< July 28	July 30 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major Figgas[edit]

Not notable Newport Backbay (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close. The nominator has withdrawn his concerns. Chubbles (talk) 17:45, 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 G3 by Craigy144. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 00:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byrdbledon[edit]

I put this up for proposed deletion yesterday, saying it was a Possible hoax. At the very least horribly non-notable. Google yields nothing but Wikipedia entries. The prod was disputed by an IP address who asserts it's a real event so I'm withdrawing the hoax accusation, but I'm sticking to the non-notability and lack of sources bit. Reyk _YO! 23:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 No mention of it on the Byrd Park website, so I'm convinced it's a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:55, 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. The spam has been removed, and sources have been added. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noventi[edit]

Procedural nom: after I deleted the article, an employee contested the proposed deletion. The reason for deletion was "no sources to indicate this firm meets the notability requirements of WP:CORP". Maxim_(talk) 23:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Keep. I added some references.--Eastmain (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notable or not, the current article is spammy and contains promotional prose of the sort that would require a complete rewrite: The Noventi team brings a strong combination of venture investing and operational experience. Utilizing an entrepreneurial approach to venture investing, the team favors innovation, a team approach and capital efficiency as key elements of portfolio company success. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough sources to establish notability. The spamminess is an editting concern, and is in fact a copyvio of a press release. I've removed the offending material. -- Whpq (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The article is weak in asserting notability, but there do appear to be third-party references to the company, and the spam is gone now. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Liebmann[edit]

No reliable sources found for this artist. We don't know his date or place of birth, or anything about his writing style. I can't find any sources to even verify so much that he works for Mad. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This blog confirms that Liebmann has indeed worked for Mad Magazine, and so does this listing. Problem is, these sites don't say anything else. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He definitely writes for MAD and appears fairly frequently. (http://www.tomrichmond.com/blog/?p=1539) Liebmann was highlighted in a recent annual issue - about two years ago, when they were doing a writer an issue. I think there is major confusion about the spelling of his name, and you may have to search under several alternate spellings. The article DOES need a lot more information, though. I also found a Looney Tunes entry: (http://www.toonzone.net/comics/lt/093.php) Carlo (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toonzone and another Mad artist's blog aren't exactly reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 01:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Here's from Mad's website, the issue where Liebmann was highlighted: http://www.dccomics.com/mad/media/idiot_barry_liebmann.pdf. Carlo (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources above. He seems notable enough for an own article. So#Why 19:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 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. Ty 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Mejia[edit]

He's a great illustrator/painter/whatever, but there seem to be no reliable sources about him whatsoever. Nothing about his work for Mad or anything else, outside of blogs and forums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I have searched the web and found many references to his contributions to Mad and others, but nothing describing his career in detail. His personal website has a bit more information, but not the best source. As the article stands now, all of the information can be supported, but the ability to expand on the article may be limited. --Porqin (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Room to grow" is not in any way a requirement for Wikipedia articles. Otherwise at least half of our history articles would be toast. Ford MF (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you've found any sources, please add them to the article. All I found was primary sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 01:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Information Here is a published book detailing his career. --Porqin (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable illustrator. I'm adding information and a citation from the book's chapter on him. Ford MF (talk) 17:18, 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 speedy redirect (non-administrator closure). Orlady (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim David Adkisson[edit]

A clear-cut WP:BLP1E case. The person has no independent notability apart from the church shooting which is already covered in 2008 Tennessee Unitarian Church Shooting. There is no additional info in the present article suitable for merging, but a redirect from Jim David Adkisson to 2008 Tennessee Unitarian Church Shooting would probably be appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree so thoroughly that I am going to boldly redirect the article as proposed. There's no sense in prolonging this discussion. --Orlady (talk) 01:02, 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 merge into Sungkyunkwan University. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sungkyun Language Institute[edit]

I see no reasonable assertions that this language school is notable in any way, and the primary contributor appears deep in conflict of interest on the topic. Attempts to have the info merged with Sungkyunkwan University have been rejected, but without any argument why the division is notable on its own. — Coren ^(talk) 22:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as "a semi-autonomous division of Sungkyunkwan University" it is not appropriate for more than a mention in the article. In practice, AfD can be used to force a merge when there is clear consensus to do so, as I would expect in this case. DGG (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Sungkyunkwan University seems a good solution. TerriersFan (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a notable language institute in South Korea. I would later add relevant sources on the notability. --Caspian blue (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sungkyunkwan University if Caspian cannot provide reliable references soon.IceUnshattered (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Although the institute is famous in South Korea, I could not find "reliable sources" except promotion-like articles from news, media. So I would say "merge".--Caspian blue (talk) 19:01, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cristofer Duarte[edit]

Contested prod. This article was originally written in Spanish and translated by me. A discussion (now deleted) at WP:PNT pointed out that none of the valid notability assertions (that is, assertions that can avoid an A7 speedy) in this article can be backed up by reliable sources. In fact, we came up emptyhanded. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no Cristofer Duarte in the Spanish Wikipedia. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This practically reads as spam. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 01:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think the parts that made you regard this article as spam were added while I was in the process of completing this nom. :-D -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disgusting vanity. Ervin Gallina should be deleted, too. JuJube (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable subject using wiki as a myspace/facebook/substitute. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think this one is notable enough for Wikipedia. His own website has nothing more than a half dozen pictures, and none of them even show his face clearly. The article was written by a close friend who thinks he's great, and that's great. When he's notable, we should have an article, but not before then. --Cbdorsett (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating the following redirects, all created by the same user through page moves:

-- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:26, 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. John254 02:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLU Crew[edit]

Reliable sources covering the subject do not exist, therefore the subject is non-notable. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The team has placed and IRA National Intercollegiate Rowing Championships. The highest level in American College Rowing. To help others out, I have provided a link to the official team site at the university’ athletic web page and the history of the team from the university web page. The above links I would considered reliable primary source. At first I was little concerned about it not having 3rd party Independent sources. But I found the Seattle Times does a pretty good job covering the team. I found several hundred articles when I did a search of Pacific Lutheran Rowing. Note: the majority of links are useless but there is a lot of good information on the team, races, alumni and even a tie to Ted Turner and Cold War politics. [1]. With this coverage and I think this article makes the threshold of notability (but it very close).09er (talk) 15:46, 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, Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sources appear sufficiently abundant. Failing that, merge to Pacific Lutheran University Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It might better idea to redirect and merge into a new article called Pacific Lutheran University Athletics. If the article is merged into Pacific Lutheran University the rowing info would dominate the whole article. 09er (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A merge/redirect to Pacific Lutheran University Athletics would have the same problem in that the rowing will dominate the article. It will also create a disconnect between the article title and the content of the article. Otherwise, I think its a good idea, and I guess the article would have to wait to get filled out. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the notability, but if it's kept shouldn't it be renamed Pacific Lutheran University Crew?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed 09er (talk) 14:51, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 Day[edit]

Fails WP:N, and g-hits bring up zilch on the first page. Leonard^(Bloom) 20:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the nature of the search sequence used by the nom, I would not have expected to find relevant sites on the first Google page, but this search doesn't return much either in terms of relevant ghits. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the correction, but I'm surprised nothing came (again). Leonard^(Bloom) 02:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if it exists it doesn't meet our notability or verifiability policies. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Artene50 (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article. It may be worth mentioning in another Nickelodeon article or the like. --Porqin (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzerBeater[edit]

I see that this online game, although it won NO awards and has NO reviews whatsoever, is free to exist on Wikipedia. If you will delete this one, you will have to delete that one too. Are the rules same for all? Cafa80 (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search for the developer and game name brings up 38 results - oh dear. Don't confuse it with the basketball manga Buzzer Beater with your searches (presumably this is where it got its name). It's either PRs, the game itself or WP and its mirrors, doesn't establish any notability at all. Someone another 22:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources and claim to notability as shown by Someone another. The entry can also be used as a Redirect to the basketball manga.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — blatant advertising. See WP:CSD#G11. MuZemike (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability and verfiability, although I have to admit I'm confused by the language in the nomination itself ("If you will delete this one, you will have to delete that one too"). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm the lead developer of BuzzerBeater and President of Digital Field Theory, LLC. I would like to try and clear up some facts and help inform the discussion. First off, we are not affiliated with or related to the Japanese manga; we are a Delaware LLC founded in January 2007, based in Cambridge, MA, and only make BuzzerBeater and other online sports games in development. We chose the name because a Buzzerbeater, or last-second made basket that changes the result of the game, is the most exciting play in basketball. Second, no member of our staff has been involved in creating the article on Wikipedia. The initial article appears to have been created by somebody from Tasmania, which is about as far away from Boston as one can possibly get. The other editors I can trace on the history page come from Italy (multiple locations), New York, Washington DC, Slovakia, a .uk address, Boston, Nova Scotia, Uruguay, and Ontario. The large expansion in the page comes from a user without an IP but who has also edited pages on Uruguayan basketball, so I suspect he's from Uruguay. We as of this moment have 26,344 active users, with one user per account and inactive accounts delted after on month. We show 20 million pages per month, and have an Alexa rating of 18,180. I would be happy to help establish any of these as facts; you may email me at charles@buzzerbeater.org. As far as whether BuzzerBeater should have a page on Wikipedia, I feel that is really your editorial decision, not mine. My personal bias is that I would have included no online games in an encyclopedia, although I do use Wikipedia as a source when researching other online games. However, I would expect the BuzzerBeater page to be treated in the same way that, for example, one would treat the page on Hattrick, an online soccer game designed along identical principles which is the largest online soccer manager game, just as we are the largest online basketball manager game. If there are any further question as to whether the article is factual, I would be happy to help provide any necessary supporting evidence. CSteinhardt (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, we appreciate the forthcoming of the comment. However, I should point you to WP:ALEXA and WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE. Large numbers or website ranking do not determine the article's notability, but rather the quality of the article's verifiable, third-party sources. In addition, to further avoid deletion (which is my rationale for speedy deletion), the article needs a complete rewrite, getting rid of any advertising undertones present and replacing with encyclopedic content. MuZemike (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also almost forgot to mention that Inclusion is not an indicator of notability (in the case of referring to the existence of a similar article. MuZemike (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was not involved in writing the article, I'm not going to try and defend the current tone. I feel it is similar to the tone of other online game articles, and beyond that, I think it's wrong of me as a non-contributor to decide what are proper editorial standards for Wikipedia. I would say though that if your concern is that the article needs a complete rewrite, I would be willing to assist in that process, and rewriting a poor article on a proper topic is a better choice than deleting it. What would get me upset in this discussion is the idea that the largest online basketball game in the world is not worthy of inclusion while at the same time, not only the largest soccer game in the world but (as I have noticed looking around Wikipedia) the 20th largest online soccer game in the world are worthy of inclusion with articles that look remarkably similar to ours. So I might think a better approach here would be that since there's clearly a global community that was involved in writing this article and thinks it's worth having, perhaps we might be able to rewrite it. I would be happy to assist in such an effort, but I would feel uncomfortable doing without the help of somebody who writes more regularly for Wikipedia and is not affiliated with BuzzerBeater. Is this a good option? CSteinhardt (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is, but it needs to be proven via verifiable, third-party sources. It's also not an issue as to what other similar articles are like (Read Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability again.) it is an issue as to how this article is written and the notability of this article. MuZemike (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi C, the specific problem here is that WP is a tertiary source and needs secondary sources, which are deemed reliable, which cover the subject in enough detail to create an article. This is because editors are not allowed to conduct original research. With video games this coverage is reviews, and that's where we run into problems. As useful a tool as WP is, the fact that you use it to look at competitors highlights the problem: there is no GameSpot or IGN for MMOs. The only MMOs which are guaranteed coverage are the shop-sold titles like WoW and Age of Conan, IE a grain of sand on the beach, because they're treated the same as the next Command and Conquer game etc. Everything else, from the smallest MUD to RuneScape and Maple Story, is covered patchily, in sources we can't classify as reliable or just isn't covered. A few sources have sprung up with regards to casual games and indie games in general, MMOs are just paid lip service. Until the gap is filled by a site or magazine that covers all popular MMOs, our coverage will remain as patchy as the sources. Regarding Hattrick: it has already been listed for deletion, but sources were found to establish its notability during that discussion, they just haven't been written into the article yet. That article's a work in progress like the vast majority on WP. The other MMO articles will either be: a) referenced and have demonstrated notability in the WP sense, b) have sources which aren't yet cited in the article or c) be non-notable which means that they could be listed for deletion at any time, as has happened here. After making the 'named after' comment I had a "duh" moment and realized it would be a known term, something to do with beating the clock. As a Brit who knows nothing about basketball it follows that terminology relating to the sport is no more part of my vocabulary than similar terms in baseball etc. Hope that answers some questions. Someone another 21:59, 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 (kept by default). The option to merge to Steve Gibson (computer programmer) was raised so I'll open a merge discussion - Nabla (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Security Now![edit]

lacks reliable 3rd party references (existing references are either blogs, or primary sources), article fails to establish notability. Rtphokie (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won Best Tech Podcast at People’s Choice Podcast Awards in 2007, has 100,000 downloads a an episode. Needs better sourcing, but this is problem to be solved with editing, not deletion. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've seen some concerns expressed in the past with People’s Choice Podcast Awards being used as a reference to establish notability and would like to hear other editor's opinions on this. Certainly if this podcast is notable, additional 3rd party references can be located and added to this article during this AFD.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would not consider People’s Choice Podcast Awards a major award as it is clearly marketing by a non-notable company and therefore not independent, there are no guarantee as to the process or results. I agree that 2nd or 3rd party sources should exist if this was notable and i cannot find a single one. --neon white talk 20:36, 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 19:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No third party sources. Primarily original research from self-published sources. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False. I disagree that it is unsourced. Keep. There are plenty of non-first party sources:

For these reasons, Keep --Inet^pup_:o3^{⌈〒⌋▰⌈♎⌋} 07:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all either blogs (which are prohibited as sources), schedules for the show (which do not provide any information) or are solely about Steve Gibson. There is little or no information about this show. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Steve Gibson (computer programmer). There's no reason to throw the content away, and the author is clearly notable, even if the podcast itself may not be. I would also have no heartburn with keeping this if sources to establish the podcast's notability are found. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it appears that even after some effort reliable 3rd party sources have not been located. I wasn't sure at first as it's clear a lot of work has gone into the article list, but that belongs elsewhere (like in the feed itself). samj (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Steve Gibson (computer programmer). Reduce the length of the article by deleting the episode list (not relevant to the article and now way out of date). Dsergeant (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as winner of significant award and subject of third-party coverage. Boing Boing clearly passes the bar for reliable self-published source. Blogs are not "prohibited", although lots of people say they are; there are more than a few solid, reliable blogs out there that pass WP:SPS. Ford MF (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self published sources are only allowed in articles about themselves or when produced by an well known expert otherwise they are not reliable, therefore there is no bar to pass. Blogs are not considered reliable sources as they cannot be verified ("self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable"). There is no evidence of any significant award. --neon white talk 18:40, 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. The arguments for deleting the page were not convincing, and only referred to WP:NOT#NEWS as their basis. The "keep" commenters pointed out that the article meets our verifiability, neutrality and no original research policies, and I was particularly swayed by Rorry1's arguments. On a more mundane basis, there is no way in hell that this article will gain a consensus to be deleted, so let's stop wasting everybody's time. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Chino Hills earthquake[edit]

There is nothing special about this earthqauake at all. No-one died, little damage, and it isn't a record or unprecedented for SoCal, unlike the Illinois or Market Rasen earthquakes. In short, delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break 0[edit]

Keep, I say let it play out a bit first. -- Phoenix2 19:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit conflict Delete - I was planning on nomming but never got around to it. Sure, CNN and others are totally hyping this, but nothing serious has happened. There's nothing notable about it except the sort-of high magnitude number - C L — 19:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, The earthquake was really just a few minutes ago. You people need to learn to edit correctly. There's nothing special about a snow storm that hit Ohio in 2006 or 2007 and one in 2008 but yet, there's an article. Sorry for being mean. Haha. But yeah, let is play a bit first. Keep as a stub at least.
Keep - Give it some time, not all the details are quite clear yet, let's just hold off for a while, besides what if there's a powerful aftershock?
- See WP:CRYSTAL. Until said powerful aftershock happens, it still isn't notable. C L — 19:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, give it some time to play out. BKMCAE (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. This earthquake was one of the first major earthquakes Los Angeles has had in a while. I say keep for the time being until we get a clear estimate of how much damage was caused. Also, people might want to come to this article for more information on what's been going on. (Keep in mind that the Whittier Narrows quake in 1987, a 5.9, was the last big shake Southern California had; 5.4 is still pretty big, albeit small compared to the one in 1987.) Any Wikipedians from SoCal feel it? Iamwisesun (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I felt it, by the way. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in reliable source that are independent of the subject. Presumed notability. Besides, WP:NOT#NEWS is an assertion, not a deletion criterion. --Elliskev 19:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There is significant coverage and it meets the standards of Wikipedia. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.62.153 (talk)
Comment - I've just had a look through the California earthquakes category. The weakest one apart from this is about 20 times stronger. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably keep it for now because (a) we don't have too much data on its significance, (b) it's Los Angeles, a city which everyone expects to eventually get "the big one", and (c) every news reporter in the country is on edge because they want to be the first in to "ground zero" to report on it. I suspect the article will ultimately be deleted in a few days once this dies down and reporters realize that they're not getting the Pulitzer Prize,... Dr. Cash (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and reporters being excited about something is definitely not a good enough reason on its own for WP to have an article about it. --BG (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per NOT#NEWS. Elliskev, the nominator didn't say anything of notability — he nominated based on the "assertion" that this is news blow up, which I'll agree with. A 5.2 earthquake in LA is nothing new for LA. If it were in Beijing, or in another high-risk society (low building standards, many people, etc), then I think it might be worth keeping. But as it is? --Izno (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? So is it notable, or not? I don't understand the reason for the nomination, I guess. --Elliskev 20:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Sceptre. As of now, this might be just another earthquake, with no resulting damage to people or property. If there is any major developments in the future that makes this notable we can always recreate or undelete. But as of now, this isn't notable as I see it per WP:NOTNEWS. It might become notable in the future if anything else should happen, but keeping for this reason would come under WP:CRYSTAL. Bjelleklang - talk 20:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is an essay. Just sayin'. --Elliskev 20:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but still.. If this quake had no consequences other than making a few headlines in the papers, I see no reason for this to be kept. Wikinews would be a better place for this for now. Bjelleklang - talk 21:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Spend your energy doing something useful on Wikipedia, instead of trying to delete articles that will only be re-created. It's a notable event. It's already gotten international attention [2], and there's no harm in creating an article on Wikipedia (which is not paper), where people come for information as it develops, whether you like that or not. Moncrief (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm spending my energy trying to keep sensationalist news articles off Wikipedia, which is after all an encyclopedia, and not a newspaper. I suspect the other people suggesting Delete are doing a similar thing. --BG (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for a few days in case there are ramifications or as-yet-unappreciated notability, then take a view on its long-term value. Barnabypage (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable per ITN section, and not all articles have dead people; earthquakes included. This is under-construction, since the quake only happened 25 minutes ago. It requires time to develop and match Wikipedia's policies. If its still in such a horrible state after a few days, then re-request deletion. --haha169 (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not the state of the article, it's the fact that it is about something that is at most a news event, and does not belong on Wikipedia. --BG (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until something happens to make this more than just a news story. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An earthquake never becomes more than a news story. GA article, 2008 Sichuan earthquake, cites news journals and media outlets primarily. These earthquakes only make it to news stories until years later when an educational synthesis can be published. If we follow your suggestion, we should go and delete all the earthquake articles, and by extension to related topics, half the articles on Wikipedia! --haha169 (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bad, bad, bad. bad example to use to support your point. About 70,000 people DIED in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, making it a major international disaster. There aren't even reports of serious injury (per CNN's current coverage) from today's quake. Sichuan is notable on the basis of its casualties alone. 23skidoo (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Strong Keep This was heavy shaker, I thought my house was going to come off its foundation. It should be further noted that this quake was weird in a sense. Quakes are either a Jolt, or a roller. This was both, it started with a slight rolling sensation, then the ground jolted, followed by 20 more seconds of rolling. It lasted about 45 seconds in Mission Viejo, CA--Subman758 (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are now reports from the FAA about minor Runway damage at three local airports, LAX, John Wayne Airport, & Ontario Airport.--Subman758 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- keep, there has been several minor damages along with broken water lines and the las vegas city hall had some violent shakes
Keep, need to let this play out a bit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.225.249 (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above statements of keeps.. Los Angeles is not a small place.. An earthquake in a place like LA with a magnitude of 5.4 lasting about 1 minute should be kept for awhile.. even if it means until there is wikipedia. --Axxand (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now -- and for the very practical reason that people will continue to try to write about it for a while -- but in a week or two or three it will very likely prove to be a non-event, and deletable. FWIW, where I am (Santa Barbara) it was the strongest shaker since the Northridge quake in 1994, and was rather a spectacular rolling event. Antandrus (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but voting more than once doesn't help our cause. If you have new thoughts, put them under your initial vote, please. Thanks. Moncrief (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct my bad, I relocated the info.--Subman758 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~ Los Angeles is no more important than Iran or the Philippines... IMO --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

censorship attempted at my vote :( I may support now to merge with Chino Hills--TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Strong Keep This is notable, wikipedia is a place for information and earthquakes wherever should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapletip (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep maintaining information like this is one of the reasons Wikipedia exists! What a terrific resource for research!--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—For me, the article itself gives the strongest reason for deletion... The region suffered only minor damage. While it may have gained instant notoriety, I don't think that's the same as encyclopedic notability. What would EB do? Livitup (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment isn't that gives a strong reason to be kept.. The region suffered only minor damage with a 5.4 frequency which occurs only every 10 years with 5.5 is the maximum and 5.6 could only occur every 100 years.. think about that. isn't it amazing that LA only suffered minor damage with a 5.4 frequency.. i conclude that should be kept.--Axxand (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Definitely notable, plenty of reliable citations that verify claims... Plus, I live in Southern California and I felt the damn thing! --Happyme22 (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very notable. Size is notable, not necessarily damage. The only reason there wasn't more damage was because it happened in an area with newer infrastructure...whereas quakes in LA proper are devastating because they affect hundred year old buildings. Rorry1 (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this now. The overwhelming consensus is to keep the article. Its silly to debate this further. Rorry1 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, patience is the way to go. Some admin will come by and close it in due time. You don't have to worry about the article being deleted. --haha169 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki to Wikinews. It's not a major earthquake by any objective definition, end of story. Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a guideline somewhere that defines the threshold? --Elliskev 23:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break 1[edit]

Comment. There's little point casting a vote since it's a SNOW situation, but for my part I don't feel this is another Northridge. Earthquakes, even serious ones, are a dime a dozen in LA and southern California and I'm not seeing indication that this is another Northridge. I fully expect this to be renominated within the week and unless something really serious transpires as a result of the shaker today, I'll probably break my own rule and support the renonomination. I normally do not support quick renominations after keep decisions, but I really don't see anything to make this notable in the long term based upon current coverage. If it was another Northridge, we'd have heard by now. 23skidoo (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your statement "Earthquakes, even serious ones, [emphasis mine] are a dime a dozen in LA and southern California" is wildly hyperbolic, even in the context of the minimal hyperbole I imagine you intended. I'm not saying this is another Northridge, of course it isn't, but it is the strongest earthquake to directly affect the urbanized Los Angeles area since Northridge, 14 years ago. (AP: "The strongest earthquake to strike a populated area of Southern California in more than a decade"[3]) Why shouldn't we create a viable article about this event, which did cause some damage? How is Wikipedia weakened by having such an article available for those who may want to search for it in the future, who may want to use it as a reference to compare with some future quake? Moncrief (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, whatever. As of now I will vote speedy keep for any earthquake article nominated for AFD. Full stop. The precedent has been set as far as I'm concerned and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS will no longer apply. 23skidoo (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see the harm in keeping the article. If there is enough information to form an article, and the event makes national news for nearly an entire day, then why shouldn't it stay? This is an encompassing encyclopedia, and it should keep significant events like this. Perhaps the Whittier Narrows earthquake or the 2004 Parkfield-San Bernardino earthquake should be deleted as well as for they were of similar magnitude. I dont think there is any question that this was a significant earthquake. Rorry1 (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the Richter scale is logarithmic (I believe it is), a 6.0 earthquake would be about twenty times stronger. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're ready to vote "Speedy keep" on all of these articles? Good thing, to, since deleting this would mean deleting the 168 articles on that page due to your idea of "precedent". --haha169 (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is silly to say a 6.0 would be 20x stronger. I was in Northridge, and this one felt stronger than Northridge. Had this one been 20x stronger, LA would be in ruins and a tsunami would be on its way to Japan. That is a really silly statement. You act like we had this little shake. It was no little shake. It was stronger (at least in Orange County) than Northridge was. In Orange County, it was undoubtedly the strongest quake in our area in 30+ years.Rorry1 (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematically, not perceptually. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SNOW applies when the majority has policy on their side. Here, it is not clear that that is the case. A closing admin could very well decide to delete the article, depending on his or her interpretation of competing policy arguments. This is not a vote, etc. Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation is: WP:SNOW isn't a policy. Oh yeah...it actually isn't. Besides, this article was started less than a few hours ago! You can't expect an article to be created that quickly, especially since the event itself only occurred a few hours ago.--haha169 (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to imply that it was. Policies are few, but do include WP:NOT and WP:RS. Jclemens (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of what Wikipedia isn't - but the fact remains that the "revamping" template is still there, and the article is still constructing. It's seem some big jumps, and some media outlets still have to get their game on! Additionally, you can't delete an article that's nominated to go on the Main Page - since its good enough to be considered. I seem to remember what 2008 Sichuan earthquake looked like when it was on the main page. Honestly, just wait. --haha169 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This is pushing it--5.4 magnitude? But it was located in SoCal, and thus there is WP:RS available, most of which is present in the article. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 22:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody was killed or injured. Why are you making an article about this? Forego (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is precedent on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake. In both cases, I said on those discussions, "Earthquakes in California less than 6.0 with little or no casualties or damage is not significant or notable enough". Both earthquakes were in fact less than 6.0 magnitude and with little little or no casualties or damage ... and thus these articles were eventually deleted for that reason, WP:NOT#NEWS, and some other comments similar to ones post above in this discussion. Since the earthquake is less than 24 hours old, the article now in question already is plagued by recentism, and there are a lot of comments above asking to keep. Since I doubt there is enough consensus now to delete at this moment, I am staying neutral for now, but I reserve my right to change my vote to delete before this discussion is closed, or the option to repost this article back on AFD a few months later. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any earthquake in the Los Angeles area exceeding 5.0 is significant because of the population of the area. The one in New Zealand affected hardly anyone. The Alum Rock one affected just a few thousand. This earthquake affected a 100 mile radius with a population exceeding 21,000,000. A 6.0 may not be significant if it were in, lets say, the High Desert of California, because of the lack of population. Also, there are over 20 earthquake articles on Wiki right now for earthquakes in the 4.0 and 5.0 range...most recently the 2008 Earthquake in Indiana which affected less than 5% of the number of people this earthquake affected today. You need to look beyond the magnitude and look at the number of people affected, the area it occured in, and how the media reacts to it. Rorry1 (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to look at the overall historical perspective (especially in terms of California's earthquake history) and judge in regards to WP:RECENT when the event happened less than 24 hours ago, and how the LA area, the media capital of the world, reacts during that short period of time. Thus, of course you are going to get more of the media frenzy from the news outlets. Again, I am staying neutral because I cannot make a sufficient judgment until more time has passed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I empasize California's earthquake history. California, an area of the world with a lot of earthquake faults and a history of large earthquakes, does currently have strict building laws in place so most buildings and structures should be able to withstand a 5.X earthquake. So it would be no surprise that such a tremor would result in little or no damage and injuries, unlike a place like China. If in several months, the content of this article can be trimed to a few non-trival paragraphs, I would have no objection to merging it into a List of earthquakes in California. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, to see how this goes. Chances are it will be regarded as non-notable soon enough, but who knows yet? I'd add a comment that I felt a considerably stronger earthquake two weeks ago, and wouldn't for one moment have considered it Wiki-worthy. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This earthquake did both damage to structures and caused injuries. Michaelh2001 (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very Strong Keep - This was featured in several notable new sources, it is definitely notable. Just because its magnitude is small proves nothing. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 00:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This happened... earlier today? (That would explain why so many editors remember it.) Minimal damage? Belongs to Wikinews, then. An event of this kind is notable when it gets reported in newspapers at the other end of the country. If the Montreal Gazette doesn't mention this earthquake tomorrow, I'll change this to a delete. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the bigger news would be that Quebec was annexed to the United States? According to you, Quebec is now part of USA. Rorry1 (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Originally estimated at magnitude 5.8, it was the strongest earthquake to occur in California since the 2004 Parkfield-San Bernardino earthquake,[3] and the strongest in an urbanized area of southern California since the 1994 Northridge earthquake.[4]" Shouldn't this alone guarantee notability, no matter how recent this is (with sources, that is)? There were injuries, despite little damage and no deaths. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 01:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can affect the lives of 7 in 100 Americans. It can cause significant damage. It can be the largest earthquake in Southern California in 13 years. But if it doesn't kill anyone.....its not notable for some editors here. Always puzzles me how we can have such insignificant articles on Wiki, but yet a natural disaster is not important enough for Wiki. Rorry1 (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been that way for a long time. A lot of articles degenerate into fancruft, while franly important articles like these are ignored in the systemic bias. It's even worse for Africa and Asia. But don't worry, this one will be kept. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 01:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was a moderate earthquake in a very very populated place that has received high amounts of media coverage including international mentions. Its an informative article that is clearly notable in my opinion. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is fine because the Earthquake was medium (5.4) so it maybe a major earthquake. Earthquakes that are 4.9 to 0.0, should not have an article. Jet (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I came here for information about the quake, only to find that some of you Wikipedians are trying to take this article down. It is clearly notable. It has been getting national coverage, and is the strongest quake in 14 years to hit LA. This isn't somebody trying to make a dumb article about some 3.0 earthquake that hit his hometown, this is a notable earthquake originally estimated at 5.8 (downgraded now to 5.4, but they're still working on that). It has been getting heavy media coverage all day and probably will still be in the days to come. Just because nobody's died yet doesn't mean this falls under WP:NOT#NEWS. Lexi (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOT#NEWS means one day's worth of RS media coverage, no matter how widespread, just doesn't cut it. If it keeps getting coverage in, say, two weeks, then we should probably consider having an article on it. As is, I predict it will rapidly become nothing more than a trivia question. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, the folks at WP:QUAKE (including myself) will never allow this to degrade into trivia. Honestly, why do we need to cover every Simpson's episode while we don't cover an event wich injured several people? For God's sakes, it has only been one day, so give it a chance! Most earthquakes are only covered for a few days, then it all stops. And from that few days' coverage we have 2002 Iran earthquake, a Good Article soon to be FAC. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 03:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the probably rhetorical question, I don't see a whole lot of value that Wikipedia can add vs. what news outlets will cover--certainly not within the first 24 hours. "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." seems written for just this sort of article. Obviously, that's a view not widely held amongst participants on this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Wikipedia covers the facts....the statistics of the earthquake, damages, fatalities, etc. The news covers peoples emotions, peoples reactions to the quake, individual response, speculation, etc. There is a BIG difference between this encyclopedia entry and the LA Times article on this topic. Its doesn't take much to compare Wiki to LA Times and see the clear differences.75.47.164.158 (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not News is meant to be applied with at least a minimal degree of common sense and judgment. Those who actually want to not cover anything that appears in a 2008 newspaper should try to change the rules to that effect (or, much more likely, spin off a different wiki), not nominate like this. DGG (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is really no reason to delete this article. The event is certainly notable and the article is encyclopedic.--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 02:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, at least for now. It doesn't seem a particularly significant earthquake in historical terms, but it has received plenty of press coverage, which is reason enough for us to have an article on it. Terraxos (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because people didn't die, doesn't make the article any less significant.Gunnerdevil4 (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this were a 7.0 with extensive damage and major injuries/deaths, or a 5.5 in a place not known for earthquakes, this would be notable. A sub-6 in a place where earthquakes are planned for, with zero deaths and only very minor damage, is a waste of mainspace. The only truly notable thing about this earthquake is that it was heard live on The Jim Rome Show. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 04:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, you just answered your own question! Los Angeles has not experienced a sub-6 magnitude quake since 1994, and there has been a complete lack of quakes at all for the past few months! This is quite notable all right. --haha169 (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You totally missed my point, and sounded like a fool in the process. A sub-6 magnitude quake since 1994? Technically a 2.0 tremor, which is nearly a daily occurence for L.A., is a "sub-6 earthquake". Los Angeles these days is built so that anything under 6 won't really cause serious damage. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 04:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Waste of space" as a criterion for deletion?? I really think you need to read [4]. Moncrief (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as there was damage to significant structures, such as Pomona City Hall. No deaths yet reported, though. Calwatch (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too small to be likely to have any long-term historical significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refer to WP:CRYSTAL. --haha169 (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - You're contradicting yourself. In this case, CRYSTAL would have us delete the article because nothing of significant importance has happened. What you said makes no sense. It hasn't been "long-term" yet, how do we know what long-term effects, if any, will occur? C L — 04:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, your speculating that it is unlikely to have long-term significance. On wiki, you have to give it the benefit of the doubt, or else we'll be deleting articles left and right.--haha169 (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not speculating, it's a fact. I never said it was unlikely, it might be as likely as the next sunrise; then again, it might be as unlikely as someone inventing a time machine. But probability isn't a factor; it's what has or hasn't occurred yet. C L — 04:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in addition to my Keep above This is getting crazy. There is overwhelming consensus, (even by some of those opposers), to wait for a few days and see the results then. By then, it should be obvious whether or not to delete or keep. --haha169 (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The criteria shouldn't be whether there has been any casulties, or whether there was any structural damage or not. The criteria should be whether there are news articles and references about it, and there are plenty. This article and its references might be useful for later research when someone does a study on LA earthquakes and its impact on the LA community.enderminh (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break 2[edit]

Weak Keep I must say that as a Southern Californian, I did feel this thing. I also live near Los Angeles and get a better idea of its impact. Yes, damage was relatively small, but this is the strongest quake to hit an urban area of Los Angeles since the Northridge Quake. However, I do have to wonder if this quake will be remembered as little as a few weeks down the line, which makes this not really notable. There was damage, but I doubt there was enough to require notability (probably final estimates will be a mil or so at most). I think it will be an intresting article to show how LA is impacted by an earthquake or how building codes kept damage minimal (of course once USGS says something along those lines). Let's just wait and see how notable this thing is down the line. guitarhero777777 (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were in Los Angeles, it was relatively weak there. For Orange County residents, this was the biggest quake since before Orange County was anything more than orange groves in the 1950's. The Northridge was big....to those of you in Los Angeles. But in Orange County, we felt a fairly mild shaking. This quake was definately stronger for us compared to Northridge. And seeing that there has not been a 5.0+ in Orange County since the 1950's...its fairly notable.Rorry1 (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- On a side note, why is there another article on this earthquake? Chino Hills Earthquake needs to be merged or deleted. guitarhero777777 (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Conflict Delete It was moderate yes but there is to much edit conflict and edit wars going on either it gets deleted or you Protect The Page so that vandals cant edit it, there is alot of edit wars going on because of this page...I think its best for wiki. Unless you protect it for atleast 2 weeks or so to stop vandals. or unregistored editors. MountCan (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had followed any other incident of significance on Wikipedia, you would know that they ALL have edit conflicts when they are fresh issues. So, whats the solution? Delete all the significant events that go on in the world because too many people edit it's article? Think about how silly that statement is. Rorry1 (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MountCan, I have been monitoring this article, and there have been no incidents of vandalism as far as I'm concerned. That one IP you reverted, I reverted your reversion. It is non-essential detail. Aside of that revert, I have not seen many vandalism-related reverts at all. Only two - one that I reverted myself, and another which someone reverted me to address my concerns in my edit summary. That's it. No preemptive measures please. Also, "Edit Conflicts" are different than edit wars.--haha169 (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article for the largest earthquake in a 14 year period to hit a populated area of Southern California, one of the most seismically active regions on earth, up for deletion? There is no WP:MUST_BE_DEATHS guideline or policy anywhere in Wikipedia. --Oakshade (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- When is the strongest earthquake in Calif. in a decade not notable? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the strongest earthquake to strike Cali. in a decade. It is the strongest earthquake to hit the Los Angeles area though. guitarhero777777 (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's totally irrelevant whether it was the strongest earthquake to hit LA in a decade. Would you create a WP article about the highest high tide to hit Ireland in a century if it was only a small amount higher than the next-highest, and caused no flooding or other problems? This site is Wikipedia - an encyclopedia. This article is news, and belongs on Wikinews. --BG (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is a mag. 5! It is not a weak earthquake. And also, I would appreciate it if you stopped using that condescending tone of yours. I have been editing here for years, and have edited way more articles than you have. Who are you to lecture me on what belongs to where? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: "Weak" is subjective, and by all objective definitions this was a minor earthquake in terms of damage caused. Furthermore, my comment wasn't directed at you - I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was "lecturing you"? --BG (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The USGS has come out and say that this is a good quake, as in this is not your normal earthquake. When experts in the field say it is not weak, it is significant. These are not Average Joes, BG, but people who holds advanced degrees and worked for many years in this field. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please hold off on the personal attacks (WP:NPA). I don't have any background in geology, and I'm happy to admit that. I do think this article does not add value to Wikipedia, as it is about a relatively insignificant event, and is only on Wikipedia because of the media frenzy the event has generated. Our opinions clearly differ on that point, and I think that is not likely to be resolved :) --BG (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry, but just where did I attack you? I think the exact opposite happened tonight, in that you attacked me. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We practically have every single tropical storm, hurricane, snow storm, drought, significant rain event, and major tornado that has occured since 2000 on Wikipedia. I don't see this occurance as any less than those (probably much more significant than a tropical storm that makes landfall, or a mild drought). Besides, this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, you are right. And people use the encyclopedia to research events. When we are as comprehensive as possible, it makes researching easier. If someone is doing a study on recent California earthquakes, I can guarantee this one would be on their list....and if they used Wikipedia, this article would be particularly helpful. Rorry1 (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" - this is the best article I've seen on the quake - why would you throw away content that people have clearly worked hard on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.196.28.66 (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was certainly a notable event with a significant amount of media coverage. Gary King (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The story is developing still. The quake happened just a mere 12 hours ago, definitely needs more time to get more details on it. The strongest earthquake to strike a populated area of Southern California in more than a decade…. How is that not notable? Just because it was in California? Ridiculous. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 07:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I am borderline Los Angeles County/Orange County and felt this big time. Came as a shocker and as others have mentioned, biggest earthquake since Northridge, plus, per DiverseMentality. Just because it's a quake in California doesn't automatically make it non-notable. It's not your everyday thing. So, as I said, keep. –Victor ^{(talk) (works)} 07:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I completely agree. Thats like saying "so what, Florida gets Hurricanes all the time....none of them are notable because its to be expected." Or "just another F4 for Oklahoma, doesn't need an article!" It does no harm to have the article....Wiki has an unlimited space capacity. I don't see the harm. Besides, the editors have done a great job on the page...arguably the best coverage of the quake (at least of what I have seen). Rorry1 (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is a notable earthquake, covered by the LA Times, NY Times, CNN, ABC, AP, and many other major news sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every sub 6.0 earthquake needs an article. Of course there is going to be coverage in newspapers. Traffic accidents get newspaper coverage, but they don't need an article in Wikipedia. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 08:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete About 35 earthquakes occur daily on average according to National Earthquake Information Center. This earthquake was of a relatively low magnitude and resulted in no casualties. This particular earthquake was widely reported only in American news media outlets. Such earthquakes happen numerous times in Asia and I don't see articles on even 10% of them. This incident is newsworthy but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news website. --Emperor Genius (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One can also go through this:[5] and notice the number of earthquakes above 5.2 magnitude that have occured in the past 7 days. --Emperor Genius (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment to my keep !vote: Here's an analogy to music. The Sichuan earthquake is unquestionably significant. It received a frenzy of news coverage in its first few days and remained in many news sources for several months. Likewise, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was an accomplished musician in his time, and is still celebrated 200+ years after his death. On the other hand, most modern artists, even famous ones, probably won't endure. But does that mean that we should delete every single article on modern artists? No! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad analogy. If a modern artist is not notable enough, then yes the related article has to go. Sichuan earthquake was of high magnitude, caused extensive property damage and human loss and received widespread global coverage. The concerned earthquake was of lower magnitude, caused no major property and human damage and has received widespread coverage only in American media sources. --Emperor Genius (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It actually isn't true that this quake only received widespread coverage in the American media. Yesterday it was a top story on BBC News and Die Welt (a German newspaper) in the hours after it occurred. Moncrief (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for the time being. An earthquake in rather densely populated area, plus an attention was drawn to it in media (in the US and subsequently abroad). Not a big news, but a good place to collect upcoming information, if any. AlexNB 09:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been, and is, enough coverage of this earthquake to move it beyond the 'Routine news coverage' of WP:NOT#NEWS. It is being covered internationally such as [6] or [7]. Here in the UK I had heard about the earthquake off wikipedia before seeing this AFD. Davewild (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Spend some time actually creating articles rather than wasting so much energy trying to delete them. The earthquake is notable and is widely covered in the world media. Scanlan (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The event of the Earthquake has probably not concluded yet. The earthquake thus far is still notable and is news as it is a serious event for California. We should consider ourselves fortunate that no one lost their lives to the earthquake, and not to use such a miracle as grounds for deletion. DynamoJax (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is less than richter 6, not very many casualties, not very much damage, not much disruption of life. 70.55.87.79 (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of fact, if we intend to set minimum standards for notability in earthquakes, we might want to codify how much damage is enough, or what magnitude qualifies, etc. An issue for another day, perhaps. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep. I acknowledge that we're not wikinews, nor are we charged with anything other than getting it right. However, there is obviously interest in this subject and this event, with hundreds of edits to the article since it was created. The version at the time of nomination (37 minutes after the article was started) is here, and weighs in at 1,586 bytes. It's expanded significantly since then, and I would speculate that more information (and references) are forthcoming. The fact is, we don't have a criteria for notability in earthquakes - how much damage, magnitude, deaths, etc. - so there is no criteria to point to and say "This one was too small". The fact that it's receiving such a huge rush of coverage would indicate that someone out there thinks it noteworthy enough to document. Until more information is known, I'd recommend keeping the article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Well, the article passes WP:N and WP:V, but I am really just not sure if it passes WP:NOT#NEWS, it appears to be pass all other guidelines except for WP:NOT#NEWS which IMO it BARELY passes, but after taking a look at the article, and seeing that it is reasonably well written and well sourced I believe that the article is fine to leave and let develop, also because this is the first somewhat major earthquake to hit the area in a while also contributes to its long term notability. All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was all out on the news, and some earthquakes in Ontario and Illinois that have no deaths also have articles. There was some localized panic, and a water main break, and even being in Canada, we had live coverage of the quake on Canadian news stations only an hour after the quake. ~A H1^(TCU) 14:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Decent sized earthquakes in California tend to create lots of media coverage when they happen, but ones that didn't create injuries/damage are events that tend to be forgotten about. In fact if you did another AFD of this article in 6 months time, I would guess no one would really be bothered about it and it would be deleted. I'd only say keep because it did get a bit of news coverage here in the UK, although most likely because it happened near LA. RapidR (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a fucking chance, Sceptre. That means "a lot more than 40 minutes after article creation". Strong Keep and revisit in two months if you feel like creating a needlessly large amount of pointless discussion, which wouldn't be the first, or even fiftieth time. SashaNein (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, absolutely. Something does not have to kill people to be notable. We are not paper; we can devote articles to every hurricane, we can devote articles to every plane crash, and we can devote articles to every large earthquake in a heavily populated area. --Golbez (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RapidR, AH1, Mifter, UltraExactZZ, Davewild, King of Hearts, DiverseMentality, and Gary King. Cliff smith (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in addition to my keep...waaay above Can we stop this thing all ready? There is overwhelming concensus, even by some of the opposers, to wait for a couple weeks of months and see how this plays out. Deleting an article when it is first written is not exactly the smartest idea - you have to give it the benifit of the doubt and see how everything unrolls. --haha169 (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perversely, per my reading of NOT#NEWS, this should be deleted until some time has passed and it's shown that the event has lasting newsworthiness. But yes, the majority of !votes do favor keeping the article. No one's accusing anyone else of not being able to count. :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I was just suggesting the closure of this deletion request and to tell the nominator to put this up again if he disagrees with the article's notability in a few weeks. --haha169 (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep.The earthquake was really just a few minutes ago. You people need to learn to edit correctly. There's nothing special about a snow storm that hit Ohio in 2006 or 2007 and one in 2008 but yet, there's an article. Sorry for being mean. Haha. But yeah, let is play a bit first. Keep as a stub at least.

Sorry, I'm new to this aspect (editing and discussion) of Wikipedia. But I am very well acquainted with Southern California earthquakes, the Emergency Response systems within California, and the accuracy or lack there of in the media following these events. First, I would like to say that yes this is important enough to keep as an article. It is an event that disrupted the daily operations of a major metropolitan area. No, it was not the "BIG ONE" but it was one. It should stay as it is now, Chino Hills Earthquake as it is with the North Ridge, the 1987 Witter Narrows, and 1971 San Fernando (Sylmar) earthquake, all of which shook the Los Angeles area. Anyone who knows Los Angeles, it is make up of many smaller area. As far as the content of this article, it seems to be siting many out of area media outlets. Reports come in from many sources most of which can never be confirmed. Points such as Disneyland being evacuated, I find very questionable. I don't doubt that it was reported, I doubt that the entire park was evacuated. During past events, individual rides are evacuated, inspected then reopened. It will often take a day or two to sort this stuff out. And I caution the use of such reports in what is meant to be a factual article. As more information comes out of the USGS, The Los Angeles OEM, and other official sources, it should be recorded here. Unfortunately, I am not in the Los Angeles area at this time, and I can not accurately report on this event. I like many others have to filter out what the news is reporting and reports from family members who are in the area, all of whom came through this event with only minor damage. In the days to come, I will continue to follow this event and start to contact friends and colleagues who are "in the know", but right now they have more important things to do such as take care of inspecting buildings, roadways, rides, and overseeing the implementation of emergency procedures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.201.109 (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting synthesis. Good job - and I understand. However, at this point, we use the citations that we can. --haha169 (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was a tiny earthquake. It was not notable. We are not the USGS. We are not the stinking newspaper. THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA FOR CHRISSAKE. JBsupreme (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the simplest reason for "delete" I have read so far. Please refer to the discussion above, and leave a more engaging comment. Also, see the link about how Wikipedia is not paper. --haha169 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - BTW, this was not a tiny earthquake. Cliff smith (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me that its ok to have an article for every damn fire, tropical storm, drought, snow storm, excessive rain event, tornado, cold spell, heat spell, etc. that has occured in the US since 2000, but we cant have an article on an earthquake that was felt by 21,000,000 people and is the largest quake to hit the populized Los Angeles area since before the first home computers!!! I cant believe you people some times. If this article is deleted, I will personally nominate all those stupid weather articles about weather events that are much less significant than this one that have occured in the US. This is not a news story...its not some little tropical storm that hit Florida....this was a big earthquake that shook a very vulnerable area. Obviously some of you here think it was small because you weren't in it, or were more than 15 miles from its epicenter so it didn't feel strong to you. 75.43.198.233 (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, everyone needs to have some tea and calm down. First, every user is entitled to their opinion; do not call their rationale "simple", as some may take that the wrong way. And also, for the IP, "big" is subjective. While you consider it big, I don't. Furthermore, tropical storms are much different than earthquakes: one deals with clouds while other deals with plates. Also, keep in mind this is not a ballot, vote, or anything of the sort. We're not a decmocracy, and an admin will make his decision based on the arguments presented, not the amount for or against. C L — 18:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a better example. Why is there an article on every Simpsons and Family Guy episode, but not one on this? The answer: Because the had more time to develop. You have got to give this article a chance. This article isn't un-notable, it needs time to expand. The article is already a day old and still getting edit conflicts. People are working on it - so next time, check the article's status and read the previous discussions before saying something. --haha169 (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there are any administrators reading this (who haven't voted), can you let us know, please, your rationale for not closing this discussion yet? It's time. Really. Moncrief (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still delete arguments popping up, so you can't close this until it's run its full course. See my last two sentences above. CL — 18:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would love for someone to answer a question I asked above, which is: How does this article weaken Wikipedia? How would it stregthen Wikipedia to delete it? Moncrief (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then why do we hold AfDs? Scratch that, there are articles that do weaken the Wiki in the long run, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere as to where we stop. Anyway, I've seen articles that, as you say, don't weaken the Wiki to keep or strengthen it to delete, but they get deleted anyway. There are boundaries as to what gets kept and not. Obviously, the majority believes that it should be kept, and there are few that want to say "Sayonara" (which I'm starting to feel guilty about since so much work has been put into this article). But, in the end, it is up to the admin. The admin will take all arguments into consideration and then make a decision. But until that happens, let's get editing. The outcome of this AfD will not affect the cure for cancer. CL — 18:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can think of many, many articles that weaken Wikipedia. This is not one of them. Moncrief (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This made international news, was compared against the larger earthquakes the United States has felt, despite registering little damage. I believe it will most certainly not be lost by history and is relevant and notable (and well referenced) in this encyclopedia. --Allstar86 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Wikipedia is a source for many people for history and information. Wikipedia shouldn't be the only website to not have information of this earthquake. You guys will look stupid. Also, at least keep it as a stub. We need some information on what happened yesterday, not just a red link in the list of Earthquakes. Keep it. --24.95.62.153 (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and merge to Political campaign (non-admin closure). Since Informational campaign is a type of Political campaign, the merge (with redirect) seems the most appropriate action. Neither Publicity nor Infomercial are related to it. Ruslik (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informational campaign[edit]

neologism, rarely used in this context. Wikipedia is not a collection of buzzwords. RayAYang (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is not about the term but about the phenomenon of informational campaigns. This is an important strategy in minor-party politics. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Political campaign. The problem is that while the concept is certainly notable, this term is used too rarely in this context to bear any significance. Finding this article under such a title (when that's what you're looking for) would be like finding a needle in a haystack. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete You can clearly go too far. Case in point here being that every organisation, politician, advertising agent, embarks on "information campaigns". The term is waaaay too generic, so I do not believe that merging to Political campaign would be appropriate, I think Infomercial would be better, but still lacking. Perhaps it could go to Publicity. Despite the references (all trivial, BTW, and the third link is not WP:RS compliant), there is nothing therein specifically about this term, nor is there any clear and notability of the term. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I don't know if editors are reading the same article I am, but it clearly denotes a specific type of election campaign, not a generalized "let's get people informed about X" effort. I'd probably support a merge of this and paper campaign (similar article created by the same user in the same time frame) into political campaign, with no prejudice to recreating as distinct articles if size requirements get too heavy. Ford MF (talk) 18:23, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday UpMarket[edit]

The whole article is one sentence (which only asserts notability through "leading"), a link (I added) and one category (I added, but couldn't find any other that applied), It fails WP:N and WP:ORG. G-hits are negligible at best. Leonard^(Bloom) 19:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possible speedy under A3. It's barely a dictionary def. --neon white talk 23:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -Speedy if possible -- seems to be an advert, but a rather poor one since it fails to provide any substantive content, merely a link to an external website. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wenceslau Geraldes Teixeira[edit]

Doesn't indicate notability sufficient to meet WP:PROF, and no reliable sources JD554 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have since included more sources that prove that Teixeira is a reputable scientist. It is important that this page remain in Wikipedia because Teixeira is an important Brazilian scientist who does not have an English biography. He has been cited in the New York Times and is in the process of publishing a book. There is irrefutable evidence that he is an important scientific figure and it is crucial to his research that his biography remain available to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreaphill (talk • contribs) 19:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The New York Times article refers to him as "Wenceslau Teixeira, a soil scientist who is in charge of the effort." --Eastmain (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A mention in passing in the NYT does not constitute notability. Teixeira is a rather recent PhD and associate professor, so for him to be shown notable, some really reliable and independent sources would be needed. The fact that he "is in the process of writing a book" is not relevant, neither is the assertion (rather improbable anyway) that "it is crucial to his research that his biography remain available to the public". --Crusio (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, there is not enough here to pass either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. For passing WP:PROF one would have to demonstrate either high citability of his research in scholarly publications or to show that he is frequently quoted in the conventional mass media as an academic expert. The NYT reference goes a little way towards the latter, but is certainly insufficient. As for the citability of his research, the GoogleScholar search[8] gives only 3 papers with citations in double digits, at 31, 27, 22 and then a few single digits after that, with the h-index of about 5. That seems rather too thin for WP:PROF. For passing WP:BIO one would have to see significant coverage of him personally and again the NYT article is insufficient there. Nsk92 (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established by independent sources. Biography cited in article was provided by the subject of the article. WWGB (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The NYT article is quite sufficient for the notability of its actual subject, the cerrado research center at Embrapa. But he is just head of one of the divisions there, and only mentioned in a single paragraph of the article. That';s not significant coverage. DGG (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Nsk92, DGG & Crusio. He is not the subject of the NYT article, not everyone whose name is mentioned once in that newspaper is automatically merits an encyclopedia biography. Fails WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:09, 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 copyvio. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waltons Guitar Festival of Ireland[edit]

Promotional. No notability established since March. No impartial sources. Speedy tag removed by creator, so never considered. Chris (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like an advertisment to me. Also, no sources. -Agent R Onewhohascomebefore (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.
Keep. References exist, but they are hiding behind paywalls. Even so, I think this Google News archive search shows enough to demonstrate notability. --Eastmain (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. Notable or not, the content is largely a copy and paste job from the Festival website. With no indication of permission. Guliolopez (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of music videos using animation[edit]

I don't see how this is an encyclopedic list. Given the length, the use of animation in a music video is far from rare. The list is almost entirely unsourced, and has been for at least three years. I think this is just a big list of trivia that should be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This survived a VfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of music videos that are fully or majorly animated) in 2005. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The list has been very helpful in finding animated videos which I would not have known about otherwise. CFLeon (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how this is any less encyclopedic than other "List of Animated X Media" articles we have. It is a list of animation in a particular form of media, which seems perfectly encyclopedic to me. Ford MF (talk) 18:20, 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 merge into Radionics. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneers in radionics[edit]

This really should be renamed "List of pioneers in radionics," since that's what it really is. Nevertheless, there's no indication of what it takes to be included in the list. Nothing is sourced. Even referring to these people as "pioneers" in a pseudoscientific field of nonsense is POV. eaolson (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's no evidence that most of these people even existed, at least as far as that page goes. And yes, the idea of pioneers in a field in which meaningful developmental research seems impossible. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is evidence that these are real people. http://www.fiu.edu/%7Emizrachs/altern-med.html Also, I challenge the neutrality of the assertion that this is all "nonsense." Because you personally do not believe in it, you seek to enforce your point of view by deleting the article outright. It is true the article needs to provide sources, but we have citation tags to bring that to the editor's attention. Aletheon (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be a unfair POV to describe radionics as nonsense in the text of the article. I think it's fair comment in an AfD debate to suggest that unrepeatable, unverifiable 'results' are a poor basis for notability. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Radionics The individual people here are not shown to be sufficiently notable for articles, and a list of them in this way isinappropriate. There is no separate notability from the main article, in which they can be mentioned. DGG (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a merge would be warranted. Aletheon (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Radionics (currently 8 kB). If kept, it should probably be renamed Origins of radionics or somesuch. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be sourced with Radionics. If any of the people listed are notable enough to need more than a sentence or two, they are likely notable enough for their own article. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 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. John254 02:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community Living Ontario[edit]

This is essentially an advertisment KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G12 Very slightly reworded copyvio of this. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable group. I cut the article down to a stub, which is a better solution than deleting an article about a notable topic that starts off as a copyvio. --Eastmain (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the references, I'd say it's your standard stub at the moment, and it doesn't look like an advertisement anymore. Obviously I'd like to see those references become inline cites eventually, but I think it's keepable now. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain's rewrite. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 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 A7 by ChetBlong. Non-admin closure. (P.S. Why did this "speedy" deletion take over 4 hours?!) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Moore (singer)[edit]

Non-notable singer, no reliable sources found besides this, which I don't think is enough to cut it. Neither of his singles charted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC, and I couldn't find any reliable sources either. -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 18:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Active since this year, only one single released so far that failed to chart even on a specialist chart. I couldn't find any significant coverage either. Could probably have been speedied, I would have thought.--Michig (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was initially hesitant to A7 this because he is on a notable label (Big Machine), but I guess it does meet A7 after all, so I'll tag it as such. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:37, 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 Speedy redirect per Colchicum. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ogoniok[edit]

not in English KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Uh, it is English? TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 18:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, speedy delete per CSD A1 TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 18:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Ogonyok. It is the same thing. Colchicum (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Kept: Sceptre, you allegations are unsupported, and if you can find evidence that there is libel, is suggest you remove it. Many articles may have libel, but we do not delete them on solely these grounds. Other articles are on contentious topics, and there is often much caution taken in regards to this. It is worrying that such a high profile topic lacks references, but I should think that effort should be put toward finding these references rather than destroying such a series of lists. And, if references cannot be found for contentious material, then it can be removed, as has always been done. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fascist movements by country[edit]

Not a single source between the five, and as such is a landmine for libel against the listed parties. While some may indeed be fascist, it is impossible to differentiate which are undisputedly fascist and which were called fascist by outsiders. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons does not apply as the list is not a list of living persons. Sources for inclusion on the list are, by and large, in the linked articles. There's nothing wrong with removing unsourced statements but deleting the list wholesale, particularly with so many indisputably obvious examples for inclusion, is extreme. -Stlemur (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said "BLP violation". I said "libel landmine". Corporations can sue for libel, too. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article provides objective criteria for inclusion. --Eastmain (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup, this seems like an excellent, encyclopedic list, certainly anyone studying fascism or political history in general could very plausibly be assisted by a well-organized list of articles about such movements. If they're unreferenced, remove inaccurate ones and/or find references. The issue of whether they're self-described fascist movements/organizations could easilly be solved by adding a new column to the table. Again, all problems with this article are ones that call for cleanup, not deletion. --Rividian (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sort of article takes a sledgehammer to the neutral point of view, dynamites the remnants, and drives a locomotive over the very small pieces. I cannot think of a way to list fascist movements other than self-identification which doesn't place very negative commentary on parties listed. RayAYang (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For a series of lists that have survived and grown for 3 years (probably never in obscurity because of the subject) I find this nomination a bit of blatant POV. There are probably many entries in these lists that can be rationally debated on the grounds of Verify, NOR and NPOV but certainly the lists as a whole are very well done and encyclopedic. To the comment above that the existance of these lists takes a sledgehammer to the neutral point of view, is a bit misguided. NPOV doesn't mean nor should it mean that WP content may not be offensive or viewed as negative to anyone.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rividian and Mike Cline.Biophys (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and deal with disputes by discussing them on t he article talk page. DGG (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reexamining the list to be sure, I think there could be no possible doubt about the great majority of them, most of which openly proclaim their orientation in no uncertain terms. There are one or two I know about and think doubtful, and while their inclusion may lead to some sharp discussion, we can cope with that. DGG (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just because the inclusion of some movements may be borderline, isn't really sufficient reason for deletion, but rather the inclusion (or not) of some movements should be discussed in the article talk page. Perhaps there is a need for List of alleged fascist movements by country to cover the questionable cases. Martintg (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh god, it would never end. liberals, conservatives, communists, anti-communists, parents who say their children can't borrow the car... --Stlemur (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the topic is encyclopedic, the main definition used in the article ""parties, organizations, and movements that have been claimed to follow some form of fascist ideology" and the list of criteria used are quite inadequate. The problem is that most items on the list of criteria involve fairly abstract concepts, widely open to interpretation and where the degree to which a particular item is supposed to be satisfied is also rather wide and unclear. Since we are talking about politics, accusations of being a nationalist party or following a totalitarian ideology or "using modern techniques of propaganda and and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition" or even direct accusations of following fascists ideology or methods in particular cases are quite common among political actors and are being thrown around in politics rather freely. There is too much room here for arbitrary interpretation of what constitutes the standard of proof and how to deal with POV and undue weight issues in deciding if a particular criterion is satisfied. (In fact, reading the list of the criteria in the article, it would appear, for example, that something like the the North Korean Communist Party and the Zimbabwean Zanupf might qualify for inclusion.) I think that for a highly charged topic like that much more direct and unambiguous criteria are necessary (e.g. parties that actually identify themselves as following fascist or Nazi ideology or being sympathetic to it). Nsk92 (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as AfD is not the place for articles in need of some editorial tidying. Ford MF (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my problem. It's not a question of editorial cleanupk, it's a matter of the article's structure. My problem is that it would require epic levels of near-constant overwatch in order to keep these lists from becoming persistent violations of core policies (specifically the WP:NPOV policy). The concept is structured so poorly that it's a walking, talking invitation to POV violations. A "List of All Reasons To Believe Republicans Are Evil" would have the same issues. RayAYang (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the time the article's existed, I don't think that's been the case; it's pretty well patrolled. Besides, Plenty of other pages (Gary Glitter, for one) are even more "magnets" for BLP violations. --Stlemur (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is the real world that WP reflects and fascism is real. Does the list need improvement? Of course, most WP articles need such. So work on it. Hmains (talk) 05:00, 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 keep. John254 02:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Wolfenberger[edit]

nn artist who fails WP:MUSIC. Prod removed by IP. A Google search gets the artist's home page, his MySpace, and Wikipedia in that order, followed by a bunch of mp3 download pages. Allmusic has almost nothing on him. No other RS hits - altcountry.nl is just a website, and there's nothing of substance in the interview. The "Euro-Americana" chart is not an industry chart, but a private chart run by a website, and seems to be based on what people vote on - the latest #1 took 5 votes to get the spot. No gold records, no tour coverage, no major releases. His label is a local indie label that he helps run, and he hasn't won or been nominated for any major music award. No notable media performances, and he's not representative of a genre at all. No rotation, and no documentary. MSJapan (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me by these guidelines that most every independent musician, performer, songwriter page would have to be removed from wikipedia. Short of littering this page with references to every record review I don't know how to rectify this. In looking at this article I see a reference to a review in Italy's largest newspaper Corriere della Sera, Detroit's largest art and music paperDetroit Metro Times, Britains largest site devoted to Americana Americana-UK.com not to mention within his hometown of Cincinnati where he has been Artist of the Year, songwriter of the year, album of the year and reviewed favorably by every major media outlet for every release (both dailys, both weeklys, radio and television).

You are right there are no gold records and no major releases but by definition an independent artist doesn't have either of those. His genre is obviously Americana being a member of Mark Olson and Victoria Williams Original Harmony Ridge Creekdippers and by virtue of the fact that most of his reviews are in Americana publications where he is well received.

How should we proceed without cluttering the article further than it already has been. Along with Katie Reider who died tragically last week Wolfenberger is probably the most definitive example of the Blue Jordan sound. Perhaps I should note that along with references in this article but once again I see that it is fairly cluttered in comparison to the last time I saw it and I don't know if more references will help. Bluejordan (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluejordan (talk • contribs) 19:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did the rewrite of this article and deprodded it. I thought I referenced enough independent non-trivial sources to justify keeping it. His international touring and his involvement and collaboration with Victoria Williams, Mark Olson and Michelle Shocked alone would be grounds for notability aside from his representation of a local scene (Cincinnati) and genre (Americana / Blue Jordan sound). I agree with Bluejordan that further references (of which I found many with just a couple cursory searches) would only clutter an already lengthy article though.70.61.154.202 (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Comment] In response to this post on my user page from user:MSJapan;

"You're right about your assessment that most indie musicians should be deleted; there are minimum notability requirements here because Wikipedia is not a local interest website. Anyone can self-press a CD and call themselves an indie musician, but that doesn't make them a notable topic. That's not a musical value judgment, either; it just means that they're not appropriate for an encyclopedia. By the way, given your username, comments, and unfamiliarity with Wikipedia basics, you may want to look at the conflict of interest policy if you're going to continue to edit articles on Blue Jordan artists. MSJapan (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)"

I have taken his advice and read the "conflict of interest" policy and although I am not officially associated with Blue Jordan Records I am an enthusiastic supporter which I do not believe puts me in violation of the "conflict of interest" policy but in the interest of keeping the wikipedia project and this particular discussion above reproach I will respectfully decline further comment or edits during the deletion discussion. I will state that I objectively find this artist and article to be notable by wikipedia standards using at least three of their qualifications. I would also hope that MSJapan by nature of his user name and the fact that he is an enthusiast of Japanese literature and a Mason would not be prohibited from commenting on and editing articles on those subjects for fear of being in violation of the "conflict of interest" policy.Bluejordan (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that: a) I'm an established editor, b) I'm very clear about any potential issues, and c) I don't use a username that implies I'm a company whose artists and articles I edit. When an article comes up for AfD that nobody has sourced in months, and all of a sudden an IP and a new user just happen to have information, it's just a bit suspicious. MSJapan (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a new user, although inexperienced (i.e.- I don't know how to bullet or indent my comments). I used the name "bluejordan" when I created my login at least a year or more ago because I think I first logged on to edit the article Blue Jordan Records which had blatantly incorrect information on it. I was drawn back to the article because of the untimely death and funeral service for Katie Reider this last weekend (which the New York Times had a nice article on speaking of notability). I'm sure the other users you are accusing of being "sockpuppets" were drawn here for the same reason. Finally I ended my last comment as cordially as humanly possible by stating that I hoped you would NOT be prohibited from commenting on topics that you are obviously an enthusiast of or organizations that you are a member of. Your stated membership in the Masons and editing of related articles is much more of a conflict of interest than my editing of articles about a (non-profit I believe) organization I am an enthusiast of. As far as suspicious activity is concerned your aggressive pursuit of the deletion of articles related to this label is certainly suspect.Bluejordan (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please reserve this page for the deletion discussion and continue any other conversations on your talk page(s). Thanks. -MrFizyx (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His time with the Creekdippers, the likes of Michelle Shocked and Victoria Williams appearing on his albums should count for something and there seem to be enough sources to support an article. The whole discussion above makes my head spin. Wikipeida is the third google hit for him... Ya know its the second hi for Dylan or Springsteen. On the other hand I don't understand the complaint that this article is already "cluttered" with references--I think it could be better sourced; good sources are maybe more important as with someone this obscure. I'm leaning towards keep though. -MrFizyx (talk) 22:55, 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 Exit stage left - hoaxalicious. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Velvet Revolver[edit]

Straightforward ((nn-band)) but they seem to disagree so we have to drag it through AfD. In fact may well be hoax - I note that the claimed domain name: blackvelvetrevolver.com has not even been registered. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete fails WP:BAND and I can't find any credible sources -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 18:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suspect this is a hoax. Black Velvet Revolver was an early name for Velvet Revolver. The article has no sources, and the claimed album sales is patent nonsense.--Michig (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Hoax. Claimed sales are unverified per RIAA and other sources. No sources show that this band even exists/existed. The fact that RCA's website makes no mention has me convinced that this is a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Virginia's 2nd congressional district election, 2008 , can be merged at editorial discretion. Keep arguments ignore WP:POLITICIAN, and sources to meet WP:GNG were not provided. lifebaka++ 15:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Nye[edit]

Candidate for Congress who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Press mentions are entirely in context of his candidacy. My merge into the article on the election was vehemently contested, and there was discussion on the merits of the notability guidelines, both on my talk page User talk:RayAYang, and on the Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) page (scroll down to the section titled "Interaction of BIO1E and politics". RayAYang (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aw hell, just rename the article Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2008, and let the redirect just happen. I know, the Republican has an article and the Democrat challenger doesn't, but there was no article until recently, and I can't see bad faith on anyone's part. Reading the article about the incumbent, Thelma Drake, it's surprisingly uninformative, and you wouldn't know that she was even running for re-election. Oddly, there's an article about her 2006 election win, but not about the one in '08, the year of "oh wait" . The solution means that when you click on "Glenn Nye", you get an article about the Nye vs. Drake election. A one-sided article, for now, but it would soon become balanced. Fair, unfair, don't care. A Wikipedia article is not going to decide the election. Mandsford (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least redirect. For those who don;t accept individual article for major party US nominees, Mandsford gives a very good solution with a good explanation. Personally, I think we could always find enough sources in a contest for a national position like this, and we should therefore accept both US major party nominees.DGG (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Virginia's 2nd congressional district election, 2008 per Mansford. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Virginia's 2nd congressional district election, 2008 per Mansford and WP:ONEEVENT. Only RS coverage comes as a candidate. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a major party nominee, although I would not be heartbroken to see Madford's merge suggestion put into action. Ford MF (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Glenn Nye is indeed notable. Virginia's 2nd congressional district election, 2008 might appear overwhelmed if the Glenn Nye article were merged into it, although that would of course be the second choice. Based on the competitiveness of the election, the information should not be cut down or reduced as it was previously. Flatterworld (talk) 20:18, 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 . List is in need of some cleanup, however. lifebaka++ 15:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sindhi singers[edit]

Vast majority of people listed here are not notable in the least. A category would suffice for this. Article fails to assert notability for even Sindhi music. "Sindhi Kallam (song) is very famous in Pakistan and some areas in India. There are unlimited names of Sindhi singers, some have left this world and many are performing well. Names of almost all Sindhi singer are given bellow." Enigma ^message 12:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is apparently based on a biographic directory Maro Je Malir Ja. Probably not all of them will be notable, but many of them will. The list can be edited accordingly. This, as all such lists, can be expanded to provide some context, such as dates, making it more useful than a category. Sindhi is spoken by 53 million people, according to Sindhi language, and would be expected to have as many notable singers as any comparable linguistic or geographic area (Great Britain has almost exactly the same population. The deceased ones will not be the less notable. We must beware ethnocentrism, and adopt a world-wide view. I suggest the numerous other singer categories would also make useful lists, if dates were added. DGG (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The very few which do have their own articles could be grouped as a category, but as it stands this is just a non-notable red link farm. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:32, 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, Nabla (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - DGG has got it right again -- There are clearly notable Sindhi singers (they have WP articles) and I suspect many of the red links are notable as well, they just need sourcing. If there is no article or an editor cannot source a particular entry it can be removed. Add a few annotations and remarks and this list meets WP guidelines. The WP:NOTDIRECTORY guideline gets thrown around like mud (see if it sticks) but rarely do we hear any cogent argument as to why the article is merely a directory and should be deleted. This is a list of notable Sindhi singers (or will be when properly sourced) and is not a directory of indiscriminate information.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Out of that entire list, seven have articles. I don't see why a category wouldn't be a better idea. Enigma ^message 06:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please check it again.--Mangrio (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Lists and categories both address different ways to access our information, and just because we have one doesn't imply we shouldn't have the other. The argument "why shouldn't there be a category?" is not the same argument as "there shouldn't be a list", even though it's being treated as such. Ford MF (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, gives nothing more than a category would (besides red-links for persons not notable enough to merit an article). Ian¹³ /t 15:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Red links are for persons who are notable enough to merit an article - the articles simply haven't been written yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Especially because of redlinks, which a category could not handle. According to our article Sindhi people, there are over 60 million Sindhis! It is much more likely that these singers are notable but just harder to locate information on, because it is in Sindhi or Urdu (which use non-Latin alphabets, so googling is not easy). We should celebrate that someone is helping us fill this gap in our coverage, not threatening to delete the article. Redlinks are not bad--they show us where work needs to be done. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yet another AfD where some participants don't get the point that categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. In this case it's pretty clear that a category can't do the same job as the list because of the number of notable singers who don't yet have articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:48, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Émilie Simon's fourth studio album[edit]

WP:Crystal violation. No date, no title, no tracks, no article, as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wow, a textbook example of a WP:CRYSTAL violation. - Icewedge (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:HAMMER, WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third studio album (Razorlight album[edit]

WP:Crystal violation. No date, no title, no tracks, no article, as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:HAMMER, WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice for recreation if/when it actually gets released. And I'm more than a little uneasy with people bandying user essays as serious criteria for deletion. Ford MF (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too early to write. NOt enough coverage. Mukadderat (talk) 15:34, 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Rowland's third studio album[edit]

WP:Crystal violation. No date, no title, no tracks, no article, as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:HAMMER, WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no prejudice against recreation if/when it is actually released. Ford MF (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too early to write; not enough coverage. Mukadderat (talk) 15:33, 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steel Panther's second studio album[edit]

WP:Crystal violation. No date, no title, no tracks, no article, as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:HAMMER, WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Look the reason this album has no date, tracks, title, etc, is because it is an UPCOMING album, which is currently in the studio being worked on. The band who are going to release this album have not givin' it a name yet. The tracks and release date are also unknown for now. I've added as much info as possable about the new album, such as possible tracks which might appear on it. We should keep this article because there is a possible chance that it's going to be released this year, and I won't need to make another article when it gets released. Thank you for understanding. Jimbö^V1 08:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the links that Esradekan gave above. Words like "possible" and "might" are directly showing why the page violates WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We deal only with confirmed, verifiable information, not may-bes and might-bes.

As for understanding, I understand you fully. I just disagree with you. And the policies of the project disagree with you as well, as shown in the above links. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious crystal balling, with no prejudice against recreation if/when it's actually released. Ford MF (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - future album with no title, tracklisting, or release date --T-rex 00:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too early to write. NOt enough coverage. Mukadderat (talk) 15:34, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Spragg[edit]

This article is about a local politician and a candidate for national office. The linked press mentions are entirely in the context of candidacy, and mention the candidate only peripherally. There are conflict of interest issues, as the author of this article is User:Billspragg. I believe this article fails WP:POLITICIAN guidelines for notability. RayAYang (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN. Your picture on one newspaper cover doesn't make you notable. Themfromspace (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Aside from a blip of local news, attention comes from his 2001 run for office. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN. Being a local councillor is not noteable for wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This material could be moved to Bill Spragg's User page, but it is grossly inappropriate as an article in Wikipedia. The article was written by Bill himself; clearly a breach of Wikipedia's conflict of interest principles. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for aspiring parliamentarians to promote themselves. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although one para could be added to Mayo by-election, 2008 article on each of the candidates. Orderinchaos 05:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stated here. Timeshift (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From the article, he has not yet even won a position as an independent. A ballot place is the bare minimum for consideration. DGG (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a mention or merge to Mayo by-election, 2008 is appropriate, however this has already been done. Candidate fails WP:BIO notability criteria otherwise. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nominator fails WP:POLITICIAN et cetera et cetera. JBsupreme (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
De-lete-ify, stat!, vanity page by user, fails WP:POLITICIAN. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator; local government officials are not notable, especially if they are not the mayor. For anyone interested, the "second highest vote for an Independent in South Australia" was 2.95%. Frickeg (talk) 07:28, 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 and redirect to Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deathwatch (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

Strictly in-universe, and contains zero independent sources. Candidate for transwiki to WH40K Wikia. Possible redirect&protect to Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000). Jaysweet (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these are (for the unitiated) a specific flavor of the space marines, a sub-faction of the Imperium in Warhammer 40K. They are (for play purposes) usually set up with different units on the field of battle and (for cosmetic purposes) painted differently than other space marines. They are unlikely to have significant impact outside the tabletop game and their signficance to understanding the tabletop game as a whole is largely limited. There are no (see here for the litany) independent sources cited which would establish notability per the WP:GNG. I have no problem with a merger into space marines. Protonk (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as the nominator suggests. This should be the default for situations like this. Compromise is what will keep the list of Afds down to a manageable size. I think Protonk explained well to me why this should not be an independent article. DGG (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's redirect and protect. That's the problem here, I am pretty confident that if I just did a redirect, a 4channer would revert me :D --Jaysweet (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No real reason to protect it. If 'redirect' is the outcome of the AfD, then you can revert all day an attempt to reconstitute the content. Protonk (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a sensible move.. Space Marines are well established IRL (so to speak) and the 40K variety are a subset of that with Deathwatch being the SAS, SBS, Delta Force, SEALS, of the Space Marines. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to titular nature of topic, which suggests at worst a legitimate search term. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a reason for a redirect --T-rex 18:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect/etc. In any event, not the subject of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources as required by Wikipedia:Notability. I should note that "Deathwatch (Warhammer 40,000)" is not a likely search term. Pagra shtak 16:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) - no out of universe notability. Even in universe notability is questionable. No independent sources given on the topic. --T-rex 18:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Hardy[edit]

This is a probable hoax, there are no reliable sources referenced in the article, thus failing WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:REF. No hits on an engine search, thus no links to this person, failing WP:N and there is no info on this person, fails WP:BLP and possibly WP:ATHLETE. Could be speedied or snowed. S_RX 16:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, and Google returns no results Queer As Folk (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definite hoax.-- Darth Mike _{(Talk• Contribs)} 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Get rid of this article. It is a hoax. Forego (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as vandalism (per deliberate misinformation) Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fastest delete possible, hoax. Nikki311 02:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with others that this is a hoax. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:53, 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 all to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) and protect. This solution would seem to satisfy all or most participants in this discussion: It has the desired cruft-limiting effect, but allows for a transwiki or merger to the extent that this is desired. Sandstein 17:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Land Raider (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

Also nominating:

Powerfist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dreadnought (Warhammer 40,000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Terminator (Warhammer 40,000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All fascinating, truly, but there are zero independent sources and the articles are strictly in-universe. These are all candidates for transwiki-ing to the WH40K wikia, but so far nobody from the project has volunteered to do this. Jaysweet (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest redirecting all of these pages to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000). The same also applies for several other pages like articles on Space Marine Chapters (i.e. the Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Ultramarines, Space Wolves, etc.); it would be great if an admin could temporarily "undelete" these deleted pages. The problem with deleting the pages is that a non-admin cannot retrieve the old version of the pages if they want to revise and shrink them down afterwards.

None of us have time at the moment to trans-wikify these pages, so it doesn't do any harm to let the page remain as it is, so I would greatly appreciate if Games Workshop enthusiasts are not served with a deadline. Furthermore, it is pretty annoying when you want to look something up a couple months from now, and its suddenly not there.

This is what User talk:Khanaris argued on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000) and I believe that it should be repeated here.
Essentially, what is happening here is that one or two editors have decided to undertake a comprehensive sweep of the dozens of pages dedicated to the fictional elements of Warhammer 40k. I am seeing the same two or three names pop up in every one of these AfD. This is different than someone with a grudge going in and deleting pages dedicated to a hobby or setting they don't like, which is what has been implied. However, I think it is better to do all of this at the same time. Wikipedia would be better off if a standard policy regarding fictional notability was adopted, since then there wouldn't be such a warren of lost links and disorganized pages. Deleting them piece-meal like this is not really a good answer. The policy should be set first, and then applied evenly across the entire range of content. Furthermore, the same policies that apply here should be extended to Warhammer Fantasy as well. They should also extend to every other fictional game setting. Dungeons and Dragons has this problem with most of its pages. Warmachine has it with all of its pages. Third Party sources do not exist to provide notability because the companies involved would consider such sources to be in violation of their IP. Unless the content has existed for long enough to draw academic interest, it can not generate third party sources. This does not accurately cover how noteworthy the information might be, since the strict interpretation of IP rules is an artificial constraint on coverage. I think the notability requirements in this case need to account for the scope of the non-third-party material. There is a big difference in notability between someone that has been mentioned once in a single book and something that has become an icon within a specific community due to use by numerous authors in numerous publications under the same umbrella IP constraints. As it is now, there are hundreds of settings where this problem exists. Books, games, and movies. Almost every comic book younger than 30 years. All but a handful of Star Wars and Star Trek pages. Every medium where fiction can be presented. From the fact these thousands of pages exist here, many of them well-researched and well-written, it can be gathered that this is something people are interested in preserving in an encyclopedic format. You can push all of these topics off to for-profit sites like Wikia, but I am not sure that is really honoring what Wikipedia is supposed to be.
GoldDragon (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've asked Falcorian (talk · contribs) if he can transwiki these, or let me know of someone else who can upload the edit history to the 40K wiki. Pagra shtak 17:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Falcorian says he is willing to help transwiki these. Pagra shtak 17:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, I am absolutely 100% on board with the "redirect & protect" option. I have been going with the AfD process because every time I change one of these articles to a redirect, I get reverted.

As far as doing it all at once... Well, the problem is that it is very difficult to get consensus on such a high level. I am trying to group these together as much as possible (e.g., here I grouped all of the specific technology articles into a single nom) but my concern is that if I tried to do a single process to get everything' in WH40K, WFRP, D&D, etc. in a single go, it would just cloud the issue with all the side discussions.

Uneven enforcement is an unfortunate side-effect of the Wiki process. We can all just do our best. :) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all All of these are units in the various factions and subfactions of 40K. their significance extends solely within the game. The existence of like terms in search results (land raider, dreadnought, etc) reflect more the lack of imagination on the part of GW in naming these units than they do any real connection between these units and the Real Life terms. All 4 articles cite only sources produced by Games Workshop (keeping in mind, as always, that White Dwarf, the codexes and the works of fiction are exclusively produced by games workshop) and cite no independent sources. As such, they have no notability per WP:GNG or any daughter guidelines. While deletion is an appropriate outcome, I'm not opposed to redirecting these articles to their parent faction or subfaction (Space Marines, Orks, etc). Protonk (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and make sure that this information has been successfully transwiki'ed, before deletion. I don't dispute that the in-universe content more properly belongs elsewhere, but I do not believe that its continued presence in Wikipedia is a disruption of sufficient magnitude to warrant its outright deletion. Just because the IP editors are unwilling to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines doesn't mean that this content should be wiped in retribution, which is what these repeated AfD's feel like to me. Once this information finds a suitable home, then yes, nuke it, but not before. Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Whether it's the same editors involved in every AfD or not is irrelevant; the point is that the 40k WikiProject is gradually moving to the point where it contains more notable material than fancruft, and that this is a positive step for the WikiProject as well as the encyclopedia and not a negative one. I find it difficult to believe that none of the various well-established 40K wikis don't already cover these subjects in at least as much detail. As for the actual content, there are no third-party references and hence no notability outwith the game they feature in. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect after Transwiki and protect if needed. In other news, I've transwikied to:

They're going to need alot of clean up. If anyone wants to help with transwiki of 40k, please see my talk page. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge preserving content in the Wikipedia. That should be the default treatment; those who want to transwiki are on their own about that--not our concern. I think Protonk above explained well why these are not viable separate articles, and Khanaris as quoted by GoldDragon why the content should not be deleted. I accept their argument about the general process involved in these nominations. DGG (talk)
Why should "our default treatment" for an article composed entirely of reiteration of non-notable fictional material be to preserve its page history? It is non-notable fictional material. It doesn't belong here. Merging it is just going to make the mergee contain more inappropriate non-notable fictional material. Khanaris's argument is a cogent one, but it's counter to our current notability policy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The merger could just be a redirect. Protonk (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect various places (Land Raider to vehicles, Powerfist to weapons, etc). The real problem here is that although covered in a variety of places over the past 15+ years and being included in not just tabletop games but, video games, novels, etc the sourcing is predominantly primary or secondary source(but, I find it very hard to believe they haven't been covered somewhere reliable and 3rd party to support keeping some of the content). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. I agree with Jclemens. Axl (talk) 17:07, 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 14:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waitzar[edit]

Non-notable software. Brianga (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Notability not established. RayAYang (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have now updated the citations with independent sources. I am not the developer of the software. I hope the criteria for notability is satisfied. The context of the software is for roman based input of Burmese script. As this software is not used by the English speaking community and nor by other larger language communities I believe the new cite urls I have provided should be sufficient to establish notability. Thanks. If the tone, content or style has short coming I shall update it. --RaviC (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I still think that the article has not shown enough notability to satisfy its own article. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no verifiavle notability. Mukadderat (talk) 15:35, 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. Wizardman 14:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keymagic[edit]

Non-notable software. Brianga (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom RayAYang (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious use of Wikipedia for self-promotions proposites. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments NOT to Delete

I have not used Wikipedia for self promotion purposes. I don't know what 'proposites' mean and could not Google the word. If this is a Wikipedia term, I would like to get a link. I have also updated the article with independent reference rather than the developer site. To address Zero Kitsune concerns, I am not the developer nor involved with them. This entry is similar to tise, Wnn, Google Pinyin and ATOK. I have categorized it similarly now. There will be a limit to the extent of notability such software can have considering that it is for a minority language. As such it is the only software available at not cost for Unicode Burmese script input. Hence will the new citation link satisfy criteria for notability? Thanks. --RaviC (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article needs more reliable sources or to be deleted. Reliably or nothing. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no verifiable notability. Mukadderat (talk) 15:36, 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. Wizardman 14:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DAV Public School, Ara-Patna Road, Ara[edit]

Article contains no data except a list of supposed alumni, contains no referenced data. RJFJR (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Dayanand Anglo-Vedic Schools System. i.e. merge the factual information from the infobox and ignore the alumni stuff. This school is potentially notable. Unfortunately I can't verify anything about it. However, we must be careful of systemic bias and this recommendation is without prejudice to a breakout if anything worthwhile can be sourced. TerriersFan (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete without prejudice. If this is truly a secondary school an article can probably be written, but this isnt it--the list of notable alumni has only one who would be acceptable as such in this sort of article. An article listing one of the students as the brightest boy in school is in trouble. DGG (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not been able to find any secondary sources on the school. On another note, I am concerned that the creator of the article has listed himself as being one of the "good students". He may well be, but that should be treated as a biased statement. 86.149.58.88 (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence. Mukadderat (talk) 15:37, 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 merge all to List of Championship Gaming Series teams, which has yet to be created. Articles will not be deleted afterward. lifebaka++ 12:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Championship Gaming Series teams[edit]

Mass nomination of team articles from a notable video gaming league. The key question is that, while the league may be notable, do the individual teams each also have separate notability? The team articles are all devoid of independant sourcing that would indicate notability. One was A7 speedy deleted within the last couple of days, and then recreated, which lead up to my looking at them all. I know that in normal professional sports, individual teams are assumed notability. But does that extend to computer gaming? I just do not see it being such. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although Computer Gaming may not be considered a sport to many people, it has many of the same components: A League, Teams, Competitive Meets between two teams, A Championship and positions depending on the game being played. So saying that computer gaming isn't a sport because it's on the computer is an opinion, not a fact and the fact is that computer gaming is not much different than American Football: Positions, Teams, A League, Drafting, Seasons and Competitive play. Kingofeds (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into a List of CGS Teams Article --Numyht (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The league itself is noteworthy, yes, but you also need to consider that it's only 2 years old. The team pages don't have all too much information because of this short history of the league itself. If the consensus it to delete or merge, at least Keep 3D.NY - they have a much greater history than the other CGS teams, and they were formerly a well-known gaming team before becoming the CGS team that they currently are. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 18:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few reliable, independant, non-trivial references to each of these would go a huge way towards showing that they have notability. Even your "well-known" 3D NY is devoid of such sources currently. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my searching all existing Team 3D info has been redirected to the 3D.NY CGS page. Unless anyone else knows of where one could find info on the old Team 3D? TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 14:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete - not notable enough for seperate articles. Also delete the nav box on the articles. Aygo (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all articles to Championship Gaming Series. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. MuZemike (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Teams have no independent notability and are already adequately covered within Championship Gaming Series. nancy ^talk 10:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all. Which should be easy, as each entry actually contains very little information. Ford MF (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all. 5 guys in a basement is not the same as a professional sports team. Any coverage can go into main article unless there is enough sources to warrant an individual page. Drunken Pirate (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Numyht Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:08, 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 Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 21:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia[edit]

As the article itself admits, this "position" has no "official duties". There is little actual information other than obvious generalities. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:HEY~~ Keep WP:HEY criteria satisfied by Matilda The fact that it is an unofficial role does not necessarily preclude an article (see First Lady of the United States, First Lady (Canada), etc.) However, this article does not provide any sources to back up the premise that the unofficial position is notable. We'd have to see some 3rd party sources talking about this role as politically significant. Then I would be a definite keep. As it is right now, the article is a bit too WP:ORy. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The First Lady of various countries occupies a de facto official position. She gets a staff, use of official aircraft, diplomatic duties, etc. There is no indicator of that sort of role for the PM's wife in Australia. RayAYang (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a ref for staff for the PM's wife in Aus --Matilda ^talk 00:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have confirmed my vote as keep based on your work in improving the sourcing of the article. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. It's not a noteworthy position, because it's not a position. Are we going to have articles like "Spouse of Speaker of the House" next? RayAYang (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has drawn enough better-informed commentary on the subject that I've changed my mind. Might as well invoke WP:SNOW and Keep. RayAYang (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have articles on the individuals who are spouses of PMs - a collective article makes sense. I believe it is an encyclopaedic topic, they are the source of news commetnary and books. For example Langmore, Diane, Prime Ministers’ Wives: The Public and Private Lives of Ten Australian Women, McPhee Gribble, Ringwood, VIC, 1992 . I would be more inclined to vote delete on the individual articles - eg Janette Howard who appear to have notability only because of their spouse - however I don't believe there is any consensus to that view. --Matilda ^talk 18:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments by Jaysweet and Matilda. This is an interesting and encyclopaedic topic.Biophys (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at first going by the title I was thinking delete, but seeing the article shows it to be encyclopedic and definitely has a place here. Refs pass it for WP:N.--Sting Buzz Me... 21:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not again. These are notable people; many of those that don't have articles should - Fraser and McMahon being particularly obvious cases. It's a relevant and useful list. Rebecca (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep along the lines of the argument put across by Matilda. I agree especially with her comments on Janette Howard; anything notable about her—which is very little—is better placed in this article or the article about her notable spouse. Annita van Iersel has even less justification; she is surely a non-public figure. Therese Rein and Hazel Hawke probably are notable in their own right through their own independent activities, although Hawke's could be fleshed out to establish this a little better. Not sure why Tamie Fraser would be considered notable at all. Standing by your husband in a photo does not make one notable. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of the wives of the Australian prime ministers is encyclopedic. If these women were never spoken about in the press, stayed upstairs during state dinners, never accompanied the p.m. on official visits, stayed quiet during the electoral campaigns, didn't dare speak in favor of a cause or charity, and were not allowed to appear on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia-- that, in itself, would be noteworthy. Mandsford (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though the wives of PMs have no official duties, they do have unoffical duties and, more importantly for the purposes of this discussion, recieve heaps of media coverage, including profiles. A list of spouses of heads of a country's government is a perfectly legitimate topic for an article. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - interesting article to read, and interesting way to keep track of notable spouses (every PM's spouse is notable).--Lester 20:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, legitimate information. Notable people, and First lady-style articles are well-established. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are WP articles about the Spouses of the Prime Ministers of Canada and Spouses of the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, plus other notable First Ladies at First Lady (disambiguation). Dolphin51 (talk) 02:46, 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AS11[edit]

Article does not seem to satisfy WP:MUSIC. The musician would appear to be a very minor one, and I have not found any secondary source material on him. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I started this article. I can't remember why I did so. But I now agree that it fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Cnwb (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the absence of secondary sources, and with the endorsement of the editor who created the article, how can you vote otherwise? Ford MF (talk) 19:00, 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 delete. Tan ǀ 39 05:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of works by heads of state or government[edit]

WP:NOT - a non-encyclopedic and potentially enormous list on a rather random subject. `'Míkka >t 16:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what a strange concept for an article. Brilliantine (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganize I can see this existing on a per-country basis, but even for just the USA this would be a long long list. Jimmy has 14+ books right? I think the list as a concept is fine, just too darn big. I'd also be happy with a category. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humm, looking at the category discussion linked to by Dzied Bulbash (thanks!), I very much disagree with the notation that this is a trivial intersection. Heads of states tend to write policy books about being heads of state or other major political issues. It is a pretty clear genre of book at so a catagory makes sense. If that doesn't work, I'll go keep but suggest the list be broken up geographically. Hobit (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a cat(egory) is fine too. Brilliantine (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I agree with Hobit: category is more than OK. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- per "Categories_for_discussion" cited below; indeed, this collection makes no sense in any way. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_21#Category:Works_by_heads_of_state_or_government
Keep The deletion of a category doesnt mean deletion of a list--given the individual nature of the works, a list is more informative. That a list might be long is a good reason to have it, not a reason to delete it--we can easily organizes it. I've seen too many recent nominations where "too long" has been given as a reason for deletion--I consider that the exact equivalent of "too notable" And if that clearly doesn't apply, we then see "too short" which does apply for lists permanently limited to 2 or 3 items, but is being used for anything up to the too-long crossover. DGG (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this argument lead us to having pages like "List of notable things that happened"? I think the idea of the page is fine, but having just one list of what I strongly suspect is 1000s of books is perhaps not the right organization. Hobit (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTCASE. This is a list of based on cross-categorization, with no sources to show the importance of the connection. Sebwite (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evident logical connection between being head of government and writing some works. The information is unmaintainable in this place. It is maintainable into each separate bio article, where the interested editors work. And it must be logically maintained there (or in its sub-article, kind of List of works by Bill Clinton, if someone ever writes it), since it is where it clearly belongs. And to put it here will be a pointless content fork. Laudak (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a genre of books. See [9] for example. It's a darn hard term to search for, but I strongly suspect that book houses treat this as a genre. But the Tower link is the best I can find. Hobit (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable genre of literature well served by listification. Ford MF (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is not a genre of literature. It is a collection of "works" of arbitrary character. Mao Zedong's works belong to page Mao Zedong. No one will be looking them here. Mukadderat (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:09, 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. Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Box office slump[edit]

This article has no references, it documents a neologism, it's orphaned, it may contain original research, and fails WP:V. Tavix (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or perhaps Merge into box office. Hardly a neologism, and a documented phenomenom [10]. PC78 (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to box office. Agree that article is not sorced and so currently fails Wikipedia:V, but this can be easily cured as phenomenom is easily researched. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to box office. There's no need for a separate article documenting a particular instance of an economic slump. RayAYang (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to box office since there is no verifiable content worth merging. It would be great to have a developed article tracing the box office trends (ups and downs), but care should be taken not to make it too American-centric. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep standard, and not really part of "box office" but only a somewhat related topic. We do not delete for not being verified, just for not beingvrifiable. If refs can likely be found,its not a proper deletion. DGG (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 10:02, 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 a7 of the speedy deletion critera. AngelOfSadness talk 20:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Hinshaw[edit]

The article is just one sentence on a model that isn't notable and there's no sources for this. Rvk41 (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In fact, Speedy delete -- A7 applies. RayAYang (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. No assertion of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Ford MF (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – no references or information about notability. Per A7 criterion and the above discussion, I have tagged it for speedy deletion. Jamie^☆S93 19:38, 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 delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. Even semi-professional footballers receive ridiculous amounts of media coverage, so WP:N is a very poor barometer to measure their notability by. Therefore we are left with actually playing in a professional league as the best way to gauge notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sukuta-Pasu[edit]

Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. Bneidror (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Scored the winning goal in the U-19 2008 European championship final; if this is not enough, from that he got massive media coverage - 826 articles listed this week alone, clearly meeting WP:N. Nfitz (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Consider to recreate it once plays a fully competitive match in a fully professional league. --Angelo (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 12:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why are you folks concentrating on WP:ATHLETE. He clearly meets WP:N through media coverage such as a feature article this week in Bild, "'the best-selling newspaper in Europe" - [11]. Nfitz (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Sukuta-Pasu does play in a professional league. He plays as a forward for Bayer 04 which is a club in the 1. Bundesliga. 1. Bundesliga is the professional football league in Germany. Adrockos555 —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could elaborate on how many matches he has played in the Bundesliga.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 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 14:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Geller[edit]

Probably a candidate for speedy deletion as CSD A7, I don't feel this person meets WP:BIO and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. RFerreira (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lets have some elaboration before deletion. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interested editors have several days to try to find any sources that establish the notability of the subject. It's unlikely that there will be any, so I think it should be deleted. If she is the subject of a profile in the future, or wins awards, the article can be recreated then. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although, the article doesn't assert notability and therefore is a candidate for speedy deletion. She appears to meet WP:N by being covered/mentioned in the NY Times, Washington Times, and Israeli National News. The article needs to be expanded, be written from a neutral point of view, and most importantly be about her and not the current news story though. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Jasynnash2 09er (talk) 13:44, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources for any substantial notability by herself. DGG (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG, the sources do not demonstrate notability about the subject at all. JBsupreme (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no verifiable notability. Mukadderat (talk) 15:39, 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. Wizardman 14:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kellie Lim[edit]

This person is really not notable. Just because some TV show had them on as an inspiring person really doesn't mean anything. She has not made any major contributions to the medical field, has not written anything, and seems not even to be a leading crusader for the disabled. If we list her we then should list every amputee due to bacterial meningitis because they are an inspiring person of just about the same notability. Do we need bios for every person who had a feel good fluff piece done on TV news about them? No. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is the nom's third attempt at getting this deleted. I declined the PROD because she was honored by ABC as Person of the Week in June 2007 and think it should be discussed. I worked on this article when I found it in the backlog, I have no personal attachment to the article or whether it stays or goes. TravellingCari 16:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 16:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability asserted, nationwide coverage. JFW | T@lk 17:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources clearly meet WP:N and exceed its requirements by a bunch. Nom gives no other reason for deletion other than "importance" (which I'll read as notability) Keep Hobit (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Person of the week does not make her notable at all. RogueNinja_talk 20:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's debatable, but the sources clearly do. And they seem to be fine sources. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This much news coverage is sufficient for notability. ABC as Person of the Week is perhaps enough of a distinction by itself. DGG (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Garrett (actor)[edit]

Vanity article, lack of any references probably due to lack of notability. CSD has been removed without explanation. triwbe (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Some changes to this AfD by Triwbe (talk · contribs) at 15:38, 29 July 2008 appear to have been lost. The version with that timestamp is blank. --Eastmain (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I removed the CSD because I had added a link to the IMDb page for this actor. I think the credits are enough to prove notability. The article may have originally been Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, but I think it is relatively neutral. --Eastmain (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Imdb shows minor parts listed in a very unrelaible source. --triwbe (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity article for actor whose major roles have been bit parts in TV series. Remember the notability guideline: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." This actor clearly fails this! --Slashme (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article falls short of our notability guidelines for actors. And I think we can do without the "vanity article" name-calling. Hasn't anyone heard of WP:AGF or WP:BITE? Ford MF (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry! --Slashme (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. minor nonnotable actor. Mukadderat (talk) 15:40, 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 - Nabla (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Amsif[edit]

Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. Bneidror (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - until he sets foot on the pitch for FC Schalke 04 in a league/cup game. Smile a While (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, assuming I'm understanding correctly that this guy has never played a pro game of ... whatever ball-oriented pastimes the Germans get up to. Rugby? Squash? Ford MF (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no verifiable notability. Mukadderat (talk) 15:40, 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 as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jürgen Mössmer[edit]

Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. Bneidror (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? I have seen many players without any pro appearances and were tolerated until their first pro match. I guess he definitely will make his debut this season when Eintracht's injury draught will carry on and on -Lemmy- (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"He definitely will make his debut this season" which of course is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. -- Bneidror (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it isn't. If it is indeed definite that he's part of the starting squad in a week or so, then it doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL; the guideline doesn't ban future events ... the criteria is "almost certain to take place". Whether or not that is true in this case I don't know. Nfitz (talk) 07:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Angelo (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Recreate if and when he makes his professional debut. --Jimbo^[online] 12:28, 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. Some !voters do not appear to have viewed the sources: the interview hardly mentions the game, WOG is user-driven content, and the Audio Games link is to a series of emails. Keep arguments are therefore extremely weak. Use of a redirect to free kick is open to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 13:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freekick[edit]

This game hasn't established notability, and the only verification for the article are websites to hack codes, which doesn't pass WP:N --Seascic ^T/_C 14:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hack codes? Which of the websites listed contain hack codes? I do agree that the article doesn't not fulfill Wikipedia's criteria for notability at the moment. --130.232.122.141 (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete — Again, blatant advertising. See WP:CSD#G11. (What's with all the MMOG articles lately being discovered that are nothing but advertising?) MuZemike (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, what you're saying is that all other MMOGs which are on Wikipedia are allowed to advertise only because they are "notable", e.g. someone wrote an article about them? The argument doesn't seem logical. I've tried to write this article from an unbiased point of view. If you have objections to some parts, I'll change them. I don't think that being "here" automatically counts as advertising. Especially not blatant advertising. Notability of this article isn't established, but that doesn't make the article an advertisement by default. FreeKick exists from 2003 and I don't think Wikipedia helped to make the game what it is today.Cafa80 (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Cafa80 — Cafa80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, I am not saying that. We cannot deal with all such problematic articles as there are so many of them. If the article is notable, then a diligent editor who sees a potential violation of WP:ADVERT should remove all material in question via a simple edit. (This has just been done with Astro empires, which allowed me to remove my recommendation for speedy deletion.) Finally, Wikipedia is not a place to promote products, games, etc. It is a place for verifiable information. To quote from Wikipedia:Five pillars: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. and is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. I also have personal opinions regarding those who base their entire marketing strategy on a website, which I will not go into here. With all that said, the entire article would necessitate a complete rewrite. It reads like one of those four-page-long advertisements that you find in magazines. Read WP:V and WP:GNG for information on how to include reliable sources that can establish the game's notability. Finally, look at some featured articles out there; it doesn't need to be like them, but it needs to have something encyclopedic. MuZemike(talk) 20:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for advice, I'll rewrite it to make it simple. Take note, most of the stuff written here was taken from Hattrick's article, so I thought that it's okay. But I guess such style is allowed only for "notable" articles. Those are double standards, but I'll go by them and include only encyclopedic information for now. Cafa80 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Cafa80[reply]

If Hattrick has a wikipedia article, there is no reason why Freekick shouldn't have one. Likewise, if Freekick's article is deleted, Hattrick's should be deleted.58.104.113.9 (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC) — 58.104.113.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just because an article exists somewhere else, doesn't mean that is a blank cheque to have your article not deleted. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Seascic ^T/_C 14:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote it to make it more encyclopedic-like. Is it better now? Any parts which need editing/removal?Cafa80 (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Cafa80[reply]

It certainly reads a lot better now, but the article still fails WP:WEB. You must assert the notability of the game by providing third-party sources which have written about it - it can be a flawlessly worded article, but if there's no evidence that it's a notable subject, it will have to be deleted. --McGeddon (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "VIP" section for you, as it that is basically advertising. However, there are still notability problems which can still cause the article to be deleted. You need to include verifiable, third party sources as I mentioned above to avoid that. In light of the changes, I change my recommendation from "Speedy Delete" to just plain "Delete" for now. MuZemike (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Change to Delete as nearly all blatant advertising has been removed (see diff); however, the article still faces serious notability problems as indicated by the nominator if reliable sources per WP:V cannot be found. MuZemike (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to free kick or delete, prefer redirect. Cannot find sources to establish notability and is difficult to do so given the nature of the game's name. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a Swedish article about the Freekick founder, to hopefully establish notability. To establish verifiability, I have linked to official Freekick manual. Feel free to edit the page a bit, I'm not so sure this is the way the references should look. Thanks. Cafa80 (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Cafa80[reply]

The manual is a primary source (not third-party), so that does not make WP:V as far as notability of the article in general is concerned. However, that doesn't mean it's not appropriate. Second, use a translator like Google translator and see what you get with that newspaper article (basically it must be in English or translated as such into English). MuZemike (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the manual is a primary source, I used it to establish verifiability, not notability. The article is now translated. There's also a third source added, from Audio Games website for visually impaired, so that makes two references. I hope. Cafa80 (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Cafa80[reply]

Change to Keep — I think notability has been sufficiently established now (see diff. MuZemike (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as global notability has been sufficiently demonstrated I think. Ford MF (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I was going to close this one as keep, but decided to actually check the references - and they seem very, very weak for establishing notability. So, I decided to !vote instead of closing it. If the above keep votes have not viewed the references, I suggest they do so - it might change your mind. Tan ǀ 39 05:34, 6 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. No objection to recreation from me upon knowing a name. Wizardman 14:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primus' seventh studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Primus' seventh studio album

WP:MUSIC#Albums states: "Once the artist or their record label has publicly confirmed the title, track listing and release date, an article about the album is not a WP:CRYSTAL violation.", which all of these albums fail. They currently lack titles, verified release dates, and track listings. I am also nominating the following album articles for the same failings:

Job for a Cowboy (demo)[edit]

Article concerns a self-issued demo, issued prior to the group's signing. According to WP:MUSIC, "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." There's nothing to suggest that this specific demo has received "significant independent coverage in reliable sources", so I vote to delete. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:12, 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 00:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has no sources that suggest that the guideline of WP:MUSIC mention above does not apply Duffbeerforme (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no verifiable notability. Mukadderat (talk) 15:45, 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. Carioca (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xerox Authorized Agent Representative[edit]

An article about a job position within a company StaticGull Talk 14:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the "Want Ads" Mandsford (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even close to being notable --T-rex 14:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like an advertisement. Forego (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a job listing. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Internal employment nomenclature has no place in Wikipedia unless you work for something like the Federal government. Ford MF (talk) 19:28, 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 Closed as moot - article has been merged / redirected. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto sen fleksio[edit]

Appears to fail WP:N and WP:RS. What is the Esperanto word for "Delete"? Ecoleetage (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Forviŝi, actually. I'm not seeing any reliable sources that discuss this subject; if there is indeed a significant reform movement within the Esperanto community, it might merit a mention at Esperanto, if there were sources to document it. As it stands, though, there is no sourced information to merge, so I'd have to say Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I point to the interwiki links on the article - surely if you are arguing to delete it here, it should go on all three other languages too? Lothlerarhlichliarmetlialeta (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different wikipedia projects have different inclusion criteria, as well as different methods of deleting articles. There are also lots of articles on other wikis that aren't here. I would suspect that, in the absence of sources, those other versions of this article would not remain long, but I don't know enough about processes on those wikis to judge. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voila un few sources. Lothlerarhlichliarmetlialeta (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Esperantido. Not sure if anyone is keeping track of this and similar variants on Esperanto, but there have been many such proposals. Uncertain whether the references given supply notability to this, which from the article's text seems to be a one man operation. - 24.235.22.24 (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have put it into the Esperantido page, and directed Esperanto sen fleksio to it. Lothlerarhlichliarmetlialeta (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, this can be closed as moot. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 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 14:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shreedhar Swami Maharaj[edit]

Bio of a non notable religous leader. Also, there are no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Books shows several references to him,[12] though a portion of the references might be about another with a similar name. Article needs serious work, but that's no reason for deletion. ~ priyanath ^talk 17:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw hits on Google and Google Books as well. The problem is that many people have this name, or a similiar one. Because of this, the Google hits arguement might not be a good idea for this specific discussion. Specifically, in this Google Books search, there are no reliable sources to back up any of the article's claims. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable with a common name. Wikidās ॐ 22:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, with the concession that the common name makes reliable sources difficult to find. If someone could find anything (I failed), I would much rather recommend keep (and perform a massive cleanup), but I haven't seen anything. Ford MF (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no verifiable notability. Mukadderat (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:N, and WP:RS --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 16:33, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Mauritius Flight MK745[edit]

This received a brief flurry of attention - and rightly so, there is a certain level of interest - but has no lasting effect, implications or memory. Does not meet the draft ntability guidlines set out at WP:AIRCRASH (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/AfD record). Oh, and please leave Qantas out of this, I can see lots of comparisons coming. The two are far too dfferent for it; at least find an incident we are not currently debating if you must compare. Search Google News for some or somehing. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—from an Aviation Project member. Bird strikes are no big deal, nobody died, not notable. Livitup (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A routine incident, an aborted take-off due to bird strike. Plane evacuated as a precaution. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Bird strikes are a regular aviation hazard. In this case, it merely resulted in an aborted take-off. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per our knowledgeable, aviation-project brethren. Ford MF (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 21:31, 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 speedy delete - attack on someone whose nickname is Poundsey. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poundsey[edit]

Non-notable neologism with no verifiable reliable sources. Author removed PROD. JD554 (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NAD and WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. JohnCD (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Joke article, written by single-purpose user who, one surmises, is fed up with her friend, Mr. Poundsey, who keeps cancelling dates. "Hey Poundsey, look at this!" Mandsford (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (no romance left ! :-)) CultureDrone (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up neologism/attack page. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 14:54, 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 22:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demo Tape (Alkaline Trio)[edit]

Demo albums generally fail WP:MUSIC#Albums. The PROD tag was removed by a friendly IP user. B. Wolterding (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, fails to establish notability as 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" 12:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a practical perspective, what would you merge? The track listing? The unsourced introduction? --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is actually a demo, and not an album. WP:MUSIC#Albums says as regards demos; "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." There's no indication the demo has received "significant independent coverage in reliable sources", hence my vote. LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:53, 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 00:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable demo. Ford MF (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of independent notability Mukadderat (talk) 15:48, 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. John254 02:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanesepod101.com[edit]

Non-notable podcast, reads like a advertisment for the subscription service Rtphokie (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-write. It absolutely does read like an ad, but it is mentioned nontrivially in Newsweek here (retrieved from archive.org) and in the Japan Times here. I'll add the references and try to prune the ad claims a bit. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I cut quite a bit of the advertising material, and brought the references back. They actually were in the wiki markup, but weren't properly incorporated. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's notable, but shouldn't the title be "Japanesepod101"? Tavix (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the third-party sources, it looks as if it is referred to as "Japanesepod101.com" more often. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the rewrite and references demonstrating it's noted and thus notable. Good rescue, Xymmax. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – clearly notable under WP:N guidelines. "Unreferenced" does not mean "non-notable". In addition to what others added, I have also added non-trivial references in the National Post, The Guardian, E.learning Age, and the Omaha World-Herald. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open Road (Short Film)[edit]

OK so Andy Picheta who will star in this movie is reasonably notable. But does that make this low budget, not yet released movie notable? Sgroupace (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, currently fails notability per WP:NFF, and even if it comes out I can't see it passing WP:MOVIE either. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 14:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it has started filming (allegedly), lack of available sources suggests chronic non-notability ([13], [14]). PC78 (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, as contributor has not sourced any of the statements. If/when notability is established and the article is sourced, it could be returned. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of established notability about this film. Even if Andy Picheta is involved, notability is not inherited. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:46, 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, with no prejudice against recreation after the GameZone review is published. Many of the keep arguments below were either previously invalidated at deletion review, and most of the others either make WP:ATA arguments or weak arguments. I am willing to undelete after the review is published, although from the discussion it appears it might be better to just recreate from scratch. lifebaka++ 13:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astro empires[edit]

Nonnotable browser-based game. One interview in a Portuguese newspaper doesn't satisfy WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This game is more notable than the large majority of browser games in Wikipedia. Please provide arguments why this game is less notable than the following games or withdraw the deletion request:

The Continuum - Alexa Rank: 107,539
Cthulhu Nation - Alexa Rank: 1,167,208
Dogs of the Seas - Alexa Rank: 160,523
ERepublik - Alexa Rank: 9,668
Forumwarz - Alexa Rank: 73,358
Habbo - Alexa Rank: 138,016
Horse Isle - Alexa Rank: 151,349
Informatist - Alexa Rank: 482,806
KDice - Alexa Rank: 77,993
Kingdom of Loathing - Alexa Rank: 8,783
Jennifer Government: NationStates - Alexa Rank: 14,295
NukeZone - Alexa Rank: 50,284
Orion's Belt - Alexa Rank: 772,595
Planetarion - Alexa Rank: 138,736
DragonSpires - Alexa Rank: 1,425,534
Stellar Crisis - Alexa Rank: 15,729,717
Trade Wars - Alexa Rank: 693,293
Twilight Heroes - Alexa Rank: 173,281
Urban Dead - Alexa Rank: 19,276
X-Wars - Alexa Rank: 35,899

Astro Empires - Alexa Rank: 8,247

Most or all this games have no reference in a major paper media as Astro Empires do. Wikipedia needs to be coherent and unbiased. Xaman79 (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC+1) — User:Xaman79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note Alexa is not a reliable way of gauging site popularity, and in any case popularity of a website is not a bar by which articles are kept or deleted. JuJube (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then what is a reliable way of gauging websites? In any case then please explain the arguments used to all the games listed in Wikipedia which I described. What do they have more to offer than this game? Coherence is required here. Xaman79 (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC+1)

Generally speaking, coverage in independent, third-party sources. WP:NOTE. This is a real grey area case. Livitup (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—WP:OSE is not a vaild argument. Notability not backed up by any sources I could find in quick searches. World Of Warcraft this one is not. Show me the citations. Livitup (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I already provided a link to the interview done by Portugal's MOST READ newspaper on the game developer. Find it here. This should count more than most gaming websites. Here is also a review on a gaming website Review Xaman79 (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC+1)
  - Also, it says on WP:OSE that, and I quote "But such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. 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. Unfortunately, most deletion discussions are not as clear-cut, but the principles are the same.". Astro Empires is more notable than most multiplayer browser games listed in Wikipedia, it makes no sense that it should be deleted while the others are kept. Again, consistency is the word. Xaman79 (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC+1)
Keep. I'm unsatisfied by the suggestion that "One interview in a Portuguese newspaper doesn't satisfy WP:V". Clearly it does; a newspaper is a reasonable source, and the fact that it's in Portuguese should not count against it on an international site. I'm also unimpressed with "World of Warcraft this one is not", which I consider disrespectful and sneering. -- However, I consider the article falls below the NPOV standards and should be edited to read less like an advertisement. S Marshall (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's skirting the notability line, but it still needs a lot of cleanup to keep it from looking like an advertisement. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Actually, I don't challenge that the Portugese newspaper meets WP:V, but I challenge that the article we are debating meets WP:NOTE. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." I question (seriously—I am open to debate on this topic) whether the two sources cited in the article establish notability. I have been the subject of two newspaper articles, but I'm not notable. As for my throwaway comment about WoW, it was meant to counter Xaman79's OSE argument. I apologize if it came across as uncivil. Livitup (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I realise you didn't challenge the WP:V issue; but NawlinWiki did, and I posted in response to him as well as yourself. I think there's a broader debate to be had about notability with browser games, on which Xaman79's Alexa rankings throw a strong light. But I think the sheer number of users of this particular game should probably be sufficient to establish a presumption in favour of keeping the article. I do feel it's a very long article given the subject matter and I do feel there's room for discussion on NPOV.S Marshall (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's pretty apparent that this article has a lot more relevance than many others on the site that fall under the same "genre." It's a well-known game, it's highly populated, and it's been around for nearly two years now. It's been referenced by both websites and newspaper articles. I don't see how there's any argument against this. Thekithless (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC) — Thekithless (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep but needs clean up. The articles supplied and popularity of the game meet WP:NOTE. The links provided also meets WP:V. I do agree that the article needs to be made more independent and less like an advertisement but we don't shut down notable articles for being in need of some work, we clean them up. Butch-cassidy (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability exists for the article, as other citable sources do offer the game some degree of coverage it seems, which is nothing to sneeze at.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt The two newspaper sources are the same ones brought up in the deletion review in February. Interviews are usfeul for development information but are mostly useless sources for reception - which is where notability is asserted in videogame articles. Developers talking about their game does not equal an unbiased secondary source. The review highlighted shows no signs of being reliable. I would be happy to switch to keep if some reliable reviews are found, but the whack-a-mole article history, canvassing on Astro Empire's forum and rambling irrelevancies regarding WP's inclusion guidelines smacks of pitch-till-you-win. Someone another 18:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The number of players registered at AstroEmpires make it notable, let alone the fact that it has received multiple media reviews. In fact, the number of players make a stronger case in my mind than the media reviews (of course, I can't read the articles...). WP:COMMON tells us how to handle this: the game has 42,965 players worldwide. If something that 42,965 people know about and do every day doesn't meet notability standards, then the standards are inadequate. WP:IAR Who cares how many reviews have appeared on silly gamer sites? If that's all it takes, then they could solicit their players to contact the sites and demand a review. They certainly have the numbers to warrant one. The lack of critical coverage is, in my mind, a failing on the part of game review sites to notice a game that is clearly as popular as any other browser game, not a lack of notability. -Forridean 19:30:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Do not replace SPA tag or arbitration will be sought[reply]

Just because a large group of people does something, doesn't make it inherently notable. I'm sure that at least 42,965 people in Oregon, Washington, etc walk their dogs in the early hours of the morning, yet mysteriously Dog Walking in the Pacific Northwest (predawn) doesn't exist. The number of people playing the game doesn't act as a substitute for notability requirements. Trusilver 16:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete and Salt — I agree with Someoneanother on the lack of establishment of notability solely from an interview. This has already been shown in the corresponding deletion review that the user so-kindly linked. In addition, it is only mentioned as a reference; it is not even cited anywhere in the article. Now I do not speak Portugese (this is an English Wikipedia, anyway), but I can only speculate that the interview only deals with the development of the game and not with any mention of how the game is being received, critical coverage, etc. Furthermore, none of the articles cited are reliable nor are they verifiable per WP:V. The references are either from the site itself or from the site's forum. This is a textbook failure of establishing any verifiability. And I am not even mentioning that this article is a blatant advertisement (see Astro empires#Upgraded Status). MuZemike (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google's translator actually managed a pretty good job, if I believed this article was salvageable I would use both sources to create a development section. The problem is, they both boil down to "the developer said this, the developer said that", there's no pool of development info in there to create a reception section with. Someone another 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--Two issues are being conflated here. They are: 1) Does AstroEmpires merit an article of some kind (which has been challenged on grounds of WP:V and WP:NOTE); and 2) If it does, should this be the article (which clearly it should not--it fails the NPOV and Conflict of Interest tests, at least). Challenges on ground (2) are not reasons to delete the article; they are merely reasons to edit it. Furthermore, the fact that this article has been deleted for non-notability before does not justify assuming it is not notable now, since the game has clearly grown in the interim.--Of the valid challenges, I personally remain of the opinion that WP:NOTE is satisfied by the number of users, the number of servers and the longevity of the game. On WP:V I would like to see comments by a Portuguese speaker.S Marshall (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, if this is the argument used, 90% of the multiplayer browser games listed in Wikipedia should be deleted. If Wikipedia wishes to maintain a coherent and fair policy, they need to add Astro Empires. I haven't seen so far a logical argument why this shouldn't be added when the others were. I agree the article may need some work, but such can only be done if this isn't deleted. Astro Empires is one of the top games of its genre and its notability has been proved already, therefore it should be listed in Wikipedia. Xaman79 (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

And again, you are trying to use the WP:WAX as well as WP:ALLORNOTHING deletion argument pitfalls. The article has needed a complete rewrite every time it has been re-created, but instead, every time, it has been re-written as a blatant advertisement. There has been plenty of chances to write a somewhat-encyclopedic article complete with verifiable, third-party sources establishing its notability; they have all so far been squandered.

It has not been proven that the interview establishes notability; in fact, the opposite has been shown by admins in the previous deletion review:

The link provided in the request is not a critical article (or "in-depth look"), as would constitute a verifiable secondary source. Rather it consists solely of quotes from the game creators. Aside from these quotes, there is no encyclopedic content nor independent context for notability.
this seems too much like trying to get a new game air time in wikipedia
The new information is insufficient to overturn a very solid AfD consensus, and the SPA/sock accounts here are far from a good sign.

Finally, you claim it's one of the top games in the genre, but no proof. How are we to know or believe that it is? Judging from the repeated attempts at blatant advertising, it all boils down to WP:ITSNOTABLE claims. It is immaterial as to the number of users, servers, etc. are involved in this game; if there is no significant coverage as well as no reliable sources that are independent of the subject that can satisfy the general notability guideline, then it meets the criteria for deletion. MuZemike (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable source? The NUMBER ONE newspaper in Portugal is not a reliable source? What is, a dodgy website? Your arguments are not logical. And what blatant advertising? And if this was the issue, than we wouldn't be having this discussion, instead we would be discussing about improving the article, not delete it. Xaman79 (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

The interview, not the paper itself, is not realiable. I also quote from the article itself: Currently, there are two types of accounts: Upgraded and Free. Players begin their first week of play with an ugraded account and are downgraded to a lower account after this week. These additional features are offered to encourage users to help the game develop and fund its operation. This is no different than informing users that you can buy a license to a piece of shareware instead of keeping the current free version of the software. Finally, how are my arguments not logical? Please explain in detail. MuZemike (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not discussing the interview's content, it's no more than an interview to the game developer about this game. However, the fact that a major newspaper like Correio da Manhã recognized it as notorious enough to be published speaks for itself. You don't get major national newspapers showing interest in browser games everyday. Most games listed here probably never had any newspaper writing about them and I value that more than a gaming website which you can PAY to get a review for your game. We also were contacted for a TV interview, by a Portuguese national television, however the developer refused as he wanted to keep a low profile. Xaman79 (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Correio da Manhã article consider the quality of the work there to be junk food news? --Seascic ^T/_C 14:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also don't forget this [interview]. This one is more focused on the game than the developer. This media website is dedicated to the Algarve (where the developer is from) and is the source of news from the Algarve for all major national and international media. Xaman79 (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

Note — Blatant advertising removed (see diff) and article flagged for rescue. However, I still propose that this article be deleted for clearly failing the general notability guideline as well as salted because of its long history of recreation, conflicts of interest, and sock puppetry allegations by admin. MuZemike (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note — Hold the salt. MuZemike (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Speedy delete and salt. Being both an Astro Empires player and a Wikipedia administrator, I was very cautious about making any position on this AfD. However, after reading all the available material and the past history of this article, I am forced to agree that the article should be deleted and protected to prevent further recreation until such a time comes that it can qualify for inclusion. All the arguments made to support the article seem to fail WP:N, WP:V and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Furthermore, I see no additional information that has been included in this incarnation of the article that wasn't available for the last deletion and subsequent deletion review. As such, I feel that this article qualifes for speedy deletion under G4 criteria. Trusilver 03:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator then perhaps you can explain the criteria used with the games I listed. Wikipedia can't depend on different criteria used by different people. Claiming that because of those games were accepted is not a valid argument fails by itself. If this article is to be deleted, then all the others need to be reviewed and possibly deleted as well. Try visiting those games and then visit Astro Empires, see which ones are more notorious than this. Xaman79 (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

WP:WAX again. MuZemike (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a proper reply. I'm not saying add Astro Empires becuase there are other articles about the same game genre in Wikipedia. I'm saying add Astro Empires because LESS notable games have been added and the same criteria should be used in this situation. Otherwise it's incoherent and inconsistent. Now you try WP:OSE, which says and I quote "In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.". If you follow one guidelines, you need to follow them all. Xaman79 (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. MuZemike (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid argument. We're not talking about a couple of articles here, but the majority of the games listed in the multiplayer browser games. I refuse to believe that only NOW you choose to enforce this criteria. Xaman79 (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

It's a completely valid argument, nobody holds sole responsibility for policing nearly 2.5 million articles and ensuring that they conform to WP's policies and guidelines, if an editor decides to create an article it doesn't get sent to a holding pen and approved, it's listed straight into the encyclopedia. That's the way it works. Nobody is going to go through that list and spend hours trying to locate sources for each since they're not the focus of this discussion, that's why articles are listed separately unless they are shards of the same topic. If they don't demonstrate notability and no sources can be found for them they run the risk of being listed for deletion at any time. Look further up the video game deletion list and you'll notice two more webgames listed. This isn't just being dealt with now, which you know since you commented at the deletion review, articles which are reposted in the same state they were deleted in tend to get noticed and pulled up. Someone another 12:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you point, but still believe that many of those articles were accepted after reviewed and therefore find grounds for Astro Empires to be accepted in Wikipedia as well. If work on the article is required, is more than acceptable, but it deserves a chance. Xaman79 (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

Those other articles weren't "accepted after reviewed". If they are less deserving as this one for inclusion, then they should be deleted also - so go ahead and propose them. This discussion has had far too much focus on other articles. This article is what we are discussing, and it either passes or fails on its own merits without regard to any other articles that happen to exist. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facts--Astro Empires exists for over 2 years. Astro Empires has over 40 thousand active players in 5 different universes (inactive accounts are deleted after 15 days). Astro Empires player's are mostly from English speaking countries (USA, UK, Canada and Australia). Astro Empires has a forum with over 16 thousand users with half a million posts (which get pruned from time to time). Astro Empires in ranked 8,271 in Alexa, meaning it’s on the top 10.000 websites in all the world (for comparing, oGame which is probably the top game of the genre has a rank of 4,010). Astro Empires’ main developer (Portuguese) was interviewed by Portugal’s most read newspaper. 20 out of 30 games listed in the List of multiplayer browser games have lower ranking and are less notable than Astro Empires. Astro Empires is the first game of this genre and dimension to have ever been developed by a Portuguese programmer/company. That alone is remarkable--Xaman79 (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

Comment--The actual issues under discussion are WP:NOTE and WP:V and we should concentrate on those. (None of the other objections cited are grounds for deletion, though they are grounds for editing.) Notability and verifiability are established via significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Therefore the questions are (1) whether a Portuguese national newspaper is a reliable, secondary source, and (2) whether the article cited constitutes significant coverage.--I believe it would be extremely hard to justify saying a Portuguese national newspaper is not a reliable, secondary source. Portugal is hardly the third world. On whether the article is significant coverage, all we have are conflicting opinions that won't lead to a resolution.S Marshall (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion--Because I believe AstroEmpires merits an article on WP:NOTE and WP:V grounds, but the article we presently have is fairly dismal and this is colouring the debate on deletion, I suggest that it be replaced with a stub reading something like: "AstroEmpires is a browser game of space strategy offering free or paid subscriptions. It has over 40,000 subscribers."S Marshall (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree--The article itself needs a cleanup and improvement, so that suggestion is appropriate for the time being. The article has been changed accordingly. Xaman79 (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

Comment In the process of fixing up the refs, I noticed that the newspaper, Correio da Manhã, is associated with junk food news (according to our article, at least, so take that with a grain of salt). I'm not familiar with the paper myself, and don't know where it falls on the legitimate news/tabloid scale. Pagra shtak 13:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That newspaper is a bit more sensationalist in the news than Público (Portugal) and Jornal de Notícias, yes, but it doesn't qualify on the description of junk food news. Xaman79 (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

~~Speedy~~ delete and salt This article was already the subject of a [deletion review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_4], which makes it qualify for speedy deletion. However, since this has received such a large amount of controversy (albeit mostly from people with a WP:COI, it really should wait the five days. --Seascic ^T/_C 14:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't make false testimonies or assumptions, I may have a WP:COI but please explain why do you consider the other ones here supporting this article to have the same? You're including Wikipedia admins in your accusation. Xaman79 (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

I'm not saying that everybody who's saying keep has a WP:COI. In fact, User:DGG is not connected to this game in any way. I was refering to the large number of single purpose accounts that have made few or other edits independent of astro empires. This has already been brought to the attention of WP:COIN, so I'm sure they will be looking into this matter and taking appropriate action with it. --Seascic ^T/_C 19:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the meatpuppet-flagging in this discussion has been overenthusiastic.--S Marshall (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What large numbers? Only myself and another user that I've noticed have been flagged single purpose, so please explain your statement. Xaman79 (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

COMMENT They keep flagging everyone who votes for 'Keep' as a meat puppet, myself included. I've had my account on Wikipedia for over a year, and I'm still getting these allegations, even though I have absolutely no vested interest in this article or the game whatsoever. The fact that I have not contributed a great deal to the site is not evidence of any COI or SPA, nor does it render my opinion less valuable than people who have contributed more. When I became aware of this issue, I decided to comment on it, and that is granted as my right by the principles of this site.

What I think we're seeing here is less valid arguments and more people wallowing in the ecstasies of bureaucracy, and even more shameful, attempting to use Wikipedia processes as ammunition to bolster their view point. You've stated your case, it is not your place or your job to attempt to assassinate the character of those who disagree. This ceased to be a DISCUSSION (which it is supposed to be) and became a crusade for several of the people here, and that's really too bad. If anyone's behavior during this process calls in to question WP:COI, it's the people who are venomously attacking those who feel that this article is notable. WP:AGF was dead out of the gates. forridean 21:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For purposes of debate, you are a single purpose account. You have made a few edits to the talk pages of Geisha and Juggalo. Also, you made one edit to Geisha back in September 2007. You haven't been active on Wikipedia in 10 months, then you just randomly start back up again with this AfD? It's incredibly suspicious. WP:SPA classifies making one edit to an article (other than a talk page, and other than your user page) before this to be a single purpose account. I'd like to restate that not everybody who says keep is a sock/meatpuppet. User:DGG said that this article should stay and I didn't go accusing him at all. But keep in mind that he's edited more than just one or two articles with his account. Stop trying to play the victim here, and instead try to form a strong argument that will keep this article from being deleted. --Seascic ^T/_C 00:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it is not your place or your job to attempt to impinge the character of the people commenting on AfD. I posted my thoughts, they are outlined above. Agree with them, or disagree with them, bandying about accusations in your manner is ad hominem at it's finest. I read through the page and you are persistant in behaving in this manner with other users. Stop. This is not how you debate, by attacking the character of those who oppose you. This is not an election. Your activities are not a contribution to civil and rational discussion, and there is absolutely no way that you can contend otherwise. Forridean 02:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

They have the ((spa)) template for a reason. You taking it down shows that you are trying to cover up something that others have the right to see.

--Seascic ^T/_C 03:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to talk pages, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I am removing it because it is a false accusation being used as ad hominem in an otherwise civil discussion. You are acting immaturely. As I have already indicated on your talk page, I also insist here that you cease making these allegations.

Keep For games of this sort, sufficient popularity is notability, as long as an article can be written, and the interviews are sufficient for that. DGG (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're entitled to your opinion, but Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view disagree with you. If we write an article built entirely on interviews with the interested parties, how could it possibly be NPOV? Pagra shtak 19:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — Article and discussion have been brought to the attention at WP:COIN. MuZemike (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — Dispute resolution via editor assistance has been requested. MuZemike (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep News articles meet WP:N, but writing an article from them might be hard. A quick web search shows that there is plenty of interest in this game AND there are plenty of reviews and user comments to write a decent article. But I'm having a hard time finding much that isn't self published other than the two news stories. That said, primary sources can be used to describe the game. This genre just lacks a "reliable" review source which makes things tricky. Oh, and the Alexa rank also strongly hints at notability. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article needs a lot of work as it is barely a stub. I'm not familiar enough with massively multiplayer games, etc to know which ones are notable enough but have no problem whatsoever believing that traditional media sources pretty much don't cover these arenas well. I would expect that this would be discussed in gaming communities and online blogs which are generally disparaged as sources. I think this is a good example of a subject that will have to be written with new media sourcing until, and if, traditional media also decides this content is valuable to it's paying customers. I'm also alarmed by "delete and salt" votes as if this could never become notable. As nom has pointed out that seems more likely than not. I encourage some thoughtful expansion as, unfortunately, AfD, although should be about what an article can become is too often based on what people think of the subject and what state the article is currently in. I'm also swayed by 42,000+ players, even if a subject has absolutely no interest to me, there's no reason my disinterest should keep others from learning about it. Banjeboi 01:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason salting has been suggested is because this article has been created, deleted, recreated, redeleted, etc several times. There was even a deletion review for it where it was salted, and then creator has to make this article without the E capitalised to get around it. Salting an article doesn't prevent creation permanently. It prevents people from creating the same article that has been deleted numerous times in the past. They still have the option of having an administrator allow the creation of the article at such a time in the future when the material is suitable to become an article. Until then, salting prevents the same problems that are occuring now. --Seascic ^T/_C 02:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user reflects the essence of my own opinion. If 42,000 people worldwide are aware of a website, that is notablility by definition. IAR, I say, if this doesn't meet notability guildelines, then the guidelines need to be revised. Forridean 02:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Seacic--I believe you are using lies and irrelevant arguments to try and uphold your own opinion. As far as I'm aware, only ONCE was an article about the game created, which was then deleted, in February. It's only natural, that since we didn't agree with that decision, and since editors are not perfect therefore can make mistakes, along with the fact that after 6 months the game has grown even more, I decided to recreate it for review, something anyone else would find perfectly natural and not use it as an argument for this discussion. If there were other atempts to create this article, which were deleted as you say, please provide proof so I can check it for myself. Thank you. Xaman79 (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC+1)

Log page for Astro Empires. It shows that the article has been deleted a total of six times. MuZemike (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What it shows is that articles with this title have been deleted six times. Which leads me to ask whether the content was the same on each occasion?--S Marshall (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Exactly. Is it possible to actually see the content on those deleted articles? Also, this proves that there is a very high interest from people to have this game added to Wikipedia. Xaman79 (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC+1)

Comment I would like to point out the fact that User:Forridean is a single purpose account. I keep tagging his/her first comment on the page, yet he/she keeps taking it down. Their claim is that they are not a SPA because they have had their account for almost a full year. Please keep in mind when looking at their entries that they have only edited one article on Wikipedia, and about three other talk pages before coming into this debate. Now they are threatening to take me to arbitration for mentioning this. This furthers evidence that they are a sock puppet of another user. --Seascic ^T/_C 03:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retort I would like to point out that you continue to attempt to call in to question my veractiy by slandering me in a blatant display of ad hominem, despite my attempts to talk it over with you. It is not appropriate for AfD debate, nor any interaction with a user. I've said my peice, if you don't stop, we're going to arbitration. Why to arbitration? Your words: "and your blocking for violation of WP:3RR". You aren't trying to talk to me, you aren't trying to resolve anything, you're trying to bully me under the assumption that I won't know any better. Well, I do. So stop. Forridean 03:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forridean (talk • contribs)

No, the next step for dispute resolution is a request for comment; if you know better, then you should know that. Skipping steps will only get you reprimanded for doing so. MuZemike (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--I feel both sides are falling foul of WP:AGF in this dispute. Forridean was a pre-existing account and had made other edits prior to commenting here, and he deleted the spa tag quite politely the first time. Calling someone a meatpuppet is insulting and I feel Seascic should have not replaced the spa tag when it was deleted. And I sympathise with Forridean's ire, having been called a meatpuppet myself in this debate! It's very annoying when someone on the other side of the debate attempts to have your opinion discounted.--But equally, I feel Forridean may have overreacted. It would have been politer to assume Seascic's actions were not motivated by personal hostility towards Forridean, but by a genuine if misplaced feeling that Forridean really was a sockpuppet.--I feel the dispute resolution process has been invoked unnecessarily, and I hope both parties will have the maturity to take a little while to calm down, and then consider whether it might not be appropriate to apologise to the other.--S Marshall (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Note — A request for comment has been made regarding this discussion due to the lack of expediency of WP:COIN and editor assistance. MuZemike (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — A third opinion has been requested as to the recent WP:SPA accusation. MuZemike (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC

Comment - SPA was appropriate for Forridean. --eric (mailbox) 13:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a participant at WP:3O I have removed the third opinion request because the closing admin will properly decide the weight of the !vote and whether or not the commentor is a SPA. A 3O would be inappropriate in this case. Jim Miller (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it has independent review. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC) 15:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC) fix[reply]
Source concern Three more references have been added, but I have concerns about their reliability. World Online Games doesn't appear to have a privacy policy, or any of the other legal bits I'd expect to find on a well-established site. Their contact page is one email address. I don't see any indication of fact-checking or submission review. Next we have "Gordaen’s Blog"—emphasis on blog. Is the author acknowledged as an expert in the field? Is he cited by news organizations or other reliable sources? Lastly, xigre.com says on the front page, "...place for you to post link to your site or just to find what you need about some specific game. If you are a blogger or a website owner and you have a website or blog which can fit into any available category, feel free to add it..." This doesn't sound like a reliable source to me either. Can anyone show us why these meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Pagra shtak 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Update—I've removed the sources due to agreement below that they are not reliable. Pagra shtak 18:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion--They're marginally reliable if at all. Their inclusion is justified, though, when the main reliable source is in a foreign language.--S Marshall (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, unreliable sources should not be used, no matter what language. Pagra shtak 18:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're not remotely reliable and are the kind of sources which are removed during improvement processes. The blog is just a personal blog, of no more use than a GameFAQs review. World Online Games is one of countless MMO funnel-sites which list links to MMOs and push advertising, all reviews in the side panel are by this Jamie Baker, the webmaster? There's no indication of reliability (in our terms). Xigre is user-generated web directory and again the submissions carry as much weight as Average Joe's blog, IE none. Someone another 18:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query--Please could either of you cite any source you consider reliable for browser games?--S Marshall (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, significant coverage by any of the following would work, for example: BBC News [15], the Associated Press [16], The Chicago Tribune [17], The Wall Street Journal [18]—this is just a short list, but are some good examples of reliable sources. Pagra shtak 18:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Is Games (note references on talk page), Rock Paper Shotgun, meryl.net (Meryl K. Evans' blog) - notice this is a published author and writer in the computing sector, this is the kind of blog you'd be looking for rather than the one stipulated above. Eurogamer has a news item about KoL here and an article on four MMOs here, note that three out of four of the games are in the list at the top of this discussion. Other reliable sites and magazines randomly cover retro/indie/MMO/casual games. There is no GameSpot equivalent so it's a case of trawling google as opposed to finding 'the right site' and trawling that. Someone another 18:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, then: I concede that those extra three references aren't reliable. Unless someone more knowledgeable than me can show otherwise, I agree they should be deleted and we should return to the first two sources cited. I do think it's unfortunate that the only sources permissible to the deletionists are in Portuguese, which is a bit of an obstacle to discussion.--S Marshall (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC).--Oh, I see they've already been deleted.[reply]

You mean the only sources permissible to Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Verifiability (which requires a reliable source) is core policy and applies regardless of one's individual stance on notability. Let's not cloud the issue with partisan labels. Pagra shtak 19:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you view it as a pejorative to describe you as a "deletionist" in the context of this article, then I apologise. I assure you I didn't intend it as a pejorative, and I'd be quite happy to be characterised as an "inclusionist" in the context of this debate.--I am an AE player, though I don't view that as a COI since I'm not financially involved in the business and have nothing to gain from promoting it.--S Marshall (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take it as a pejorative, although I find it inaccurate in my case—don't you think a true deletionist would have...actually said delete? I just want to make sure that if the article is kept, it is done so on reliable sources and not personal blogs. My real problem is that those labels set up an "us vs. them" mentality that splits editors into one of two camps and stifles true discussion. As you can see, you're already trying to assign me a camp into which I do not belong. My point is, whether you describe yourself as an "inclusionist" or "deletionist", that shouldn't affect your standards for reliable sources. Pagra shtak 00:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On re-reading, I see that you haven't chosen to express a clear view on whether this article should be deleted. Do you have a contribution to make there, at all?--S Marshall (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I typically don't say one way or the other unless I search for sources myself, which I don't have the time or inclination to do right now. I do have time to question unreliable sources, however. Pagra shtak 13:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the removal of the review on the World Online Games. Most sites of the kind don't have any phone numbers or addresses on their webpages, but it doesn't make it any less reliable and it's a website dedicated to online games, mostly browser games, which is the genre of Astro Empires. Xaman79 (talk) 12:37, 01 August 2008 (UTC+1)
- Then please show us why the source is reliable. You can say it all you want, but you need to back it up with something. Here are some quotes from Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which every good Wikipedia editor should read: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process" Now, can you show us why you believe World Online Games has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Does it have a reliable publication process? Pagra shtak 13:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It's a review. While the publisher doesn't let us know his publication process (does the NYT on its website?), is there some reason to doubt this one? "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." is what matters. If someone cited a source like this for a claim about Hitler, I'd strike it in a second. But for the subject at hand I have no problems with the source (which is why I added it to begin with). It goes to notability as a non self-published source. Hobit (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So then I can set up a personal website, review any game I wish, and give it instant notability? I think not. You're absolutely correct about "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Show me a reliable source that considers WOG as trustworthy or authoritative and I'll have no problem with it. Pagra shtak 15:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is growing increasingly irrelevant to the question of whether this article should be deleted. If there were no references that met WP:V then this discussion would matter, but there are. Would you consider continuing this on your own talk pages?--S Marshall (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query - Would you consider GameZone to be a reliable source? They are working on a review of Astro Empires as we speak. Hopefully they will publish it before this article is deleted. Xaman79 (talk) 21:34, 01 August 2008 (UTC+1)

Yes, it is, according to WP:VG/S. Hopefully, they do churn one out before then. (Not necessarily playing devil's advocate - just want to see some closure on this.) MuZemike (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be great. Even if the article is deleted in the mean time, it can easily be undeleted once the source exists. I don't think you'd even have to take it to deletion review, you should just be able to show the review to the closing admin and have it undeleted without any fuss. Pagra shtak 21:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - How about we slow the train down a little? Considering that there are two sources already, there is potential for an encyclopedic article here. The article can just as easily left in place as deleted. How about we give this AfD closure, and start fixing up the entry? But, with the caveat: if the alleged GameZone article doesn't appear in a timely manner, then we will be right back at an AfD, armed with an agreement that the article will be deleted until better sources are available. This will allow us to reach consensus and foreshorten this current bureaucratic process right now. Additionally, with having reached this prior agreement, should we end up here in the future if the source doesn't come through the process will be hastened in that round as well. Save us all some time now and possibly later. -- Forridean^(T/C) 02:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to. Articles are easy enough to resurrect after deletion. Should notable sources come to light after this AfD that would have changed the outcome, I would have no issue at all of backing a recreation of the article. That being said, I have long since lost count of the number of AfD discussions I have been in where "notable sources are coming! just wait a little longer!" And in only two cases do I ever remember those sources actually materializing afterwards. In the meantime, I continue to hold the same position - this article has not changed appreciably since the last time it was deleted. Trusilver 08:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Once AfD is rolling there are few reasons to not let the process continue, especially with so much input. Banjeboi 06:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but closer should perhaps add a note saying "no prejudice against recreation if additional RS review found" just to avoid DRV/speedy issues about article recreation. (assuming closer deletes and feels that's the right thing) Hobit (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is always assumed anyway. The most banal articles ever deleted are (or at least should be) given the right to be recreated should notable sources for them become available. Trusilver 23:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but then someone comes along and speedies it because it's an article that is largely the same as a deleted one. Then it goes to DRV. Best to be clear. Hobit (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold the salt — just in case this article is deleted, and I didn't make it clear earlier since this has been a rather long discussion.) MuZemike (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Astro Empires has been added to GameZone (here), the review should be done soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaman79 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 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. Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Schweizer[edit]

Delete. Non-notable American baseball writer. A Google search brings up little except for an unrelated German author with the same name. Apparent WP:COI issues too as seen on both sides of this diff. According to the latest talk page edit, the external links on the page will lead to "third party sources" but they seem to lead only to Mr. Schweizer's web content. De-prodded by Kinston eagle (talk · contribs). —Wknight94 (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend learning how to use Google properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.69.31 (talk • contribs)

Also, when following links, go to the other links and then those links. It's pretty easy. You just point and click. And point and click again, etc. It isn't all that difficult. As far as the usage of Google, I wouldn't know how to help you. I am stumped on that one. Try contacting Google.com for some type of basic site user tutorial help or something of that nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.69.31 (talk • contribs)

There is also a website known as yahoo.com, which has a search engine. If you haven't heard of it, try it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.69.31 (talk • contribs)

Delete agree with nominator - websearch however many things you click shows this person has written articles about baseball - but nothing to indicate he passes Wikipedia's criteria for notability -Hunting dog (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I nominate approximately one half (50%) of wikipedia for deletion, for the same (or similar) criteria. You guys have your work cut out for you. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.69.31 (talk • contribs)

Kurt Schweizer meets at least five (5) of the notability criteria. I am a good friend of his from the doctoral program. I see no reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.69.31 (talk • contribs)

Strong keep , per above quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.69.31 (talk • contribs)
- What are these notability criteria? Black ngold29 16:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability; he writes for the website of the "Fort Myers Miracle", a single A minor league baseball team whose entire roster had individual articles written about them last week. Unlike the bush league players, some of whom get a pass because of Wikipedia guidelines, writing about a minor league team is not inherently notable. Please feel free to nominate the other 1,250,000 articles described above. Mandsford (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JUST PICK ONE OF THOSE OTHER ONE MILLION PLUS ARTICLES. IT'S LIKE FLIPPING A COIN OR HITTING WATER WHEN FALLING OUT OF A BOAT. WHY ARE ALL OF YOU TARGETING ALL PEOPLE FT MYERS MIRACLE WHEN THERE ARE MANY PLAYERS FROM VARIOUS OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND TEAMS WHO HAVE BARELY PLAYED PAST HIGH SCHOOL WHICH WILL LIKELY BE ALLOWED TO STAY? MOST OF YOU KNOW VERY LITTLE OR NOTHNG ABOUT BASEBALL. IT IS A REAL SHAME THAT WE CAN'T GET A FEW EXPERTS TO LOOK INTO ALL OF THIS. THAT WOULD BE DOING A SERVICE TO WIKIPEDIA, INSTEAD OF A DISSERVICE, WHICH IS, FOR THE MOST PART, WHAT MOST OF YOU ARE DOING, ALL BECAUSE YOU APPARENTLY BECAME BORED WITH YOUR FANTASY LEAGUES AND HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO. AND THE REST OF YOU WHO HAVE LIKELY NEVER EVEN HEARD OF ANY BASEBALL TEAMS, OTHER THAN THE NEW YORK YANKEES, SHOULD STICK TO YOUR VARIOUS ARTS AND HUMANITIES ENTRIES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.174.90 (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search does indicate little notability. Also recommend that anonymous' attempts to bait actual editors, along with his "Strong keep" vote, are completely ignored. JuJube (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google News brings no hits, doesn't appear to be notable.-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 14:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google search (for english sites) reveals nothing that discusses him at any length, but this: [19], articles taken from the wikipedia article, and mentions of a few unrelated people of the same name. A google news search reveals only one additional source that mentions him (others are in german, or clearly about unrelated person), but as with the miami new times article, the article isn't about him. The article is behind a paywall (it's FANS, MARLINS WEATHERING SWITCH TO NEW LAKES FIELD by the Miami Herald). Both articles are by Miami based newspapers, suggesting that even if he is notable in Miami, it isn't clear he's notable outside Miami. Silverfish (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability assessed (I'm a writer, photographer and baseball historian), with no reliable or third party sources. Black ngold29 16:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SHOULD THE 5 NOTABILITY POINTS WHICH ARE PRESENT (ACADEMICS, FILMS, MUSIC, ORGANIZATIONS AND WEB CONTENT) ALL BE IGNORED? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.174.90 (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how each of those five notability sections are met? I'm not following what you're saying. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be sarcastic on this one, but I'm not sure I understand you. All five items are plainly obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.174.90 (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not sourced. They need to be verifiable from reliable third party sources, or anybody could claim anything about anyone. Black ngold29 02:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just reading the list in this template? Click on the links in there - each leads to a separate section of WP:N that gives notability guidelines for articles on those types of subjects. You're probably looking for WP:BIO, the guideline for biographical articles - like this one. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What officially constitutes a "reliable" third party source? How are those sources proven to be reliable? You see what I mean? If you take this completely in the direction that you're heading, wikipedia will eventually resemble little more than the 1972 World Books on my grandmother's bookshelf. But, on the other hand, I don't know; maybe that's the way it SHOULD be. (But, is that the vision for wikipedia?) Either way, it should be evenly applied. And I think everyone is aware that it isn't. That is a major system-wide flaw. This is why there are so many critics of wikipeida. Many people feel that one may as well just get information from the general internet, where many of these third party sources are still there (for their original and main purpose, which is to share knowledge) and haven't been deleted because of some quasi-bureaucratic bulls**t. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.174.90 (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is updating your Grandma's World books thousands of times per second, so WP will never be like that; but that's a discussion for another place. You can see which sources are "reliable" here. Black ngold29 03:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion" -WP

The only other thing I'm going to add (unless asked) is that, in each and every case, Wikipedia should strive to be ABOVE the general internet and NOT strive to be BELOW it (which is certainly what is happening here.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.174.90 (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dammit, why don't you simply mention "Kurt Schweizer" in the Fort Myers Miracle article? We got nothing against Kurt, but why do you think he needs his own separate page? Everything gets published on Wikipedia, but not everything gets to stay. I'm sure that Kurt will appreciate that you made a page in his honor and that it stayed up for awhile, and you can save it to your computer forever, but get over it. Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, but why does it "need" to be deleted? Obviously, arguments can be made for either case, but what harm does it do to just let it be?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.151.91 (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is that the Wikipedia system permits editors to limit the addition of articles; anyone has a right to propose that an article not become a permanent addition, and then any interested party may agree or disagree, after which another party makes a decision based on those arguments. Were the system not in place, then anyone could have an article about themselves on Wikipedia, including people who have not accomplished as much as Mr. Schweizer has accomplished. Following the guidelines and the procedures is the price of having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Mandsford (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dont see how that amounts to a reason in this case; however

Delete There quite simply is no encyclopedic notability shown by our usual standards,even interpreted flexibly DGG (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that all sounds reasonable. However, I know for certain that if one were to poll people who are actually IN the world of baseball and higher academics, (etc.), you would see very strong support for Kurt's page to stay. It's just a shame that the people on this page don't know that. (But, I do.) I'm not sure what else I can say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.150.111 (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As others have shown, subject doesn't meet Wikipedia notability standards. BRMo (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Also, the argument of "there are other articles that aren't notable, too!" isn't a sufficient defense. When it comes down to it, this article still does not meet the guidelines. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Meets WP notability standard, based on the following: "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network"-WP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.220.189 (talk • contribs) August 1, 2008

CommentWhat broadcast has he been the subject of? Silverfish (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was one of the main subjects of a PBS film, which was produced last year. The film's running time is 90 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.220.170 (talk • contribs) 12:10, August 2, 2008

What was the name of the film? Silverfish (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The film is "White Elephant". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.220.253 (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about this thing? What is it? A one-page web site with an embedded 3-minute film? I'm confused. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see where it is a television documentary on Miami Stadium - only problem is that I never see Kurt Schweizer's name mentioned. Surely you recognize what a terrible precedent it would be if we had an article on every single person who ever appeared in a television documentary on anything. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that Kurt (and his name) are all over the thing. What kind of precedent is set by considering things to be notable only if YOU have seen them?--70.156.170.194 (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above. I have seen this movie on TV. Mr. Schweizer is, indeed, one of the main subjects, which clearly means he does indeed meet WP notability standards.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.220.253 (talk • contribs)

Strong Keep as per above. --Fsl dude (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Keep on a Hurculean Level per above. This clearly meets WP notability standards.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no independent notability shown. Mukadderat (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment about no inde. notability is obviously absurd, considering all of the above debate taken as a whole. This person has obviously performed no research on Schweizer whatsoever. I again assert that Schweizer very clearly meets WP notability standards for at least one (if not five) items. In other words, he has enough notability to go around for about 5 different people. Anyone who has taken the time to research this fact WILL very clearly find it.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ even though it wouldn't assure his notability I have researched reviews of the "White Elephant" documentary [20], which seems to be very firmly about the ex-stadium and not about Mr Schweizer. Even if he did appear in it, that doesn't mean it was about him. Merely appearing as a journalist or protagonist for a campaign does not infer any notability. -Hunting dog (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC) oops sorry just realised I voted previously - still stand by that, after following debate and additional research - Hunting dog (talk) 21:08, 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. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodomo. Keeper ǀ 76 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still Life (Kodomo Album)[edit]

This album is yet to be released, with no evidence that it meets the notability criteria of WP:MUSIC Kevin (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." No sign that this does. --Stormie (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass the notability requirements to my satisfaction. rootology (T) 14:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a full length album by a notable artist. Also no crystal issues either --T-rex 23:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 10:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent notability presented. Mukadderat (talk) 15:51, 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 --JForget 23:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Thin White Line (EMS Emblem)[edit]

This seems to be a hoax, and cannot meet WP:V or WP:N, with no hits on google. Furthermore I have been in EMS for over 10 years and have never heard of such a thing. There is how ever a "thin blue line" which is used in our police and law enforcement brothers and sister, but in no way shape or form has anything to do with this page. Medicellis (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Thin White Line seems to have a fair bit of use as a title for various things, but not as a concept in relation to any EMS. In this case it would seem to be a non-notable neologism. Kevin (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To the extent this exists, it is not notable. I can find products with this emblem [21][22][23] but no independent coverage. | Talk 01:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am an EMS educator and I personally know EMT's (including myself) that display this emblem for the reasons stated in the original article. Products are available to EMS personel from sources such as: (http://www.rescuetees.com/category/show/4377). I provide them to students that pass their exams as a congratulations gift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonFired (talk • contribs) — DragonFired (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

comment - I'm also a EMS educator and again have never heard of this before. Either way, it still does not meet WP:V or WP:N, as there are no reliable secondary documentation anywhere on the web other than a symbol to buy on a couple of very non-notable web stores. Also would like to point out also as WP:NEO. Due to these reasons this page does not meet wiki's rules for inclusion. Medicellis (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to emergency medical services. It exists, but as a logo, there does not appear to be reliable sources writing about it to support a standalone article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:35, 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, —Sean Whitton / 10:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I doubt the EMS article would have it. There's a couple products out there, but nowhere near as notable as the Thin Blue Line concept, and not notable enough for WP. Livitup (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2+ years in EMS, and this is the first I've heard of it. It may be locally notable somewhere, but the Google hits reflect a Family Guy episode, a TIME article on Portugal, Bird Flu, and a ton of other completely unrelated things. It certainly seems like a neologism to me. Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owing to having just called my brother who is an EMT in the Bronx, and having him do a quick poll of his co-workers, and none of them having heard of it. Ford MF (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonverifiable. Mukadderat (talk) 15:51, 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. lifebaka++ 13:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remix (STAR One)[edit]

this is a defunct show. I don't know how notable. there are no references and is written somewhat like an advertisement. I'm not sure, if this article should be here ChiragPatnaik (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I only found one reliable source about it[24] but that's not surprising since its in Hindi. We need someone who speaks the language. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lack of references is grounds for improvement, not deletion. (And the article definitely needs improvement.) The show being 'defunct' is not a grounds for deletion, either, otherwise it would be an acceptable reason to delete Star Trek, I Love Lucy, and every other TV show that has ceased production. Edward321 (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is there a criterion for determining if a show is notable or not. I wonder if TV shows should be subject to enclyclopedia articles (unless thy can be stated as being highly popular or path breaking such as Survivor). I don't know if the TRP ratings of this show are available online. It was quite popular among the tenage crowd. but still Im not convinced that it should be the subject of an encyclop article.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edward321. Ford MF (talk) 19:45, 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, move by Livitup endorsed. No need for further action. lifebaka++ 13:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agot[edit]

Elementary schools are rarely notable, and this one isn't. PeterCantropus (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete According to the WP:SCHOOL guidelines, only degree granting schools and senior secondary schools are generally notable. It says here: 'For elementary and middle schools, reliable secondary sources are usually too limited for notability'; while there are exceptions, this school doesn't appear to meet them. Artene50 (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SCHOOL is a failed proposal at present as it has not gained consensus despite it being propsed for adoption on several occasions, so it's probably not appropriate to reference it. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article were about the place where the school is located-- "Agot, Marinduque, the Philippines" -- then it would probably not be subject to deletion. I suggest that the author might want to rework the article, to make it about the village, and not just about the school itself. If that doesn't happen, however, then policy would require a deletion. Mandsford (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As what User:Sky Harbor said in another school-related AfD... Philippine school articles, whether elementary or secondary, are listed for AFD usually because they are not notable outside the Philippines (or that schools in general are not always notable), but given that the basis for AFD would most likely be the content of the article (the locale and who the school is named after) and/or the lack of sources, I'd say that this article only needs a good bit of expansion. Please be careful about violating WP:BIAS. Starczamora (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We keep saying "usually because they are not notable outside the Philippines". Is this school even notable inside the Philippines? Or is it even notable within MIMAROPA? --Howard the Duck 14:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I boldly moved this to Agot and identifed it as a barangay, cleaned up the details on the school, and tidied references. It's a stub, for sure, but suitable for inclusion now. Livitup (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the move, even though it confuses the AfD, since Agot should probably exist as a place, and yes Agot Elementary School probably should not exist as a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse move: the school is not notable but can be mentioned in the context of the area. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given positions established on other barangay AFDs in the past, barangays in themselves are usually not notable and should only be created when the notability is already established. Moving the article on the school to a page on a barangay would complicate this guideline. However, as what I have said in another school AFD and as cited above, I will support the article's retention if notability can be established for this school (my family is not from Boac, rather, we are from Gasan, which is south of Boac, so I cannot help in this respect). I do question though the use of the school notability guideline, given that it never reached consensus. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Actually, most of the time, barangay articles are kept. So I don't expect this will be deleted. I'd oppose creation of public elementary schools since most of the time they're not notable outside their municipality or even barangay. --Howard the Duck 13:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, let's propose a guideline on how to name barangay articles. All barangay articles should conform to this naming format: (barangay), (municipality/city), (province). This means that a barangay such as Barangay Agot in Boac should be moved to Agot, Boac, Marinduque (or Barangay Agot, Boac, Marinduque) if ever. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I prefer Barangay Agot, Boac, Marinduque. I have done that in several barangay-related articles. Starczamora (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Move The article is not notable in itself, however, it is a good addition to the Agot article. IceUnshattered (talk) 23:19, 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 as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Cretaro[edit]

No indication as to why the player is notable. The League of Ireland is not fully professional, and so players in that league are not notable. – Pee Jay 09:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 09:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as player fails WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 12:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but according to the article he's played for two FAI Premier Division teams; the top level of football in Ireland. League of Ireland doesn't exist any more. Nfitz (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, who says that the Irish league is notable. Punkmorten (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be silly - of course it's notable. Nfitz (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who says? It's not fully professional, and to pass WP:ATHLETE a player must have played in a fully professional league. As far as the article tells us, this player hasn't. – PeeJay 08:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obviously common sense tells us that the highest level of soccer in a major European country that is mostly professional fits the bill. We've had precedents on that recently. WP:IAR. Nfitz (talk) 17:18, 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 delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mirko Delia[edit]

Although notability is hinted at, this article does not explicitly indicate that this player has made a professional appearance, which he would need to have done to pass WP:ATHLETE. – Pee Jay 09:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 09:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ESPN says he is an attacker on Catania here May be an indication that he will be playing for the team soon since he has reportedly signed a 5 year deal with the Seria A club as this Forum says. Artene50 (talk)
Delete - the article itself states "Delia will have a hard time trying to gain a starting position, being that there are twelve listed strikers for Catania for the 08-09 season" - delete without prejudice to recreate if he does manage to force his way past 10 of those other strikers into the starting line-up....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, as the player currently fails notability at WP:ATHLETE, until proof can be provided he's actually played in a notable league/competition. A fans forum is not a reliable source. --Jimbo^[online] 12:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, he was signed a month ago by Catania from an amateur side (Serie D league), and it's unlikely he will be part of the first team. --Angelo (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Italian clubs routinely sign many players who have only a theoretical chance of playing for the first-team, and are instead loaned out or sent out on co-ownership deals for many seasons. In addition there is no Reserve League in Italy so there is no advantage for the club to keep these players on the squad to play them only in cup competitions.... in other words it's very likely this guy will never appear for Catania in a competitive match. ugen64 (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he was born in 1989,[25] so he is more likely to be included in the club's under-20 Campionato Primavera squad. In any case, he is unlikely to be immediately part of the first team. --Angelo (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Merges and traswikis left to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 14:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Childe (World of Darkness)[edit]

There are no references to demonstrate notability of this topic, and this is merely a recitation of plot and game information, resulting in a highly in-universe article. I don't think there's anything particularly redeeming in this article to save or merge into another one. The gist of the article is that "A childe is a child of a vampire". --Craw-daddy | T | 08:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BMX.[edit]

I do not see any sign of notability, and it seems to me that a sentence like "people in the industry are really starting to recognise the little known BMX", even accepting its weasely wording as true, is an indication of non-notability. Goochelaar (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had previously tagged this for speedy deletion, refused here. Buggered if I can see any claim of notability, certainly there is no evidence to support any such claim. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No indication of notability and no reliable sources. Artene50 (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't think it meets speedy criteria because the assertion of top 10 position on unearthed attempts to claim some notability. I don't think its enough for WP:BAND though -Hunting dog (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - #9 on the triple-J unearthed Dance chart is not a big deal. Having a single live radio interview is also not. About as notable as any other almost completely unknown band - Peripitus (Talk) 09:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability and verifiability criteria Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as an obvious hoax. Kevin (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Belgian Grand Prix[edit]

This article is about a race that never happened, the content is entirely made up. The Belgian Grand Prix was not on the Formula One calendar in 2003 due to a tobacco advertising ban. The- (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonsense article. The race never happened, as can be quickly confirmed on sites like grandprix.com and BBC Sport and of course, it's not listed in the article on the 2003 Formula One season. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 09:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete if the race never happened this article is blatant misinformation and therefore speediable as vandalism. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - sure looks like a hoax according to this article and this article, . BWH76 (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G3 for "blatant and obvious misinformation". Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:14, 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 00:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blofield United F.C.[edit]

Football club which fails to meet the generally accepted notability criteria of having played at Step 6 or in the FA Cup or FA Vase (last 11 AfDs have all resulted in delete for clubs in this situation - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The last 11 successful ones perhaps. You are failing to list the ones that get withdrawn because during the AFD process it comes out that the team is actually notable after all. The whole point of AFD is to have a process to have people peer-review it, so that there is some consensus, rather than simply trying to slide it through by PRODing the article and failing to list it at WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ~~I'm surprised at your sarcasm given the number of your club AFDs that you've withdrawn recently.~~ Nfitz (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not failed to list any AfDs where clubs in this situation have not been deleted - the ones I have linked to are the 11 most recent AfDs on such clubs (the fact that some clubs were kept (as I withdrew them from the nomination) in number 11 is due me being confused over the place of the Hampshire League in the pyramid, and as I clearly stated in the introduction, all the clubs in the AfD that did fail to meet the criteria were deleted). Could you also point out where I have been sarcastic here? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am uneasy with Nfitz's comment here, which is focused on the nominator. Perhaps Nfitz would like to redact his comment and instead comment on the subject of the article and on whether it should be kept or deleted. Regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, I was reacting to what appears to be a personal attack in the edit summary of the article where the AFD was introduced. But you are correct, that shouldn't come into play here. I've redacted part of my comment and will deal with elsewhere. The other part is simply a response to the nomination, which overlooks that the majority of similiar articles in his last AFD were withdrawn because they recognised as notable once a full discussion was held. As to whether this article should be deleted - I'm reserving judgement. The team has won a Step 7 league 3 times in the last 8 years, and as I understand it, wasn't promoted to Step 6 (apparently making them notable) because their grounds were not suitable? Nfitz (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see "they would have been promoted to Step 6 if only they hadn't had a rubbish ground" as a compelling reason to ignore the long-standing consensus that Step 7 clubs are not notable. Google turns up no reliable sources to get them through the general guidelines either..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- understandable - I had removed the Prod because it seemed to be a little close the line for just a Prod. Nfitz (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think even a majority of clubs at Step 5 and 6 meet general wikipedia guidelines to notability - multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources etc. I cannot find any worthwhile third-party coverage for this club, so it's a Delete from me. If User:Nfitz or anyone else can find such sources, I'll be happy to change my mind. - fchd (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Any reason it shouldn't simply be redirected to Anglian Combination or Blofield? That might be a better process than proding or AfDing these silly little articles. Nfitz (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Anglian Combination, there's no assertion of notability here, it's only two sentences long, and Anglian Combination is clearly a parent article. --Stormie (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. BigDunc^Talk 18:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Anglian Combination per Stormie. Nfitz (talk) 17:01, 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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adolescent sexuality in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I have to say, this article represents a significant content fork. An article about adolescent sexuality in the United States should contain information specific to the United States, which would encompass statistical information related to the United States, or information that is only applicable to the United States. That being said, this content makes up a small minority of the article, with the vast majority of the article being a very heavily unbalanced discussion of adolescent sexuality as a general subject. Now, I’m not one to suggest that articles should be deleted just because they have some sort of POV, but because the amount of information that actually relates to the subject of the article itself is so scarce, and would not logically need its own article beyond its section in adolescent sexuality, then the article itself represents an unnecessary fork. Calgary (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, fairly strongly. The subject is fairly obviously notable, if only because public comment and media interest in the sex lives of adolescents, usually accompanied by various sorts of handwringing and calls for the government to Do Something, is a very prominent part of the national psychopathology of the United States. Yes, this article has serious POV problems. It is also fairly full of useful material. This calls for further editing, not deletion. - 24.235.22.24 (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i don't see any pov issues, and even then that isn't a reason to delete --T-rex 14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PoV looks largely okay, though it has some problems in different sections. But that's an editing problem. Looks good. Hobit (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of US-focused content and sources in this article to justify a keep. Editing yes, and I would appreciate the help trying to make it more neutral and more soundly sourced, issues I have been trying to deal with for months, often going one-on-one with a single fairly intransigent editor. Deletion, no. --Sfmammamia (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It sounds like the nominator would rather the article be merged or renamed. I disagree regardless. Maxa megalon 2000 02:11, 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. John254 02:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human trafficking in Serbia[edit]

Article is an opinionated and unencyclopedic political rant based on original research and/or copied directly from an outside source, complete with a navigation box at the bottom full of nonexistent links. Beemer69 ^chitchat 07:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as author). This admittedly needs cleanup but is a good start to an article. It is copied from a public domain US government report. The navbox will be filled up as more articles are added. The fastest way to build wikipedia's poor coverage of human trafficking is to start with these reports--I can create about one of these a minute. A person looking for information about human rights in Serbia would certainly do better with this than nothing. To write articles of comparable quality from scratch would take months. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is not a mirror. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of previously published material, even if this material is in the public domain. Calgary (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this is the start of an encyclopedia article! Nor was wikipedia a mirror of Britannica when it used Britannica articles as starting points for articles, nor a mirror of the library of congress when its country reports are used to create articles like Precolonial Mauritania. If we should have an article on human trafficking in Serbia (which I don't think is disputed), I believe this is a helpful starting point. Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But as it stands the current article is not an encyclopedia article. Any stage of an encyclopedia article, no matter how early on in its development, is still distinctively recongizeable as an encyclopedia article. Now, perhaps the subject is notable, perhaps there could be an article on the subject, but what currently exists is just the foundation to something that may at some point become an encyclopedia article. What we have right now is a source. And as I understand it, Wikipedia policy has traditionally been to use information from reliable sources to write original encyclopedic articles, never to copy source material, then edit it until it becomes distinctly different/encyclopedic. Calgary (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not correct. This will not require that much editing to become a decent article, and is far better than most new articles anyways. Wikipedia has a long history of copying source material--see Wikipedia:Public domain resources. How is this fundamentally different than Precolonial Mauritania? If this were sourced to fifty different references (one for each sentence) but had similar tone problems, would it be deleted? Of course not. This is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that this is a matter of cleanup. The problem isn't that the quality of the article needs to be significantly improved, it's that the article needs to undergo significant change in order for it to actually qualify as an article. And no, I wouldn't say that Precolonial Mauritania is any different. Calgary (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. By your logic, the entire History of Cambodia series, for instance, would have to be deleted too! (It's been around for years, by the way.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on merits of the subject (which obviously can be written about) and creator... but, it obviously needs cleanup or it will have to be trimmed down a bunch. gren グレン 11:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, wikify and find additional references. Valid subject. --Soman (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly seems like a valid and notable topic. That it needs cleaned up is not a reason to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid and notable topic; it belongs to "Human trafficking by country" series. There are some problems as usual, but they can be fixed including additional referencing.Biophys (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this, and all of the new human trafficking articles Calliopejen1 is busily making for every country in the world, into a suitable place. I agree entirely that human trafficking is probably not as thoroughly covered here as it should be, but these articles are cut & paste jobs from This website that do not differ substantially from one another. They all seem to be based on fill-in-the-blank templates, so the article for one country is unlikely to differ much from a neighbouring country's, and for this reason the articles should be merged. I'd fully support a stand-alone article for individual countries where the human trafficking situation stands out in some way from other countries- that is, more is required than just a generic report from a single website. Reyk _YO! 02:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A brief response: Just to note, that site is a mirror of the original source, which is the US govt. They are clearly built around a template, but the information in each article is completely different from every other article. I can't think of a place where these could be merged to. The situation in each country is quite different, since prosecution etc. is clearly domestic, so it makes little sense generally merge these into regional articles. Do you have a suggestion of where these could be merged? Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a history of filling in article sets from public domain sources and while... in 2008 this is less palatable than when we did it in 2004, it is not a practice worthy of deletion when the subject is notable and the information sourced and informative (even if not fully encyclopedic in tone). This might be reflective of my eventualist tendencies, but they are not doing any harm, are sourced, and better than a vast number of articles we have. gren グレン 04:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always suspicious of fill-in-the-gaps article sets, where the articles are created simply for the sake of having the article. this discussion and this one should explain why. I'll bow to consensus on these ones though. Reyk _YO! 05:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are being deleted for non-notability, so I don't see the comparison.... All wikipedia articles are created "simply for the sake of having an article"! Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:17, 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 delete. WP:SNOW closure. The articles fail WP:V, which is policy. I have carried out an extensive search for sources and found none. TerriersFan (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KNEXVILLE[edit]

Massive lack of references, I can not find any thing. Can you or is it a hoax or mearly mega non-notable? triwbe (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC) I also inlcuding the following as rides at the above park.[reply]

The Gold Rush! (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible hoax; not a single mention anywhere on the web (as far as I could tell), the only external link is to a website of a toy company. If not a hoax then it is entirely unnotable; only opened a couple (3) days ago and as said, complete lack of sources. - Icewedge (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search turns up nothing but a deleted Wiki article related to the subject. Non-notable. Beemer69 ^chitchat 07:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX Website doesn't mention a park. Artene50 (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - probable hoax, certainly NN, may be indirect SPAM - there is an external link to a toy company called K'NEX, and the author's talk page is full of spam warnings. JohnCD (talk)
Delete both Somehow, I get the feeling that there's this kid in Summerlin, Nevada, who has spent the summer building an entire amusement park out of his K'nex toys. School begins soon. Mandsford (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - i'm thinking hoax --T-rex 14:50, 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 delete. Punkmorten (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Bolland[edit]

Non-notable radio announcer and comedian. Previously deleted through the PROD process Mattinbgn\^talk 06:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no news articles, trivial number of web hits, given the creating username perhaps an autobiographical article ? Noone reliable has written about it and the article fails to be notable in any way. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established, and no reliable sources are forthcoming to support any such assertion of notability. Frank | talk 16:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See the credits listed at IMDb, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1222214/ --Eastmain (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A listing in imdb does not confer notability. This person does not (right now) appear to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Frank | talk 18:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, according to IMDB, a few bit parts and not much else. I was able to find a few references to him in online sources, but they're all trivial mentions, directory entries, and the like. Not convinced that he meets the WP:ENTERTAINER notability criterial. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: A credit on IMDb means nothing. Anyone can get a credit there. Literally. I want to see independent articles that show how Bolland's activities are notable. None have been provided so far. Therefore, delete. --Lester 20:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is based on unverified claims that Mr Bolland is a notable actor, comedian and radio announcer. Actors, comedians and radio announcers are not automatically entitled to a biographical article on WP. Notability must be demonstrated. No such demonstration has been made in Mr Bolland's case. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I think the consensus is clear here Kevin (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Flight 692[edit]

Non-notable. Even less notable than Qantas Flight 30, which is also a candidate for deletion. We do not care about every tiny incident that happens on a flight. This single paragraph could be placed on Qantas. Delete. BG (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable --Emperor Genius (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Wikipedia is not a news service. Reyk _YO! 07:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not important, and does not warrant its own article by a longshot.Beemer69 ^chitchat 07:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Except this incident is not even worth a mention in the main Qantas article. If this minor malfunction didn't happen so close to Flight 30, would anyone have noticed? A routine turnback. No injuries, no serious damage to the plane. Not notable. • Gene93k (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reyk. This is the end result when creation of articles such as Qantas Flight 30 is encouraged. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator - I can understand Mattingbn's concern as well Satu Suro 09:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOT#NEWS. Given that this is a very minor incident it shouldn't be merged with Qantas - it's hardly rare for commercial airliners to turn back in flight due to a fault. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. BWH76 (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but do stop the attacks on flight 30. You are allowed to think that not notable as well, but they are miles apart as far as circumstances go. Now that's out of the way, back on topic: the article's only real claim to notability is the close proximity of the event to another more significant one. It may be worth a brief mention there ("when another Qantas flight, a 737 operating as flight 692, had pressurisation problems a few days later, some passengers refused transport on another Qantas plane due to the two events.") but no more. If they hadn't refused the alternative plane then this would have no link to that other flight at all, and such a tiny connection does not establish notability. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor event, probably occurs every day somewhere in the world. WWGB (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is more of a "copycat" article. Like Sandman says, this is not in the same league as Qantas Flight 30, which made front page headlines worldwide. Don't get the idea that you can write an article every time you hear of an airline incident. Mandsford (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Planes have to land for quick repairs all the time. This is nowhere near the same level as Qantas Flight 30 --T-rex 14:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a very NN incident. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already gone: 11:42, 31 July 2008 Jimfbleak (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Satya Paul" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising) TravellingCari 18:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satya Paul[edit]

A giant advertisement for a company. I can't understand some/a lot of it and what looks like the reference section is a mess. Delete as advertising. Undeath (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing but vanispamcruftisement. Reyk _YO! 05:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 05:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep It needs to be rewritten, but this is apparently a high-end Indian fashion company, which I think could be considered notable. This is an article from an Indian newspaper: [26]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshibboleth (talk • contribs) 06:01, 29 July 2008
Delete Unencyclopedic and is clearly advertising. Beemer69 ^chitchat 07:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May be a notable topic, but there's no content worth salvaging in the current article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete unapologetic advertising copy (so tagged), probably also WP:COPYVIO. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:35, 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 22:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton municipal election, 2010[edit]

Pure crystal balling. A list of "Potential candidates" for a local election that is still 2 years away. According to the provided sources, there won't be actual confirmed nominees until at least January 2010.Beeblbrox (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions have been made to adhere more closely to known facts (announcments of candidacies, issues, etc.). Also, please see Norfolk County municipal election, 2010 and Ottawa municipal election, 2010 which have existed for quite some time. If any further update is needed to save this page, please inform me of which wikipedia standards it does not meet. DaHamiltonian (talk) 1:28, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Strong Keep Meets wikipedia standards, not crystal balling.

Comment The only part that seems like it's crystal balling is the issues section. Otherwise it seems accurate, and at some point the article should exist. I don't know whether it should exist already, but I believe the decision regarding U.S. presidential elections was that no articles should exist for elections beyond the first upcoming one. Theshibboleth (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, language like will be a major issue, will likely be ongoing, will be of particular concern to residents etc show clear original research in that they are predictions of future events, along with is expected to seek another term as mayor.. As for other,similar articles that is not generally considered a valid argument. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once the Original Research and Crystalballing are removed, the article makes no claim of notability for this municipal election. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The actual election almost certainly isn't going to be notable and this is pure crystal ball gazing. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aside from the obvious crystal balling, there is no claim of notability for this election. BWH76 (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as crystal balling --T-rex 14:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub I think it's small.. meets some standards. Just keep as a stub.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How, if I may ask, is there no claim of notability for this election? — [[User:DaHamiltonian (talk)|DaHamiltonian (talk)]] ([[User talk:DaHamiltonian (talk)|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DaHamiltonian (talk)|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 18:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply While I did not specifically mention notability in the nomination, I think I understand the point those 2 are trying to make. The article does not even give enough context to determine what province of Canada Hamilton is located in, it gives no indication of the size of Hamilton and no indication that this is anything more than a local election that will not affect anyone not living in Hamilton, and candidates won't even be confirmed for another year and a half. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have further revised the article, attempting to make it more factual and notable. From past experience, I know that, although candidates will not be confirmed for a year and a half, many people will begin announcing their intentions to stand in a few months, closer to the two year mark for the election. Hamilton is a city of nearly three quarters of a million people and one with a very heated political scene. I will again state that I believe this page is very relevant and will continue to be updated as the election draws nearer. DaHamiltonian (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply The point is that there really isn't any confirmed information to report here. You have stated what you think will be the relevant issues, and have stated that you believe this is a notable topic, but the sources you provide are an official government page that states that yes, an election will be held in two years, and some blogs, which are not considered reliable sources. You may be right about what the relevant issues will be in 2010, but predictions simply aren't appropriate content for an encyclopedia. And there is still no real information indicating why this future local election is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. There are literally thousands of local elections scheduled all over the world in the 2010, but very few, if any, of them are notable enough at this early date for an entry.Beeblbrox (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per wp crystal^MY♥_INchile 23:04, 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. jj137 (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaz samoo[edit]

Ghits confirm this person exists, but I am unconvinced of how much notability his comedy awards confer. Not a lot, I suspect, based on Geogre's Law and the fact that the article creator is a single purpose account with a possible conflict of interest. Reyk _YO! 04:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some references can be provided quickly. Deb (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- notability unestablished. RayAYang (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not verified notability Mukadderat (talk) 15:56, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1: despite the voluminous content, there was not enough context to identify the subject of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar my Black Lab[edit]

If only CSD A7 included animals..... - Icewedge (talk) 04:12, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GDrive[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is an article about a rumored future product which is only speculated to exist. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
An article with this name has been AFDed twice before, and both times, the result was delete. The reasons used then still apply now.
All of the cited sources are fundamentally deficient in at least one way.
- "GDrive Client Leaked" — You'll notice that the software in question is actually called "Platypus", and not "GDrive". The author makes a completely unsubstantiated claim that Platypus will be "GDrive". To me, that verges on failing to verify. Certainly, some speculative blog post is not a reliable source.
- "GDrive.com owned by Google" — Another blog full of speculation; not a reliable source. More importantly, it demonstrably fails verification:
  - http://www.gdrive.com self-identifies as "Web.com", not Google.
  - It is true that both gdrive.com and google.com are registered through MarkMonitor. That means nothing. MarkMonitor is a domain name registrar; any number of companies use them.
  - The actual registrants are different for the two domain names:
    - google.com is registered to "Google, Inc." (source)
    - gdrive.com is registered to "DNStination, Inc." (source)
- "GDrive is Here" is again not talking about GDrive, but the fact that Google is selling more storage space on their GMail and Picasa services.
Most of the pages which link to GDrive are related to the fact that it doesn't belong. AFDs, AFD notices, COI reports, spam reports, someone's to-do list, articles to be created, etc. The only real exception would be Platypus (disambiguation), which itself states GDrive is nothing more than rumor.
While there may be rumors about "GDrive":
- The rumors are not notable by Wikipedia standards, as far as I can tell
- There are no reliable sources discussing the rumors in any substantial way
- Any attempt by Wikipedians to gauge the pervasiveness of the rumors would be original research
Even if we could find a reliable source on the rumors, I don't think that would constitute enough information to write a proper article.
- Mention of it on the List of Google products page or similar might be warranted (if properly cited), but that's it.
When and if an actual, notable product called "GDrive" is announced/created, then the article should be created. Until and unless that happens, no.

In short, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this isn't an encyclopedic subject. Still.

—DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per all the excellent reasons above. This AFD nomination is vastly superior to the article itself. Reyk _YO! 05:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is just not much more to say, all is said above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An order of Delete with a dash of Salt - More quality in the AFD than the article. And all the points are hit by the nom. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 15:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as while this is a subject close to my own heart, it does not (yet) have a place in an encyclopaedic collection. Looking forward to seeing it re-appear, post release. samj (talk) 06:00, 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 --JForget 23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Stewart Boyd[edit]

A Circuit Court Judge does not seem to be a position that provides inherent notability. He was apointed, not elected so the politician standings don't appear to apply here. By the article's own admission, and what I can find on a search, his sole claim to notability is a June 2007 divorce decision. The decision is labeled as historic but if that were true (can't find evidence that it is) it doesn't mean he's encyclopedically notable. Neither of the parties in the divorce appear to have their own articles leading me to believe that they aren't notable and neither is their divorce, so nowhere to merge. TravellingCari 03:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 03:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 03:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Trial court-level judges, such as the subject, are not inherently notable. There are over 400 judges in the Circuit Court of Cook County who serve alongside this judge. [27] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is premised on nothing more than that he was assigned a notable case... and even the case apparently wasn't notable enough to merit its own article. Mandsford (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ordinary person. Mukadderat (talk) 15:58, 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 Speedy delete: G3 Vandalism. Mattinbgn\^talk 04:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australias greatest sporting legends[edit]

A textbook example of OR. - Icewedge (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 04:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 04:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- and tagged as such, because it's a load of bovine excrement. Reyk _YO! 04:05, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures Of Anthropology Man & Crap Boy Movie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Adventures Of Anthropology Man & Crap Boy Movie

Low budget movie. I get the feeling that it will be released on YouTube and the budget is limited by the producers' pocket money. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable movie. JIP | Talk 05:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is utter nonsense. Beemer69 ^chitchat 07:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Upcoming YouTube "film" which does not meet any of the WP:NF criteria. PC78 (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if this didn't fail WP:CRYSTAL I feel that it wouldn't pass WP:N anyhow --T-rex 14:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. First and only article by User talk:4449steam, who appears unaware of guidelines. Its a totally unsourced article, so fails under Wikipedia:V and Wikipedia:RS. Suggest user moves article to a sandbox for improvement and returns it with cites proving existance and notability. A pre-traier is online and there is info out there: {[28], [29]). This article was premature. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 18:36, 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Geiselman[edit]

An SPA's article on a youngish photographer who has verifiably done work that is good or commercial or both (and that, in my unimportant opinion, shows promise). The trouble is all of the content is sourced to Geiselman herself or to similarly dodgy places. Geiselman appears on sites that will profile photographers who want to be profiled, she appears in Flickr, etc., but none of this adds up to much. Meanwhile, I don't yet see any mention of a solo exhibition or of a book, and I certainly don't see substantial critical commentary. -- Hoary (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History of photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless good third-party sources come to light. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gsearch turns up a distinct lack of sources showing notability. 0 gnews hits; 0 SFGate hits (the web site for her hometown newspaper); 0 LA Times hits (the newspaper where she currently lives).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no independent notability given. Mukadderat (talk) 15:59, 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. If anyone wants the content userfied with which to create smaller articles, let me know.. Tan ǀ 39 00:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of municipal parks in the United States[edit]

An indiscrimate list that will be next to impossible to complete or verify. Lists of this type would be better left to smaller jurisdictions. Millbrooky (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fundamentally unmaintainable in this form. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot imagine a useful purpose for this list. A while back on the article talk page, I asked "What is the intended purpose of this list? I cannot imagine why anyone would want a list of all the municipal parks in the United States." No one replied. Also, as noted by by nominator and Morven, the list is fundamentally unmaintainable. It is pathetically under-populated relative to the universe of US municipal parks (my city of 28,000 people has 12 parks; do the arithmetic to estimate how many city parks there probably are nationwide), the vast majority of which are not notable. --Orlady (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are far stupider lists on Wikipedia, and while I can't possibly think of one, the time may come where the location of all municipal parks is needed. Update the list, but still, keep.
Delete, "stupider" lists might exist, but this one would be huge if complete. Lists of park districts by state, maybe. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Municipal parks are important, but they are properly listed in the article about the municipality. I appreciate the effort thus far made by the author, but there are thousands and thousands of municipal parks. A complete list would be unlikely, and even if compiled, too voluminous to read and too impractical to maintain. I had to laugh at the statement "There are far stupider lists", which is a good example of "damning with faint praise", isn't it? "Don't feel bad Timmy, there are a lot of kids who are stupider than you are." Technically, the term would be "more stupid". As with the word "gullible", you won't find "stupider" in the dictionary, no matter how many dictionaries you look at, so don't feel too bad. Mandsford (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider at the talk page whether to split it up by state. "Too long" is not reason for deletion, just for division. DGG (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For clarification, when I mentioned smaller jursidictions in my nom, I was thinking city level, since even at the state level, this list would likely be unwieldly. Kansas City, St. Louis, and Springfield, Missouri have combined a population of ~950,000 and ~400 parks. This may translate to over 2000 municipal parks for the state of Missouri alone, the vast majority of which are not notable. I am aware that List of Registered Historic Places in St. Louis County, Missouri has ~500 entries and Missouri as a whole may have more than 2000, but every one of these entries is notable. --Millbrooky (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At this time, sending the contents to municipalities would be pretty easy. As currently constituted, most of entries on the list are from just a handful of municipalities (notably including Chicago; Omaha; Philadelphia; Newport News; Peoria, Arizona; and Irvine, California). --Orlady (talk) 16:43, 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. John254 02:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XX Teens[edit]

Whilst their notability is asserted as well as possible given the young band, there is nothing in this group of articles which may indicate at how this band, or any of its "singles", meet the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC or WP:SONG. It is signed to a major independent record label, fine, and have been on the cover (only?) of a magazine... But they appear not to have been in a nation-wide tour, nor is their any proof offered that their singles have been placed on rotation by a national radio station? The sources and references are not independent of the band. Their singles are also nominated for deletion today (first nomination below) WP is not Myspace. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:MUSIC#C1, [30], [31], [32]. Their song "Darlin'" was included in NME’s tracks of 2007 as well. Delete the non-notable songs & EP though (see below). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of significant independent coverage of the band exists. And no, they didn't just appear on the cover of ArtRocker: [33].--Michig (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and they have just been on an extensive British tour ([34]) - I just Googled "xx teens" tour dates - it was easy to find.--Michig (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the band is notable. No opinion on their albums or songs though... --T-rex 14:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks as though they are notable enough. Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 14:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Being on the cover of a music magazine generally implies that the artist is the subject of the main feature within that magazine. Brilliantine (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, look for sourcing relating to 'xerox teens', as name was changed. Brilliantine (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Esradekan. There are plenty of sources to be found on Google News, and at least one valid assertation of notability that I see. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 17:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they were live in session on BBC Radio 1 last Monday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnoustie2008 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is a related AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/How_To_Reduce_The_Chances_Of_Being_A_Terror_Victim. Dalamori (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby Doo 3: Unleashed[edit]

Movie has not been announced for production. No hits on an engine search. This is most likely a good faith hoax. Could be speedied or snowed. S_RX 02:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V, WP:RS and possibly WP:HOAX. Complete text is "This is the thrid movie in the series.In order the movies are "Scooby Doo", "Scooby Doo 2:Monsters Unleashed", and finally "Scooby Doo 3: Unleashed"." Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 07:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V Artene50 (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a hoax apparently ([35]), but at best we're talking about a day old rumour. Fails WP:NFF. PC78 (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL; unconfirmed title of an unreleased movie. Ғїяеѕкатея^talk 12:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 14:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL --T-rex 14:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If/when a project is actually begun a much richer article can come back. As it stands, it fails under Wikipedia:V, Wikipedia:RS, Wikipedia:NFF ~~76.174.60.251 (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)~~ Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But I really want to see the Thrid film in this series should have been a CSD G1. Delete it now, or redirect to Scooby Doo. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL since there is no verifiable coverage about this project. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Another AfD is now in progress for a duplicate article. The other article involves far less crystal ballery - it appears that the film is more than just mere rumour, as I initially suspected above. Suggest redirect or delete & redirect to the other article, though that may well end up getting deleted itself. PC78 (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scooby Doo: The Beginning per above. PhilKnight (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scooby Doo 3 and the above-mentioned film are separate projects. This references a sequel, the other is a television prequel with different talent and is not part of the theatre-release series. A redirect is inappropriate here. Incidentally, this could have been speedied as a recreation of a previously-deleted article. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 15:08, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MGC Baseball Pitch[edit]

Non-notable type of whiffleball pitch, invented by a non-notable high school pitcher. Everyone that has played whiffleball has invented a pitch. None are suitable for Wikipedia. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Reyk _YO! 02:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reyk. Black ngold29 04:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a hoax, though the article was good for a laugh. BRMo (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Refs that establish notability have been added. Ruslik (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial Drive Elementary School[edit]

This is an article about an elementary school whose only claim to notability is that 12 years ago it was listed as a (US) National Blue Ribobon school (according to [36], 4% of all US schools are listed as such). No other information about the school can be found in reliable, independent sources. The bulk of the information listed in this article is already in the parent article on Spring Branch Independent School District. Karanacs (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Karanacs (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Spring Independent School District~~ Spring Branch Independent School District since info is indeed already there per WP:SCHOOLS and precedent. Some will claim notability from its past Blue Ribbon award. Regardless, it isn't getting deleted and didn't need to be brought to AfD. TravellingCari 04:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops my error. TravellingCari 04:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: It is Spring Branch Independent School District- Spring ISD is a different district WhisperToMe (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 04:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 04:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to district. I'm surprised this one lasted from May until now. Deletionists start drooling when they see a title that has phrases like "in popular culture", "list of" or "elementary school". Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a Blue Ribbon school. Though it is fashionable to decry awards nonetheless it is the highest award given to a US school and being in the top 4% is notable. It also meets the draft guideline WP:SCL. TerriersFan (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:SCL proposal is marked failed. Karanacs (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - By just two editors and with discussion still ongoing on the latest draft. The fact remains that inclusion of Blue Ribbon schools survived all drafts and had consistent support. TerriersFan (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was failed when I first looked at it, and a read of the talk page shows that several editors called for it to be failed until you reopened it. The talk page also shows several users expressing discomfort with having Blue Ribbon schools be highlighted as potentially notable. Karanacs (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to district: Being in the top 4,000 elementary schools doesn't strike me as particularly important, failing discovery of "other information" in "reliable, independent sources". CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have kept on the basis of blue ribbon status quite consistently in the past. Though we're not actually bound by precedent, Failure to have consistency is confusing to both readers and potential editors. Incidentally, i argued against such status being notability for a while, but was eventually convinced its sufficiently distinctive and discriminating as an award. DGG (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability has been established, ergo no need to merge. Wizardman 22:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only independent sources that can be found about this topic verify that it is a school and that it won an award. No other detail is available. All of that information is already in the parent article on the school district. I checked the archives of the local newspaper, the Houston Chronicle, and ~~they never reported on the Blue Ribbon award.~~ the school gets only passing mention in their archives. There is no "significant coverage", as WP:N requires, of the subject. Even its proponents haven't found any. Karanacs (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes they did report the award. TerriersFan (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While establishing notability for most elementary schools can be a challenge, recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program is a strong claim of notability, and is backed up with reliable sources. Alansohn (talk) 02:30, 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. If those working on the content need the article history restire to user space, let me know... — Scientizzle 15:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patricide (2007 film)[edit]

Article does not assert notability, and the film does not appear to have received any significant coverage in reliable sources [37]. PC78 (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm forced to agree, though I would love to be proved wrong, it sounds like an interesting film. Delete per nom. --John (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I took a look to see if the article can be sourced and improved, as it seems well written. I suppose finding notability is the first order of business. I do note that they have an Wiki-link to the wrong Charles Delaney... as the actor listed on Wiki died in 1969, and even his page here says so. They should have referenced this man. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The film is not listed in the Internet Movie Database yet, which suggests non-notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep temporarily~~ I have created a sandbox for this article. Will work to improve it over the next couple days. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yikes. A tough job. On my sandbox I have already done some major cleanup to the article, and certainly I can find numerous cites and sources for the history itself, as that moment in the timeline of WWII is of great import... but I am still digging to find out more about the film and its release. I have not given up yet! Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I have put out the request to the earliest contributors to this article as they may have links to the required sources inre: distribution, releases, reviews, etc. If I do not hear back... Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom's search link is illuminating and shows that this film hasn't received coverage from reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notable coverage, and not enough inherent notability otherwise. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Changed my vote... and here I was 3 for 3. This one was tougher than expected. I will continue to work on the article in my sandbox and would like to be able to return it if/when I am able to show notability. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new development... I just received an email from the director of the film who tells me he will ask the film's producers why the film was never submitted to IMDb and further to provide me with the online evidences I requested. If I can prove notabilty, I will be glad to bring the article back, as the subject matter does indeed sound interesting. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 16:57, 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 22:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Page[edit]

I don't really see any major notability, and the subject has requested deletion on otrs:1770876. There are also citation issues I could not easily resolve on a quick search. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no evidence of notability at all. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the lack of notability and the request, I think this should definitely be deleted. John Reaves 23:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tho I dont normally comment on sports figures, I'd think that " all-American and national champion in the 4x400" twice is notability. What reason is given for his wanting deletion? DGG (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't logon the otrs interface from work cause I don't have the tunnel. But as soon as I get home, I'll see if I can't break out more information. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able to give any more information. Another otrs volunteer can verify the request, however. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough for notability as he has not competed on the highest level of his sport athletics. At least one international event or an outstanding result should be a minimum. Punkmorten (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An "outstanding result" such as being the U.S. National Champion in the 4x400? Ford MF (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as fulfilling our guidelines for sports figures. Some references would be nice though. Ford MF (talk) 19:54, 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 delete. Punkmorten (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OdinMs[edit]

Contested speedy deletion; see restoration debate at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 20. Some very limited sources are listed there. This is a procedural and neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 02:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- there are some hits on google that verify the existence of this company, and the law suit. Nevertheless I'm not sure any of this establishes notability. The article seems to contain a great deal of wailing about a perceived injustice and Wikipedia's not the place for that. Reyk _YO! 02:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Distinctly non-notable, and fails WP:A. WP is not the place to solve legal disputes, or to shout about commercial injustices. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, makes multiple unsourced claims. Black ngold29 04:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. This "private server project" has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. — Satori Son 14:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find any coverage anywhere other than blogs and forums, Google News has nothing, notability has not been established. And, as all above have stated, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Stormie (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Towns Along I-95 by County and State[edit]

WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information - WP:NOT. Prodded and tag removed. Rschen7754 (T C) 02:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 02:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons I stated on my attempt to prod the article. just see WP:NOT it matches many of these criteria. — master son^{T - C} 03:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While lists have their place, I can't think of a way this list benefits the encyclopedia. When is an encyclopedia reader ever going to want a list of towns a highway passes through? I also can't see it helping the organization of editing; when is an editor going to want this? So it doesn't seem to fit under the rules, and also fails the "How does it help the project?" test. If the page's creator can comment on how they think this list might be of benefit to the project, please do so! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Information is already provided by exit lists in the state-detail articles anyhow. (Probably would have been simpler just to redirect this to the I-95 article, but eh, as long as we're here... —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I understand the premise, although it's misleading to say that these are towns that I-95 passes through. Yes, it's possible that Island Falls, Maine, population 793, has extended its city limits to the other side of the interstate, but in most cases, the highway passes by the town. It runs right through the middle of some places on the list, Portland, Providence, New Haven, etc. Since Scott5114 confirms that there are already exit lists for I-95, the author might consider adding place names to those. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect I have tried several times to redirect the article to the main Interstate 95 article but have always been reverted by the article creator. As Scott mentioned above, I-95 has a complete exit list (split into articles by state) which is easily accessed from the main article. These exit lists do a much better job of listing the actual localities the highway passes through. --Polaron | Talk 14:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This list is useless and is not used. What is the point since there is a list of major cities in the route description of Interstate 95. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 20:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, and apologies for the pile-on vote. :-P -- Kéiryn (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Snow close. Per above. --Son (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Interstate 95. Wikipedia is not paper, as we all know, but this information is not likely to be of interest alone. As a rhetorical adjunct, why do we have individual articles for all US interstate highways? I would posit that this information is highly relevant to that topic. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The information is already covered in the articles. This is redundant. --Son (talk) 05:54, 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. Consensus has not changed since previous AfD; lack of willingness to actually improve article does not in this case mean it should be deleted. Article does need pruning, sourcing, and better direction, however. lifebaka++ 14:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional television shows[edit]

AfDs for this article:

AfD result from last year was "keep" based solely on "it's useful" and "keep if improved" votes. Well, it hasn't been improved any; it's still unsourced and there are no definite criteria, as evidenced by how LONG the list is. So one episode of Animaniacs used a Jeopardy! spoof. Does that mean we need a list for every fictional TV shows? Are parodies like Numberwang from That Mitchell and Webb Look really "fictional TV shows" or just skits? What about all the fictional titles in Family Guy? Et cetera. I see no usefulness in this list, nor any way to reliably source it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 01:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have categories for a reason. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists. -- Tawker (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a good example of what categories are for. We don't need lists of this sort, especially without reliable sources. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Delete Possible- Unscourced, indiscriminate, non-encyclopedic listcruft. Last year's AFD got it badly wrong. Reyk _YO! 01:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the talk page, there's an IP who agrees with you there. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 01:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no conceivable way this list could be anything except indiscriminate and lacking. The scope is just too broad. RayAYang (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The previous close was faulty and completely out of order. My guess is that it would have been overturned at DRV. I'd say that, depending on the channel, up to 95% of the fare is fictional, so this list is really quite pointless. And a show-in-show? Wow! It would impart no great encyclopaedic value. I would strongly urge for its deletion, lest we be plagued with articles such as List of television documentaries, List of reality TV shows, List of news programs, etc, instead of relying on categorisation. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WHOCARES (in the whole 'this is too much useless information' sense rather than the 'I don't care' reasoning). Keep the fake show titles within individual article prose. TV is parodied on TV. It's a fact. But it doesn't mean we have to list every fake TV show ever. Nate • (chatter) 02:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Black ngold29 04:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Certain shows, like the Simpsons have media pages within, but for others this is necessary. Merge the sub-categories into their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.46.131 (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2008
'Strong Delete This is a mostly unreferenced unencyclopedic content. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ultimately, this is a list of jokes, isn't it? It's no different than a list of insults or a list of fictional towns that might be found in the dialogue of a TV show. Yes, it's an interesting list, and I'm saving it to my own computer to enjoy later; and I appreciate the effort that went into compiling it. However, none of those are reasons to keep, other than the obvious one under WP:MANDSFORD which is that if Mandsford likes it, then words like irregardless apply. Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Unreferenced, unencyclopedic, and it will be an infinitely growing monster that will no doubt never be complete. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This article is annoying to look at. Tavix (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've made efforts to attempt to upkeep the various "List of fictional..." articles, and it's brutal. Editors constantly add trivial entries mentioned in one episode of some random show. Any enforceable inclusion criteria (per WP:SAL) make these lists extremely short and uninformative. I'm in favor of deleting all of these fictional institution articles as I can't see how they truely benefit an encyclopedia. -Verdatum (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason why this cannot be sourced. --neon white talk 00:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No encyclopedic value at all. Eklipse (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The longer the list, the more useful and normally the better. I'd interpret this as meaning notable shows with an article on Wikipedia. If we think they;'re not important enough for a place even on a list then why are we writing articles? The advantage over a category--once again--is that here can be a description for orientation purposes. Wikipedia is difficult to navigate without removing articles like this. Browsing is one good way of using an encyclopedia, and the information given is helpful for this. I would add a column giving the dates. DGG (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Just to confirm, you do understand that this is a list of shows that only exist in various fictional universes right? The fictional shows don't even have a category, because they are not worthy of independent articles. It's not a list of real shows within the realm of fiction. Something like that would be perfectly fine as a list (and category). If, for example, this list contained all the fictional shows within Saturday Night Live (sometimes as many as two or three new ones an episode), not to mention all the other sketch comedy shows, this list would be hundreds of K of worthless information. There is no reasonable criteria for inclusion for this list. -Verdatum (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I found the category, it's Category:Fictional television programming, and it has a mere 18 entries, and even some of those are of questionable notability; a far cry from the hundreds in this article. -Verdatum (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another randomly assembled, unreferenced list. If it does remain online, at least rename it to designate this is all about U.S. television series. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exactly the sort of list topic I would hope Wikipedia to include. Discrete, encyclopaedic, clear threshold for inclusion (fictional t.v. shows in notable works), verifiable, and of interest to our readers. Skomorokh 13:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every item can, and probably should, be sourced to the original episode it aired in per WP:CITE. It may be useful to expand the lede to show how these story devices were used and also add dates to the headings and place everything in chronological order. Banjeboi 22:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides the fact that every single item in this list is verifiable and can be sourced to its primary source, the fictional work in which it appears, I am going to invoke ignore all rules for the reason that deleting this article would not improve the encyclopedia, and a dozen or two editors who find this information "useless" or "indiscriminate", or whatever other policy-imitating buzzword that basically translates to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, should not override the consensus of the hundreds of editors who worked on and maintained this article over the last two and a half years. Before someone invokes WP:EFFORT, this is not intended to be an "effort" argument; if just a few people worked for thousands of hours creating this list, that would be an "effort" argument. This is a WP:CONSENSUS argument, and a five-day AfD is a rather poor measure of consensus against what hundreds of good-faith editors have been doing for two and a half years. DHowell (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply- Editors' contributions to an article cannot be accepted as de facto keep votes, and certainly don't demonstrate consensus to keep. An edit to an article does not in any way prove that the editor knows the policies pertaining to what Wikipedia should include, it doesn't prove that the editor gave any thought to those policies before making the edit; at best it can be taken as an indication that the editor likes it. I'll also add that the bulk of the keep arguments in this discussion amount to little more than WP:ILIKEIT as well. Reyk _YO! 00:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ignore all rules is policy, so whether "the editor knows the policies pertaining to what Wikipedia should include" is irrelevant; policies were created through consensus, they can be changed by consensus, and they can be ignored by consensus. DHowell (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ignore all rules is policy, so we can safely ignore any suggestion that it be followed unless the argument supporting that suggestion is very good (and not "C'mon, guys, keep it because some people like it.")
      Reconsider your line of argumentation if it is so weak that it cannot even move those who agree with your goals. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, perhaps I didn't need to invoke "ignore all rules" after all, because this inherently verifiable article doesn't violate any; or at least to the extent that it may have problems, they can be addressed through editing rather than deletion. DHowell (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Consensus is formed by strength of argument, not merely by strength of numbers. Merely editing an article presents no argument or reasoning in favour of a Keep decision, any more than a whole bunch of people turning up and going "I like it, I like it, I like it..." Reyk _YO! 01:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Consensus is formed by strength of argument" is a nice bit of Wiki-speak, but in the real world "consensus" is not defined that way - consensus is general agreement, or at least agreement not to block or challenge a decision. Strong arguments can of course lead to consensus, and may provide evidence of consensus, but they aren't consensus in and of themselves, as the "strength" of an argument can be highly subjective and dependent on the biases of the participants. Even our own article on consensus fails to mention anything about "strength of argument". Realistically, if fifty editors (not sockpuppets) in an AfD said something equivalent to "Keep, I like it" and one said "Delete, unencylclopedic listcruft that violates WP:NOT#IINFO", do you really think the article would be deleted, or if it was it wouldn't immediately be brought to DRV? Here is an interesting paper which suggests that attempting to prematurely measure consensus by either numerical strength or by strength of argument is divisive and actually hinders consensus-building. DHowell (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a comment, I edited this article (and other articles subsequently deleted) and I would be very upset to hear that a deletion discussion presumed my editing an article meant I wanted to keep that article. Protonk (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And yet my failure to participate in a five-day AfD for an article which I may have edited or find useful presumes that I accept the outcome of that AfD. Presumptions such as this are inherent in using a time-limited poll to determine consensus. DHowell (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, it does. And there is a lot more basis for making that assumption than for assuming that my editing of an article means I want it kept even if it doesn't meet policies and guidelines. If you don't take the time to comment on something, we can presume that you don't really have a stake in the outcome. that's how the consensus process works. As for the time limits argument, I've heard it before. 5 days is more than enough time for any article that meets the guidelines in even the most marginal fashion to be brought up to standards. If, in the course of 5 days, the editors who read AfD can't fix the problems in an article (not to mention the people who have the article waitlisted), then it probably won't get fixed. Even if those 5 days elapse without a possibly worthy article being fixed and it gets deleted, there is no prejudice toward recreation (presuming the new article is substantively different). time limiting discussions is a fundamental tradeoff for including large numbers of people and dealing with a large workflow. AfD sees over 100 nominations per day. Raise the time limit and the backlog associated with the nominations will swell to unmanagable size quickly. It sucks that we have to make any tradeoffs but some have to be made. This is one of them. Protonk (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps I "didn't take the time to comment" because I was busy with other things during the 5-day window, or I simply don't have the time to participate in every AfD in which I may have a stake in the outcome. But once that 5-day window passed, the bar is raised much higher to restore or recreate a deleted article than if I had managed to catch the discussion when it happened. And five days is not "more than enough time", for example, if sources are difficult to obtain, but common sense suggests that the sources are out there; or if one can easily find hundreds of "trivial mentions" of a subject but hidden within them is a couple of reliable articles with substantial coverage, and finding the diamonds in the rough may take significant time. One thing I've happily noticed recently is that more admins seems to be willing to relist a discussion if consensus doesn't appear to have been reached; this is one helpful improvement to the process. And we could probably reduce the total number of AfD nominations if we had some way of enforcing WP:BEFORE, and encouraging WP:PROD and WP:CSD where appropriate. DHowell (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep 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), What Wikipedia is, and Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this terrible article. This needs a total revamp of scope and form, but an article describing the use of metafiction in television is useful to an encyclopedia, and should be reasonably sourceable. Right now, the scope is overly broad and badly defined, and the article is chock to the gills with crufty one-off jokes and skits, but after burning out the underbrush this will have real potential. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep I basically agree with AMiB here. I also suspect that secondary sourcing exists for at least some of these 'sub-lists'. there is probably some guidebook or article that covers simpsons fictional television shows (thought probably not exhaustively), same goes for family guy (probably). This would probably not work well as a category as it would be continually underpopulated. Protonk (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but wikify further. At first glance, a category would serve this purpose, but not all items which might be included in this list are notable. I am concerned that this list is too broad (see WP:LIST), but its categories could become separate lists. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete My god this article is a mess! What are the standards for inclusion? Where are the references? How is this notable? This is an excellent example of why Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The range of the topic is just too broad. Even if all the shows were verified they have no notable relationship with each other worthy of mention. Themfromspace (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too poorly defined subject. Mukadderat (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Previous AfD had a clear and overwhelming consensus to keep. While I understand that consensus can change, we should really only have second nominations when an AfD closed as "no consensus", because once we have an unambiguos keep, then we should focus on improving the article in question. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- If you read the keep arguments from last time, you'll see that all but one of them boil down to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:USEFUL. I think previous consensus can, and should, be challenged in such cases. Reyk _YO! 20:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't actually consider those weak arguments as editors and donors come here, because they find articles interesting and useful and afterall a reference guide should be useful. With that said, fortunately, this time around policy based reasons have been added as concrerns why we should cover an article such as this one. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do does this mean you're done linking to WP:ATA? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't believe I've ever used the WP:ILIKEIT shortcut. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Or read the essay at all, near as I can tell. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Just like various "policy" pages, every time I read the essay it seems to change, especially recently... --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I am sure there are third party commentaries in film/TV magazines or books somewhere. notable subject, think 'Larry Sanders', Tim's Tool Time, Krusty the Clown's show. etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We probably can't source them all, but we can find sources for enough of them to pass NOTE. Anyways, we have this list because they aren't all notable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:50, 6 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. I will post the content on the Borung Highway article talk page for any possible merge. Tan ǀ 39 01:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borung Highway collision[edit]

Newsworthy, yes. Encyclopedically notable, doesn't appear so. It was PRODded/dePRODed approximately a year ago with the note, "deprod; this article is well-written and sourced, nominate it for AfD as I'm sure it is a controversial deletion" so here we are. It made the news when it happened with the usual post-accident promises of fixing the intersection, etc. but no evidence it had any lasting impact on laws. Sole claim to notability "This was the state of Victoria's worst road accident, in terms of casualties, in over a decade, resulting in all seven people in both vehicles being killed. After the collision, one vehicle caught fire and burned." seems weak. So lets get it out of the way, there was news coverage and its referenced --- I don't think that establishes notability. Thoughts? TravellingCari 01:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —TravellingCari 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —TravellingCari 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not news. RayAYang (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I can't really add to what TravellingCari's said, except that I agree. If a delete consensus is eastablished for this one, I'll nominate Gerogery level crossing accident as well. Reyk _YO! 01:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The accident is tragic, but Wikipedia is not a news agency. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The most serious accident in Victoria for a decade is a crying shame, as are all accidents, but otherwise no major consequences forseen. delete lest we become a catalog of road accidents. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Borung Highway since it points out a problem with the arrangement there. Though there were 7 people killed, it's because there were five in one of the two cars involved. Sadly, fatal collisions between two vehicles happen every day, all around the clock. Mandsford (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mandsford - there is some notable information here, and the worst accident in Victoria in a decade is pretty bad, but it just doesn't merit an article to itself. Instead, it should go to the highway's article where it is relevent; after all, the main notability is the implications for the road itself. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, great info, probably doesn't need its own article though. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. If someone can find a government document in which this collision is referred to as "the Borung Highway collision" or similar, that may establish notability. Otherwise, I think this is just another bad traffic accident. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There don't appear to be any such documents because it really was a run of the mill traffic accident. It gets the flurry of quick news but has no long term notability. Would have been different if this accident had been cited as a reason to fix the area, but there's no evidence it has. TravellingCari 15:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for fuck's sake nothings wrong with it! I say leave the article and don't delete it. Benshi

I have visited Benshi's User talk page and left a message asking him to refrain from using language that may offend some people. I have alerted him to the WP policy of WP:Civility Dolphin51 (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, if you think that swearing is against civility, you're kidding yourself. And I don't swear for the lulz, btw. Benshi —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some of the content. This is extremely overdone for a car accident! I can name several equally-bad car accidents just in my own home town. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:17, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How To Reduce The Chances Of Being A Terror Victim[edit]

Does not meet notability criteria for albums or songs (one prod contested, so figured it was best to bring all articles here at once). Somno (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Somno (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Somno (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. You might as well delete the artist XX Teens as well. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The band appear notable as they turn up plenty of reliable sources in a news search. These singles and the EP are not notable, however, as a single usually has to chart to be notable. I see no reliable sources for any of the releases other than their debut album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 01:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whilst their notability is asserted as well as possible given the young band, there is nothing in this group of articles which may indicate at how this band, or any of the "singles", meet the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC or WP:SONG. It is signed to a major independent record label, fine. But they appear not to have been in a nation-wide tour, nor is their any proof offered that their singles have been placed on rotation by a national radio station? WP is not Myspace. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the songs & EP, failing notability per WP:MUSIC. Keep the band though for passing WP:MUSIC#C1, [38], [39], [40]. Their song "Darlin'" was included in NME’s tracks of 2007 as well. I've added the ref to the band and album page. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Singles don't meet WP:MUSIC notability, band has no third party references. Black ngold29 04:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note there is a related AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XX Teens. Dalamori (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete songs but not the band. Brilliantine (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this doesn't seem like a significant song or set thereof, and clearly do not meet our criteria. This kind of content would be better placed in a list in the band's article. I'm not sure the band itself merits deletion. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:35, 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 delete. Punkmorten (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skender Ademi[edit]

The article is about an actor who does not seem to have been "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"; does not seem to have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions"; nor a " large fan base or a significant "cult" following", nor has he seemed to have "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." As a result, I do not believe the article statisfies WP:BIO. The actor seems to be, from what I can tell, a very minor one. I could be wrong, and any input to this discussion would be appreciated. Thank you for reading. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per ghits: [41]. JJL (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just have to go with what I see. --Quartermaster (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. only 75 unique Ghits, most of which are not for this actor, but for individuals either related to Slobodan Milosovic or are other namesakes. The link cited by JJL above is but a directory entry. All signs are that he has played some small, non-recurring roles in his native serbia, and nothing of consequence in the USA. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability or sources given. Black ngold29 04:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to indicate notability. Very few mentions on the web. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He does not appear to have done anything notable; everything on the page is trivia. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:30, 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 delete. No sourced statements to merge into other articles.. Tan ǀ 39 00:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music visualization techniques[edit]

Nice example of original research. Not referenced, contains information that is best in own articles (which already exist). Written in a very un-encyclopaedic manner (almost essay-like) with a "summary" section at the end. Most worthy content already exists in one form or another, and should be easily referenced and merged if not. Booglamay (talk) - 21:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that I am responding correctly (by editing this page). If not, please let me know the correct procedure (click on Talk?). I am new at this.

First of all, and this may short-circuit the discussion... would it be appropriate to instead add one VERY SHORT sentence and link to the "Music visualization" page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_visualization). The link would be to the same article on my subpage? If so, I will do that. In fact, this would be a very natural and effective way for interested people to find this information. If not...

Essay style... yes. But there are many long-existing wikipedia articles written that way. They may be flagged as such but they are not deleted. It took me about 10 seconds to find an example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_visualization). Essay style is not necessarily a bad thing (even in an encyclopedia).

Is the information accurate, valuable, and pertinent? Yes. Is the article readable, clear, and easy to follow? Yes. Is it written in an "encyclopaedic" manner? I do not know. What constitutes "encyclopaedic?" It certainly is "Essay style."

Summary section... easily deleted and not important.

Finally, most of the information presented in this article does indeed exist in one form or another. However, it's virtually impossible to reference!!! Why? Because it exists in a myriad of software forums, programmer discussion groups, and web sites devoted to exchanging information of this type among software developers. And would wikipedia even consider a reference (link) to such things whose question/answer threads will likely disappear next year? wikipedia is, in my mind, an excellent and natural place to retain this type of information for others to find even though it may not be written in an encyclopaedic "style"... Keeping in mind that the information is accurate, valuable (to at least some), and easy to follow.

Again, however, a reference to this article on a user subpage would work almost as well.

Thanks for your time.

Joliviolinist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joliviolinist (talk • contribs) 23:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Flow visualization also highlights the use of first- ("If we adjust the gain"...) and second-person pronouns ("when you listen to a song..") that should not be used. This article is heavily biased towards "Gloplug", and reads more like a "how to" guide (see WP:NOTHOWTO) than an encyclopaedia article. Essay style is a bad thing if it's what's come straight out of your head. Booglamay (talk) - 23:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think that the author could make some excellent contributions to articles such as Music visualization. The writing tips offered by the nominator are worth considering, such as avoiding the first person and second person" (translation: I, me, mine, you, your, we, us, our) ; think of "encyclopedic tone" is simply the format for making an article compatible with the Wikipedia system. To the author, I shall say, "Your knowledge of writing is better than my knowledge of engineering". It's a step in the right direction in trying to explain something that's quite technical. Mandsford (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the author's ability to contribute affects whether this article stays. Yes, I agree that this editor could potentially contribute a lot of useful information to Wikipedia, but this article does not belong in an encyclopaedia. As I said in my nomination, information that is not covered elsewhere (and qualifies for inclusion) should me merged in. Booglamay (talk) - 12:50, 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, Skomorokh 02:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete when you say "music visualization", I think, "Music notation". The article is actually about transforming audio information (music or otherwise) into entertaining patterns, not how to graphically represent music, as the lead section would claim. The article as it stands is strongly an essay form, bordering on a HOWTO guide. It appears to be pure WP:OR, though some of it is possibly sourceable. It's possible an article could exist to represent this information, but I strongly doubt a decent article on the subject would retain any of what currently exists there. -Verdatum (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge All of the sourceable statements in this article probably belong in music visualization. J kasd 04:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak merge into music visualization. This article is not encyclopaedic, and can most likely be condensed into two or three sentences of verifiable content which do not themselves warrant an article. It would be appropriate to re-create this page when a technique section of the aforementioned page is very large. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly useful, but unreferenced essay. Mukadderat (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into music visualization per Falcon Kirtaran. Obvious OR, no cites, POV fork. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing sourced in here so nothing that is appropriate to merge. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:10, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Halland[edit]

Non-notable figure who fails WP:BIO. There is a sliver of WP:V via a BBC press release about an appearance on university challenge but that's it. All of the other claims either appear to be a) untrue (film appearances); b) unverifiable from reliable sources or c) trivial mentions of that sort that we do not and cannot construct an article from and were removed - what you see is what we are left with. --Prisongangleader (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - nonnotable. Laudak (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - nonnotable. NineBerry (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide an argument, or your opinions may be discounted per WP:JNN. Sincerely, Skomorokh 03:08, 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, Skomorokh 03:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the nominator has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Skomorokh 03:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Yeah, look, I'm not sure what more I can say than staggeringly non-notable. It might be true, it might be verifiable, but merely being a winning contestant on a game show doesn't come anywhere near what I'd consider notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 03:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reyk. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also per Reyk, doesn't pass any notability standards I see. Black ngold29 05:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appearing on University Challenge only makes you notable for having parents who own two Ferraris, a Porsche and a secret BDSM chamber. Black-Velvet 05:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Soman (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E, Notability guidelines for biographies. Also the cited source is a press release. For the closing admin, please take into account the consensus about the article before considering implementing the guidance for banned users. Protonk (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply appearing on a published list of people does not impart notability; even I am more notable than that. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:17, 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. John254 02:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michiko Suganuma[edit]

I posted this article was posted on the BLP noticeboard about a month ago, hoping to attract some help with bringing this article up to snuff. The state of the sourcing in the article is deplorable, and I cannot readily find reliable sources to prop this article up with. WP policy on biographies of living persons says that it's better not to have the article than to possibly get the article wrong. Given the difficulty of finding reliable source material, and that removing the un-supported content from the article would essentially mean removing the article; I feel that deleting the article is the only logical step left, barring an attempt to rescue it. Dalamori (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Dalamori (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep, the article just needs work, not a reason to throw the thing out. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A guide to the National Gallery of Victoria exhibition [42] describes her as a leading kamakura-bori artist, and supports the claim to having a solo exhibition at the Gallery in 1984 (p11). p15 indicates that her works are held in the Museum Collection.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "held the first living artist’s exhibition at the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne." is sufficient for notability, & a source is present for that. DGG (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly sufficiently notable. For help with verification, may I suggest approaching the WikiProject Japan folks? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note, btw, that BLP concerns are usually much stronger for negative statements about living persons, and that positive (and even neutral) statements are much less anxiety-producing when it comes to verifying them. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, permanent collections definitely are notable.Yama88 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Give people time to flesh it out. Seems notable from what I've read here. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 01:41, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War of the Feeble King[edit]

This totally fictional war - a footnote in Geoffrey of Monmouth's substantially invented early British history - is being presented as factual, when in fact it's non-notable trivia. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Per G3 - Pure Vandalism. Dalamori (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Vandalism.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:15, 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 nomination withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slave auction (BDSM)[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see a need to immediately rush to deletion -- the Google search "slave auction" bdsm -wikipedia turns up 30,000 hits... AnonMoos (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnonMoos, the search you provided gives a total of around 700 results. The problem is, they are mostly unreliable sources, and the few cases they are reliable, the mention is trivial. PhilKnight (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering the relative difficulty of finding conventional RSs by our usual standards, I think for this subject a we can accept what there is here. We use the best sources. Is there any real doubt that it exists? I expect some sources in fiction at such. DGG (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per fist sentence of WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true, unless references provided,per WP:PROVEIT, this article is in Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006, there are no articles on Wikipedia that have been tagged for lack of references longer then this article. Jeepday (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References have been provided to meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. Jeepday (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you dig through the search results there are references including an April 10, 1976 LAPD raid. I believe that part of the issue here is that we have a very poorly written, and I think, inaccurate article. It does need an expert to rewrite it. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This sort of thing does surface in the news occasionally (see above), and I personally think it is notable. Also note that this kind of thing is not exactly trumpeted and announced with fanfare outside of the community in which it happens, for obvious reasons, so it is not likely to have as prolific references as, say, fish could. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:14, 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.