don't get notability. I view doing well in the minor leagues as the equivalent of getting "best calculus teacher in local college" -- not something we should put on Wikipedia. Notice that all of this guy's references come from baseball fan sites, none from more traditional reliable sources. If it weren't for the more heavily contested provisions of WP:ATHLETE, he'd fail WP:BIO by a mile. RayAYang (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that WP:ATHLETE is far too loose, and I applaud that several of the sports Wikiprojects are installing their own tighter criteria; heck, I'm the author of the WP:HOCKEY notability criteria. That being said, there's been discussion about tightening the criteria generally for years now, and it's never come anywhere near consensus. Until that happens, we can only advocate in AfD the extant black-letter policy and guideline. RGTraynor 20:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Fair enough. I suppose I'm putting down my objections here so that they reach a wider audience. And also so that people can't say "there's been no problem about the guideline in AfD" as a talking point. RayAYang (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bios in encyclopedia are intended for people that are widely accepted as the elite in their profession. This person is not a notable baseball player. There are thousands upon thousands of baseball players that have accomplished as much as him. If he is equal to thousands upon thousands of other players it doesn't make any sense for there to be an article about him in an encyclopedia. For those editors that won't accept an argument at an afd discussion that doesn't include wikilinked abbreviations here goes: Delete. No coverage in WP:RS, thus not meeting WP:BIO. WP:BB is a Wikiproject, thus any notability standard they come up with doesn't trump WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No coverage in WP:RS? Townlake (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. Okay, received coverage. But WP:BIO requires "significant coverage", and its not considered "significant coverage" if the guy has never received any coverage outside of the sports sections of the Dallas Morning News. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep News articles cause it to meet the letter of WP:N and all-star status probably meets any reasonable standard of notability. Hobit (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Several editors have recommended keeping the article based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball#Players, citing his appearance on All-Star teams. However, the WikiProject's criterion is that a player has "been selected for any minor league baseball All-star game in the affiliated minor leagues." The article notes that Gulledge was selected twice for the Northern League All-Star team, but the Northern League is unaffiliated. I don't see any evidence that Gulledge has ever been selected for an all-star team in an affiliated league, per the WikiProject notability criterion. BRMo (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Not quite. It says that he was named to the 2007 independent leagues second all star team, a whole 'nuther barrel of fish. Being named to play in an all-star game is modestly notable many places, but about thirty guys a side in baseball get that much. To be named to the top 18 players in all the independent leagues combined, that's a fair bit more. RGTraynor 23:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, (a) the criterion doesn't mention being selected to "second teams," and (b) the league he was playing in, the American Association of Independent Professional Baseball, and the independent leagues as a whole are not affiliated, and therefore his selection does not satisfy the WikiProject criterion. Very few players from independent leagues ever make it to the majors. BRMo (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Contrary to several comments above, I don't see any evidence that he meets the criteria of Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball#Players. He was named to all-star teams of an unaffiliated league, whereas the WikiProject specifies all-star teams of affiliated leagues. (I think even that's too low a standard—I don't think that being named to an all-star team for an affiliated rookie or short-season league signifies "historical notability.") I've looked at the Google News search cited by Townlake above; unfortunately, I can't read many of the articles because they require an access fee. But it appears that many of the articles are about his high school career and that others involve trivial coverage (such as coverage of individual games). Gulledge has led an interesting minor league career and it's nice to see that he's finally made it to Class AAA at the age of 29. If he sticks there for a full season, as specified by the WikiProject's criteria, I'll be happy to endorse re-creation of the article. But as of now, I don't think he's quite crossed the threshold of notability. BRMo (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a well-reasoned analysis - except for the curious jab at the Baseball Project's notability compromise, which only serves to re-highlight concerns about the pointy-ness of the original nomination. Townlake (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's nothing wrong with talking "pointy" jabs at the Projects's notability standard, especially when the projects standard is ridiculous. The projects standard is obviously not followed by the mainstream of WIkipedia editors. In all of these minor leaguer afd's its the same few editors that just repeat the same mantra, "keep per wp:baseball", and ignore all other reasonable arguments to the contrary. And there's a greater over-all concern about this terrible notability standard. When it comes to other projects great leeway and respect is given to the projects notability standard. The lack of respect given to the baseball standard will lead to the questioning of all other project notability standards. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well and good, but if the standard is really that bad, isn't the answer to work through WP:BASEBALL to improve the standard rather than just running to AfD? Why have project notability compromises at all if people will just use AfD to gut the compromises rather than addressing the project directly about concerns? Townlake (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is the ideal. But if the majority at the project are intransigently opposing any sort of conformity with the parent WP:BIO, as evidenced by this afd, the only solution is to go outside the project to gain a more reasonable policy-based consensus. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You keep citing WP:BIO, here and elsewhere, as though it was a tighter guideline than the project's criteria. In fact, it is looser. To quote from WP:BIO: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards ... ATHLETES: Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis ..." There is no qualification as to how many games one needs to have played, or that a "fully professional" league needs to be a "major" one. Beyond that, if your argument is boiled down to fundamentals, your belief that the project's criteria are "ridiculous" come down to nothing more than you don't think minor league players are notable. Quite aside from that being an argument based in personal preference, do you carry that to other biographical areas on Wikipedia? Why should a provincial parliamentarian from the Yukon Territory, for instance, get a free pass, despite WP:BIO's unambiguous language ... surely they are "minor league" politicians, one would think? Or a musician who sells 3,000 records in Ecuador, Peru or Paraguay, thus hitting those countries' standards for gold records? Sorry, Townlake is right. There is another solution beyond sidestepping the project. It is to accept that the project has arrived at a consensus and to either accept it or work to persuade people otherwise, rather than go forum shopping. RGTraynor 05:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BRMo's excellent research and analysis. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BRMo. - Masonpatriot (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Carter (baseball infielder)[edit]

Delete. Another career minor league player who is now a career minor league coach and manager. Fails the sensible parts of WP:WPBB#Players. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC) —Wknight94 (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NDelete - fails WP:ATHLETE.--S_RX 14:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor league baseball managers are notable per WP:BASEBALL "Have served as a commissioner, president, general manager, owner, coach, or manager in one of the above-mentioned leagues or affiliated minor leagues." Spanneraol (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Contrary to widespread belief, the "competitors who have competed in a fully professional league" clause of WP:ATHLETE does not pertain solely to the major leagues. This fellow's played seven seasons in triple-A? Plainly nom needs to read WP:WPBB#Players more carefully, because by that standard a single season in AAA ball's enough. RGTraynor 17:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Played six full seasons at the triple-A level, which clearly satisfies WP:ATHLETE.

From WP:WPBB#Players:

Have played in at least a whole season in AAA baseball, played in the All-Star Futures Game, won a notable Minor League Baseball award, or been selected for any minor league baseball All-star game in the affiliated minor leagues.

Come on. Before citing that it fails WP:WPBB#Players as a reason to delete this article, it would help to READ IT first. SashaNein (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep minor league managers have been notable even before the current guidelines. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clears the WP:BASEBALL guideline under multiple criteria. Townlake (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not believe minor league types should be notable, and that athletic/baseball guidelines that make them so are overly generous. The more general criteria (significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject) certainly do not apply here. RayAYang (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than meets WP:ATHLETE by having played a number of seasons in the minor leagues. As to concerns that coverage in reliable sources is not here, I am sure some could be found in the local paper of the teams he played for. Just because there are not references on the internet does not mean there are not any. -Djsasso (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. FYI, per SashaNein's (inappropriately emphatic) request, I've updated my nom. a bit. I urge the closing admin to take the advice of RayAYang (talk · contribs) and take the significant coverage part of the WP:N policy into account more than the various guidelines that have been hastily thrown together by a small subset of interested people (and Jmfangio, the sock of a banned user) who were clearly biased on one side of the argument when the guidelines were being quietly discussed. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be argumentative, but give the semantic distinction raised here, it bears noting that WP:N is explicitly labeled as a guideline, not a policy. Townlake (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bios in encyclopedia are intended for people that are widely accepted as the elite in their profession. This person is not a notable baseball player. There are thousands upon thousands of baseball players that have accomplished as much as him. If he is equal to thousands upon thousands of other players it doesn't make any sense for there to be an article about him in an encyclopedia. For those editors that won't accept an argument at an afd discussion that doesn't include wikilinked abbreviations here goes: Delete. No coverage in WP:RS, thus not meeting WP:BIO. WP:BB is a Wikiproject, thus any notability standard they come up with doesn't trump WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, WP:ATHLETE is a subsection of WP:BIO. RGTraynor 01:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - coaches and managers are considered notable as per the guidelines of WP:BASEBALL. BWH76 (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable player and manager with long career in high minors. (I'm not always a deletionist on minor league players!) BRMo (talk) 22:17, 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, Notnews that hasn't happened.. TravellingCari 02:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gloucestershire Tornadoes 28th July 2008[edit]

Non-notable severe weather outbreak that has yet to occur. Fails WP:CRYSTAL Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NDelete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, most likely snow delete.--S_RX 13:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Per SRX, mainly just piling on to support a SNOW. Now past the supposed date, and I haven't heard anything about it. NOT NEWS, blah, blah. Livitup (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule-Team Delete: Wikipedia is not the Met Office. RGTraynor 17:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete crystal ball and seems to be a good instance of where WP:NOT#NEWS is needed if it actually does happen. Davewild (talk) 18:10, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fish and boat[edit]

Non-notable fishing magazine of local interest only. Entirely unsourced. Contested PROD, no reason given for contesting Mattinbgn\^talk 13:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NDelete - this is a non-notable magazine with no third party reliable sources.--S_RX 13:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NOTE; non-notable magazine, no independent media coverage. Ғїяеѕкатея^talk 15:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, while I've found enough to verify that this paper indeed exists, I'm not able to find anything to verify that it's particularly notable. I did encounter a tremendous number of false positives when searching on Google for mentions though, so it's possible that there might be something hidden in all that (hence the 'weak' qualifier). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 15:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. The author needs to prove notability. Also, the article seems to be nothing but blatant advertising.--Lester 21:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list of Australian publications (selected by Tourism NT) shows that, with circulation of about 10,000, it has among the lowest circulation of the 70 or so Australian magazines it has selected, and is outranked by the likes of Queensland Fishing Monthly, Sydney Gay And Lesbian Visitors Guide and British Balls - a fair distance from notability methinks. Murtoa (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Murtoa. Completely non-notable. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should stay, as this is NOTABLE TO AUSTRALIANS....we haven't heard of your yanky papers either. Don't be stupid, it is relevant and there is no reason to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.108.102 (talk • contribs)
Strong delete. Obscure magazine with low circulation; no non-trivial citations from reliable sources.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 05:41, 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 deleted as a copyvio of [33]. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HR systems[edit]

Article appears to be pure original research, possibly copied and pasted from another source. TN‑X-Man 13:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NDelete - Violates WP:OR and looks like it is from another source.--S_RX 13:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio of this document. Gr1st (talk) 13:51, 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. Wizardman 14:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolic Christian Church of America[edit]

Delete: brought to afd as my original db-spam was declined. Written in a seriously POV style, and totally unreferenced. Not an encyclopedic article by any stretch of the imagination at the moment. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YWeak keep and expand - article has no references to reliable sources, but I found a couple of reliable third party sources that explain it's notability.--S_RX 13:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Between SRX's addition of outside-the-website sources, and some cleanup of the POV style, this can be a page about an offshoot of the Apostolic Christian Church, which has congregations across the United States, and some outside of the U.S. Mandsford (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs more refs, but a 90 congregation group is notable --T-rex 17:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a legitimate topic and article. Could use some serious editing for content and POV management, but almost all articles can be guilty of that in the beginning.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep -- This is a denomination (though a small one), not a single congregation. It is (as yet) an inadequate article, and I have given it a "stub" tag - I hope the right one. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyright violation The current article began as a copyright violation from http://www.apostolicchristian.org, with most of the sentences in the article directly copied from that site: the about page for the description section and all other sections from the page on that site with the same name as the section. If not for the copyright violation, I'd say to keep. They have an entroy in the denomination listing of the World Christian Database (as "Apostolic Christian Ch of America"). So I'm convinced they are a real denomination that has been around for over 100 years, and the sources will exist. I wish SRX had actually added the ones he found here so that they would be visible to someone rewriting after the deletion. GRBerry 15:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The church's notability is not in question. The problem is the article, which needs a good rewrite. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So Fix It If it's just a content or style issue, then it should be edited and not deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:31, 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. Wizardman 14:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcast[edit]

article fails to establish why this college based, internet radio stream is notable. Lacks 3rd party sources Rtphokie (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NDelete - I've read third party sources, but no notability was established. Article fails WP:N and WP:RS.--S_RX 13:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to University of Cincinnati. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:51, 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, default as keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of units in the Age of Mythology series[edit]

Not only does this article assert no notability, but it is also a gameguide. Gamecruft is not allowed on this site. DETELE and TRANSWIKI to a Age of Mythology wikia. ZeroGiga (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real world information is provided, and there is further information (interviews with developers, etc.) that can be added, if I ever get around to it. Not a gameguide; notable as an aspect of Age of Mythology, keep. —Giggy 00:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Admittably, there is a lot of fancruft in the article. However this is a reason to clean-up rather than delete. The Greek human land unit section in particular shows the potential of the article, providing real-world information and a sentence on the unit's role in the game. Iciac (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cleanup is not synonymous with delete. Notable, has the potential to be well-sourced and expanded, a decent sub-article of Age of Mythology. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has no outside notability. Furthermore wikipedia is not a game guide --T-rex 17:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The game obviously has notability, as its article is an FA. This is just a sub article to prevent the main one from getting to long. This article reads nothing like a game guide to me, and even if some parts read like one to, you can try to fix it. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another article being an FA has no bearing on notability. Furthermore, this information belongs neither in it's own article nor within the parent article. It should simply be deleted --T-rex 18:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Protonk below that this might be an IAR exception to NOTE. As far as I can tell, it doesn't meet any of the other WP:DEL guidelines. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and very weak keep Sigh. This is my weakness. This article is very well put together, clear from "fancruft" (as it is a simple list of characters and units, not filled with backstory for each, etc), and attached to a well tended parent article. There aren't (from what I can tell), reliable sources cited that cover the exact subject of the article (there are a few non-independent and non-reliable sources that do so). Since this article isn't really about how to use the characters and units, it doesn't fail WP:GAMEGUIDE (although this is pretty borderline) and since it doesn't get bogged down in plot details it doesn't fail WP:PLOT. So the real problem is WP:N. In my mind, THIS is the article I think of when I look for an WP:IAR exception to notability. This article is clear, contextualized (the fantasy references and interlinks) and helpful. If only all of the "lists of X in Y" were this good. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is never a need to list units, weapons, items, abilities, or anything else of the like. No matter how well written or well organized they are kept, they are still just pieces of game guide material unless real world context can be provided. This kind of information belongs summed up within the main article (Age of Mythology#Units does a fine job), not given any sort of coverage. TTN (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Helps to understand the subject--nowhere near enough help to play the game. Gameguide means something that actually would work as one--people have tried writing them, and I support those deletions, but every detailed article about aspects of a game doesnt fit that category. This is a reasonable breakout article for a notable game. DGG (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete It is purely game guide. Which fails wikipedia policy. A transwiki is a good idea. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Judging by recent AfD nominations (like the ridiculous BK locations one), it seems people are forgetting what a WP:GAMEGUIDE is. A game guide is basically an instruction manual. A guide that tells people exactly how to play the game and what they need to do. This list doesn't. Period. It is merely a listing of all the units in the game with links to articles of the real life soliders. It helps people to understand the gameplay aspect of the game, and links people to real world information (it even explains how they were used in the past). Yes it needs cleanup, but as has been said above, this does not make it synonymous with deletion. --.:Alex :. 19:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're being too literal in your definition. Game guide material is anything that only would benefit someone looking up a game. Information like this needs to be essential to understanding the game. Only a brief summary of the units and their overall purpose in the gameplay is essential in this case. TTN (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read it word for word and fail to see how this article fits under it. --.:Alex :. 11:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the above link or something else? Point six describes that lists of gameplay elements are considered to be inappropriate. This is just a pure list elements without any real world context, so it fails that point and it is also considered game guide material. Please do not mistake the fact that many of the units are based on real world elements and myths as the topic having a real world context. The same thing could be done with various other gameplay elements, such as connecting weapons in a game to their real world counterparts or enemies to whatever real world elements they are based off of. Both of those cases would be deleted, and this is no different. TTN (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, point six brings us back the issue of notability, not whether it's a gameguide or not. --.:Alex :. 17:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is explaining what material is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, citing WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOT#GUIDE, and WP:UNDUE and encouraging summaries of the information instead. This information falls under that section, so it is considered game guide material like any other list of gameplay elements. TTN (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Contains real-world historical information which can be beneficial to a real-world audience. However, cleanup is definitely necessary, as said information needs to be sourced and verified. MuZemike (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an amazing array of references for an element of a game. Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only difference between this list of units and any other list of units (such as this one) is that these particular units have a historical (or mythological) basis. Since we already have articles detailing what these units represent, the historical bases in the list is redundant; you're no longer talking about Age-of-Mythology units, you're talking about whatever it is that unit shares a name with. Once you've taken out the historical basis, the rest is pretty basic WP:NOT#GUIDE, such as this description of the Dryad unit: "The Dryad is a unit created at the Hesperides tree, which is used primarily for defense against enemy attackers. Fast, fairly cheap, cost no population, and respectable fighters, they can do quite a lot of harm on mortal units; However, you may only be able to create five Dryads at a time.". It would be like creating List of weapons in Metal Gear Solid and adding in links and descriptions of all the obscure based-on-real-life weapons contained therein. And then describing the rest of the weapons for completeness' sake. Nifboy (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pretty hard-core game guide. It's full of advice and game stats and lacks only the second person to be "Use X to do Y." This material can easily be covered in the main AoM article, with "Units in Age of Mythology are based on historical weapons and warriors appropriate to each nation, as well as mythological creatures chosen from historical mythology." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it can be covered in the main article then that is a call for a merge and redirect without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the article had information on how or why these units were selected, and how their in-game representations were designed as such, my opinion could have been different; unfortunately, whatever reliably sourced information there is, it is about the game itself or a one sentence quotes on what a unit is capable of and how to use them in the game. The current list does not display intent to be discriminate, simply listing all the units without care for their purpose. Per WP:LIST, lists are to be for information, navigation, or development purposes. On information, the units as a whole are not of interest to the general reader. On navigation, the current list do not match that purpose, simply linking whenever there is a unit. On development, the terms used in the list are not of interest to readers, many of which only exist in the game and would fail notability as their own articles. Hence, the list is an indiscriminate collection of information. Furthermore, the article is acting like a game-guide (WP:VGSCOPE, WP:NOTGUIDE) by teaching readers that "the Nereid is the most powerful sea myth unit when fighting OTHER myth units. The Nereid has a whopping 7x bonus vs myth units, meaning it does 700% more damage to myth units after armor is taken into effect. 25 * 7 = 175 'The Nereid is a fairly run-of-the-mill sea myth unit. It's fairly strong against most mortal ships, but weak against ram ships.'" Perhaps out of point, but I think that a "List of mythological creatures in the Age of Mythology series" minus game-guide materials would be a better list than this (a discriminate focus, and helpful directory). Jappalang (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft, Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). I am especially pleased with the non-game guide content of the article and its effectiveness as a spinoff sub-article that actually has developed into an article with standalone notability. This organized and referenced article that contains a prose lead containg cited out of universe commentary also provides a navigational purpose with internal links within the list as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boilerplate that does not address the nom or any of the delete comments. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does, especially the last comments that are especially unique to this article for which no compelling reason for deletion has been presented. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, uh.

This essay addresses conduct in discussions, not this article in any way.

This is a sweeping summary of policy that even says we don't include things indiscriminately.

This is an argument to popularity. Nobody's saying that people don't like game guides or this game (and it IS full of Google-happy keywords to boot), and, well, I wouldn't base any important decisions on these stats.

"Unoriginal research" is a "nuh uh!" claim with nothing to support it. Do you see sources backing factual claims such as "Lazer Bear has a large amount of data concerning him in the history" and "Bella is a dog presumably based on a dog owned by one of the developers" and "Its design is based on the legendary Greek monster Cerberus" and a dozen others I didn't bother listing here?

And the rest is just crap you copy and paste into every AFD that isn't on a hoax until...

"I am especially pleased with the non-game guide content of the article and its effectiveness as a spinoff sub-article that actually has developed into an article with standalone notability." So where's the non-fansite source that mentions AOM after the lead? Surely if this is so notable, you can point me to one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator called the article "fancruft," i.e. an essay, and thus not a legitimate reason for deletion.

Including this list would be a discriminate following of the Five pillars.

Our readers become editors and even donors and if thousands of them are interested in non-hoax, non-libel, non-copy vio articles, then their belief that the article is worthwhile matters.

Unoriginal research is exactly what a referenced article is.

You and others copy and paste in every AfD that is a list as well...

Reviews of the games focus on the units. Notice the top sentence summary for the review: "Featuring lots of interesting, inventive design decisions, plenty of fun-to-use units..." (my italics). You can get further out of universe description of the universe in published books that aren't strategy guides, such as [34]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator also chews with his mouth open. Doesn't have anything to do with this article. If you have a personal problem, User talk:ZeroGiga is right there. --> User talk:ZeroGiga

Excuding it would also be a discriminate following of the five pillars. Thankfully, we have guidelines instead of having to rely solely vague sweeping statements of principle.

You may want to read WP:NOR, then point to me where the sources back the claims made in this article. "This based on the mythical Cerberus. Cerburus is yadda[ref saying Cerberus is yadda]" is not good sourcing. If you don't understand why by now, go back and read WP:NOR again.

"But teacher, they were throwing glue, too!" It's copypasta filler, doesn't advance any claim or defend any point, so it's glossed.

It covers the units as a whole, covering them in broad similar groups and only mentioning a couple of examples to illustrate the sort of units. Exactly as we do in the parent article, which is a featured article. Do you have a non-game-guide source that goes into anything close to the level of detail of this article?

I'm gonna make this really big, so you don't miss it, because it hasn't seemed to have made an impact on you. JUST BECAUSE THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE APPEARS IN A SEARCH DOES NOT MEAN THAT THINGS IN THAT SEARCH ARE GOOD SOURCES. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good deal of what you wrote above does not seem to make logical or coherent sense, so I am not sure what points you are making, but I'll do my best to address them anyway. The nominator citing "cruft" an essay as a reason for deletion is relevant to this discussion in that it is not a policy based reason, i.e. not a compelling reason for deletion. I don't see any original thesis presented here and I do see secondary sources cited, thus it is not original research. So, the copy and paste reasons for deletion are also to be glossed over too, right? The article makes use of a variety of secondary sources that are not game guides. I'm not going to type back in big letters as I don't believe in pointed editing, but I will say that the title of the article matters when it turns up in sources that outright discuss the subject of the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nom cited WP:N and WP:NOT#GUIDE (which are pretty compelling what with lack of sources covering the subject at anything close to this level of detail and all the instructional game detail, and described the article as cruft. That someone uses the word cruft does not mean that the entirety of the person's argument is glib dismissal.

Yeah, I gloss copy-paste nonsense all the time. But when I hit things like UNSOURCED EVALUATIVE CLAIMS, INSTRUCTIVE GAME GUIDE CONTENT, and LACK OF SOURCES COVERING THIS SUBJECT AT THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL, I stop. Where's the bit where you refute these with something other than glib dismissal or copypasta again? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any drawbacks to our project in keeping this article. Far more editors and readers appear to see value in it than the handful arguing to delete in this particular discussion. Therefore, I see benefits to our community in keeping the article and even others above, including yourself and TTN, for example, who believe it can be covered in the main article really don't provide any reason why then it couldn't be merged and redirected in the worst case scenario, i.e. I see no overwhelmingly urgent need for an outright deletion and I don't see whatever is supposed to be gain by doing that somehow outweighing the benefits of having extensive coverage of this topic that obviously a good number of editors believe notable enough to both work on and argue to keep here and for which readers believe Wikipedia a valid place to look for such information. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you've completely evaded WP:N and WP:V and WP:NOT#GUIDE in favor of a populist argument? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is notable (given that editors can't even agree on whether to label the fiction notability page historic, an essay, etc., the community clearly lacks consensus on fictional notability), verifiable (the sources are sufficient to me, you may disagree, but it meets my understanding of verifiability), and consistent with what Wikipedia is (that whole prose multi-paragraph lead is inconsistent with a game guide, so I don't buy it being a guide just because part of the article has a tabled list). You and I obviously disagree about these kinds of things and it is just really looking as if we are not going to convince each other. I am not sure what we are actually accomplishing going back and forth. Discussions seem only worthwhile when there's a realistic chance one of the two will be convinced by the other. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're not going to address all the unsourced claims or WP:N or the fact that the bulk of the article is a game guide at all, huh.
What's being accomplished is it's made clear that you really don't have an argument, so that the closer can properly discard your "Well, I like it, and so do a lot of other people, and nuh uh!" as empty faff. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already addressed it and in actuallity you are just showing that you don't have an argument and that your "I don't like it" can be disregarded by the closing admin. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cute big letters, but they all merged togetther like black robot-spaghetti on my browser...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bah. Stupid browsers dealing with ugly HTML differently! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does look like one of those funney puzzles with hidden letters :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to length issues with primary article. As it is a list, out-of-universe stuff can be on main article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, wouldn't just not going into this level of detail also deal with the length issues in the main article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we have out ideas about what levels of detail are suitable then. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then we're back at the old fiction dilemma. If there are sources that we can use to write this article, it's notable. If there aren't any sources, however, how do we improve this article from the OR-heavy, badly-sourced mess that it is? How do we write Slowbro? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an idea - every single Featured Article I have been involved with, and most GAs now, have involved offline sourcing, and not just a minor amount but for a large portion of the article. There will be various issues of gaming magazines which discuss elements of this game in detail, just as I could (if I want) source a huge amount of individual TV episodes but I haven't the time. But anyway, this is a list so I am not as fussed about this, the devil (in this case) is in the detail. I am happy with more in my life (and on wikipedia). If you choose the 'pedia to be (in my opinion) blander, so be it. We are going to roll with consensus anyway so I am not going to push the proverbial uphill. You have your goalposts, I have mine and I seriously doubt either will influence the other, so we'll leave it to the closer shall we? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've vaguely asserted that there are sources, and backed that claim with the claim that you could find sources for an unrelated topic. Uh.
Generally, the print gaming press goes into even less detail than the online press, and tends to mirror their work online anyway. What sort of sources do you think you'd find? Where? What sort of factual claims do you expect to find in such sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was using that as an example in the depth of material periodical magazines get into. I am making an educated guess, however as a list, the main gist of commentary out-of-universe material should be in the parent article anyway. My hope is that those who are more interested in various console games would go searching more, but hey..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonably well organised list of information but perhaps just a bit too detailed for the game, its on the edge of an instruction manual's coverage of the game's units. Units can be quite capably summed up in the gameplay section of main article. The intro's not bad, I suggest merging that into the main article, and as the rest is well organised, transwiki the actual list of units to a suitable Wikia. -- Sabre (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete. This violates WP:NOT#GUIDE by offering statistics and advice on what creatures attacks are, what they excel against while fighting, and so forth. At best, a merge of some of the intro (as suggested already) and a possible redirect. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more or less WP:NOTGUIDE material. Past the historical context, it's a list of units, and it's not appropriate per WP:VGSCOPE. Aside from that, no adequate notability asserted per significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources independent of the topic. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IGN and other sources are independent of the topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note significant coverage. Please go read what that means before replying. "Fun to use" doesn't cut it. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Who said, "Fun to use"? Anyway, the number and diversity of sources cited are significant as far as my understanding of that phrase in the context of a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You said "Fun to use". Playing coy doesn't help you. And "significant coverage" means an in-depth coverage of the topic that transcends simply mentioning the subject or summarizing it. It doesn't matter how many sources you have that present trivial coverage because it isn't indicative of notability. The question of notability is largely moot though, as the article is WP:GAMEGUIDE material, which WP:VGSCOPE proscribes against. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As I discussed earlier in my below paragraph, the Game-Guide argument doesn't apply. I have recently removed a large amount of such material from the article (though admitably there is still much more). Thus the only real arguments for deletion are notability; and the quite real concern that the historical information in the article is original research. The OR question may be discounted as the in-game encyclopaedia clearly shows that the unit conception WAS for the actual historical/mythological units (Don't get started with the O CANADA argument - THAT is definitely OR). Thus we are left with the final reason to delete - notability.
        
        No, that's not me saying "fun to use" that's an independent review in a reliable source describing the units. Misrepresenting my edits doesn't help you. My read of these sources is more than simply mentioning the subject or summarizing it, i.e. I don't regard all these mentions as trivial. The article is not game guide with all that out of universe commentary in the lead paragraphs and reception section and therefore is within video game scope. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Your definition of game guide is highly literal - a list of units in the game, regardless of content, is basically game guide information. That and every single bloody entry on the list still reads like game guide information - if you're going into what the unit is effective against, not effective against, and so on, that is game guide information. And stop your petty semantics. You placed the edit with "Fun to use", you knew what I was referring to, and trying to evade it is not helping you. And until you can read sources and identify what constitutes significant coverage, you're not going to save a whole lot of articles at AfD, or write decent articles for that matter. None of the sources constitute critical coverage - all summarize the game mechanics and go no farther than that. As of this posting, there is no reception section in the article, so you can stop being disingenous. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I see no reason why we should not cover such information as it is essentially to understanding video games just as a list of Academy Award winners is essentially to our coverage on the Oscars. Please stop being disingenous, especially given that I have saved scores of articles from deletion by now. These sources constitute critical coverage, i.e. they are reviews, they comment on the units in a critical fashion. And as of this posting there is a reception section. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So it is necessary to actually go through my contributions in order to have an argument to express? That's pathetic, hell it's contemptuous. Seriously, it just lowers my respect for you every single time I converse with you. And until you can understand that "Fun to use" doesn't constitute critical coverage (it's a sentence from the title of the article for pete's sake), there's no point in continuing this argument. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What does your contributions have to do with anything? I haven't criticized your contributions. Please stay focused on the topic under discussion. Criticial reception in secondary sources is sufficient coverage when coupled with all the other sources used to cite the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick mention to all whom have cited that the article contains gameguide like material, and who have used quotations of these sentences to further the AFD discussion: No-one is denying parts of this article read completely like a gameguide. However, there are also numerous sections which are well sourced and provide relevent real world information (as I mentioned in an earlier post, the Greek Human Land Units - with more citations - is a good example of this). These are what the article should be saved for. For 90% of the units on this page, information regarding the character's historical and mythological basis can be found. In this regard, the article has much potential. My point being: Please do not use the argument "Reads like a gameguide" to support deletion. I have nothing against users debating relevent issues such as notability. However, the gameguide argument does not stand, as the article is much more than this; WP:WIGAD; as well as the fact that All Gameguide material and cruft would be removed in any decent clean up. Quickly, my two cents on notability - the game sold over a million copies; the units were the first in the series to be presented with any historical/mythological accuracy - other than this, notability is debatable. Iciac (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly my stance. Yes some gameguide material has crept into the article, but overall the list does not constitute a gameguide. That stuff needs cleanup, not deletion. Let's say there's an article on a particular game. If someone came along and inserted something about how to beat a boss, would you immediately nominate it for deletion? No! I understand all the other arguments, just not this one. Iciac's put it nicely. The list has potential. The list is even very good in places. This article needs tender loving care, and not be banished to the endless void. --.:Alex :. 13:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge the lead All those saying that the article just needs cleanup—please clean the article then. That will be sufficient proof that there is salvagable material. As it stands now, it looks to me like there won't be enough left for an article once the over-detailed or game guide material is removed. Pagra shtak 13:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete This article's qualities are virtually identical to the one for Dawn of War which was transwiki'd here and deleted from WP[35] some time ago. Similarly, the AOM article is a nicely-formatted and well-written game guide, and should be copied off to a gaming wiki, but it is not appropriate content for WP. Ham Pastrami (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an Age of Empires one as well wasn't there, with exactly the same style. That got transwikied as well if I remember correctly, though I can't find the AfD for it. -- Sabre (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If transwikied, then we should soft redirect to the transwikied site due to this article being a legitimate search term. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki retaining backlinks to Wikipedia entries. I'm almost split on either keep or delete with this. On one hand, it is basically the type of information that WP:GAMEGUIDE asks to avoid - information that basically is only of value to the player of the game and not to the non-gamer reader - but that said, the historical context of the names of the units are certainly not trivial and can be linked as given, and the quality of the article is good; I don't think there is any need for this article to show notability as it is a supporting article of the main AoM article. However, I think we've set in motion how such articles should be handled via "Weapons of Resident Evil 4"; all real-world weapons or objects that could be linked to non-game Wikipedia topics, but effectively still a game guide. Keeping this while arguing for the removal of RE4 weapons seems awfully hypocritical, so my vote has to go to delete, but this information should certainly not be lost. Transwiki the content to a Age of Mythology wiki (create one at Wikia if not already done), and use interwiki mapping to link back the key terms. Then, in the main body of the article, include examples of how all the units are based on historical and mythological entities to give a flavor for this. This, to me, is exactly where the benefit of external wikis comes into play, allowing us to maintain a standard on WP, but ultimately still allowing for this great information to be linked in from somewhere as close to transparent to the end user as possible. --MASEM 15:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this discussion could be so involved. The article is a list of units in a video game - it clearly fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. The sources provided are either game guides/fansites or generic references for mythological creatures that have absolutely nothing to do with the series or the units of the series, so there is nothing to indicate that notability has been established. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is not merely a list of units of the game. It contains several paragraphs from secondary souces discussing the units in out of universe context. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though some of it does start to read like a game-guide I don't see a problem overall. The article does a pretty good job of discussing the units outside the in-game universe, and there's some fairly decent sources. While bits could probably use cleanup I don't think this fails any relevant policies - particularly WP:NOT#GUIDE that keeps getting linked to, which basically doesn't even mention this type of article. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 18:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonable spinout article per WAF. Also well written and well sourced. The relationship of the game's units to the roles they played in history and myth is quite nice. Hobit (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete; insufficient sourcing for what is effectively gameguide material; the historical material does little other than repeat information from other articles; there's little reason why it can't be moved somewhere else, though. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, actually, for now, this might work with some decent sources, such as reviews, but still reads too much like a game guide. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no reason to have this type of information listed for games. It is not encylcopedic, no matter how well-sourced it may be. WP:NOT#GUIDE prevails here. Addionne (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is an invalid reason for deletion and there are actually plenty of reasons to have this type of information (editors and readers obviously find such reasons or else they would not bother to volunteer their time editing it, reading it, and arguing to keep it. It is consistent with what Wikipedia is and by containing out of universe content cannot legitmately be blanket described as a guide. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - I should have been more specific. Even with links to non-universe articles, I don't think it meets WP:GAMEGUIDE in terms of usefulness to non-players of the game. Now that I look at it, the majority of sources are game guides or fansites, etc, which in my opinion are questionable in their ability to assert notability. Those that aren't only serve to show notability of the game itself, and not a list of its units. Addionne (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing game guides no more makes us a game guide than citing scholarly journals makes us a scholarly journal of original research rather than an encyclopedia. For video games, strategy guides are reliable sources and when used in conjunction with second party reviews as in this case of this article, the game guide argument diminishes. The article provides a useful navigational function as well as the units used are real world in nature. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; this is necessary to comprehensive coverage of the game and is too large to be included in another article. Everyking (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick mention to those who have voted Keep to this article. I invite you to add to the article, even if only the history for a single unit. If you have the game, use the in-game encylopaedia to find the thing it is based on, as some are ambigious (ie, the Carcinos>crab in the twelve labours; Man o'War > portuguese man of war). Adding citations to these additions will improve the quality of the article, hopefully raising it above AFD. If the AFD succeeds, you'll have wasted 10mins adding this information sure - but this information may save it. Also, information concerning character conception could be found within "The making of Age of Mythology DVD" and would add another level to the article - if anyone has it of course. Iciac (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This indiscriminate nature of this list is what I have pointed out in my opinion above. Why link Carcinos to crab (For mythological connection, sourced?), Man o' War to an organism colony (Biological? Sourced?), destroyer to a warship (a building to a warship?), etc? Arcus is linked to a disambiguition page, and the dictionary definiton defines it as a minor medical condition (a unit to a medical condition?). Does the list need to repeat "Caravan" six, seven times? Do readers need to link to spearman, axeman, villagers, and other dictionary definitions? What exactly determines that the names need to be linked? Despite rewording the Nereid description, it is still a game-guide material. The key crux of the game-guide material is "why should this list teach players how to use the units, e.g. this unit is best used against that, this is the only unit that can counter air for this side, etc." I have yet to touch on the implication of such wording stating a superiority of a historical unit over another simply based on game terms. Can this be weeded from the article? Perhaps, but it certainly would not help the list in being discriminate if every unit is listed without regards to its significance. Jappalang (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article is indiscriminate. The Atlantian (human units) and cheat units have no actual historical basis, and really shouldn't be in the article. Your idea of a "Mythological history" article is a great idea. However, certain terms in the article such as "infantry/archer/seige unit do need to be in the mentioned; including a small mention of any special features of that unit (ie bonuses) - if only to describe the unit in relation to the game. I agree though that without any other information it does become game-guidelike. As for a historically based unit having superiority over a completely fictional unit - the only real notability of the units in this game is the fact that most are individually based on historical soldiers/mythology; without such I'd argue for deletion. As for the linking - of course some link to the wrong page (destroyer being a good example); they are the result of quick edits, where users haven't checked where they linked to. To the statement about the Carcinos and the Man o'War - I think they were mentioned as such in the in-game enyclopaedia, although I haven't seen it for a long time. You have some great points about the discrimination, and I invite you to remove anything you feel shouldn't be in the article. Cheers :) Iciac (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though fictional characters, events, places or other things usually should not have their own articles in Wikipedia, this is the exception due to the abundance of content and compliance with WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR; any veteran Age of Mythology series players know them, thus needing no inline citations to the game on the article. In my opnion, a particular fictional character or thing can have its own article if it meets one of the conditions:

Due to the over-abundance of the main article (while not violating the four policies mentioned above).
Mentioned on the front cover alone on non-fiction related magazines or journals.
A certain proportion of people study it.
Mentioned in more than one fiction (to avoid duplication).

--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every article on Wikipedia should be accessible by all. If an article is written for "veteran Age of Mythology series players", then something is terribly wrong with the article. We do not write for the fans or the veteran players, we write so that everyone may understand what is being talked about and can be verified by all, be it fiction, game material, science, history or any other subject covered on this site. Inline citations are necessary for those who have not played the game, what is good for the players of the game is irrelevant. -- Sabre (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sabre is right. Those four criteria may be your opinion, but they are not compatible with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If we were to extend your argument, we wouldn't have inline citations anywhere, because surely an expert on the topic of any given article would know the information, right? Pagra shtak 18:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion, however. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So where is anyone there saying they don't like the subject? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)#[reply]

The editor I am replying to cited an essay with "cruft" in the title as a basis for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not cite it as a basis for deletion, I'm not even arguing for deletion. It was cited because it helps define cruft and outlines that Wikipedia should not be written for the fans or the experts, but for all. Actually bother to read the comment properly next time as opposed to going "someone use "cruft"? Oh noes!!!111! Must spam anti-cruft terminology messages needlessly". -- Sabre (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to read that you are not arguing for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Transwiki'd to StrategyWiki:Age of Mythology/Units. -- Prod (Talk) 06:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooh, that's cool, thanks for that. —Giggy 10:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, I merged (see from here to here some of it per A Man in Black. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Luckily, there's no GFDL concern, because the creator of those edits resubmitted them to a different article himself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sure, it is neat and interesting. It is also a blatant and glaring violation of WP:NOT#GUIDE. Transwiki? sure. But it has no business being here. Trusilver 03:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Polo (song)[edit]

There are no references showing notable of this song. There are also no references showing that it'll be on either of the albums that the creator claims it to be on. The article is also written very poorly. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NM as it lacks notability. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 17:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator fails WP:NM as specified. JBsupreme (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jakisbak (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N per WP:MUSIC and WP:MUSIC#Songs.--S_RX 13:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. I'll confine myself to yelling this from a swimming pool. Mandsford (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --T-rex 17:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that the article was / is written poorly does not necessarily qualify it for an AfD. However, on the issue of notability, neither record of this name has successfully charted or has a "going for adds" date established by the respective record labels, so Delete without prejudice to future creation. --Winger84 (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE My reason?This is Bow Wow´s official web page and it tells that there will be a song by this name in the future. I agree with Winger84 that bad spelling isn`t a good reason for deletion. ABC101090 (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It doesn't matter if it'll be a future single,it hasn't charted or anything like that. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after a lengthy googling, I managed to find this:[36]- It tells that the single is number 6 on a billboard chart. Even if it hasn`t come out in cd form, it can be charted, can`t it?ABC101090 (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is the "Bubbling Under" chart. In other words, it is just outside the official chart, in this case the Billboard Hot 100. Also, the term "charting," for purposes of notability, refers to airplay (Mediabase, BDS, etc), not the Hot 100, which also includes digital sales. --Winger84 (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYes, but that still doesn't mean it deserves an article. It needs significant media coverage which it hasn't got. Just because it charted doesn't gain notability, it should bt merged to the corresponding album. Jakisbak (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:51, 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. Nominator is likely a sock, and this is possibly a pointy nomination given how recently the last afd closed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 16:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roadgeek[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article, Roadgeek, has remained a mess. Most of it is trivia and almost all of it deals with the United States and not the world. I strongly recommend a transwiki to Wiktionary. Splat5572 (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see what's changed from the last nomination and this one. I don't think this is necessary as it's only been five days since the last one, but that's just me - C L — 00:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Really, is this really up here again? Yes, it needs to be expanded, but there are thousands of articles that are on wikipedia that need to be expanded. While I agree that maybe this should be added to wikitionary, I do not believe that this article should be transwiki-ied there. Thats my two cents. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I would suggest that he nominator rework the article rather than re-nominate it again for deletion. Consensus seems to be 6 times around that an article on this subject should be included. Yes, the article needs cleanup, but it will take some time to edit it. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This article was nominated by someone listed on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Artisol2345 (2nd); and WP:USRD has been informed. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This nomination is an abuse of process. There was no consensus last week, there will be no consensus in favor of transwiki or delete this week. The nominator has recently edited several of the previously closed AfDs. The nominator is not only suspected of being a sock puppet of a user with a history of abuse, but has deleted tags and warnings on its talk page 11 times this month, despite warnings not to do so. See the history of the talk page at [37] or go directly to warnings at these links: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. It is clear that posting warnings on Splat's talk page is not helpful. Perhaps somebody who knows how could look into dealing with this user.--Hjal (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:49, 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Dowd[edit]

Not notable as the subject has only appeared in an advertisement. StaticGull Talk 12:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural ~~Weak Keep~~ - AfD'd just over a minute into existence. Welcome new user and allow sometime for work on the article. Database kept locking or this would have been posted earlier. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd normally moan about the one minute thing too, but it looks like something similar was speedied earlier [47] -Hunting dog (talk)

HELP Hard to tell because the page appears to have been vandalized and then blanked. Anyone care to take a look at this one?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't find a listing for Nick Dowd in Allmusic.com or IMDb.com None of the listings at http://news.google.com appear to be relevant. --Eastmain (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of Nick Dowds but I'm finding nothing on this one. The fact that he's not on allmusic or IMDb clinches this one for me, regardless of the article's age. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 16:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment don't get me wrong. I haven't been able to find anything concrete either but, the article looks like it wasn't even finished being created before it was tagged for AfD. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I stand by the procedural thing, I've had a chance to look around more (and the author of the article has had time to make improvements. With this in mind I'm going with Delete for lack of notability and lack of verifiability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched, but found no notability for this guy. -MrFizyx (talk) 23:13, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old film processing[edit]

Article has had sources tag since 10/2006 with no updates. Furthermore, an article such as this would read more as a 'How To' even if sources were added. Eddie.willers (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NWeak Delete - this reads like a how to and like the nominator stated, it hasn't been updated since it's been tagged. Wikipedia is not a how to guide.--S_RX 13:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Take away the WP:HOWTO and you have a notable subject. Let it stay stubbed for a few more hundred years for all I care. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article reads like an essay, with only very vague descriptions and imprecise terminology which is pretty useless and unencyclopaedic. What precise little useable information is left can be merged to Film_processing. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced "how-to" which provides scant information. Edison (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History of photography-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A how-to, not an encyclopedia article. Unsourced. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a how-to, and a poor one, conflating the perils of (say) ancient Verichrome and ancient Kodachrome, and managing to say virtually nothing about either. -- Hoary (talk) 02:53, 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. Wizardman 14:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between the Ropes[edit]

Unreferenced, orphaned article. Tagged for 2 months with reference and fan cruft concerns. Local radio show, with no indication of syndication or anything else that might make it notable. Rtphokie (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N and per nom.--S_RX 13:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:16, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. T. William[edit]

It looks as though someone copied and pasted their essay onto Wikipedia. StaticGull Talk 11:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They did. I moved it to their user space, they moved it back. Delete with extreme prejudice. ➨ Ʀƹɗѵєɾϧ collects very sharp bread knives 11:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOT PAPERS, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. —97198 talk 12:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio (unless proof has been shown that the two authors are infact the same person). If they are indeed the same person than Delete per the 3 reasons above plus WP:OR. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nothing resembling an article, and part of said editor's attempts to put himself on Wikipedia (see user' s contributions. --Calton | Talk 14:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see a speedy criterion that this fits, but maybe we can use WP:SNOW instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question isn't copyviolation a valid speedy criterion? Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's worth considering what speedy deletion is. Boiled down, it is only to be used when an article will clearly not survive AfD and would clearly not be recreated by DRV. We cloak ourselves in a set of criteria designed to show transparency in this and also to guide administrators away from pointless arguments, but the CSD criteria are really just a cloak: we allow administrators to delete outside of the criteria when they know that AfD would SNOW and DRV would fail. However, administrators need the cloak most of the time, as without it the community reserves the right to flay them alive for displaying (retrospectively) poor judgement outside of policy. In this case, I would dearly - oh, but dearly - love to delete this article. But I have no cloak for my actions. There is no speedy criterion "db|bollocks", alas, because the community won't wear such a catch-all licence to delete stuff. The copyvio argument is a good one, but where is the source? If the source cannot be provided, a DRV would overturn the deletion, arguing that the criterion does not apply. An AfD would have to take place anyway, only the article would have survived for two weeks rather than 5 days. And that's where WP:SNOW comes in - with enough people cogently arguing for deletion and no cogent arguments for keeping it, the article can legitimately go quickly. And then we can legitimately rollback the author's many insertions of his own name into other articles. ➨ Ʀƹɗѵєɾϧ collects very sharp bread knives 18:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be entirely Original Research -Hunting dog (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 20:23, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candy kay[edit]

Pretty sure this is all fantasy rather than reality. A Google search for candy+kay+make-up+artist brings up one hit, a personal profile of a 16-year-old girl on Stickam. The references, by the way, aren't real - they're confirming the existence of the places mentioned via Google Maps or the website, not actual confirmation of the "facts" being referenced. ➨ Ʀƹɗѵєɾϧ collects very sharp bread knives 11:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as misinformation/hoax = vandalism. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probable hoax or at best non-notable. Ғїяеѕкатея^talk 15:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete zero content once unverifiable information is removed per WP:BLP. -Verdatum (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable and non-notable. Something about this bothered me but I didn't have time to run it down this morning. Thanks Redvers. Accurizer (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Taking a ride around Google, the subject is clearly non-notable, and Google shows nothing that is a reliable about the subject. Possibly a hoax. But whichever it is, it's non-notable. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 01:16, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychosynergy[edit]

Original essay promoting an unsourcable non-notable term and website. Not quite adspam. Prod contested. - Eldereft (cont.) 11:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC) - Eldereft (cont.) 11:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May not be adspam, but it's conceptspam. RayAYang (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree delete. I had identified it earlier. --Fremte (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Edward321 (talk) 22:39, 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 redirect to Science , merge left to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 14:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of science[edit]

Original essay forking Scientific method. Prod contested. - Eldereft (cont.) 11:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC) - Eldereft (cont.) 11:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Science. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Science. QuantumShadow (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge useful content into Science education, not to Science Vsmith (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the list appears to be WP:OR and would require a source prior to any merge. Also, the topic is not a fork of scientific method - rather an education topic for K-12 educators. Vsmith (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely a copyright violation of A comparison of trained and untrained science teachers' views about certain aspects of the nature of science similar wording in this book as well. I have deleted the parts that are a copyright violation, so there is not much left to merge. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up - which I've done more as well. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete. This article appears to be heavy with WP:OR and hints a little bit at synthesis. Anything that can be salvaged should be merged if possible. Trusilver 05:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . The arguments and sources provided by keep !voters do not sufficiently establish notability. lifebaka++ 14:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The GOAT Store[edit]

Contested prod. fails WP:CORP. non notable games company. no reliable secondary references. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This company is pretty much unknown. Their website is more of an online store than the development studio/publishing house this article purports. (I am not disputing that they have published games.) With only two employees, and one source outside their own website (which is a third-tier gaming blog), I would say this is worthy of a deletion. Checking established video game news sources, such as IGN.com or Gamespot reveal only the most passing of references. Addionne (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they have a publishing related page set up here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said, I am not disputing that they have published games, I just feel they are not notable for that alone. Addionne (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This company has released some of the most notable Dreamcast game. This article is really important! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.147.83 (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORP; no assertion of notability. Ғїяеѕкатея^talk 15:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Disagree it fails, they are a licensed developer of Dreamcast games by Sega, they have one of their published games moving to the Nintendo DS as is referenced, they do have an IGN entry, a Moby Games entry, they're also very notable as chief supporter of the Midwest Gaming Classic. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure sponsoring an event would count ~~- especially one who's Wiki article is arguably failing notability itself.~~ As for MobyGames, it is user-generated content, and though it makes for a great secondary resource for information, but not much of a reputable source under WP:N. The IGN listing does not provide much information other than confirming its existence. Addionne (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Someone another 12:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This was a tough one, but I think there is barely enough here to make the article notable. MuZemike (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I may be biased as I help run a game news site (that covers Dreamcast news), But the fact they have publish 4 games and they clam to have more games to be published notable. They are also well know within the Dreamcast "scene".
- Comment Yes I would say that you are biased based on your attempts to canvass to save this article. -- Atama ^chat 17:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Publishing homebrewed games doesn't make you notable, also it looks like Cool Herders never got ported to the DS. It was supposed to have occured a year ago, and yet it still isn't available anywhere. They are "listed" on web sites, but have no significant coverage so fail WP:N and WP:CORP unless other evidence is given to the contrary. -- Atama ^chat 17:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, they're not "homebrewed games", the games were/are published under license from Sega. Feel free to call Sega and ask, or contact the publishing company for verification. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does being published by Sega change how the games were developed? You're also nitpicking a small point while avoiding the real question; how does this satisfy notability? Nobody has given a satisfactory answer. Being published by Sega doesn't make a game notable. -- Atama ^chat 20:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very simply because having a licensed Sega game is not a trivial process, nor is publishing on any game console for that matter - publishers have to go through various checks and balances and then be given the final approval by the console manufacturer. If you're not in the game industry, I can understand how you wouldn't be aware of the licensing process involved in being able to officially publish on a platform. Whether the games were developed by a large studio or small independent one, its still the same publishing process. Likewise, they're notable alone for being one of the last (if not the last) publishers releasing official games for the console in the market after its discontinuation. There's no nitpicking, and it appears nothing is going to give a satisfactory answer to someone who has a chip on their shoulder about what's of value for measuring and what's not. I haven't seen you convincingly state why these things do not make them notable yet either, other than stating personal opinion. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no chip on my shoulder aside from wanting to follow Wikipedia guidelines. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." This hasn't been shown yet. Your idea of what constitutes notability does not match what is in WP:N. And please hold off such comments as "chip on their shoulder", let's keep this civil thank you. -- Atama ^chat 00:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've never wrote anything before, but I was browsing all independent games and saw this so I thought I would try. From what I have read, according to the standards of Notability, this company would be notable based on the fact that their games are listed on a number of web sites with reference to the official releases for the Dreamcast in the United States. If this entry is removed, it calls into question all of the entries in the Independently Developed Dreamcast Games, as they would all fail notability for the same reason. And, if all of the Independently Developed Dreamcast Games entries are removed, it would call into question a lot of the other games released for earlier consoles, such as the Panesian NES games which is where I started my reading tonight. I was looking for games not made by the original manufacturers, but were still considered complete releases. Many of these games may not be famous or even well known, but the fact that they were produced in a different way to standard releases makes them more notable for the sake of history than many of the standard releases, as not many consoles experienced such releases, so I vote for keep unless it is determined that no independent releases would ever be notable, which I think many people would disagree with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D3l8 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC) — D3l8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - The fact that other stuff exists is usually not a good reason to keep an article, just FYI. And again, merely being listed on web sites isn't sufficient for notability. You make an unusual argument that something is notable because it is obscure, that's one I've never heard before. Also, I'd like to point out that my prediction of anonymous people showing up just to defend these articles because of off-site canvassing is coming true. -- Atama ^chat 15:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - While I understand what you're saying, the exact article you reference states, "If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency." For consistency, the Dreamcast also has List_of_commercially_released_independently_developed_Dreamcast_games, and after doing more searching last night, every single Dreamcast independent release that I could find was on this list, but only the Cool Herders entry and this one were up for deletion. I would understand the notability reasoning if all articles were up for deletion, but deleting only random ones would be inconsistent according to the Wikipedia policy. I don't understand your off-site canvassing comment, as I was looking to find out more information abut these games yesterday and found these pages through that search. I just thought I could add something to the comment that as a collector I think is legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D3l8 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC) — D3l8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - I'm more than a little surprised that this debate has even come up. Speaking from strictly a development point of view, GOAT Store, and with it GOAT Store Publishing, is one of the main reasons the Dreamcast indie development scene took off in the first place. They were largely responsible for helping to keep Feet of Fury on pace for release with the game's developer, and while it may not float everyone's boat, Cryptic Allusion's work on that game helped lead to a "completed" KallistiOS tool that has been used by nearly every Dreamcast developer since. Those tools helped build the three other GOAT Store Publishing releases and also powered the last indie Dreamcast release, Last Hope, although that game's publisher/developers wrongfully did not cite KallistiOS in their game or packaging. Second, from a game collector's point of view, the fact that GOAT Store Publishing was able to successfully release four decent games so close to a system's official abandonment is quite remarkable. All in all it isn't to say that the Dreamcast development scene wouldn't have been around without GOAT Store Publishing - it does after all pre-date GOAT Store Publishing's direct involvement - but it is safe to say that the development scene wouldn't have gone as far as it did without GOAT Store Publishing, and every indie game released on the Dreamcast owes GOAT Store Publishing some debt of gratitude. By all means, keep this listening.--DHG Hunter (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)— DHG Hunter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - Is any of this backed up by reliable sources or is this original research? And just an FYI, since you are new (in fact this Keep vote is your only contribution to Wikipedia), something of interest primarily or solely to a small group of people is usually not suitable for Wikipedia. -- Atama ^chat 04:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I covered the indie Dreamcast development scene from its infancy with online gaming media and blogs a few years ago. Some of my work was later picked up on sites such as Joystiq, and although the article they link to is unfortunately no longer active, it can still be found on Archive.org. So yes, you may say I have had original, reliable information on this subject. Without GOAT Store Publishing, the Dreamcast indie development scene would never have taken off like it did.--DHG Hunter (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)— DHG Hunter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - I would like to add on the subject of notability, Gamautra (which is listed as a reliable source WP:VG/S ) have a interview with GOAT Store published here Darksaviour69 (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)— Darksavior69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORP and comapany is not trustful - annouced 16 titles and none of them was released. 91.89.109.219 (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An interview with Gamasutra is rather notable, and as has been stated above, they are one of the most prolific developers of indie games for the Dreamcast. And how is getting published by Sega, one of the largest game publishers in the world, not notable? Also, simply because they have announced titles that have not been released yet does not mean that they are untrustworthy - Major companies announce games and end up canceling them or, in the notable case of Duke Nukem Forever, went YEARS without talking about them. Unreleased announced games is not a valid reason for deletion. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Published by Sega and published under license by Sega are two very different things. Addionne (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per insufficient reliable sources about the company in the article or in this discussion here here that that could attest what has been claimed above. Release lists and interviews don't really cut it. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fading Roots[edit]

This is NOT an official release. Should we also list the other 10,000 bootlegs appeared through the years then? Moloch981 (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bootlegs are not notable in the same way as official releases. Article makes no claim to notability besides being by The Cure. Article has no references. Duffbeerforme (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:29, 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, consensus, including the nominator, agrees that the article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Holmes[edit]

I believe the article breaks WP:BIO. The person does not seem to have received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them, nor does the person seem to have made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. The chief editor has informed he does have a book with a bio on the subject of the article, but he has been active since July 22 yet has not inserted any info from "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.", despite me informing him that he should insert such info by yesterday. I do assume good faith. However, it is conceivable that since the chief editor of the article seems to be a relative of Alfred Holmes, he may wish to see the article up, and might have just said something that he knew would make me extend a deadline I gave him to insert such info. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If he is the main observer of these animals, he has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. DGG (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentTrue, but the statement that he is the main observer has not been backed up by sources/references. Without references, it could be assumed to not be a fact, but an opinion. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Unless the author gets around to properly citing that secondary source. I feel doubts, though - this person may well be as notable as is claimed, so leave the page open for recreation if reliable sources can be found. Black-Velvet 09:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
apparent source The work given in the reference carries on p.32 the following "I would like to extend many thanks to Sergeant Alfred Holmes of the Gibraltar Regiment, Officer-in-Charge of monkeys, for tutoring me in the way of life of the monkeys and for generally assisting me with them. His extensive knowledge and comprehension of them was invaluable." I agree a further statement would be desirable. DGG (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. Futhermore, according to WP:CREATIVE, a person may be regarded as notable if "the person [...] is widely cited by their peers or successors". Note how the source makes multiple references to "Holmes". RedCoat10 (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good points RedCoat10, and DGG. As I noticed earlier, Holmes is noted in the study. However, does being mentioned in one study constitute a pass of the criteria "widely cited by their peers or successors"? For one thing, the plural "successors" and "peers" implies that a person needs to be an established source of info amongst the scientific community. I do not believe one study constitutes establishment. Plus, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" is one of the criteria used to establish if a person is notable. Although the study has employed Holmes, Holmes has not been the subject of the study, so it is arguable that the study does not fit the criteria. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found a Los Angeles Times piece from 1988 that appears to feature Holmes quite prominently [48]. I'm not paying the four bucks for the main article, but definitely non-trivial coverage of the article subject. A Google News search suggested there were more news stories out there. The story has obvious human interest to it, this is a good article for us to have if it gets cleaned up a little. Darkspots (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep A rather revered individual in the story of scientific studies of animals. --Blechnic (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Strong Keep With the discovery of the LA Times piece, and the subsequent use of it in the article, I believe that the article now statisfies WP:BIO. Thank you Darkspots. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to all those who have contributed to improving the article during my absence. Your patience has been much appreciated. --Gibmetal 77 ^talk 09:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Article now satisfies WP:BIO. --Gibmetal 77 ^talk 09:29, 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 both . I'm happy to userfy or otherwise restore the content to be repurposed as a navbox on request. lifebaka++ 14:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1960s fads and trends in North America[edit]

Inclusion criteria for this list seem to be entirely subjective. Who decides what is a "fad" or "trend"? A large number of sources are given; but while they contain material about the individual topics, they don't show why the topics should be included in the list.

I am also nominating the related 1950s article, which in addition is entirely unsourced.

1950s fads and trends in North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--B. Wolterding (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The Beatles are a fad/trend? Most of the conent on here is arguable as fare as it's faddishness or trendiness, and frankly, it is OR.Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)'[reply]
- Comment: Are you unfamiliar with Beatlemania?. 23skidoo (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment the article says the Beatles and associated merchandise, not Beatlemania. Oh, and the Beatles are not were not a fad, or were they... there is one of the problems with this OR article right there. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Not really - there's a ton of information out there about Beatles and Beatlemania being considered a fad and trend, at least in America. Anyway, I am abstaining from voicing an opinion on this article because I consider it an either/or situation, so I can't really choose a side. So if I may be allowed to make up a vote for me I'm going with no consensus.23skidoo (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term "indiscriminate list" is much overused, but this is one of the times where it does apply. And FWIW, I suppose one could say the Beatles then became a fad--and have since acquired lastingly popularity. As you say, the need to xplain all of this is why this sort of short nonspecific article is of no use. DGG (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Puke on articles like this that sum up an entire decade with images. Woodstock! Peace sign! The Beatles! Lava lamp! I Love Lucy! Hula Hoop! Coonskin cap! Luckily, there are categories for 1960s fads and 1950s fads that serve the same purpose as this nostalgic list of things. Mandsford (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The nomination's only objection is to the terms fad and trend. This is not a reason to delete since the terms are well understood and the article has many sources to justify them. If we don't like the exact title then we can readily change it or merge the material into another article on a similar topic such as The Sixties. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a complete book which covers much of the same ground. This is evidently an encylopedic topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Spanning time from the colonization of America to the very latest craze, the 120 entries...." covers the same ground in the same way that a map of the world would cover Bucyrus, Ohio. Encyclopedic topic, sure, rendered in a non-encyclopedic way. Mandsford (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Colonel Warden. I have researched particular fads such as goldfish eating and panty raids for the related articles and found numerous newspaper and magazine articles as well as reference books about fads which offered proof of notability for individual fads. Organizing them by decade seems a very appropriate approach. Edison (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, Lava lamps, The Beatles, etc. are notable individually. But again, I don't see that this list has a reasonable inclusion criterion. There seems to be no good definition of what a "fad" is (just look at Fads and trends, I was tempted to nominate that article too). When would you include a topic in this list? If someone calls it a "fad"? Other people might call it otherwise. In the absence of an objective criterion, this is just another "X that have been called Y" list, which I wouldn't consider encyclopaedic. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of academic papers on fads which are mainly seen as herd behaviour. The details seem well covered at Bandwagon effect and so I have redirected there. No AFD is needed for such action and the same applies to our case. Deletion in such a case is not helpful and is disrepectful to our contributors. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Template:Cultural phenomena of the 1960s and repurpose as a navbox. In its current form, it's not an article; it's a collection of internal links. That would be okay it were a navbox instead of an article. "Fads and trends" is also an ill-chosen name; "cultural phenomena" would better encompass its subject matter. The references given in the article are also useless and must be discarded; they appear to be little more than news articles that "happen to contain" the term in question.--Father Goose (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Separately, delete the 1950s "article". The entries there are non-representative of cultural phenomena, fads, or anything else. I Love Lucy was a popular TV show, but there were many others; Elvis, the Everly Brothers, Rock around the Clock, etc. are jointly Rock and Roll; McDonald's may have started in the 1950s, but I doubt it was a cultural phenomenon until later (fast food would be a more representative link).--Father Goose (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, if you like, userfy to User:Father Goose for the purpose of creating a navbox - I'd agree to that. But, for a list, "cultural phenomena" is just as bad an inclusion criterion as "fads and trends". --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not volunteering to become the navbox's caretaker, but if someone else does, that's the course of action I recommend. If nobody steps forward, then, yeah, the outcome will be 'delete'.--Father Goose (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too subjective and a clear violation of WP:OR in many situations. Trusilver 00:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthocyans[edit]

Proper name is Anthocyanins, and Anthocyanidin is something else. Biologos (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case just redirect it--no need for deletion. --Itub (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is a valid alternate spelling and may also be used in a wider sense, e.g. The most abundant flavonoid constituents of fruits and berries are anthocyans (i.e. anthocyanins, glycosides, and their aglycons, anthocyanidins) that cause intense colouration.. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Comment: Wouldn't a merge be more applicable in this case, if it is only a broader alternative spelling? Black-Velvet 09:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the article is not an alternative to merger - it is a prerequisite. We are here to decide whether the article should be deleted or not. It obviously should not be deleted. What happens to it subsequently is usual contentediting which is best discussed on the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that. Black-Velvet 10:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For reasons given above, although I'm leaning towards a merge on this one. Black-Velvet 10:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have done some more research. I found 67 English books that contain the word "anthocyans" on amazon.de with the „Search Inside“ function. (I found 1512 English books containing „anthocyanins“ with the same method.) I then excluded all books with author names that did not make the impression of the author being a native English speaker. Next, I excluded all books looking non-scientific, possibly dubious or with a topic suggesting that the author was no expert for plant ingredients (for instance books on wine tasting, cosmetics, or cancer phytotherapy). I ended up with only eight books, that I have grouped as follows:

1) From the 1920s, „anthocyans“ is used as cited by Colonel Walker (umbrella term for anthocyanins and anthocyanidins):

-The Chemical Age - Chemical Dictionary - Chemical Terms, Hesperides (http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/1406757586/ref=sib_rdr_dp)

-Chemistry in the Twentieth Century by E. F. Armstrong (http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/1406758167/ref=sib_rdr_dp )

2) Books edited by native speaker(s), but article was written by non-native speaker(s):

-Advances in Food and Nutrition Research: 49 (http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/0120164493/ref=sib_rdr_dp Contains more instances of „anthocyanins“ than of „anthocyans“, used apparently synonymous.)

-Food Flavors and Chemistry: Advances of the New Millennium by A. M. Spanier, F. Shahidi , T. H. Parliament (http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/0854048758/ref=sib_rdr_dp Contains more instances of „anthocyanins“ than of „anthocyans“, used apparently synonymous.)

-Methods of Analysis for Functional Foods And Nutraceuticals (Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals) by W. Jeffrey Hurst (http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/084937314X/ref=sib_rdr_dp Contains more instances of „anthocyanins“ than of „anthocyans“, used apparently synonymous.)

3) Funny entry in encyclopedia:

„Anthocyanidins: see Anthocyans

Anthocyanins: a group of [...]“

(No entry for Anthocyans.)

-Concise Encyclopedia Chemistry by Mary Eagleson (http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/3110114518/ref=sib_rdr_dp )

4) Genuine modern finds:

-The Applied Genetics of Humans, Animals, Plants and Fungi by Bernard C. Lamb (http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/1860946100/ref=sib_vae_dp „In petunia, Petunia hybrida, the red and purple flower pigments are due to anthocyans, with the enzyme chalcone synthase being limiting in pigment product.“)

-Handbook of Food-Drug Interactions (Nutrition Assessment) by Beverly J. McCabe-Sellers, Eric H. Frankel, Jonathan J. Wolfe, http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/084931531X/ref=sib_rdr_dp Mentioned in a table as an active substance of hibiscus, quote from a phytotherapy guide.)

So, in total, I have found two modern instances of the word „anthocyans“ used by native experts in a published book. It’s the same with web finds. Hardly any google hits on .edu or .uk pages, and many of those hits were written by non-native speakers or are quotes of literature from the 1920s. I therefore assume that the term „anthocyans“ as quoted by Colonel Walker is deprecated, and that other uses of the word are non-valid spellings by non-native speakers (the German word is „Anthocyane“, for instance) or by non-experts.--Biologos (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The many references you cite further establish the notability of the term. You have yet to provide any reason to delete the article which is all we are here for. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anthocyanins as possible alternative spelling. --Polaron | Talk 15:51, 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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tamati Kruger[edit]

another unsuccessful political candidate page; I don't think this is notable enough to keep Primal (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Primal (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Primal (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he's had mainstream media coverage. See for example the interviews linked to from [49]. I see almost 2000 google hits. He's been quoted in the New Zealand Herald, and has an article on the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry website. Calling him an unsuccessful political candidate doesn't seem reasonable; he was on the Labour Party list in the 1996 election without becoming an MP, but that isn't even mentioned in the article.-gadfium 09:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's not a political candidate, (at least that's not mentioned), and the claims made are sufficient for notability, if backed up. I have added an "unreferenced" tag; that's all that's needed for now. JohnCD (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are obviously people willing to assert this article's notability, why deny them the opportunity? Black-Velvet 09:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notability of this subject should not be judged by his political career. He is best known as a historian, political commentor and Tuhoe advocate and spokesman. However, while I can find many news articles in which he is quoted as the Tuhoe spokesman or mentioned in passing in political speeches, I can't find any material that addresses him directly as the subject. Therefore I can't find evidence that he meets the general notability guideline. Does he meet some more specific guideline, perhaps as an author or representative of a notable political group? Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:23, 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 consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backdraft (truck)[edit]

There is no evidence that this particular truck passes WP:N. B. Wolterding (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:RS as to why this is notable. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This monster truck has not received any significant media coverage that I know of. Maybe someday an enthusiast will dig up a magazine with a story about it, but until then it's not notable. Black-Velvet 09:55, 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. Wizardman 14:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wandoan Races[edit]

Doesn't seem notable. if this had been about a racetrack, then it might have passed muster, but this seems to be about a thoroughly non-notable race meeting held "once or twice a year". "Wandoan races" -wikipedia returns a massive 7 ghits, several of which seem to be unacknowledged WP mirror sites. Wandoan+horse+races -wikipedia does a little better (about 1500 ghits), but very few of them seem to do much more than say that yes, there are horse races at Wandoan. PS - if kept, this needs some updating, since the next meeting appears to be a year and a half ago! Grutness...wha? 07:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of notability. JohnCD (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Wandoan, Queensland. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, pretty much every town with more than three houses in it in Queensland has a racetrack and an annual meeting. That said, these meets tend to be important events on the local calendar, so a merge to Wandoan, Queensland certainly seems appropriate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 15:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: There's no content in the article, no references. The article is just a noticeboard for the next race meeting.--Lester 21:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Mattinbgn. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no notability, no content to merge. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:56, 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 all. Merging Visual DNA to Imagini is at editor's discretion and can be considered later. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imagini[edit]

Non-notable company, references are trivial, unreliable or not independent sources, prod contested by referring to BBC reference, which doesn't mention the company. Somno (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Weak delete If Youniverse is a product of this company (as the BBC link discusses), Imagini may be a little notable. However, the speedy deletion of this product suggests it may not be notable: [50] It appears as if the article's creator has a possible connection to these products that are under AfD. The BBC link doesn't mention the company as nominator notes. Artene50 (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the lot into one article, poss the Imagini one, mainly because of the bbc.co.uk and guardian.co.uk references. I can't see enough WP:RS to warrant 3 separate articles. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Wall Street Journal reference is substantial, reliable and independent. The BBC link mentions Youniverse, a product of the company, and is therefore acceptable. PC World and the Guardian are also reliable sources. And the deleted article for Youniverse could legitimately be restored or recreated with the references cited in this article. --Eastmain (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am impressed by the new references; if they were there beforehand I wouldn't have nominated the article. Unfortunately, my quick Google search didn't bring them up. Somno (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think its quite possible that there is sufficient conetnt for all 3 articles, per Eastmain. DGG (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep article about founder and company. Pretty obvious given numerous instances of substantial coverage in major publications, and company is not the same subject as its founder (who has other accomplishments not related to this company). VisualDNA may be mergeable into the parent article because it seems to be more or less synonomous with (or at least a key part of) the company's offerings. It is notable too but not as a separate thing. Any merge there would be for organizational reasons, and without prejudice to a new article if the subject / article gets larger and it no longer makes sense to organize them in one place. Wikidemo (talk) 23:11, 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 both. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ena (EP)[edit]

Non-notable release by non-notable artist with redlinked article. Somno (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a message on your talk page (Karlsanders (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete both, I originally deleted the Naashorus article under CSD#A7 non-notable group the links in the article were to blogs, YouTube etc no independent reference from reliable sourcing. I restored the Naahorus article after being made aware of this afd by the creator of both articles. Between the two there could be a possibility of sourcing to support a merged article hence giving the editor an opportunity to address the concerns of both related articles together. Gnan garra 05:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - neither appears to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music) --Matilda ^talk 06:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, can't find sources that establishes notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll list some links here from known metal websites in which Naahorus is mentioned: http://whiplash.net/materias/bandas/naahorus.html - Whiplash is a major brazilian metal website. You can find an album review and a couple of news there. http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=200781 - metal archives is the biggest metal website on internet. You can see that there are two reviews for the Ena (EP) which gives this band some recognition. Most underground bands don't have reviews written.

Also, Naahorus is playing ExtremeMetalRadio.com.br which is a major brazilian online radio. It has been down for a while and now it's back.

I can't stand here and tell you that this is a famous band. It is not. What I'm trying to state is that while this band is not known worldwide, it is part of a small group of bands that are coming up with a new kind of music (Draugen Music) so I sincerely thought it would be of great relevance to upload some information about them.

If you need any source of information I can provide them. (Karlsanders (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

What about deleting the "Ena (ep)" arcticle? I can write everything on Naahorus' arcticle and even put more information regarding this new style of music and more sources. (Karlsanders (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: The reviews from metal archives look like they were written by website users, not professional music reviewers. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:57, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Money Art[edit]

Non-notable artwork by non-notable designer Somno (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable neologism coined (sic) by someone for their "art". Ohconfucius (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be attempt at re-making page on Glenda Murray Kelly, already speedied twice, as not notable. Author of articles is the same User talk:Gparis and would appear to have a WP:COI problem.-Hunting dog (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NOTE; neologism, no sources. Ғїяеѕкатея^talk 11:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely agree with Hunting dog. See User_talk:Gparis. User created article on the artist twice which was deleted both times and then makes this article. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 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 Delete; page re-created as a redirect to Terminology. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Termanology[edit]

Contested prod, yet the artist continues to fail WP:MUSIC guidelines. Also lacks coverage from multiple reliable publications. JBsupreme (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Terminology, which would be at least somewhat useful. Reyk _YO! 04:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately it cannot be "speedy" since we're dealing with a potential WP:BLP article history. It would have to be very slowly deleted and then slowly redirected to terminology. ;-) JBsupreme (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slow delete and then speedy recreate as redirect to Terminology: the closest thing I see to notability is his one album release, which from what I read of WP:MUSIC isn't sufficient for him to be notable. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion by a guy whose misspelled name earns him a week's worth of Wikipedia mention. Not that there's anything wrong with misspelled names. Notability is the difference between being an article, or being a redirect to Beetles. Mandsford (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, does not meet WP:MUSIC at this time. Redirect optional. RFerreira (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:00, 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 Redirect to Hulk Vs. GlassCobra 05:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk vs. Wolverine[edit]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Enigma ^message 04:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL --T-rex 04:53, 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 Speedily deleted as a probable hoax --Step hen 05:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Dale Jones[edit]

One of the "Top 100 Poets of the British Isles 2006". No evidence offered to substantiate the claim and in any case how many of the top 100 are deemed notable? - Sgroupace (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. google search of name +"poet" throws up nothing. possible hoax. Annette46 (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- googling "Simon Jones" +poet and "Simon D. Jones" +poet give me nothing relevant either. This guy is either a hoax, or just staggeringly non-notable. Reyk _YO! 03:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fake. No references, and if you look at the history you can see that this article is about the original author. – Jerry^teps 04:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax/non notable person. So tagged. Undeath (talk) 04:24, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fob Five[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete - comedy group of unclear notability. Reference and notability tags are continually being removed. The references that are on the version of the article at time of writing are dubious. (For example, the Powerlist article does not mention them at all.)

A Google search for "Fob Five" brings up mostly submit-it-yourself video sites, and no mention of ever working with Amitabh Bachchan or other famous Bollywood actors. ... discospinster _talk 02:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For unclear notability and questionable references. The main contributor to the article isn't showing any incliation to engage in dialogue at all, they just keep deleting tags without comment. Movingboxes (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable group. No pages link to it (link). It has also been deleted twice before (link). – Jerry^teps 04:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable group. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Undeath (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 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 a clear keep. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 22:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wicks n' More[edit]

All this company received was an SBA grant (which are given all the time) and a mention on Rush Limbaugh when they mailed him a bunch of candles. The claim that they are the "largest hand-poured pillar candle manufacturer in the U.S" was not independent, rather from somebody within the company during a story in a regional newspaper article. --Seascic ^T/_C 01:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Not only mentioned by Rush Limbaugh on air, but also covered by MSNBC. Obviously notable.--Bedford ^Pray 01:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because somebody is mentioned by Rush Limbaugh on the air does not make them notable. The company mailed him a box of candles and he mentioned them. If somebody were to bake him cookies, they don't deserve a Wikipedia. Association does not define notability. As for the MSNBC article, that is verifiability, but I still don't think one article in there qualifies for notability. --Seascic ^T/_C 03:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's a good article about them in the business section of MSNBC. They're not publicly traded, they're not a huge company, but they get a fair amount of coverage, and you can find their candles all over the place. Sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, and most important, they're verifiable by reliable sources. Antandrus (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the user promises to expand the page with third party sources and begins to do so. Brand new pages shouldn't be AfD'd. You have to give the people a chance to expand. Tagging editor placed a the AfD nom on it less than an hour after creation. Clearly, something is wrong with the process of people checking these pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, some of the wordings are less-than ideal, which would trigger the AFD (which is already an improvement over a speedy!) in many editors. Circeus (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If people are that impatient to stop "vandalism" or other such things, then maybe they need to stop working in such areas all together. The potential harm, as this situation proves, is too great a risk to the encyclopedia. People need to be given time, and this is just all together rude. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that I did have the "In Use" tag on it, which should illustrate that it was being worked on, and that it was premature to tag it, and inconsiderate to conflict with an active edit by another user.--Bedford ^Pray 03:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the existence of the references is why I removed the speedy tags that an editor had placed there. The article, although far from perfect does show promise and should be improved, not deleted. --Deadly∀ssassin 03:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Deadly∀ssassin 12:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has been verified and reference. The article seriously needs to be wikified though. – Jerry^teps 04:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, everything looks in order here. RFerreira (talk) 16:56, 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 Consensus, defaulting to Keep. Disagreement over whether he is notable for wikipedia or not. Davewild (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Moses[edit]

Delete. Non-notable minor league baseball player. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players for a bunch of similar ones. I am nominating this article separately because he was drafted in the first round and played in AAA, but I am still voting delete because the AAA stay did not work out and the player is still in AA five years after being drafted. This article was created prematurely. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barring a call-up to the majors, this article just doesn't meet notability requirements yet (and there it no information to suggest he will meet though requirements any time soon). - Masonpatriot (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks more like an article about the team and not the individual.Keep Wikipedia:WPBB#Players okay, I'll go with it!--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Florida State League All-Star in 2005. Spanneraol (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Minor-league All-Stars are notable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor league all stars are notable per WP:BASEBALL and this man was a minor league all-star. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Wikipedia:WPBB#Players

Have played in at least a whole season in AAA baseball, played in the All-Star Futures Game, won a notable Minor League Baseball award, or been selected for any minor league baseball All-star game in the affiliated minor leagues. SashaNein (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor league players should not be notable. I am aware that this is not what current guidelines say; I am working on getting them changed. RayAYang (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ATHLETE says fully-professional league, not minors. The WPBB section clearly states it is an essay, not a policy. Addionne (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The minors are "fully professional". Spanneraol (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Coment Minors are fully profesional teams. They are paid to play are they not? So why is it not fully profesional?--E tac (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy watching minor league baseball, but I also recognize that minor league teams are primarily about developing players for their "parent" major league teams. Playing and winning games is a secondary consideration. For example, if the parent team says that a minor league shortstop needs to learn how to play second base or a pitcher needs to work on his curve ball, that's what they'll do, regardless of its effect on the minor league team's record. That's not quite what I think of as "fully professional" play, which I see as being completely committed to winning games. BRMo (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bios in encyclopedia are intended for people that are widely accepted as the elite in their profession. This person is not a notable baseball player. There are thousands upon thousands of baseball players that have accomplished as much as him. If he is equal to thousands upon thousands of other players it doesn't make any sense for there to be an article about him in an encyclopedia. For those editors that won't accept an argument at an afd discussion that doesn't include wikilinked abbreviations here goes: Delete. No coverage in WP:RS, thus not meeting WP:BIO. WP:BB is a Wikiproject, thus any notability standard they come up with doesn't trump WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines say no such thing as "....intended for people that are widely accepted as the elite in their profession." Where does it state that wikipedia is only for the elite? You can be notable without being the "best of the best." And in any event, being selected to an all-star game makes you pretty darn elite.Spanneraol (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I gave two choices. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First round pick as well as minor league all star and was named Gatorade player of the year in Virginia in 2003.--E tac (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not impressed by his "mid-season" all-star recognition. (How many minor league all-star awards are given out? Apparently quite a few; if all-star awards are going to signify notability, we need to be more specific about which ones count.) But first-round draft picks do receive a lot of attention; players drafted in the first round are generally regarded as the elite players of the minor leagues and the best prospects for making the majors. Therefore, I'll recommend keeping this article. BRMo (talk) 03:52, 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.

Myspace Layout Sites[edit]

The result was Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a web directory. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Movingboxes (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(is this where im supposed to post this? lol) I dont think the page i created is a diectory, i intended it to be informative about Myspace layout sites in general and/or a dynamic list of the current sites. i added a list of popular sites, because theyre the basis of the whole article. i see lots of other articles that seem to have lists too, such as List_of_United_States_magazines how is my article different from this one. they are both dynamic lists. and the list of magazine could be considered a directory as well.

i would like to prove how my article hasnt broken any rule in the "wikipedia is not a directory page"

-my article is not a List or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations in anyway.
-my article is not Genealogical entries or phonebook entries in any way.
-my article is not a directory or resource for conducting business in any way. (although it may be considered a web directory because it has links to outside websites. i would link them to their respective wikipedia articles, but those would get deleted if i created them, so unfortunately i am forced to link them to their actual websites)
-my article is not a sales catalog in anyway.
-my article is not a Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations in any way.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsandrewomg (talk • contribs) 02:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you feel all the sites listed in your directory-style article would be deleted if you created individual articles, doesn't that indicate something to you about overall notability and encyclopedic usefulness of the article? Movingboxes (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well im not sure, if i made an article about my layout site and when i created it and what it is about, and who founded it etc. would it get deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsandrewomg (talk • contribs) 02:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:WEB has more information about the notability guidelines for articles about websites. Also see WP:COI for information about creating articles about yourself, your websites, or other things with which you may be connected. Movingboxes (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely, unless you can verify your site's notability with reliable, third-party sources. GlassCobra 02:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, as discospinster noted. GlassCobra 02:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay yeah i guess my article isnt suitable for wikipedia and should be deleted, but where else am i supposed to post my list? are there any other sites where i can post this, so that anybody can edit it. thats the main reason i put it on wikipedia, so anyone with a layout site could add their site to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsandrewomg (talk • contribs) 03:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps try Wikia? Also, if you acquiesce to this page being deleted, please put ((db-author)) on the top of the page so that this AfD can be closed quickly. GlassCobra 03:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, WP:ADVERT, WP:OWN,WP:NOT#DIRECTORY Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Doc Strange. Hey Movingboxes, you really need to change your writing style. The page is very encyclopedic and personal. You need to write in a style that is impersonal (as in not talking to the reader like you did with "and much more for people like you and me"). – Jerry^teps 04:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write the article in question. I'm just an editor dicussing the AfD. Movingboxes (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There is nothing to say about these, and this list acts as nothing besides a WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and a WP:ADVERT. None of these are notable on their own, and they are not notable listed together either. --T-rex 04:55, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunt for the Seventh[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet guidelines set forth at WP:BK, upcoming book of little, if any, notablity. Movingboxes (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JJL (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references. Does not state why book is notable. – Jerry^teps 04:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a blog reference here. However the book is not notable. Axl (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:01, 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf Playing Fields[edit]

This seems to be a small local field with a tiny grassroots movement to save it. The only article on it other than the "save our fields" page is an article in a small local newspaper. --Seascic ^T/_C 01:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Annette46 (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It could make for a good article, but its too soon to tell for now. AGF and keep it.--Bedford ^Pray 03:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A prod tag was up, and for a week the editor didn't make any edits to the page. It seems unlikely that the only person to contribute to the article is going to do so. --Seascic ^T/_C 04:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No pages link to Waldorf Playing Fields. (links). My vote is extremely weak delete unless the page gets improved which it probably wont because as Seascic said, the original contributer seems to of abandoned the page. – Jerry^teps 04:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure I understand why some random playing fields somewhere should be notable enough for their own article ... at best, they should get a mention in the article for the locality, unless something special happened there. RayAYang (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content into Hyde, Greater Manchester. --Deadly∀ssassin 08:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per RayAYang. It's hard to see just how this is suitably encyclopaedic. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- merging with the whole borough would lose its content in the description of a large area, but it might be merged with an article on a local neighbourhood. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above or delete. Do not keep as an article. Getting lost in a larger article is not a reason to keep it as a separate article. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:01, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Schlossberg (disambiguation)[edit]

Dab page with only one entry. Conversion to a redirect has been reverted by the creator without explanation. Either delete or redirect. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no such thing as disambiguating between only one entry. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Most readers know Caroline Kennedy is Caroline Schlossberg. Are there any other Caroline Schlossbergs who are notable? I'm frankly doubtful here. Artene50 (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Most readers know Caroline Kennedy is Caroline Schlossberg." They do? Do you have evidence of this? Axl (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether or not most readers know that; when the same person is known by two different names, a simple redirect is usually enough to assist readers. Disambiguation pages are needed only when at least two persons (things, places, etc.) are known by the same name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doubtful that a redirect of Caroline Schlossberg is even necessary though redirects are cheap and there's generally little reason to object to them. Disambiguation pages, on the other hand, should only exist when there are things to disambiguate. --Dhartung | Talk 04:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: This page should just be redirected. If the user continues to revert it just ask an admin to intervene. – Jerry^teps 04:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Forgot that is was a disambiguation. o_0 The page should be deleted. I added a redirect for Caroline Schlossberg. There are no other notable Caroline Schlossberg's so why make a disambiguation for it? When this is deleted someone will need to fix the disambiguation link up the top of Caroline Schlossberg. – Jerry^teps 04:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already removed that disambiguation link on the Caroline Kennedy page, because we don't know of any other Caroline Schlossberg that anybody might be looking for. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless disambiguation. Incidentally, the main article uses the name "Schlossberg" throughout the article. The title of the article should be consistent with the name used in the article's content. Axl (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't even one "Caroline Schlossberg". Caroline Kennedy has repeatedly stated that she never changed her name. Please see the talk page for her article where I've linked to the Larry King interview and the Time magazine interview where she says she kept her own name. Ariadne55 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already! Just Redirect It! Eddie.willers (talk) 02:12, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wimbledon Estates[edit]

Reason Non notable housing complex in suburban Houston. --Seascic ^T/_C 01:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, reads like a brochure for the complex. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is neither established nor even asserted. Frank | talk 12:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. --Deadly∀ssassin 12:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete - No notability asserted, promotional in tone, no secondary (or any) sources for the content, and the likeliness that some of the work is copied from the website for this estate means this should be a perfect candidate for the ~~speedy~~ deletion. ~~G11 criterion.~~ Rudget 14:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends - what do you think it is promoting? I don't see an entity that it is promoting. If you remove the capitalised "E", it reads like a housing estate to me. Certainly, there doesn' seem to be any promotional aspect. I think notability is unasserted, and I think it should be deleted as a result, but there is no speedy delete here that I can see Fritzpoll (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It rests with how you can interpret "Wimbledon Estates, Wimbledon Forest, and Wimbledon Champions share a swimming pool along with the luxurious clubhouse located along Cypresswood. There is no fee, but registration cards are available to those who want to access the features". That could be viewed as promotion or observation of current practices; mine being the former. Rudget 14:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see where you're coming from, but I think it's ambiguous enough to let the AfD ride out. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll change it to deletion per, as you say, the ambiguous nature of the work. Rudget 14:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Wikipedia is not a directory or a guidebook. JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to establish notability and potential breach of WP:NOT. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable or sourced. MBisanz ^talk 13:02, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Catalano[edit]

Non-notable bio, possibly a hoax. Categories have been trimmed, possibly to avoid notice, so it might function as a resume. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't a hoax, in that various sources do indicate that Catalano was on the television show Dance Party USA. However, the fact that there is only one relevant Google News Archive hit for him does not bode well for his notability. If he is notable, the article should be rewritten to focus more on reliable sources and less on hype, in which case I may reconsider this recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This reliable source shows he has been involved in a grandtotal of one film here. He certainly fails notability as an actor. Artene50 (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Resume with little evidence of notability. —97198 talk 09:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:13, 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 as CSD G12, blatant copyright violation and resalt. BJ^Talk 05:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist International[edit]

AfDs for this article:

An article on an organization that, we're told, was created in 1968 and "expanded world wide" in 1998. It runs a website with the domain name anarchy.no. A particularly notable achievement of this organization is its publication of the International Journal of Anarchism (IJA), which, we're told, is "the only Refereed anarchist scientific journal in world". The article has 21 footnotes, as well as other in-text citations; the latter in the form see IJA 2(35) and 3(38). Pretty impressive, no?

Ah, but . . . all but the last three of the footnotes are links to this or that page within anarchy.no (Anarchist International's own website); those last three footnotes establish that IJA is actually shelved by certain institutions. And every in-text citation that I can see is to IJA (Anarchist International's own publication).

Bearing in mind that IJA is not something comparable to the Bulletin of the People's Front of Judea but is instead a "refereed anarchist scientific journal", I'm willing to overlook its place of publication. However, less than entirely sure that its "scientific" or "refereed" pretensions would be taken quite as seriously by its potential customer base as by its publisher, I decided to look it up at Copac (not because of any British bias; it's just that Copac works at least as conveniently and reliably as do its equivalents in other nations). Copac indicates that either (a) the International Journal of Anarchism is shelved by a total of zero (0) British university libraries or (b) I made some typing mistake. I've a hunch that it's the former.

So all we really know is that this organization (i) says a lot about itself, and (ii) puts out a journal that university libraries might be expected to buy but that most do not buy. Its achievements, perhaps very great, are not verifiable. Or (excuse me while I glue on my beard), Anarchism, si; Anarchist International, no! -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Barring the addition of some proper sourcing, this article fails WP:V, WP:N, and WP:ORG. L0b0t (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as hoax. The claims of this organization are exaggerated beyond belief. It's just ridiculous :D There simply zero reliable sources for anything on the article. The only hits on google are either self-publications about how great they are or denounces of how this organization is a hoax. I sptrongly suspect that sourcing can't be improved at all because there isn't simply nothing to source, unless you can source how this is a silly hoax. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Also, as was noted by others, significant WP:V problems with much of the info in the article. Fails WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regrets. Anna Quist has done an excellent job of writing and building this article; however, because nearly the entire article is based on the organization's own website, and not external, independent sources. If this can be corrected, then I'd change my position, and if the article hits >50% external sources, any editor can change my vote. ThuranX (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per what I said the last time this very same article was up for deletion. Zazaban (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has had several opportunities to be presented in a verifiable manner, but there seem to be no references for it. This isn't my first encounter with this group. I've occasionally taken it upon myself to research into this group over the past several years, and have never found any secondary sources on it. It always seemed like a fringe group to me, and the inability of this article's author to present any now is the final nail in its coffin.--Cast (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks verifiable sources. Some claims seem obviously incorrect. Notability remains an issue. I have also done a good deal of research attempting to verify any of Anna's claims, and what I have found confirms none of them. The "peer-reviewed journal" appears to be a poorly proofread newsletter, largely made up of uncredited borrowings from other sources. Libertatia (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.

Delete per above, and after reading Wikipedia:ANI#Anna_Quist.C2.A0.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs_.E2.80.A2_logs.29_and_The_Anarchist_International it seems appropriate to either salt, or re-salt, both The Anarchist International and Anarchist International. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe, not verifiable. References seem concocted.Annette46 (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator is right. No independent reliable sources here. Artene50 (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, and the reasoning put out at the last AfD which was only a few weeks ago. This severely fails on independent sources --T-rex 04:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update! The article has now acquired a speedy-copyvio template, citing this page of anarchy.no as the source. Excitinger and excitinger. -- Hoary (talk) 05:43, 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/snow/nonsense. Whatever you want to call it, it's gone.. TravellingCari 02:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Ride[edit]

Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, no google-hits to show any notability outside of the coiner's group of friends. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Y'know, it doesn't really bother me that this is an obvious made-up definition by some kids--if there was some big article on CNN.com and USA Today and lots of references for it in the world... but as it is... sorry, Ross. Have fun on your ride!--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems fairly clear-cut here. Definitely not notable, found 1 hit on Google that was remotely relevant. On the other hand, a Ross Ride does sound nice. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before this becomes a problem. Google search shows that the "inventor" has a name similar to a gyncecologist in California. Jokes about relaxing and putting feet in stirrups are optional. Mandsford (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Oh gosh. Makes my remark above seem terrible. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. High school kids have way too much relaxation time. -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - per WP:NFT --T-rex 04:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- WP:NFT. Reyk _YO! 08:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any sources. Axl (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, and a Brodbeck ride is when you run into a parked car at the age of 5 because you are not watching where you are going. Just stuff someone made up, non notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ~~Delete~~ per nom, fails the everything test and appears very hoaxish. RFerreira (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G1. Almost certainly a hoax or something made up in school one day. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:35, 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Lloyd[edit]

He played three games for the Edmonton Oilers? I don't see anything significant about such a feat, except evidence of a general bias on Wikipedia towards sports and entertainment figures. Owen (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- He's an athlete who competed in a fully professional league. If Wikipedia had been around in the 70s, and someone had started an article on him during his playing career nobody would bat an eye. Since notability does not degrade over time, this is a clear keep. Reyk _YO! 22:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with his playing in the 1970s. I just don't find "professional athlete" makes him a shoe-in for a Wikipedia article, any more than does being a professional plumber. That he only played three games suggests his professional career as a football player was less than notable, and this article offers no evidence to the contrary. Owen (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perceived bias or not, WP:ATHLETE says that competing in a fully professional league, like the NHL, is enough to assert notability. The number of games played does not factor in. Addionne (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when were we slaves to the notability guidelines? The guidelines exist as suggestions, not as hard and fast rules. Owen (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the guidelines suggestions is a bit of an understatement. They're standards, supported by consensus, that Wikipedia editors are generally expected to follow. There may be rare occasions when it's right to ignore the guidelines, but these are usually cases where following the letter of the policy or guideline would violate the spirit of it. That's not the case here. I believe WP:ATHLETE has it more or less right, that it's not justifiable to ignore the guideline on this occasion, and that Mr. Lloyd is notable enough to be included in this encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 22:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to be more of a deletionist, however I think that it is perfectly likely that any professional sports player, past or present, would be researched by Wikipedia users. As such, we should provide as much of a resource as possible. At least he's not a reality TV star. :) Addionne (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ATHLETE in that he played in a fully professional league. Not only that but at the time it was one of the two top leagues in the world for professional hockey. Nevermind his minor league career. -Djsasso (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides clearly meeting WP:ATHLETE, a gsearch and gnews search show good indications of notability. If someone has access to newspapers of the era, notability will easily be shown, as most professional athletes, even if they've only played a game, get a lot of significant coverage. If you have an issue with WP:ATHLETE, pointy AfD nominations are not the way to go about it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question is there a source that he played for the Oilers? According to Hockey DB he was drafted by them, but they do not include any stats for him in the NHL. Black ngold29 21:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep reading farther down the page. It lists his time with the team which was in the WHA at the time. Even if he didn't he played in other pro leagues which still meets WP:ATHLETE. -Djsasso (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The official Oilers site lists his stats - he had 1 assist and 4 PIM in 3 games played as defenseman. Addionne (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATHLETE. Thanks Djasso. Black ngold29 22:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I quite agree with Fabrictramp. While WP:BIO is far too loose where athletes are concerned, the way to change that isn't to take a Wikipedia-wide accepted notability guideline and say "well, it doesn't count because I don't want it to count." The way to do that is through changing consensus about the rule itself, and best of luck on that, because many have tried. RGTraynor 22:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's sourced that he played in the WHA, a top-level pro league in North America. However, there's not much to the article other than an intro and his stats. It's not a good article, but it meets the notability/verifiability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played in a top professional league. Merely playing in a professional league would have made him notable per the aforementioned athlete guidelines. Patken4 (talk) 21:32, 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.