< May 19	May 21 >

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

The result was delete --Selket ^Talk 21:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Bermúdez[edit]

Delete an Argentine bit part actor with several guest roles. The claim of staring in Celeste, actually he's 3rd billed, but mostly guest "stars" on various shows in Argentina. He does have an imdb entry here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gustavo Bermúdez is a non-notable ~~player~~. Oh! I thought that he was a football player! He is an actor! The article is so bad that I didn't even noticed that he is an actor. I don't know what 'telenovela' is. And, there is no category! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see how this actor meets WP:N. If there were some sources listed or evidence that he has been in several TV shows, that would help. TN‑X-Man 14:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with Dance on Sunset and redirect. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick 6[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable part of Nickelodeon. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, though I would readily agree to a Merge to Dance on Sunset. GlassCobra 23:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dance on Sunset; The six , apart from the show, definitely aren't on Miranda Cosgrove's level yet. No predjudice to recreation if they go beyond their Sunset fame. Nate • (chatter) 01:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect in agreement with nate; no issue with recreating the article after if they do something more significant. Ironholds (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged and Redirected to Dance on Sunset. Black Kite 22:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Harper[edit]

Kid actor sans any notable roles. Fails WP:BIO. brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Dance on Sunset. I'm not opposed to recreation if the actor does something more notable. TN‑X-Man 14:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect There's a section of the Sunset page for dancer info; this would fit there perfectly. Townlake (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - at the moment there is ambiguity over the identity of the author of the subject which restricts the redirect options. However, what is clear is that there is a consensus that the work is notable. (Non-admin close). Smile a While (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megaleh Amukot[edit]

Delete unsourced one-line article about a work from a rabbi, who we don't have an article about, but is unlikely to be someone of such note that all his works are inherently notable. No other indication of notability or much context on what this work is about, how long it is, why it matters. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, classic Kabbalistic work by a rabbi we actually *do* have an article about, Nathan Nata Spira, who was chief rabbi of Jerusalem in the 1600s. The stub was just created two days ago, give it some time for expansion and sourcing. --MPerel 03:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: actually this will take further investigation to sort out which Nathan Nata Spira wrote this (there are several, all in the same Spira rabbinical family, descendants of Rashi). The article needn't be deleted so quickly before allowing time to adequately expand and source. To start with, Jewish Encyclopedia gives the following sources about the Nathan Nata Spira who wrote this work (his primary work): Azulai, l.c. i. 148; De Rossi-Hamberger, l.c. p. 301; Steinschneider, l.c. col. 2049; Zunz, Monatstage, p. 41; Zedner, l.c. p. 610; I. M. Zunz, 'Ir ha-Ẓedeḳ, pp. 52, 176. --MPerel 04:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- to Nathan Nata Spira unless there's sufficient verifiable content to expand this article. - Longhair\^talk 03:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - many of the references to this work, both on Google web and Google books, refer to the work by name only, without referencing the author. Possibly should disambiguate -- Jonathan Schorsch cites another work with the same title. Yudel (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nathan Nata Spira until something can be said about the work. e.g. when was it written, what it deals with, what its impact is, why it is special, and so on. -- Fullstop (talk) 05:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nathan Nata Spira per Longhair and Fullstop. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per Longhair. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the problem w/redirecting, which I think people aren't reading my note above, or perhaps I was too ambiguous, is that on further investigation the author of this work appears to be a different Nathan Nata Spira than the Nathan Nata Spira in the article we have. There are several notable Nathan Nata Spiras in the same family of rabbis and it needs to be sorted out which one wrote this work. --MPerel 02:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a stub on a notable subject as confirmed by sources found by Google Books and Scholar. As MPerel says this is by an older Nathan Nata Spira than the one on which we have an article, so redirection would be inappropriate, and anyway that's a subject for the talk page, not AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MPerel. Culturalrevival (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known mystical text. Requires reliable sources however. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Selket ^Talk 17:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of state health care reform groups in the United States[edit]

Seems inappropriate. Seem partily a soapbox. Just there to provide not even a list but a directory and set of external links to these reform organisations. Not encyclopaedic Canterbury Tail talk 23:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The article is not a soapbox as the above editor suggests. All three major presidential candidates admit the drastic need for health care reform. The list is obviously open to any organization advocating health care reform at the state level regardless of the philosophical approach. As stated on the article's talk page: "Health care reform is a major topic in the United States, but almost all of the reform has been occurring at the state level. A list such as this can be very helpful in letting individuals and the media know of the organizations that are working toward reform in a particular state." The reason for the links is that another editor tagged it for speedy deletion citing a lack of references. The tag was removed by an admin. --Anoblecause (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is certainly a useful resource, but it's not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory. Pburka (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agreed, Wikipedia is not a directory, but this is a list and it does not meet the criteria of being defined as a directory on the Wikipedia page mentioned by the above editor. By labeling this list a "directory," then many, if not most, lists on Wikipedia would be directories and the resulting logic is that lists should be banned. Lists of magazines, books, radio shows, etc. would all be directories according to the above editor's interpretation. And I can't understand any argument that would claim that the issue of health care reform and the groups involved in that very important debate is not encyclopedic. --Anoblecause (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A list is a collection of Wikipedia articles, organized according to some criteria. A directory is a list of items which are not, on their own, encyclopedic. This is a just a list of links to external websites, i.e. a directory. Pburka (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A list is NOT defined as only a collection of Wikipedia articles, and the directory definition you linked to does not apply. These are YOUR definitions, not WP ones. I've made my case and since I work for a living I'll let other editors decide whether or not this article is worth keeping. --Anoblecause (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this is a (somewhat disguised) collection of external links. The subject of health care reform in the United States is treated in … well, Health care reform in the United States; and the introductory matter in this "list" is redundant with that. The plethora of redlinks show that the groups do not appear to be independently notable, and all that's left is the external links. If any of the groups are in fact notable, articles can be created on them, but they don't become notable through association in an article of this sort. Deor (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will make one more response herein. Health care reform in the United States in the discussion page addresses the issue that state organizations should not be listed individually in that article. That is one of the purposes served by this list. --Anoblecause (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though I agree with many of the points raised the article itself doesn't belong. relevant salient points can be addressed from a Neutral Point of View in the "State Role" section of Health care reform in the United States; Although a decent attempt at an informative article on a sometimes controversial issue the article itself looks more like a "linkfarm" with an introduction section and not a truly encylopedic article. I wouldn't be against removing the external "advertising" links and listing the organisations with properly neutral descriptions and reliable third party sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTLINK. If any of these organisations were notable enough to have an article, I'd suggest a category. Jakew (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is deleted then these redirects also need deleting.

List of U.S. health care reform groups at the state level
State health care reform
State healthcare reform

I think these ones should be deleted anyway considering they are generic links redirecting to a very country specific page.

Health care reform groups
Health care reform organizations
Healthcare reform groups
Healthcare reform organizations
Health care groups
Health care organizations
Healthcare groups
Healthcare organizations

Canterbury Tail talk 12:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not advertising website and not directory. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (disriminate, organized, and verifiable list with real world notability). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). The consensus of the discussion is that the subject is notable because of the press coverage the political party that he leads has received. Darkspots (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strašo Angelovski[edit]

Delete short unsourced bio about a politician, no indication his party is notable, nor him. So nn we don't know when or where he was born, red flags of non-notability for a modern bio. There is a bio of this guy on the Macedonian-language wikipedia, but again it's short and unsourced. see it here Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not ready to vote yet, but my superficial impression is that he might be notable. GoogleNews returns 24 hits[1]. For a politician from a non-English speaking country that is something. Nsk92 (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Leader of a political party which has received significant news coverage in 2001 and 2002. Pburka (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just a quick review on google didn't pull up a ton of hits, but I did note a PBS Newshour piece about some of his parties activities and at least in 2000 the UN defined his party as one of three serious parties in the country. Entering his name in cyrillic produces about 127 hits, several of which appear to be news articles about him if my Russian gets me anywhere. Montco (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading the UN source you quoted, it only said that MAAK was a "minor Macedonian party" - after the three major parties (VMRO-DPMNE, SDSM, and LDP) and the Socialist party. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Color me embarrassed. I mis-read it. Oh well, I will stand by my keep. Montco (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable as leader of a significant political party. I wish this nominator would give up his strange obsession with nominating biographical articles for deletion just because there's no date of birth mentioned - it just wastes everybody's time. The guy's notable for what he has done, not for when he was born. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure MAAK counts as a "significant" political party. It doesn't feature on Template:Macedonian political parties and got less than 1% of the vote in the Macedonian parliamentary election, 2006 AndrewRT(Talk) 23:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but editing is needed Mactruth (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ogre (Organization)[edit]

Google does not support any assertion of notability, even were we to concede that such an organisation existed. Looks to me like another User:HooperBandP vanity page - the second external link is almost certainly to a site run by him. Tagishsimon (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Organization of Gamers & Roleplaying Enthusiasts, more commonly referred to as OGREs. So... Is it Ogre like the title says, or OGREs like the article says? I couldn't find much information from google by using either of the names. Doesn't seem to have a homepage either. Ilyushka88 (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I knew of these but I was never in a town or on a campus that HAD one. They're basically a generic name for gaming clubs, I guess with no national office or hierarchy, and I don't think they have any particular notability for that -- there's nothing like OGRE literature or conventions specifically for OGREs. I don't think we have an appropriate generic article to link to, but I wouldn't object if this were recast into one. --Dhartung | Talk 00:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only source that would of been reliable isn't on wikipedia: blogs. The WotC blog of RPGA approved groups mentions a few chapters of OGRE. But we can't use it. If you feel you need to delete it go ahead, but i will not have you going against AGF policy just because you don't have the ref you want. Its a wiki issue, not a vanity one. Hooper (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another one where I agree on certain things but, the article doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Doesn't really assert notability and is lacking 3rd party sources. As I'd actually quite like an encyclopedic article around something like this I encourage the author/main contributors to please find the reliable third party sources and create a new article at a later date that conforms to policies/guidelines. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Republican Party (United States) Delete without prejudice; no particular showing for this "loose coalition" of gaming clubs. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I prefer the redirect idea ;). Though some idiot went and made two articles about the same thing so we'd have to merge this with both the that article and the Democratic Party article....;)~~Hooper (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but WP itself and a few blog/forum posts for either obvious spelling [2] [3]. Fails WP:N, and no apparent potential of being WP:V through WP:RS. Jakew (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, the blog sources are not acceptable in these circumstances. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wish You Weres[edit]

Fails WP:BAND for me. It appears to me that Wikipedia is being used to promote bands & festivals of Hooper Booking & Promotion, which is not a compliant use of wikipedia. Tagishsimon (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "references" are a blog, HooperP's own website, and another Wikipedia page (!). I think this one safely fails WP:BAND; I also think the creator's contributions could do with a very careful looking-over. — iride scent 22:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as well. They are more notable then some of the minor bands listed on wiki, but no good refrences are out there, so I agree actually. Hooper (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability through reliable third party sources, therefore fails WP:BAND. Google finds no reliable sources that could be used. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 00:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-notable and lacking 3rd party reliable sources for verification. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus. Something could be added to the Paducah article if it isn't already there. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paducahpalooza[edit]

I'm unsure about this one. There's a number of COI contributions ... how well known must a festival become before we list it. Some googling convinced me that this is not very noticeable, but YMMV Tagishsimon (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero hits from Google News (all dates checked) [4] -- appears to lack non-trivial references from third party publications, failing WP:V policy. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep: It is as equally notable as numerous other small-town festivals (see Lists the appropriate lists page). Now, I may be one sided but I've even edited out other indivudals NPOV edits and junk. Its one of the largest regional draws around the tri state area. THat doesn't mean anything to you if you aren't in the area, but that doesn't mean it isn't notable to a group of people. However, once again, I may indeed be POV on the subject, and take that into account.Hooper (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands the article fails on assertion of notability and verifiability(no reliable 3rd party sourcing, I'm sure decent regional newspaper coverage would suffice). I'd say keep if the sources could be provided and verified and perhaps if the "sponsored" by stuff was removed some of the COI/POV issues would begin to get addressed. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paducah, Kentucky, is a mid-size town, but even small towns have events where "local and underground artists" can perform at a park, civic center auditorium, etc. Worth a mention in an article about Paducah, perhaps, but not in the level of detail mentioned here. I'm sorry, nobody really cares about the 2007 highlight where the drummer for a local band yelled "I'm not playing another God damn song until these kids are allowed to dance!". Mandsford (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW --JForget 00:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seaholme railway station, Melbourne[edit]

Delete fails notability, I see no evidence that this railway station has received non-trivial coverage by independent third party publications. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Few railway stations are going to have received non-trivial coverage by independent publications. Yes, they'll have been covered by associated public transport sites (in this case [5]) and trivially (in this case [6]).If strict notability was applied to railway stations most of them would be deleted! Nk.sheridan Talk 23:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see many of the stations linked from List of London Underground stations strictly satisfying notability. Unless coverage by associated public transport sites and trivial coverage from media sources (as regards muggings, etc.!) are used. I've posted a quick note on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations regarding this AfD to get some input regarding notability of stations. cheers, Nk.sheridan Talk 23:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most Victorian railway stations have had histories of them published in the Newsrail railway magazine, or as part of dedicated books on the railway lines they are a part of. The issue is people go making stubs on train stations but never bother digging up the history from published sources. Wongm (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Railway stations, airports, ports, etc. are inherently notable due to their role as centres of public transportation. Pburka (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pburka and Wongm. Mackensen (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all above. Additionally, just by virtue of being a publicly funded rail station, by law, extensive government documents of proposals, budgets and administration exist. --Oakshade (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Railway stations are notable enough in their own right to have an article. Mjroots (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia convention, if not policy, has been to retain all of these railway station entries. You would have a lot of accompanying deletion candidates if this one bit the dust. The challenge is to enhance the content Murtoa (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Long-standing precedent to keep these - and for good reason - there's good verifiable sources on all of them. Rebecca (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Railway stations are inherently notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't subscribe to the concept of inherent notability. However, although the usual Books, Scholar, and News searches were somewhat disappointing, this station does seem to have attracted some independent attention in reliable web sources, as evidenced by many of the results in this PDF search. Hence, I think it just scrapes past WP:N, and there is evidence of potential to satisfy WP:V. Jakew (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per User:Oakshade above. There is also massive precedent that all verifiable railway stations are notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Question: It is abundantly apparent that the consensus is to retain this article. May I ask why we make such an extraodinary exception for a railway station? WP:OTHERSTUFF is routinely deleted for less. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanos Kalliris[edit]

[7] Unreferenced article tagged for references for over a year. Marginally notable/ non-notable BLP with no references, no hits on a Google news search. Without reliable third party references we will be unable to maintain this article to the high quality standards demanded by BLP. Avruch^T 21:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP and no real substantial evidence of notability anyhow. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Amazon lists several albums, including Fonaxe Me, released on Columbia Records and Ena Psema Gia to Telos on Sony Records. Multiple releases on major labels satisfies WP:MUSIC. I suspect that a search for the Greek spelling of his name would yield more results, but Greek is, um, Greek to me. Pburka (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he's a notable musician per WP:MUSIC. Has released two or more albums on a major label. A stub can be made from the information at AllMusic[8]. --Pixelface (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link to AllMusic comes up empty for me... I'm not sure I agree with "two albums on a major label" qualifies someone for notability, but it is after all a guideline and not a policy. What are the chances of this becoming any more than an unreferenced stub? Because no actual references appear to have been found for this person... Avruch^T 03:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link to AllMusic comes up blank for me as well. Just a black and white thumbnail with no biographical information whatsoever. I tried to view the link with both Internet Explorer and Firefox so I don't think it was a browser issue. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a greek i know him and he's a well known artist in greece. If you search in greek you'll soon come up with many results.Sergiogr (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But what does "involved in the Eurovision Song Contest" mean? Could the author be more specific? Pel thal (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Selket ^Talk 03:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sander Cohen[edit]

If this isn't a copyvio violation (it's souce is a wiki) its notability is unestablished and its source isn't reliable. brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not a copyright violation because its credited source is a GFDL-licensed wiki. On the other hand, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:FICT. The lack of context means that a substantial rewrite would be needed if this character were deemed notable enough for Wikipedia. As a second choice, redirect to the game the character comes from. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bioshock - the article itself doesn't show notability or verifiability through reliable 3rd party sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this article should be kept because it does not violate copyrights and some people do not know about wikis. Also, shouldn't we perhaps notify the person who created this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.46.247 (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This old version of the page was much less problematic. Reverting to that level of detail might be appropriate. On the whole, however, I think that a redirect to Bioshock is probably the best solution. There are no reliable sources demonstrating independent notability of this specific character. The site where the current version was copied from may technically be a wiki but the content is far more blog-like than the kind of sourced content that we want to use as a basis for an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable fictional character, article is copied from Wikia. There's no real reason to have this article in Wikipedia, as it is not particularly notable for an encyclopedia, and all of the information is well covered by the Wikia wiki. — λ (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ➪HiDrNick! 20:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Doyle[edit]

Article is regarding a non-notable replacement actor in a Broadway musical. — MusicMaker 5376 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This young actor has not had a notable career yet. Someday he may warrant an article, but not at present. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. All of the actors in the Broadway production of Spring Awakening are inherently notable. His role in the top show in the top theater district in the world is enough to make him notable. Qworty (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must have missed WP:REPLACEMENTACTORSONBROADWAYAREINHERENTLYNOTABLE. Original cast are notable. Original understudies are not. Once he originates a role, he may be notable. — MusicMaker 5376 01:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This isn't just any play, and this isn't just any Broadway show. The thing has won 8 Tonys. And this actor isn't just an understudy anymore--he's a full cast member now. To have a role in one of the top plays on the planet certainly spells notability. And this talented young actor now has over 30,000 Google hits [9] Qworty (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to revise that Google search. "Matt Doyle" is not an unusual name and many of those hits appear to refer to other people with the same name. I am not taking a position yet as to whether this Matt Doyle is notable enough for an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Comment Wow. First, googlehits mean nothing. Second, once you discount the countless other people named "Matt Doyle", his number drops dramatically. Third, your argument would imply that every single person who's played Jellylorum in Cats deserves an article. — MusicMaker 5376 02:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) By doing a combined Google search of "Matt Doyle" and "Spring Awakening," you still managed to come up with over 2000 hits. Google hits are never conclusive in terms of WP notability, but they are routinely used as evidence of lack of notability in AfDs when there are only 30 or 40 hits. That is clearly not the case here--there is some very real notability going on. I really don't know why Cats has been brought up, as there really is no comparison. Matt Doyle is starring in the most important Broadway production to come along in a generation, perhaps in several generations. For a young stage actor, landing a part in Spring Awakening is the height of achievement available today, and that is what Doyle has achieved--how can that possibly be considered non-notable? To be at the very top of an industry is always notable. Spring Awakening is a paradigm-exploding work of genius that synthesizes genres, modes, and distinct fields of art in ways that have never been achieved before in the history of the theatre. Cats, on the other hand, was third-rate T.S. Eliot severely watered-down for the public consumption by tourists of furry and facile cartoon creatures. Comparing the cast of Spring Awakening to the cast of Cats is like comparing the crew of Apollo 11 to the Hawaiian-shirted passengers of a Greyhound bus. Clearly, there is a lot more to say about all of this, but it probably won't be necessary to say all of it. Qworty (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep. I cannot believe there is question as to whether or not this should be deleted. His popularity is HIGH and very notable as a young broadway actor. He has only been playing the role of Hanschen for a month and already has been nominated for a Broadway.com audience award for best male replacement against the likes of Mario Lopez, Bob Saget, and Clay Aiken. The only actor in that category that didn't originally come form film or tv! See [Broadway.com] If that isn't a popularity contest...I don't know what is. Plus that's over EVERY other broadway replacement...so don't compare him to a dancer joining the company of cats ten years into it's run. That's absurd. He has a notable career in musical theatre and Broadway. He is one of the most talked about young actors on the broadway stage right now. His work in Bare the album alone should warrent him notable. The album has already been hugely successful and a cult phenomenon and they have yet to distribute it through any other source but their website. (They claim to have sold 32,000 already) He sings on 27 of the 36 tracks as the lead. And yes, he may have been an understudy at first, but he is more talked about than MANY of the original company members. Just search his name on the broadway world. See [Broadwayworld.com] He has several videos of interviews on websites like Broadway world. Maybe when he was just starting out it would have been silly to create a wikipedia on him...but now it's silly not to have one on him. It may not seem like he is notable just because he's not on television or in film...but to the New York theatre circle, most people know his name. The article is currently poorly written but people will add to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.13.121 (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC) — 74.66.13.121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment His actual number of google hits is 251. — MusicMaker 5376 16:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a start to a career, hopefully a long and prosperous one, but one replacement role is not by itself a claim to notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes it's the start of a career, but it's clear that his career is already notable enough for a wikipedia article. People look for information on that cast all the time. Especially him. If all of the original cast members have articles he certainly deserves one due to his popularity. By broadway standards, due to the kind of show he is in and the work he does outside of the show already, he is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.13.121 (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He is certainly notable per WP:ENTERTAINER: Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions and Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Being in the cast of Spring Awakening is certainly a significant role by any definition--this is the height of Broadway. His singing on the Bare album qualifies him as having been featured in the arts multiple times. And if that weren't enough, he performed at the Tonys in front of an audience of 5000 people, as well as a television audience numbering in the millions. Every young actor out there is ready to kill for a role in Spring Awakening, and this is one of the actors who actually made it. Finally, it cannot be denied that he has an immense fan base that goes beyond a "cult following." But even if you want to reduce it to a cult following, the unprecedented cultural phenomenon of Spring Awakening, which reaches all the way down into coffee mugs and T-shirts and ringtones and tattoos, certainly qualifies as an ever-expanding "cult," in which every single player is immediately awarded cult status. In fact, we should be expanding the number of articles relating to Spring Awakening, not cutting them back. All of the participants should have their own articles, there should be articles for the national tour, each of the key songs, all of the major characters, the Grammy-award winning album, etc., etc., etc. Qworty (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be operating under the mistaken impression that Spring Awakening is somehow more notable than anything else that has ever played in any theatre anywhere on the planet and that this uber-notability somehow confers upon everyone and everything ever associated with the show instantaneous and everlasting notability. You could not be more wrong. That argument amounts to inheritability. Spring Awakening is certainly no more notable than Cats. While the latter has become a punchline, it played for 18 years. In those 18 years, COUNTLESS dancers took the role of Jellylorum. If, in 18 years, Spring Awakening is still playing (which, mark my words, it won't be....), should the guy playing Hanschen have an article? If he's had a lot of success otherwise, yes. But our dear friend Matt Doyle has appeared on one album (of which 32,000 copies sold is laughable), and has attained one replacement supporting role in a Broadway show. That's not a career. That's a ca-. He's not even playing a lead. He's playing a bit part that sings, what?, one verse in one song? Not, by any stretch of the imagination, notable. — MusicMaker 5376 14:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hanschen is a principal role. Period. He doesn't sing one verse in one song. The character is sings in almost all of the shows songs. He has a solo song in the second act and all of 'My Junk' centers around him. That's two songs...and by equity rules, that's a principal role...not a "bit" one. But not only that, the character is recognized more for the amount of scenes he is involved in. And don't call 32,000 laughable...that more that reaches cult status. This is the broadway scene we're talking about here. Hedwig and the Angry Inch has sold about 40,000 over it's many years out on the market and you would certainly say that show has a cult following. This actor has already done more than a lot of the original company members. You seem to have negative feelings towards this for all the wrong reasons. This whole cats comparison is a very bad one. He's not a dancer 18 years into the show. He is the first replacement to a principal character...BUT it shouldn't be about Cats vs. Spring Awakening (which is really funny by the way), it's more his general involvement in the broadway scene that should make him notable. At events he sings with the likes of broadway vets John Lloyd Young and Kerry Butler [broadwayworld.com]. AND AGAIN... People would not have voted for him in the Best Male Replacement category on broadway.com if he wasn't notable or only had a bit role. In it, he is the only person not to come from film or TV...the only one who doesn't appear to be stunt casting. Matt Doyle is a notable young performer and this just shouldn't be deleted. He meets the WP:ENTERTAINER: as much as any of the original cast members...(and he was one himself...just off-stage). His career is new and just starting out but he's notable and popular in the broadway community. Let there be a simple article on him. People look him up and talk about him enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.13.121 (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were an actual equity rule, he only sings one solo verse. Of a reprise. But you're right, he does sing in all of the other songs. Why? BECAUSE HE'S A CHORUS ROLE. — MusicMaker 5376 17:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete at present the article doesn't attempt to establish notability through reliable 3rd party sources. Regardless of the play/musicals notability/popularity/etc and/or whether comparisions to other HUGE Broadway hits are appropriate. The WP:ENTERTAINER criteria doesn't appear to be asserted within the context of the article. My understanding is that it is the responsibility of those wishing "keep" to show reasonable basis for inclusion. I wouldn't be adverse to article creation using reliable 3rd party sources which expand the nature of the actors career and show his notability in the article itself. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment according to this [10]he has performed in 3 plays and the only "Matt Doyle at IMDB is a character. I don't think this really counts as "multiple" in the spirit of WP:ENTERTAINER. The issue still stems around reliable 3rd party sourcing of his notability. The article doesn't have any. please 74.66.13.121, if you are so passionate about it work on getting the article up to scratch instead of saying the same things over and over again. Put some references into the article. And if you are Qworty please remember to sign your posts. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to absence of reliable third-party sources. I was able to find practically nothing in Google News. Fails WP:N, and little potential for WP:V. Jakew (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for all the reasonable evidence Qworty offers, all of which I agree with. Highly notable. 72.240.22.100 (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)— 72.240.22.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is now fully cited. Bilby and I have been working to cite the article, and there is now no doubt that it satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER. Multiple accomplishments are now fully referenced. The naysayers here should reconsider their commentary. Qworty (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You have added citations, and your work is appreciated. But there are still only two facts in the article upon which notability is asserted. 1) Doyle is performing in his first Broadway show and has become a cast replacement for a minor character. He is also understudying a major character, which he played for two performances. The fact that he performed in a musical number with the same cast on the Tony Awards broadcast is not an additional credit - it's the same credit, just at a different location. There is no assertion that he has any other notable professional acting credits. 2) He is heard on a web-published album, Bare. There are thousands of Broadway and West End musicals, and tens of thousands of actors who have appeared in them. Doyle has not won a Tony or any other major acting award. I hope he has a very successful career, but he is not yet notable under the criteria established at WP:ENTERTAINER: "Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions; Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Doyle does not satisfy these criteria yet. If you like Spring Awakening, you can help out there by adding references to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would seem to me that if those truly passionate about this actor and keeping this article could write more than one paragraph about him, expand the article into, well, an article, then it would be worth keeping. But if even those who are so keen on keeping his presence on Wikipedia can't find anything else to say about him within the wikipedia guidelines, then there's just not enough to warrant an article yet so should be deleted. Once he's left Spring Awakening and done more of note, then his article could be revived? To most wikipedia readers, Spring Awakening is not the most important piece of culture in the 21st century. Belle pullman (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Whitman[edit]

Not notable on her own right. Maybe merge to her former husband article DimaG (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be an article about her two marriages, rather than anything talking about her notability as a model. --Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything worthwhile about the modeling career either. The marriages do not make her notable. --Stormbay (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Based on the sources presented in this discussion, the sentence at Craig Hinton is sufficient.-Wafulz (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time's Champion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Time's Champion

Non-notable unsourced fan-project —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator, does not meet notability standards. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - non-notable, does not meet notablity standards (and I was going to AFD it myself). --87.113.70.64 (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Craig Hinton. I wish this were notable enough to get its own article, and maybe it will be after publication. But (from a quick search), I can at least find a source saying Craig was working on this: ([11] towards the bottom of the page in the section on Craig's death). Andu due to the circumstances of its publication it's probably worth a mention there. -- SonicAD (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum... transwiki to the TARDIS Index File probably would be a good idea as well. -- SonicAD (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Craig Hinton and include brief information about this in that article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is not a fan project by normal definitions of the term. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a non-notable fan project, even if by abnormal definitions of the term. —TreasuryTag—t | c 19:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to use abnormal definitions of "notable" and "fan project" the onus is really on you to describe it. I see a project that has the involvement of a notable press in the relevant area (Telos in Doctor Who) with a notable author in the area (Hinton, who has numerous other books published). That seems like something that probably will satisfy notability, making, according to WP:N, deletion without effort to find sources undesirable. Keeping and allowing better sourcing to be found is thus preferable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomJ293339 (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:SonicAD. Frank | talk 13:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Jacobs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural listing based on this DRV. Reliable sources were purported to be present in the first AfD, but the editor declined to provide them. A non-independent reference was provided in the course of the DRV, which also raised the fact that the subject is a national radio broadcaster—not merely a local one—as was asserted in the AfD. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator unless evidence of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources is demonstrated. It should not have been re-listed without this evidence IMO. Vquex (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Keep as sources have been presented. However, the article does need to cite them. Vquex (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep Is there a criteria for this? Is having your own nationally syndicated show notable enough? Im just wondering. I brought this to DRV, mainly because IMO everyone in the last AFD didn't really notice that he was a national host, and not just a local one. But anyways the sources: Article stating hes a Fox Sports Radio host:[12]. Primary source showing hes a Fox Sports host:[13]. An affiliating showing in show in the schedule:[14]. This is probably not enough to be notable, I assumbed being a national host would be enough. Since it appears that you need more than that, it makes sense for this to be deleted -- Coasttocoast (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coasttocoast's argument does not make sense to me, it is in fact rationale to keep. Nationally syndicated hosts for FOX are notable. As stated in the first AfD, there are non-trival second and third party sources which verify notability. The reason it ended up being deleted is because no one wanted to look them up, which got it overturned at DRV. In any case, they were not hard to find, as there are hundreds of non-trivial and trivial articles covering Jacob's career such as Mediaweek [15], Fort Worth Star-Telegram [16], New York Times [17], The Arizona Republic [18], St. Louis Post-Dispatch[19], San Antonio Business Journal [20], Phoenix News-Times [21], Fort Wort Star-Telegram [22], New York DAily News [23], etc., so he is clearly notable. MrPrada (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote, I just wasn't sure is being a national radio host for Fox Sports Radio was notable enough by itself. And now there is more sources that confirm this. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that your "This is probably not enough..." comes across as unnecessarily passive-aggressive. ("Gee, I guess I'm just a sucker for marrying you.") This is an AFD, at which we decide whether or not it's enough. You're free to argue that it is. --Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources provided above, looks fine. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sources provided by Coasttocoast seem to prove notability and certainly clear verifiability but I strongly urge some enterprising editor to add these (or similar) sources to the current essentially unreferenced article or it will likely face AfD again in the future. - Dravecky (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Selket ^Talk 21:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inciclopedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Notability states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." WP:WEB states "Wikipedia articles about web content should use citations from reliable sources.". The article is almost entirely original research due to the lack of sources.

Sources evaluation from DRV:

According to Alexa.com the site is currently the 10,267,272th most popular site on the web.
Not in the top 250 Wikis in the world, according to meta:List of largest wikis

Sources evaluation

http://estrecho.indymedia.org/newswire/display/73061/index.php
This is just an article saying that 'Frikipedia' was closed down. As far as I can see, 'Inciclopedia' isn't mentioned in it.

http://www.frikipedia.es/friki/Inciclopedia
An wiki article from the old spanish uncyclopedia, unreliable and full of nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WM2006_0060.jpg
A picture of Jimbo Wales from Wikipedia..

http://desciclopedia.pt/wiki/Tio1.jpg
Primary source of an image on the site..

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/wikia.com
Alexa.com page for wikia.com showing that 8% of traffic to wikia.com goes to the site (according to alexa anyway) and it's the third most popular wiki of wikia.com

http://www.lun.com/modulos/catalogo/paginas/2006/09/16/LUCSTDI05LU1609.htm
~~The only decent substantial coverage from a newspaper. I don't read Spanish so can't say much about this.~~ This source was proven to be questionable as a reliable source at the DRV:
The newspaper source is horrible[24]. Did you look at its main page [25]. This is a sensationalist newspaper that looks for curious stuff to cover. FFS, this is just low-quality yellow press that I doubt that has any reputation for fact checking. Looking at the Society section: "Condoms sell like hot bread this week(...) this time (people) is buying boxes of 12, tells Mirta Salazar, shopkeeper of the sucursal of Farmacias Ahumada of (street) Providencia with (street) Manuel Montt"[26], they only asked one pharmacy shopkeeper. Not only this source is awful but it asserts no notability of Inciclopedia at all. See, it only covers Inciclopedia because it had a fun page, not because they found it notable, the article only talks about a parody that is found in *one* page on the site. The page could have been hosted at any other wiki and it would have been covered in the exact same way. Also, they just interview the senator to show him the parody and ask him about it and, from context, they never ask him about a website called Inciclopedia or ask his opinion about it. If *this* is the better source they could find at eswiki and here, then the assesment that there were no sources on the article asserting notability is totally correct. In other words: Dios mio, pero que mierda de fuente es esta, hace falta valor, qué coño estaban pensando en eswiki. The eswiki votation was based only on the fact that the voters like the website and want the article preserved, and they make absolutely no assesment of sources at all. I just don't want to watch the video from TV Cuatro in case I find something worse than the newspaper. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cuatro.com/videos/index.html?xref=20071114ctoultpro_6.Ves&view=ver
A tiny mention on a TV show. "Inciclopedia was also mentioned..." Not a source to write an article from.

And having the article on the Spanish Wikipedia doesn't make it notable here. Unsuprisingly, there aren't any sources on the article there.

Notability and verfiability has clearly not been established, so delete. Otterathome (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, due to lack of notability establishment and verifiability, and for massive original research. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the reliability of the sources could never be established. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 23:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and thanks for saving me some time-- I was going to nominate this article for deletion myself some time this week for the same reasons. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To claim that Inciclopedia is "currently the 10,267,272th most popular site on the web" based on the Alexa rank of a redirect (inciclopedia.org) is nonsense and misleading. A redirected domain does not return meaningful Alexa rank, so not WP:RS by any stretch of imagination, and reposting this same nonsense again so soon after it was used in a previous failed attempt to delete the page (and pointed out as nonsensical at the time) is WP:POINT. I do not appreciate being given known-misleading information as a rationale to delete a page from the encyclopædia. --carlb (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't nominated solely for that reason, it was nominated because it fails our general notability guidelines and website notability guidelines.--Otterathome (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom's thorough evaluation of the article. TN‑X-Man 14:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom's detail explanation. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret M. Field Hickey[edit]

Only rationale for notability is her relationship to the Kennedy family, see WP:INHERITED. Quick searches of public and scholarly databases reveal nothing other than peerage information. Leoniceno (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless an assertion of notability is made. Pburka (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable on her own. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 09:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Beren[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination. Closure relisted per the outcome of this DRV. Concerns at the time of the original AfD were WP:AUTO, WP:COI and unclear notability. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My view hasn't changed, I said delete in the original AFD and see no reason to change that. He is an unsuccessful congressional candidate who got 16% of the general election vote in 2006 running again in 2008. Political candidates are not notable unless and until they win. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The main argument seems to have been that he failed WP:POLITICIAN, but as Les Grand pointed out, he met WP:BIO, with numerous verified second and third party sources[27] with non-trivial coverage, such as: Canada Free Press[28], Conservative Voice[29], Seattle Times[30], Seattle Post Intelligencer[31], New York Times[32], Seattle Times[33], Seattle Times[34], Seattle Post Intelligencer[35], Seattle Post Intelligencer[36], Seattle Times[37], Seattle Post-Intelligencer[38], NEws Tribune[39], Seattle Times[40], Seattle Post Intelligencer[41], Seattle Times[42], Seattle Times[43], Seattle Times[44], Crosscut Seattle[45]. This is more then enough to meet WP:BIO, even if he has never been a successful candidate. MrPrada (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my arguments in previous AfD. As the abovepost indicates, plenty of sources to indicate notability and as this discussion, the previous one, and the DRV suggest a sufficient number of Wikipedians believe in this article nad so should be obliged to have the article kept. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I agree that there are "plenty of sources" but, fail to see how they establish his notability per our policies/guidelines. I'm not against a rewrite and wikifying by a neutral party however if he truly is notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When we say that a candidate who fails to win an election is not necessarily notable, which is a correct statement of the policy, we do NOT mean that no candidate who fails to win cannot possibly be notable, if there are sources for it. This is one of the times when there are, so he is. DGG (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and others above, looks fine. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the above discussion, DGG makes a good point - while a failed candidacy in and of itself may not be notable, a subject that happens to be a failed candidate might be otherwise notable. There are multiple factors involved here - former candidate, current candidate, communist activist turned Republican politician, atheist now born again Christian, former member of Socialist Workers Party, very conservative candidate running against very liberal candidate who is very controversial, etc. The article itself has always been well sourced and quite balanced, with plenty of negative information to balance the stratightforward listing of facts. All known negative media references that were not already in have been added. I have tried as best as humanly possible to avoid COI thereby. Also, even in this discussion itself I am fine with however the process works out, and certainly would be the first to have no objection whatsoever to improvements in neutrality, accuracy, and sourcing. - Steve Beren, 5/22/08, 1:00 pm PDT
Keep per MrPrada and DGG. John254 00:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of significant press coverage, so passes WP:BIO. Darkspots (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close, wrong venue for this problem. WP:COPYVIO suggests reversion as a first resort and WP:COIN is for serious conflict-of-interest problems. Notability was not called into question, so no rationale for deletion. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Illinois University Press[edit]

This page is essentially a copy-paste of the official site. Serious NPOV and COI issues, not to mention copyright concerns. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to delete. Revert to version immediately before new user naively started adding to it, then systematically improve article (year of founding, focus subjects, any prominent books they may have published, etc.). A2Kafir (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert back to the March 13, 2008 version before the WP:COI and WP:COPYVIO was added, then expand. This is the publishing house of a notable university so this is certainly not a non-notable topic, but we can't just have cut and paste from their website. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The copyvio text can be removed and the article reduced to a stub, but scholarly publishing is a noteworthy activity. See this Google News search for many news hits, primarily for reviews of notable books published by the press. --Eastmain (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The copyright, NPOV and COI concerns raised by the nominator are easily addressed, and in fact the article has already been largely cleaned up. Maralia (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Provost[edit]

The subject of this article cannot be proven to exist by any searches for their name, and the organization Learning to Read in Africa that she supposedly founded also cannot be proven to exist. The article completely fails WP:V, let alone the stricter standards of WP:BLP. This article had a proposed deletion tag which was due to expire, however someone objected to the deletion on the talk page so I brought to AfD instead. -- Atama ^chat 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless some references appear, which is unlikely, considering how humble Chelsea Provost seems to be. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the objection on the talk page admitted that no sources could be found. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources can be found. Also, this unreferenced original research is unlikely to be verified. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 23:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO. Happyme22 (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unreferenced and unknown subject. Doesn't meet notability guidelines. May be a hoax for all we know. Artene50 (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and non-verifiable. To answer" She isn't on other websites so I can't possible put up citations and references" from the talk page - not all references have to websites but, they must exist and be from reliable 3rd party sources than can be verified. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (short article with insufficient context to identify subject) by SchuminWeb. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ViewSourceWith[edit]

Delete unsourced oneliner for a software product, without context of what it does or why it's notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, not enough context. Going to tag it for speedy. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 23:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 09:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FC Gland[edit]

A semi-professional or even a amateur club at the highest time reach the top of 1.st Liga (third-highest division) in Switzerland Matthew_hk t c 18:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - never played in a fully-pro league, fails notability. GiantSnowman 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When was it decided that clubs had to have played in a fully pro league? If that's the case then we'd best start nominating all those clubs in the Conference, Isthmian League, Southern League, Northern Premier, etc etc etc etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is poorly written, but the team has played in the third highest division in Switzerland, which I believe makes it more than notable enough for an article as we have 3rd division teams from smaller countries (Israel) and 10th level teams from some others (England). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would've thought the Swiss 3rd division would be notable enough regardless of it's professional/amateur status. Bettia ^(talk) 08:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gland played once in 1. Liga 1997-98 season. Matthew_hk t c 08:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct per official site here.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some previous comments seem to be confusing notability standards for players with those for clubs. It is generally accepted that individual players should have played at a professional level to be notable, but clubs are accepted at a lower level. Also if they played at a notable level in 1997–98 then they are notable now - notability does not expire. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. If a club lost their notability just because they were relegated from a notable leaue, then we would be forever deleting and recreating articles. Eddie6705 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It just 1. Liga is a questionable level (to me). Matthew_hk t c 20:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A football club that plays in the third highest division in Switzerland is definitely notable, but the page would need a major overhaul in order to make it suitable for this site. That in itself is not a very good reason for deletion. Razor flame 19:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Selket ^Talk 21:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torre Fundadores[edit]

Future building. Single external link as reference. If the project is listed on the linked site, I can't find it. (Declined prod) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - this article is poorly written and inaccurate but a rather quick search proves that this building does exist (in plan). [46], [47] and the developer's page [48] for starters. Scheduled to begin construction next year. I'll clean the article up. Arkyan 18:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clean-up Arkyan, but it's still only a proposed (and not even municipally approved) building. At what point does a putative building deserve an article? I would have thought not until ground was broken, or after it was approved at the very earliest. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Similar articles have survived deletion discussions based on the fact that they are attributable (sourced). There exist several articles for structures that were imagined but never built and almost certainly never will be - again, the bar for inclusion seems to be whether there exist enough sources to indicate that the building - or even the possibility of it's being built - is notable. Arkyan 20:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, as at the moment sourcing is thin (one primary source, one that is barely more than a blog, and another that is basically a user-editable directory). We don't have a buildings corollary to future films guideline; I'm not opposed to proposed-and-almost-certain structures having articles, but I would really prefer to see some stronger sources and there don't seem to be any in Google News Archive at the moment (which, yes, has a bias toward English-language sources). No prejudice against recreation when such appear. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are [49], [50], [51] and [52] sufficient? It only took me about 15 minutes of searching to pull up several very recent articles on this building. There are others, too, that I've not bothered listing. Apparently they're talking about upping the height which would make this taller than anything in Latin America, which if you ask me is yet another point in favor of keeping. Arkyan 13:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have a long tradition of treating 'proposed buildings' as if they were buildings in terms of their notability. See Chicago Spire, Crystal Chain etc. etc. proposals are the life blood of architecture, many don't make it to the construction site but that doesn't diminish the influence of an idea. The important thing is architectural notability, not whether the building is or isn't built yet, tall buildings are generally inherently notbale, what we need to look for is sources in the architectural press to establish architectural notability although this building may have geographic notability due to its size and prominence in the locality - so local/national press would suffice. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Selket ^Talk 21:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WLXZ[edit]

Delete This entire entry is based on non-existent radio stations. There is no information available through the FCC nor the links provided below. There are no sources listed in this article to verify these station's notability. As it stands, this entire entry is a falsehood and should be removed/deleted. Manimal22 (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The station does have a website, ~~and it appears to be an XM station.~~ so it's not a hoax. The lack of FCC licensing is telling, however. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they have a website does not make them notable. What makes you think they are an XM station? You are mistaken. Manimal22 (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say having a website automatically made them notable. I was indeed mistaken; somehow I saw "HD" and transposed it to "XM". Radio is just one big alphabet soup, isn't it? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Didn't mean to sound like I was jumping down your throat. Radio IS one big alphabet soup, and unfortunately because of that, it makes some people think they can play make-believe on the internet. I guarantee you none of these stations are real, licensed FM/AM stations. The FCC website has nothing on them. That says it all for me. I believe what's happening here is this is someone who has an internet radio station who wants to seem "bigger" and more important than he is. I believe there is a project going on here at wikipedia for Radio Stations. If this guy is truly legit (and apparently he isn't) he should get this page added through the proper channels of Radio Station Wikipedia. I've seen tons of legit radio shows get deleted from this place; there's certainly no reason to keep an article about a pretend radio group of radio stations. Manimal22 (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to what you said earlier, Hammer....about them not being a hoax because they have website....I didn't mean that they're a hoax as a station, I meant they're a hoax as a legitimate AM/FM radio station. As I stated earlier, there is no evidence that they are truly an AM/FM station. I believe they are an internet station that is pretending to be more. If we let an internet station create pages like this (or ANY page for that matter), we're going to open up a HUUUUUUGE can of worms here with all of the other 8 billion internet radio stations out there. Manimal22 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WLXZ and WLXQ do not exist within the databases, WLPS is a religious station in Lumberton, North Carolina, WWLX is an AM/FM country operation in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, and W251AC is an Huntsville, Alabama repeater for Alabama Public Radio (with the other two translator calls and the AM non-existent). That, and no 97.1 frequency station exists around or in Syracuse. Pretty simple case of a web radio station trying to push up they have terrestrial signals through their website. If there can be any outside notability found this might be more appropriate under the title Aero97One as a web station with the deceptive talk about it being a radio station stripped. Nate • (chatter) 21:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. WLZX 99.3 FM existed in Northampton/E. Longmeadow, Mass., at least until its owners got into trouble with the FCC.[53] This WLZX does not appear the real one. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is about WLXZ, not WLZX, sorry about that. Still, interesting reading on that radio stunt gone wrong (and stupid). Nate • (chatter) 22:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not quote a hoax but it's not an FCC licensed station even though the article strongly suggests that it is. No genuine Google News hits, fails notability and verifiability, exactly the kind of bad article that casts unwarranted suspicion on legitimate licensed stations. - Dravecky (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete References dont support the existence of this station. Should be treated as a hoax.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears to be a non-notable "pirate" radio station. Stress on the non-notable part. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the next step folks? Let's get rid of this. Manimal22 (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Itub (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aicardi-Goutieres syndrome[edit]

Delete unsourced oneliner about a rare genetic disorder without any claim to notability or even context on what is disordered or how it is manifest. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responsible for the unsourced oneliner. I apologize. I'm neither sufficiently versed in the aspects of the disease or Wikipedia to create a worthwhile page. Thank you to the contributors that have improved the stub. As I noted in the original discussion page it was redirecting to another unrelated condition of a similar name. 167.73.110.8 (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Mr.KnowNothingGuy[reply]
- No need to apologize. It was a good-faith contribution. Zagalejo^^^ 01:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a quick Google reveals plenty of sources, so I'm sure it could be expanded into a worthwhile article (though I'm not qualified to do so). 82.1.57.47 (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's an explanation of what it is. And there's plenty of more detailed information here. Couldn't you have just gone to a WikiProject for help? Zagalejo^^^ 18:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a somewhat more accessible explanation. Zagalejo^^^ 18:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it worth saving, please improve the article from its horrible condition. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly my area of expertise. I don't want to be responsible for adding misleading medical information. It's not "horrible", though. It's a stub. They're allowed. I see you've made similar articles, like Matelot, Trinidad. Zagalejo^^^ 18:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice redlink asking to be made; settlements are inherently notable notwithstanding someone tagging it for speedy deletion. Genetic disorders are not inherently notable. Huge distinction, dude. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't genetic disorders be inherently notable? Zagalejo^^^ 01:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a stub for a verifiable disease - Wikipedia should encourage people to add information - that's what stubs are for! No reason to delete. Stephenb (Talk) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of reliable sources out there to demonstrate notability. Just needs expansion by someone with that kind of knowledge. (AFD is not cleanup...)--Beloved Freak 20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd have thought that any disease that has been documented in medical literature would qualify as notable, no matter how rare. Vquex (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate medical topic. Needs expansion by an expert on the subject. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, a legitimate medical topic with substantial sources available. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references and real world notability. Consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on medical conditions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though Wikipedia is not a specialized encyclopedia on medical conditions. Such an encyclopedia would have a much more extensive article, and list every published reference. McKusick, referenced in the article, is such an encyclopedia, referencing every possible item of information on human genetic diseases. We just give a compact summary, as here. Even a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia appropriately has articles on each defined human disease, rare or common--they're still notable. DGG (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Main Street, U.S.A.. --Selket ^Talk 21:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carnation Café[edit]

After filtering out results for the place at a student union with the same name the remaining results don't establish notability for this cafe at Disney. There's nothing to back up the claim that it's a Disney original which might pass notability and the results cover its opening in the context of food at Disney. Without getting into WP:OTHERSTUFF, it's also worth noting that it appears to be the only Disney restaurant with its own article. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Disney's website says that it's an original, although this book says that the restaurant opened in 1997. Carnation has been a corporate sponsor since Disney's opening day, so maybe there was another Carnation restaurant, or something. Zagalejo^^^ 18:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To Zagalejo yep, the article alleges it was a place where they sold flowers -- open air? store? doesn't say and nor does anything else. Apparently what's now the Blue Ribbon Bakery used to be Carnation Ice Cream, but I can't verify that either. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Main Street, U.S.A. It's unlikely to have any particular notability on its own, and such venues are subject to frequent renovation as the above checkered history shows. --Dhartung | Talk 19:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect per Dhartung -- Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sayang dbsk malaysia[edit]

I recognise I'm being bitey and nominating this only a few minutes after creation, but I personally don't think this will be keepable. I initially nominated this as a speedy (A7) but on reflection I'm not going to contest the author's removal of the tag as there's enough on here that it's potentially a noteworthy organisation. It appears to me that it's just a fan club — albeit quite a big one — and that any coverage of the club should be in a subsection of TVXQ, but I may be misreading it. So, bringing it over here to get a consensus on whether we should have an article on this organisation, before any further work goes into the article. — iride scent 17:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I re-added the tag after the author removed it. I did that because I still think it is speedy-able. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, personally I think the initial speedy delete recommendation (A7) was correct. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with speedy under A7 but, also I'd suggest a polite note to author explaining that they are not meant to remove speedy tags and inviting them to participate here (if you haven't already done so that it). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by reason of G7. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trench Wars (zone)[edit]

I appreciate the article is "under construction", but Wikipedia is not the place for game guides, or extensive overviews of works of fiction, per WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:Writing about fiction. Marasmusine (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced game guide, not allowable per WP:NOT#GUIDE. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a perfect textbook example of someone trying to use Wikipedia to host a gameguide. Wrong wiki. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see that you want to delete it before I even write half of the article, but I'm willing to mold it so it fits policy. The wikipedia article that links here is on an older version of the game, and I want to add a page to show the history of game during the last several years. This game has been running on the internet for over ten years, i'm not trying to show people how to play it (re:game guide), i'm telling them about it. I can't access the history portion of my research for a day or so, so at least let me put that up.Eganjt (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Also telling the reader how something is used is encyclopedic, telling how to use something is not." nowhere in the article does it tell someone how to do something, it simply defines aspects of the computer game. This is a zone that is "used" by the video game. I could understand you calling it a gameguide if I told you how to play it, but someone who's never played could have written this using the sources i provided.Eganjt (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he means the vehicle descriptions. Calling one vehicle a "noob" ship and another one a bad ship to use, that's Gameguide information and not notable. Also note that all that information has to be reliably sourced- this page is kind of like going on the World of Warcraft article and saying, "It is common knowledge that only newcomers to WoW play as Alliance races." It's well-worded and it may be general consensus, however, it's only useful to people actually playing the game and it's unsourced.
An article about a game is fine. A list of zones/servers/whatever in a game is cool-ish. An in-depth description of a specific Zone in a 1997 computer game doesn't seem like it would have a whole lot of notability. Should be merged into the main article, but doesn't merit its own page. Consider MapleStory. It is a wildly popular game with only a handful of actual servers, yet none of these servers have their own articles despite being entirely different from eachother economically. ZappyGun (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out that Maplestory article - It reads like a game guide too, only it has more information. From what everyone's saying, nothing that tells how the game is played or really anything besides "it is a game, the end" could be put in the article. That being said, I still believe that it deserves to be mentioned somewhere if other articles like it exist. Well nobody's backing me up so go ahead and delete it. In looking at notability "Articles about game expansions should be treated independently. Articles about fictional elements of games should be treated as described in the notability guidelines for fiction." It's not the same thing as the article subspace (video game) that I've been talking about. Maybe it should go into that article, but it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense since they're different subjects. Re: fiction, it's not describing fictional plots or anything but the actual concepts in the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eganjt (talk •

contribs) 12:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out that Maplestory article - It reads like a game guide too, only it has more information. Note that the article only has a single paragraph on character classes and there is no information as to which class is 'best' or which is a 'noob' class. The things that COULD be considered Gameguide (EG, Minigames) only explain what they are, not how they are done or the MapleStory Community's general perception of them. Also note that it is describing the game itself, which has recieved a relatively large amount of media coverage.

Also note that a "Zone" in the context of SubSpace is a server, not an expansion pack and as such should not follow the Expansion guidelines. Since the servers are not controlled by the Developers it would be considered user-generated content and, as such, subject to much stricter consideration. I'm not too keen on Fiction but I'm nearly certain that it refers to in-game backstory. See: Halo Universe for an example.ZappyGun (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to have been the subject of independent and credible sources per WP:FICT. Reads like a game guide (e.g. ship recommendations). Suggest interested parties start a game-related Wikia. --Dhartung | Talk 19:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, how-to, or guide, and certainly not a game FAQ or walkthrough. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:NN. ZappyGun (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete author should contribute constructively to the article he says is out of date using reliable 3rd party sourcing. The other article if in need of improvement as stated above needs the author attention more than the creation of a new article that doesn't meet the criteria for notability, verifiability, etc. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G7. See User talk:CanadianLinuxUser#Trench Wars (zone). --Jaysweet (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). The consensus below is that article subject is both inherently notable as a high school and is notable because of the reliable sources, added during the debate, that document its notability. Darkspots (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southfield Christian School[edit]

This article is unsourced, does not assert notability, and fails WP:ORG. A Google search results in no reliable sources. I actually came across this article during a Google Earth search for the White House and noticed someone had placed a link to the school's WP article on top of the White House. (Note: that act of foolishness isn't the reason for this nomination) APK ^{yada yada} 16:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the schools policy made all high schools automatically notable? Rmhermen (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come again? If you're referring to WP:SCHOOL, it's proposed and not policy yet. Also, WP:SCHOOL doesn't say all high schools are automatically notable. There are still notability requirements for schools. APK ^{yada yada} 17:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yeah but high schools tend to be kept. Personally I'm seeing news coverage of people at the school and a grant mention, but no evidence the school is notable. That said, I don't think it will get deleted. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - consensus is that high schools have sufficient notability to be kept and sources are available to meet WP:N. The way forward is to develop the page not to delete it. I am about to add some content. TerriersFan (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additions by TerriersFan.--Sting Buzz Me... 12:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SCHOOLS does not seem to yet have consensus on that page, but we do have consensus at AfD thqat all HS articles are kept a a practical matter. What we do at Wikipedia is the true Wikipedia guideline, even if we have trouble articulating it on a policy page, where one or a few individuals can prevent almost indefinitely the forming of an expressed consensus. Here it's different,--we can and we do form practical consensus. DGG (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not all High Schools are notable by any means and we should not keep unnotable content for any matter, practical or otherwise. Unless notability can be demonstrated, this has no meritorious claim to retention under some vague claims of de facto practice. I disagree completely with TF that consensus admits all HS are automatically notable. Eusebeus (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a major institution in any community, high schools have ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. This school is no exception, providing the sources needed to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. The results of AfDs for high schools have established extremely strong evidence of a clear consensus on notability of high schools. This AfD will only add to the mounting base of evidence. Alansohn (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per essay: Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Movement to impeach George W. Bush --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 16:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire House Resolution 24 (2008)[edit]

A failed state-level resolution that in any case would have been purely symbolic, but wasn't even accorded a vote before the chamber where it was drafted. Also, it's already mentioned here; a separate article isn't needed. The article also sounds like a bit of promotion for Betty Hall (see the list of links too). Biruitorul (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attribution to credible and independent sources to show that this legislative action was notable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect useful content to Movement to impeach George W. Bush where it is already properly included. Let it grow there and move back unquestionably notable. JJB 19:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Redirect - to Movement to impeach George W. Bush#Political views and actions, until it achieves separate notability. TN‑X-Man 14:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Unpassed bills are not normally notable, and this one does not seem to be, in particular. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge Not notable outside its broader context. Townlake (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Frank | talk 13:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) The nominator has withdrawn by voting keep, and no other editor has made any recommendation except keep. Darkspots (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Harris (snooker)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I'm completing this listing for an IP. Darkspots (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP added an ((afd1)) to the article with this diff. The edit summary was: extremely thin basis for beeing on wikipedia and claims made are unsourced. tony drago is a journeyman snooker professional and usual person associated with spotting steve davis is barry hearn.

delete Non-notable, does not meet WP:BIO. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC). keep In the light of new information and references added to the article, I can see that he does meet the requirements of WP:BIO. StephenBuxton (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is this listed as second AFD? I've had a look, and cannot find the first AFD. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first listing was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vic Harris (snooker player) back in July. This was closed as a keep by me, due to the fact that it had been relisted three times without anyone really !voting (and the nominator didn't even provide a reason). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment The afd link at the top redirects back here (It says (snooker) rather than (snooker player)). I tried to fix the box, but failed dismally, so I undid it. The link in your post, TPH, works. StephenBuxton (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject competed at least three times in the UK Snooker Championship, which is a professional tournament, and so meets the requirements of WP:ATHLETE. And he has a snooker league named after him. Darkspots (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's competed in a professional tournament and he's the subject of multiple reliable sources. Seems to meet WP:ATHLETE just fine (tho' how snooker could be considered athletic I don't know). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that the fact he has what seems to be an amateur/ semi-pro snooker league named after him has any importance. If he set up the league that may well be the end of the matter. It is not that well known a league. The suggestion that he competed three times in the UK snooker championship is unsourced. The mere fact that someone once played some professional tournaments has to be treated with care as for a stage in the 1990s snooker was an open professional sport and anyone who paid the entry fees for qualifying events was a professional. The benchmark for including someone should be more than the fact they merely played in a professional game otherwise there will be a 100 odd players on wikipedia of no standing. --213.202.171.133 (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely certain that you're being fair here. After 1984, the UK Snooker Championship was an internationally ranked event. Harris competed in 1987 and made it to the fourth round. He didn't just pony up his entry fee, he did quite well in the competition. Ok, the article 1987 UK Snooker Championship lacks sources, but that doesn't mean that the writers of that article made the tournament results up out of whole cloth. Vic Harris (snooker) isn't a great article by any means, but its subject is notable enough to have an article on WP by our standards, in this case WP:ATHLETE. Harris also won the English Amateur Championship in 1981, so he has competed at the highest level of amateur sport as well. If you don't like the Davis/Drago information (the source doesn't look all that great to me, either), remove it from the article and explain your reasoning on the talk page (might want to do that after this debate is closed). By the way, I mentioned the league being named after him as a bit of a deadpan joke--looking it over again, that's not very clear. That's not the source of his notability, just a slightly humorous aside. Darkspots (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the assertion that he was English amateur champion in 1981 can be sourced he should be left on. Otherwise he is punching above his weight and on wikipedia due to some vague link to Davis, Drago and because an unimportant league is named after him. --83.70.157.198 (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment A source has been found to his win, and Darkspots has added it to the article. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: didn't seem to manage or coach Davis or Drago merely 'spotted' them though whether he was the first to do this not clear. Has a amateur/semi-pro snooker league named after him that operates in one part of one county in England. References to him on internet are few if any save to the league, Drago or Davis does not seem to justify his listing.--213.202.171.133 (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- agree in light of updated information should be kept. --213.202.171.133 (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted under ((A7)). - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Technicolor[edit]

Non-notable band, no sources other than MySpace, no claim of notability made. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. APK ^{yada yada} 16:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Absolutely no notability claimed. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is yet another myspace/facebook band and nothing more. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Read the comment from APK. El iAS 18:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Selket ^Talk 21:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meme-Rider Media Team[edit]

Probably fails notability requirements Rmhermen (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while I don't quite understand what is being said in the article (seems like nonsense to me), it fails WP:ORG by not ascertaining any notability. All external links seem to be blogs. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Arsenikk that this appears to be nonsense. Regardless, there are no reliable sources listed, so the article does not meet WP:N. TN‑X-Man 14:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Philippine Nursing Licensure Exam (non-admin closure). — λ (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Nurse Licensure Examination[edit]

Nothing to indicate that this exam is notable--I suppose it could be with proper sourcing, but both provided links are broken. Prod was removed without explanation by an anon IP. --Finngall ^talk 15:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 22:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Philippine Nursing Licensure Exam.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redir as per Lenticel. Just as notable as the Bar exam. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apostol Apostolov[edit]

Non-notable, hasn't done anything yet, vanity entry — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a conflict of interest article. Pagra shtak 17:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find any third-party reliable sources to assert notability. Additionally, I share Pagrashtak's concerns about there being a conflict of interest with this article. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 22:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, conflict of interest and non-notable. Ironholds (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even assuming good faith, there's no effort to establish the notability of this game developer. Randomran (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7, surely.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Close for lack of a rationale for deletion. I would advise the nom to review our policies, and - if this article can be found to fail any of our inclusion criteria, including Notability, Verifiability, or Reliable Sourcing, then a re-nomination may be in order. As noted below, though, not liking the content or subject of an article is insufficient. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Living with Michael Jackson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Living with Michael Jackson

some hold this a s proof that micheal would hurt children but it has been shown through a video michael made and with the never ending support of the fans adults and children who love and beliee in him that he would never hrut a child and that bashir would try and bring down the kindest man SDLexington (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep bad faith nom. "I Don't Like It" is not a valid reason to bring something to AFD. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also not a notable thing it is just a tv programme also bashi has admitted he made it up also michael was found innocent in the courts speedy delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by SDLexington (talk • contribs) 15:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not important the fact is that it is notable via WP:N. It was shown on several notable TV channels and led to the actual court precedings. Please read WP:BEFORE, WP:N and WP:IDONTLIKEIT Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but doctor the have 40 Most Awesomely Bad Dirrty Songs...Ever on vh1 and that is not an entry also jordy would have made alegatons even if theat had not been shown he was a child that michael took pity on because he had cancer and after michael had cured him then he turned around and tried to get money from a kind man. if they were in bed together it was inercant just to watch films SDLexington (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay i see you have changed it to read several notablen tv stations —Preceding unsigned comment added by SDLexington (talk • contribs) 15:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you must understand that simply because you don't like it does not mean it is not notable. Because it led to the court precedings EVEN THOUGH he was found not guilty, that therefore makes it notable. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and block SDLexington for making a ridiculous amount of trouble (see his contribs). JuJube (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean keep, right? because if not, then the last half of your vote would contadict. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mangano Deschanel[edit]

There are many mistakes (Rákosi after 1956 and Bokros in the 1950s. Moreover, Google doesn't have any results of Mangano Deschanel Drkazmer (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N. Has no hint of notability. Most of the Google results gotten were for self-promotion sites. Highly doubtful that this person will ever be notable, even in the future. Razor flame 16:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this person ever existed. Drkazmer ^{Just tell me...} 17:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Surely a fiction. Sources would be abundant for someone who served as deputy prime minister for five years, and I can find nothing remotely reliable. Gr1st (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me it's really weird that people can work so much on imaginary people... Drkazmer ^{Just tell me...} 23:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 game guide content, transwikied to appropriate Metal Arms wiki.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of enemies in Metal Arms: Glitch in the System[edit]

I originally split this article from the Metal Arms page because it was unwieldly and incomprehensive. I now believe it should be deleted as per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:IINFO. It should not be merged back into its original page because
1.The original article is already a jumbled mess of borderline-notable information, and
2.The page to be deleted is not notable and is not a focal point of the game. ZappyGun (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Should the original page receive any changes as a result of this deletion? Enemies are a significant part of the game. --Kiz o r 14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some characters appear to be important to the plot and can be added to the Character section, such as this "Vlax" person. There's adequate information on the "Mils" (the generic enemy "race") as well as the Zombie-bots.ZappyGun (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've transwiki'd this page over to StrategyWiki:Metal Arms: Glitch in the System/Enemies (along with the main page for the game). -- Prod (Talk) 20:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this fails the general notability guideline. Also fails the policy in Wikipedia:SUMMARY#Avoiding_unnecessary_splits about unnecessary splits that create new non-notable articles. A much better strategy is to expand the main article, without getting into unnecessary detail about enemies. Instead, focus on a summary of the overall style of enemies, and mention a few of the most notable ones. Randomran (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manpower Incorporated (Honorverse)[edit]

Trivial plot summary. No claim of real-world notability. Google search yields no hits that mention this topic even in passing in any sort of review, commentary, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Un-cited. Trees Rock^MyGoal 14:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion was blanked from the May 18 Log not long after it was transduced. Reslisted for May 20. -- Vary | Talk 14:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plot summary of a non-notable entity which has not received substantially coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Honorverse completionist creation. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Selket ^Talk 21:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Cabal[edit]

Non-notable drummer had some jobs in some barely-notable bands. Damiens.rf 13:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established. Frank | talk 16:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, there is no Cabal. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no third-party references. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 23:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as ((G3)) hoax. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boons[edit]

Contested prod/possible hoax. Unsourced article for a combination cricket/netball team. Attempts to find information by a google search finds information for a stuffed animal business, a manufacturer of bread slicers, and a storage rental service, but no apparent hits about a sports enterprise.[54] Searches for names of various individuals from the article return either nothing or false positives. Delete as per WP:V unless proper sources are provided to show this sports enterprise actually exist. --Allen3 ^talk 12:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just a quick read through this article shows it's firmly in WP:NFT and WP:BULLSHIT country, quite aside from the complete lack of sourcing. Ravenswing 13:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a hoax. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This article doesn't even begin to assert notability. Almost certainly not a hoax, but an article about a social sporting team that has no hope of ever complying with a single wikipedia policy in any genre falls well within the bounds of CSD G3 per multiple recent precedents. Debate (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Clearly a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (default keep). Pigman☿ 00:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cotton Jones Basket Ride[edit]

A band. One editor seems to think that changing "since come to fruition as" to "since become" removes the spamminess from the article. I think that an article created by Quite Scientific about a band managed by Quite Scientific Records is bound to be spam. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With 30,300 hits for this exact phrase this passes the Google test. With none of any significance this fails WP:N. Whoever is responsible for the link spamming is clearly a genius. Bonus points for a clear COI article actually not falling victim to POV issues. Nonetheless, not enough to scrape over the line. Debate (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC, which is more to the point; we've got a startup folk band with a single self-released album. Obviously they're being booked to hellandgone, but they're not as yet generating reliable sources. RGTraynor 13:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Criteria 6 of WP:MUSIC notes that groups may be considered notable if one or more of their members were/are also members of another notable group. As noted in the first speedy declination, the lead singer of this group was also the lead singer of Page France. While this is generally not enough to warrant an article, there is also coverage of this band on Pitchfork media, Antimusic (not sure how reliable a source that is, though), and CMJ. This coverage combined with the link to a notable band and the fact that the band is going on a national tour as noted in the Pitchfork and CMJ entries is enough to convince me that this topic is notable enough for an article. Oh, and as far as disclosure goes, I'm the editor in the nom, and I echo User:Debate's call for bonus points. --jonny-m t 13:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSIC#C6. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A couple decent sources have been found, and they meet #6 of WP:MUSIC by having members of another notable band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can tell, the claim that this meets WP:Band seems to be based almost entirely on the fact that the artist concerned was a member of another band for which a Wikipedia article exists. I have had a look around for material on the band Page France, however, and in my view a pretty strong case can be made that Page France should also be nominated for afd since the quality of the information I'm getting on Page France is on par with that I'm finding for The Cotton Jones Basket Ride (in fact, The Cotton Jones Basket Ride if anything is turning up a little more material). Certainly Page France have never charted and the Page France article makes no assertion of notability in any criteria relevant to WP:Band. So the question then becomes, is the simple existence of another wikipedia article on a related band sufficient to establish the notability of this one? I'd strongly suggest not. There is also a claim that a couple of reports on the band exist, which is true, however the general hurdle criteria for notability is multiple works (presumably meaning more the 2-3) in reliable independent sources and the only pieces anyone has been able to produce are a couple of pretty short news-style pieces. Note also that a significant part of the articles that have been found discuss the release of two CDs, the total production runs of which are 500 and 1000 copies respectively. Furthermore, the "national tour" seems closer to a trip around a few Eastern States, with brief nips into the Midwest and Canada, and if that complies with the "national tour" criteria of WP:Band there are a few other band articles that have been deleted recently that really should be reinstated. Debate (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I was thinking that myself, to be honest, and was looking at the putative notability of Page France. I've always felt that the "member of a notable band" meant member of a significant band, not just any group with a blue-link. I likewise think that "national tour" should mean more than "We've got a gig in Springfield MA on Tuesday, Hartford CT on Thursday and Kingston RI on Saturday." RGTraynor 13:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-m t 02:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield University Theatre Company[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Contested prod. Article about a theatre company that fails to assert notability through means of verifiable third party references (or any other means, for that matter). _Talk Islander 11:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No concensus to delete. Sutco is an establish theatre company with apparent roots being traced back to 1996 if not earlier as shown on its website (which is linked on the Wiki page). Short of repeating every show sutco has put on (which can be found on the website) on the Wiki, what further notability is needed. --Mtbab (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Glad you asked. Notability is established through reliable sources; independent, third-party sources about the subject of a non-trivial nature. This would include newspaper articles about the company, not merely capsule reviews of its plays. Fails WP:ORG, no reliable sources about the subject other than show reviews, something explicitly excluded from WP:RS. RGTraynor 13:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any independent media coverage of SUTCo. If the company is as notable as it claims one would expect to find references in major British newspapers. Pburka (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the university newspaper? and local Sheffield newspapers?--143.167.240.152 (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: No on one (not independent) and yes on two, provided they are in-depth articles about the company and not merely reviews of the latest show or brief "X show opens tonight at SUTC" notes. Have you any such sources? RGTraynor 15:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non that are online I don't believe, but I can certainly have a deeper look. Can I ask, having a look at various other Student theatre wikis myself, why aren't others also without such "notability" aren't coming under such deletion propsects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.240.152 (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply 'cause they haven't been 'found' yet - I assure you that this article isn't being picked out specially - any article that fails WP:N receives similar treatment. If you find a set of suitable references, that assert the notability of the article, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. _Talk Islander 16:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, except in rare instances -- I can think of one up at AfD a couple months ago that did pass -- very, very few student theater groups, or student organizations generally, pass WP:V or WP:ORG muster. It takes something like the Hasty Pudding Theatricals to pass. RGTraynor 16:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) --MPerel 00:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Away (Madonna song)[edit]

Like "Beat Goes On (Madonna song)" (also nominated for deletion), this is a Madonna album track which received one week of chart action due to digital download sales on the week Hard Candy was released. There are no plans nor confirmations pertaining to a release as a single nor any sources about a music video, etc. Song has no notability on its own at the present time. Suggest delete or merge to album page per WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:CRUFT. - eo (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: "Official" release as a single or not, this is a song documented as charting on a national hits chart, and so clears WP:MUSIC, if barely. RGTraynor 13:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

guidelines (WP:MUSIC) for individual songs says "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Plus, a download chart is not necessarily a national hit chart of it includes songs not offically released. 23:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts ... are probably notable." I'd say that a national download chart is at least just as significant as the "official" charts, traditionally compiled from a number of nebulous polling sources purporting to gauge airplay. By contrast, I see nothing in WP:MUSIC stating that a song must be "officially" released as a single as a precondition of notability; for one thing; what, does that disbar songs prior to the vinyl era? RGTraynor 05:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:MUSIC#C2. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC#C2 refers to artists not individual songs, so not relevant to this article. JKW111 (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Given that it's Madonna, it's likely to chart much higher, and will more than likely be past stub-class in a few weeks. Seems to barely meet WP:MUSIC#C2 right now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Not a single (as far as we know so far). Entry in a download chart (not limited to actual singles) does not meet notability test. If needed, its download performance can be included on album page, but certainty not enough for a separate article. JKW111 (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, like other articles when it charts, people usually make a blue article like this. It is also not stating it is a single. I think when a single charts it should be made an article. --BatterWow (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and article boldly redirected by Tenacious D Fan, with no "delete" opinions. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sugababes Videography[edit]

Unnecessary, not encyclopedic. I have moved all the important data to the Sugababes discography page Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect per nomination to preserve GFDL edit history for legal mumbo-jumbo purposes. -- saberwyn 11:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: pending nom proffering legitimate deletion grounds beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. "Unnecessary?" RGTraynor 13:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Unnecessary" is not good grounds for deleting something. Perhaps a redirect would be more appropriate. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you're withdrawing your nomination? Or ... what? —Quasirandom (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a redirect will suffice. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three Tour[edit]

A two-date tour? Not notable. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability other than that it is a "tour" by a notable band. Merge any reliable information to the bands article and dump the rest. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as above. No doubt this band tours; most bands do. I rather doubt we have a separate article on every mid 1970s college hall swing Bruce Springsteen did. RGTraynor 13:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jasynnash2 and merge any relevant sourced info to Sugababes. No evidence of notability of this tour on its own. Nsk92 (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not assert notability and any relevant information should be merged into the Sugababes article. APK ^{yada yada} 17:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Sugababes article. Happyme22 (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW and practical mootness: the article has been entirely rewritten and is no longer the article that was nominated. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bed management[edit]

This article doesn't appear to meet any speedy deletion criterion, that's why I'm bringing it to AFD. There is very little context in the article, but perhaps too much for A1. It's a coatrack for advertising, but perhaps not blatant enough for G11. Either way, there's not enough for a Wikipedia article. A ecis^Brievenbus 13:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A whopping lot of hits on Google UK [55] and plainly from a lot of reliable sources. It's certainly a weak little stub, but being a stub isn't a valid deletion ground. Ravenswing 13:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ravenswing. It seems that there is a lot to be said about this subject, and enough published information to compose an article about it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undecided~~ for the moment. It is true that there are lots of reliable sources that mention this term. GoogleNews alone gives 614 hits[56]. However, the current shape of the article is not good enough to stand on its own as a stub. No sources are cited and it is not clear if the subject is really a well-defined topic of its own or just a term/definition that is properly a part of a larger and more well-defined topic. With a generic-sounding name like that I am somewhat unsure. Probably could be improved to a decent stub version by a knowlegeable person but I'd like that happen first. Nsk92 (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep. I see that the article has been sourced and improved and is already in a good enough shape to be kept. Nsk92 (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Article will obviously be kept now. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have rewritten the article with a summary of why Bed management is an important issue in Hospital management, and I've added five pretty authoritative references. There's more to be said: I would suggest a section on demand management (section 3 of the Audit Commission 2003 paper covers most of the ground), and another section on discharge management (which is discussed in several of the existing referencs). Ideally we would have a GFDL version of the fig 1. on page 150 of the Proudfoot paper to explain the scope and terms. I don't think it is necessary to list software implementations unless there is a reputable product whose website has useful screen shots. - Pointillist (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten, I think the nomination can be withdrawn now that the original points for deletion are moot. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—a well-sourced article on a subject of general interest to the UK population at the least. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Jeanne DuPrau. The contents of the article had been previously merged by the nominator, and per discussion this is just to preserve the article's history. Nonadmin IAR early close as uncontroversial housekeeping. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Books Written by Jeanne DuPrau[edit]

This page was merged with Jeanne DuPrau, without the knowledge that we were not supposed to just copy and paste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnywalterboy (talk • contribs) 2008/05/18 16:42:07

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to preserve GFDL edit history for legal mumbo-jumbo purposes. -- saberwyn 11:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect to the Jeanne DuPrau. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although the discussion determined that the club existed, there appears to be a consensus that it is still non-notable. Since each article is examined on its own merits, there is a policy-based consensus here to delete.

As an added note, it appears that the previous discussion was closed as a "non-decision" before the nomination was properly listed, resulting in the absence of an AfD tag on the article itself. However, I consider the amount of discussion below to be sufficient to determine consensus; please feel free to take it to deletion review if you disagree. --jonny-m t 02:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catedral Quelimane[edit]

That team don't exist.. you can see in [57] and [58]. That team is not listed in any level of Mozambique football leagues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calapez (talk • contribs)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what? Can someone "adminy" look at this. Is it a serious nom or something gone horribly wrong? There doesn't appear to be a nominator nor a reason for nomination. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, Alex Muller 13:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it exists it certainly isn't notable as the reference given at the bottom doesn't appear to exist. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jasynnash2. No verifiable references that the team exists, so fails WP:V. Either way, certainly not notable and fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick look at rsssf.com confirms that this club does exist, or at least did from 2003-06. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - do your research before nominating for deletion. ugen64 (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- i've researched.. the team don't exist anymore.. if they exist in the past it was not notable, so, it will never be notableCalapez (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What grounds do you have for saying that they were not notable when they existed? We treat teams that have played at the 10th level of English football as notable, so why not the 2nd level of Mozambican football? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness technology[edit]

The article makes a lot of claims, none of which are addressed by the links provided below.(one of the links to a myspace page and another is a youtube video). A lot reads like OR. Proposed delete as unverifiable. Prashanthns (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has been speedied twice before. Have removed two of the links as they were completely inappropriate. A youtube link to a dutch video and a myspace page. Pasting here for reference. Prashanthns (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article serves as an essay to advance the author's POV KevinCuddeback (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and consider SALT due to determination to re-re-recreate the article despite multiple references to policy). Of key importance to an assessment of WP:SPAM is the final paragraph in which they suggest that practice of this trademarked process is limited "by law" to practitioners whom they themselves have trained. I don't believe this would ever pass WP:FRINGE in that no specific references in respected peer-reviewed publications are being offered, although a lot of big names are sprinkled throughout the article. Unfortunately, Google searching is somewhat hampered by the frequency of use of each of the individual words of the protologismic name, but no one seems to me to find this "technology' valid except its own practitioners. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
here's one link which only proves yours and Rob's point. Blatant promotion and business masquerading as science. Prashanthns (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pseudo-science nuttery. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Take a look at this movie here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEH3dsq_Gig, which is also on the MySpace-page of the developer. Then come back to me and tell me exactly what's at stake and in particular who exactly is nuts over here. Thank you very much for your attention, and dream on! Machteld1 (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The above comment is by the article's primary contributor.Prashanthns (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism, spam, unreferenced, something made up in one day, and not notable. Also, there is no surer way to establish non-notability than by pointing to YouTube and MySpace content as evidence of notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Any encyclopaedic article at this title would be a long way in the future. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term itself does not appear to meet WP:N, and the current article is yet another essay masquerading as science. Maralia (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NPOV and COI violations in the interest of an unsourced set of claims. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and probably salt so we could quickly remove attempts at re-creation. The argument above trying to justify a keep actually explains why its a delete: the source is a youtube video & a myspace page--the quintessence of unacceptable sources. DGG (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It gives pseudoscience a bad name. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-m t 02:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deliverance at Hand[edit]

This particular convention of Jehovah's Witnesses does not seem more notable than any other JW convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffro77 (talk • contribs) 2008/05/18 03:02:34

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a small amount of context, see List of Jehovah's Witnesses conventions. The article does not evidence any independent and reliable sources about the convention(s). If such sources are not forthcoming, delete. GRBerry 18:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:' Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Polaron | Talk 02:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Coast (Connecticut)[edit]

this article is about a non-notable subject (the 'nickname' of an unclassified sub-region in Connecticut) that has no encyclopedic value. --Point Place 1970 (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep seems a reasonable encyclopedic article for that section of Connecticut. "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" isn't probably something I should use but, there are a number of other Gold Coasts listed and the nom doesn't seem to have nominated any of those in the same way although, they seem to have essentially the same level or less notability as the Connecticut one. Additionally, in case it matters the AfD nom is the nominator's first and only contribution. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At worst this is a widely used marketing term. There's certainly a reasonable chance than users will try to search by it. Multiple sources in various independent tourism and marketing publications suggests that this is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. Debate (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References establish that it's a real region of the state and demonstrate its notability; being unofficial (is that what is meant by "unclassified"?) isn't a problem. Nyttend (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are some false positives but a number of reliable sources document this region. Please also note that nom appears to be an SPA _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —_{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who can warp reality[edit]

Impossible-to-compile list which is also useless. r3m0t ^talk 21:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nonsensical nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the author's best efforts, there's no real objective way to define "warping reality". For instance, technically every ninja in Naruto can do so with their disguise techniques. JuJube (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear criteria for inclusion. For crying out loud, drinking can technically warp reality can't it? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds its missing Sam Beckett from the best show ever. Seriously, delete on weak inclusion criteria that's subjective/OR to say the least based on definition of warping reality and therefore no possible way to have a comprehensive list. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Last week, people were falling all over themselves to keep several similar and equally uninformative and useless lists of this nature. The reality is that this list is mediocre; if anyone cares to "warp" that reality by hitting the "edit this page" button, I'd reconsider. Mandsford (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Need I elaborate further upon the above stated opinions? Arkyan 20:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list is far from complete, and a complete list of such characters would be unwieldy and unhelpful.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author(s) make a valiant effort to define the criteria for inclusion, but this is still uncomfortably subjective and unsuitable for 3rd party sourcing for an encyclopedia article. The list would conceivably change daily with different editors, making it useless as a reference resource for WP users. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. Plus all the other arguments mentioned by the good people above on the list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article name and structure are editorial decisions.-Wafulz (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of free disk cloning soft[edit]

Directory/how-to material. Apparently created with the intention of comparing various free programs so that people can choose which one to use. While not a bad idea, it's not encyclopedic. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 14:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by "apparently", I mean the comment 'Someday I'll convert this article to "Comparison"' from the talk page. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 14:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Marasmusine on this article's talk page. Debate (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Disk cloning. This is not notable on its own. Merenta (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a directory and a how-to. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is five days old. We have many software comparisons and, while this one needs work (did I mention it was five days old), it has the potential to be a useful guide to readers. The scope should be limited to tools that have wikipedia pages, possibly broadened to include proprietary tools, and should be patterned other, more mature comparisons (once again, this is only five days old). --Karnesky (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I could see a refactoring and renaming to List of disk cloning software making sense, if that is workable. JohnnyMrNinja 06:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - my concern was with the listing of possibly non-notable software. I've nothing against the presence of a list per se. I'm neutral on this one. Marasmusine (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why isn't it List of free disk cloning software? Eklipse (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy at least until they figure out if this is a list, or a comparison, and what the proper name of it should be, and what all they are going to include, etc. Wrs1864 (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment by "userfy at least", I meant that the information should not be lost, so if not kept, please userfy. Also apparently, the name of this article has been changed to List of free disk cloning software. I still think the name should be "comparison" rather than "list", and I see no reason it should be resticted to "free" (as in beer, or as in FOSS?) Wrs1864 (talk)

Merge per Merenta. J293339 (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/move to List of disk cloning software and make "free" a column. There are plenty of software comparisons and this can/should be one more. gren グレン 09:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this useful page, although hopefully with improved sources. As noted above, we have plenty of such comparisons and many are encyclopedic. Frank | talk 13:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 did think about just ruthlessly trimming this to properly sourced entries, but there would've been practically nothing left once we'd removed the entries sourced to blogs, a forum, user-generated content sites and HomeSchoolAcademy.com. More problematically, though, the exact definition of "homeschooling" is vague (for example, should someone who only became homeschooled as a teenager be included?). WP:NOT#IINFO appears to apply here, and I am also mindful of User:Ecoleetage's comments. Black Kite 20:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of homeschooled individuals[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previous AfD resulted in a merge. List violates WP:NOT#INFO, and provides no meaningful context. Five Years 12:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As currently constituted, this is a very incomplete list of almost unrelated elements. (It mixes a few notable historical people who were educated at home in prior centuries before common schools existed with a few notable contemporary people who were educated at home.) Without annotation, it is no more useful and informative than the online homeschooling forum posts from which the content seems to have been based. There may be value in a thoroughly sourced and well-annotated list that explains the circumstances under which each listed person was home-educated, but until such a list is ready to be published, the most notable examples could be discussed in Homeschooling. --Orlady (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary list. The information provided by the list are trivial. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not entirely fair to say "First nomination ended in merge vote", when the first nomination consisted of an articlespace with the same title that the creator himself asked to be merged because it was a list with only one name on it. In addition, how does this violate NOINFO anymore than any other list? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Sherurcij. - Diligent Terrier (and friends)18:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are lists of notable alumni and university people, aren't there? This is just a different kind of school. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Orlady. The problem is that the definition of "homeschooling" here is far too loose. To include Lincoln and Shackleton, for instance... well, you'd probably have to include also the vast majority of (say) the British aristocracy, and the entire British royal family until Prince Charles (who was, I think, the first to be sent to a "regular" school), not to mention vast swathes of the third world (where children are too poor to go to school) and so on. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it needs refining, issues that should be raised on its talk page. I'd favour it being renamed and having a narrower focus to people in the 20th and 21st century who were homeschooled. But again, isn't that an issue for the talk page of the article, rather than a call to delete the entire thing? If we delete it, and somebody tries to recreate it "properly" in the future, they'll see it get re-deleted as "previously deleted list". Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that everyone was homeschooled before compulsory schools is wrong, and I would like to point out that all through history in many places (like the Roman empire) schools were quite possibly as popular as they were now, making homeschooling at that time as rare is it is now. - Diligent Terrier (and friends)22:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is currently being discussed on the article talk page with Diligent Terrier thinking we should include people from past century and other believing to not include them. This is not a reason to delete however. Z gin der 2008-05-19T12:15Z (UTC)

Delete as per Orlady. "Homeschooled until the third grade" ? "Taught by a governess" ? There's no meaningful definition here. DS (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOT#INFO is irrelevant here, WP:Home is working to resolve all the issues with the page itself such as ref. and inclusion criteria. Z gin der 2008-05-19T13:18Z (UTC)
Delete Not only is it indiscriminate collection of information but is also quite original. Someone who was self-taught or received their education prior to the creation of the notion of compulsory or para-compulsory education would really be struggling to fit this category even if they were in effect schooled at home. Also agree with DF67 on the definitional aspects. Orderinchaos 17:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Orlady. Article with the same title can easily be created using a narrower definition of homeschooling inline with the accepted modern definition of that term. Said article would not be a recreation of previously deleted material because it would not be similar enough to this one to meet that criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Actually, WP:NOT#INFO is quite relevant here. That there is a Wikiproject working on homeschooling issues doesn't automatically make a vague, unencyclopedic list anything more than a subjective trivia list which fails WP:NOT, and any definition of "homeschooled" the project could derive would still be subjective and mutable. RGTraynor 14:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although ... hang on, now that I think about it, there are enough home schooling articles on Wikipedia to sustain a Wikiproject? (raises an eyebrow, archly) RGTraynor 15:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The recently reinstated introductory note further clouds this pointless mishmash by conflating compulsory education and compulsory school attendance - these are not the same thing. The term Homeschooling is used predominantly in the US but the list usurps nationalities and individuals for whom the term (and concept) would have been alien. In the past there was nothing notable about children being educated at home. Lame Name (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yuck! Not only does that introductory note fail to explain what compulsory education has to do with homeschooling, but contrary to the assertion in the note, the list still includes individuals (such as Anton Bruckner) whose education clearly predated the era when common schools (compulsory or otherwise) were widely available. Additionally, the list includes people who probably would be more correctly described as self-taught, such as Irving Berlin; child actors whose alleged "homeschooling" most likely consisted of study by correspondence when they weren't performing (e.g., Lindsay Lohan and Hilary Duff); and more than a few people whose Wikipedia articles give no hint of home education (e.g., Wright brothers and Irving Berlin). --Orlady (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate and verifiable list). Consistent as well with First pillar in that almanacs typically contain lists. Also, per the GFDL, if anything was in fact merged to somewhere else then those contribs need to be restored per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The list seems to be copied straight from a homeschooling site, which has its own biases, obviously, in favor of homeschooling. Were these celebrities home-schooled during all of their school years, or just for a year or two? Were they educated by a parent, or by a tutor (guys like the one who was "educated by a governess" weren't home-schooled, they were "tutored"). It's a valid topic, so I don't want to see it deleted, but as it is now, it seems to be propaganda along the lines of "if the Wright Brothers were homeschooled, your child will be a success too". Mandsford (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to vague and over-broad inclusion criteria (per WP:SAL). The first problem, noted above, is the definition of "homeschooled". The second is: are these only notable people? If so, how is notability defined in the context of the list? Jakew (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree that WP:NOT#INFO most certainly applies here. Arkyan 20:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a group of unrelated items for lots of trivia. Also, Mandsford was concerned on its neutrality and probably a copyright violation. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 23:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I can imagine this list becoming reasonably good, if the following standards are enforced: (1) every entry must be sourced to a reliable source, and I don't count the indiscriminate list at HomeSchoolAcademy.com as a reliable source; and (2) nobody born before a specified date (for example, 1900) should be included, because the list itself purports to exclude people from before the era of compulsory schooling. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number three should not be done. Any one that was raised where their was compulsory schooling, but was rather schooled at home should be included. The world did not make schooling compulsory at the same time. Z gin der 2008-05-21T16:04Z (UTC)

In that case, there should be some exclusion date for each relevant country (or part of a country if applicable), which should be specified on the page itself. I'm not sure how the inclusion of Philipp Melanchthon (born 1497) is currently justified. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with clearer criteria ?1950+ and requiring sources for the individuals. Improve, don't delete. DGG (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A wildly incomplete hodgepodge. This looks more like propaganda to promote home schooling than a serious article on the subject. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a legitimate topic. 05:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooltobekind (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ➪HiDrNick! 04:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operating authority[edit]

Page information has been merged into a parent article.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if information from a page has been merged into another article, it generally cannot be deleted per the terms of the GFDL license under which content on Wikipedia is released (the history must be retained). Redirecting the page to the parent article to which the information was merged would be appropriate, this can be done (and should be done) without taking the article to AfD. Guest9999 (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a perfectly good law stub, it has three good cites. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now. I agree with Bearian that it looks like a valid verified stub. I'm also not sure what the correct "parent article" would be.--Kubigula (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The p[edit]

Prod removed by anon. Unreferenced, unable to establish notability. Evb-wiki (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:REF. Appears to be a vanity/fantasy article. WWGB (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per nom unless referenced. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per nom. Taking the p. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in a speedy fashion - not even a veiled attempt at asserting notability in this uncited and unreferenced article. Without references contents can't be verified. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The D - fails The V. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Selket ^Talk 17:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional heavy metal[edit]

The article is an a POV magnet, that has no real definition ("they have stayed loyal to the traditional style"), and the article is just a big bunch of bands that people think fit the term. If this AfD fails, I would suggest a merger. Master of Metal (Have a chat!) 14:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was previously known as Classic metal and looked like this. I brought the article to the attention of the Wikiproject Metal and after this discussion, I decided to move the article to the current name. I also removed all the original research and unreferenced statements so that it became what it is today: a mere stub with room for expansion. Bear in mind that this is a stub with references. Whatever reservations I might have about this article, I am not certain that a perceived "insane umbrella term" is a valid ground for nominating anything for deletion. --Bardin (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK. I'll correct that. Master of Metal (Have a chat!) 14:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a kind of ambiguation between metal music as umbrella term (including death metal, black, doom, etc) and heavy metal as subgenre of metal music (particularly NWOBHM for example). We need an article to describe the subgenre. Garret Beaumain (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same as aboveFrédérick Duhautpas (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the two above; I agree that it needs clarified that heavy metal can be both the parent genre of power/death/symphonic/folk and other equally diverse variations, and a seperate subgenre in its own right. The obvious way to do it is with this article: it just needs improved, not removed. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Per the discussion here, and per the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis. Interested users are also kindly requested to have a look at the related TfD of the Template:Campeonato Assotiation da Guiné-Bissau. Thank you!Yannismarou (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utelon[edit]

That team don't exist.. you can see in [59]. That team is not listed in any level of Guinean football leagues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calapez (talk • contribs)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The scourge of African football clubs strikes again! This one played in the second division in Guinea in 2002-03 [60]. Notability does not expire. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First division is notable, second don't.. the team don't exist anymore, so they will never Calapez (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)be notable[reply]
Comment. The nomination was based on the fact that the nominator hadn't found a source to say that they played in the second division (the link provided was to that division). Now that I have found a source it seems that teams playing in that division have suddenly become non-notable. This looks like a classic case of moving the goalposts to me. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete due to lack of reliable sources and possible conflicts of interest. --Selket ^Talk 21:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Family Kingdom[edit]

Soon-to-be-released kids' virtual world (apparently a knock-off of another soon-to-be-closed one). No third party sources, fails WP:WEB miserably. I smell spam. Vary | Talk 13:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

delete unless independent reliable sources can be provided to demonstrate notability. There has been one independent source added to the article, here, since it was tagged for ((Primary Sources)), but it isn't enough to verify notability. It's difficult to search this term, as it brings up a number of unrelated pages, but I've given it a shot and come up with a lot of unusable sources. Mind you, I do come up with a lot. Notability is distinct from fame or popularity, but it does underscore the possibility that even if the unreleased game does not meet notability guidelines for inclusion, the released game will. Any close of this as deletion should, of course, not prejudice against re-creation of the article with sufficient sources to verify. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just caught a copy (complete with AfD notice) appearing at Vfk, which doesn't make it smell any less spammy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why should this be deleted? I need an actual reason. Acefredfred (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeThis is not spam! the Virtual family Kingdom is an attempt by former VMK players (like me) to establish a new safe haven to replace the one that they will be losing on Wednesday. It's just that the article is not written properly (more like an ad). What I think needs to be done, is that the article should be left alone until Thursday the 22nd (game opening day), so someone can actually see what the game is about. And, yes, the article is significant, because as I said before, it is an event that happened as a result of the closing of a widely popular game. I will make a few changes, then I think that it should be left dormant until the 22nd.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. The game needs press coverage of its own in order to pass WP:WEB. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball; we don't keep unsourced articles to see if reliable sources appear later. We delete them, and recreate them if and when it's possible to write a properly sourced article on the subject. But at any rate, the afd wont' close until the 23rd, after the game's scheduled opening, so if the game receives substantial coverage from reliable sources on the 22nd, those sources can be added to the article then. -- Vary | Talk 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I notice, for one, the nom seems more than a little biased. And I also oppose per Princess Janay. K C 109 21:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Awesome. Thanks, Vary. I made a few changes to the article already.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and lacking 3rd party reliable sources for proper verification. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems this discussion was accidentally removed from the May 18 AFD page. It's been added to the May 20 page, which presumably means that the discussion will now end on May 25. -- Vary | Talk 14:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I appreciate that the players of the defunct game wish to keep their fun going; as a player in failed MMORPGS, I wish them well. What they haven't established, however, is how this new game passes WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:WEB for a Wikipedia article. As far as I can see, the alleged "bias" of the nom equates to the nom citing correct deletion grounds under policy. The easiest way to save this article is to provide multiple independent, third-party, reliable sources about this subject; newspaper or magazine articles about it will suffice. RGTraynor 14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many problems with this article, as witness the tags on the article's page. Added to those are the problems cited above, particularly WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. I don't like to rain on anyone's parade, but there are too many issues here. Drieux (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this article - There are simply no reliable sources here. If some can be found, I may be willing to alter my recommendation but otherwise this article must go. Arkyan 20:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails all WP's above. Making this an article would be like making VMK pal an article.Dacheatcode (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you people just not understanding what I'm saying? The game is new. In fact, it was made very, very recently. It is so new, that gaming magazines haven't caught wind of it yet. Can't you guys use the sources already there, and wait until the internet provides more sources?--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: We do understand that, yes. The problem is that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. We must base all articles on reliable sources written by independent third parties, and the answer to the question "But what if something is new?" is "Then we cannot have an article on it yet." A number of links have been given to our relevant content policies and guidelines, including WP:CRYSTAL, WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOT. I recommend you review them if you've any questions about the nature of those policies. RGTraynor 23:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced spam. No third-party references were cited. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 23:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references towards notability. Thanks! (and I'll stop rambling now), ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 00:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and WP:NN, as mentioned above. ZappyGun (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It will be notable once it opens, which is a matter of days. Surely it should just be given the benefit of the doubt? 82.5.85.97 (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per RGTraynor. This article fails to establish notability using multiple third party resources. That's just basic policy. Maybe later, if this game eventually gets released and attracts attention, it will be notable and someone can create a proper article. But until then it does not belong on wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article can be recreated when and if it is notable. And that isn't necessarily when it's released. Some games that have never been released are notable, some that have been out for years never will be. I understand people's desire to keep the article up so as to draw more attention to the project, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source. That means it reports what second parties report about the subjects. So once it has achieved significant second-party coverage, try again. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At least not notable before release, and maybe not even then – but that's another discussion. --EivindJ (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Delete it. But, I will just rewrite it with more sources. I'm going to have to scout out some sources over the internet.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sure no one would have any objections to the article being recreated at a point down the road when there has been significant third-party coverage by reliable sources. RGTraynor 13:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, VFK is new, but there is no reason to make an article about it when their are not much recources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dacheatcode (talk • contribs) 20:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no non-trivial coverage from reliable sources to pass WP:WEB. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article has not been built on WP:V; no prejudice at all against recreation later, if it receives more attention from the press. Marasmusine (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fat Sue[edit]

Notability Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? -- saberwyn 11:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral at present. They don't seem particularly notable but, BBC coverage isn't a small thing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Follow through that BBC link, and it's the London band of the week listing for the local radio blogger, a year old yet. In that year, this band still doesn't have an album, still hasn't been signed, and hasn't met WP:MUSIC in any particular. RGTraynor 14:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy copyvio and so tagged. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 WP:OR list. Sandstein 09:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear controversy[edit]

This article is basically a POV fork of Nuclear power#Debate on nuclear power. This article lists the name of some nuclear plants labeling these as "controversial". The definition of "controversy" is vague. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As there's no independent definition of what a 'nuclear controversy' is this is basically someone's opinion and falls foul of a whole bunch of guidelines. The examples in the article are a grab bag with no common theme and I don't see how it could be improved without being re-written on basically a different topic so there's no point in keeping the article. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Complete original research and POV. RGTraynor 14:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Author means well, but has gone wrong in a number of ways. First is trying to do too much, lumping together nuclear plants that were the subject of "mass protests", plants where there was an accident, and plants where, if there wasn't a mass protest, there at least were some bumper stickers. Second is the problem of "original research", one that almost every Wikipedian learns about shortly after contributing a first article. Third is that this is the "indiscriminate list"; in this case, a list of plants that we know are "nuclear" but with no context to explain why they are nuclear and controversial. Finally, there's the misleading title whose sole purpose is to introduce a list... and an uninforrmative list at that. Mandsford (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a chunk of WP:NOT#OR and written in a (to me) strong non-WP:NPOV. As pointed out above, it is a fork out of the nuclear power article's debate section. The author's comment(s) in response to the NPOV tag is a somewhat condensed re-write of the article. To me, this simply reinforces the POV/OR nature of the article.Drieux (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research unless some well-defined inclusion criteria can be established. We already have a List of nuclear reactors as well as a Nuclear and radiation accidents page (in need of cleanup). - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-neutral original research article. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but explain what each "controversy" was about. The material could be placed to several other articles (mass protests against building nuclear power plants, nuclear accidents, etc.) Obviously, sources support the claim about the "controversies". Hence this is not OR.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Come on. There might be three different articles in there, but not one all jumbled together with OR. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as blatant advertising. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All In Energy Drink[edit]

non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like a promotion. LittleOldMe (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising. Tagged as such. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 silly essay. Sandstein 09:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sammet a beer[edit]

Contested PROD. Non-notable neologism. Roleplayer (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. The author(s) have sited references and appear to be addressing a larger issue with beer appreciation and concerns in the industry. I'm curious to know more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.107.191.217 (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching under "joseph sammet", Google finds only the article in question (surprise!) and nine (9) other apparently unrelated links. Note also that creator Kegmaster has not made any other WP contributions before or since. I'll also note that the article has not been here for long, and that it probably doesn't need to be here much longer either. Duncan1800 (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. --Dhartung | Talk 09:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax, nonsense. Pburka (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious cruft. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI have hear this term used in the both in the U.S. and in the U.K. so I do believe there is validity to the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.7.31.187 (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The argument that this article does still not contain sufficient references to substantial reliable third-party coverage (after three years!) is compelling. The "keep" arguments are partly eventualist, and for that very reason do not weigh heavily against deletion: As Coccyx Bloccyx notes, all are free to recreate the article with sufficient sources; in that sense, deletion decisions do not, in Kizor's words, "stick". The "keep" opinions who think that the current level of sourcing is sufficient, on the other hand, are distinctly in the minority. Sandstein 10:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Sonata[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Relisting this for AFD, the article has not been improved (citation wise) since the last AFD, remains poorly sourced and its notability is still unestablished.

Most of the support from the previous AFD was based on the fact more references would be added and notability established, but this has not happened. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oblig nom delete, as above. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, mainly since the sourcing is horrible - six links to the game's own web site is ludicrous. Searching "star sonata review" on Google finds a lot of links (mostly from download sites), but nothing I can see as a real critical review. The article itself claims the game can boast only around 700 paid subscribers and a high of around 12,000 user logins - hardly on the level of other fully free MMORPGs like MapleStory or Travian. If real notability can be established, cool - otherwise, I have to say delete until the game gains more ground in the market. Duncan1800 (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: How in the merry hell did this survive multiple AfDs? (Actually, it seems, it didn't survive the first one, and this is a recreation after deletion.) An admitted subscriber base of 700 is pathetically low in MMORPG-land, there are no reliable sources to be found, and the previous AfD was riddled by SPAs. No suggestion that this has won any industry awards or has pioneered any enduring innovations in the field. No Alexa rank. RGTraynor 15:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion was overturned and it was relisted: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 4.—RJH (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Premature nomination. The article was restored in a deletion review and the procedural AfD was concluded as keep only last month, five weeks ago. As failed nominations can be repeated but deletion decisions stick, and AfD has an inescapable tendency to resemble a random number generator in close-cut cases, it is vital to allow time to pass between nominations or the decisive factor in inclusion would be the effort to hammer on articles until they give. In my experience the line after a no consensus "decision" would be about a month, but after a keep decision it is significantly higher. This is too soon.

Oh, and also, a month isn't representative of what's going to be done on a wiki. It was not just argued in the DRV and AFD that more citations would be added, but the basis of those discussions were new ones that had come forth. I added those things into the article, though they can be of significant further use so you might want to contact those people who voted keep the last time around and ask them to work. --Kiz o r 16:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A month is plenty of time to add references and establish notability, the problem is there are few independent sources and no notability to speak of. And like RGTraynor says, the article has been inexistent for a long time and yet it remains poorly sourced. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but not nearly enough to assume a negative (ie. that the above will not be done), or (subsequently) to assume a fair long-term outcome. And the article has been around a long time, during which our standards and practices have changed a lot. It was eventually deleted and then restored in a DRV - the current state of affairs has only been around since last month.
Anyway, I would've closed this AfD as premature had I not recused myself from the field. Amusingly enough, by bearing the mop I'm at far less liberty to ask others to do so than I would otherwise be. --Kiz o r 14:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this organized and referenced article per clear consensus to keep a mere month ago. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Almost all the references are self-references. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I guess, since there are multiple non-trivial third party publications about the subject. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which would those be? RGTraynor 17:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete after further consideration. The publications weren't as non-trivial as I had originally thought. I'm not sure how much more time this article really needs, given that it has been allowed two chances in the past. No prejudice against recreation though once the better sources can be unearthed. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - This just needs more time. My vote might be different if it hadn't just passed an AFD one month ago. It deserves at least a couple more weeks. Not to say that I know for certain if this is notable, but I think it deserves the chance by virtue of surviving an AFD. Randomran (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created three years ago. Exactly how much time to acquire proper sourcing should it receive, and what sourcing do you imagine is out there that hasn't surfaced in all that time? RGTraynor 02:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteers on this project do not have a deadline. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being? RGTraynor 17:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should have as much time as they need to improve an article that is not a hoax, not libel, not a how to, not a copy vio, etc. Wikipedia has only been around for several years; Britannica has had centuries to develop and grow. I have encountered a number of articles that were around for months or years and when nominated for deletion were still stubs, but lo and behold in but minutes I managed to improve the article sufficiently enough for it to be saved from deletion. It only takes one editor to come along and improve the article to most editors' satisfaction and it is much easier for them to do so when they don't have to start over from scratch. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It only takes one editor, but even after 3 AFDs no one has bothered? If for every article we just said, wait indefinitely for someone to improve it well... that doesn't work. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 07:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOEFFORT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the near-total absence of possible third-party sources, it's probably unrealistic to expect the situation to change... Jakew (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IGN is a reliable source and you have a comprehensive review here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have a better notion. Grand Roi, if you're so certain that there are reliable sources out there that could only be unearthed if we weren't such slackers ... well, the AfD has a few days more to run. What's stopping you from finding some? I'm sure the Delete proponents would be more than happy to change our opinions if you did. I look forward to seeing the results of your research. RGTraynor 16:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IGN is a reliable source and you have a comprehensive review here. In any event, "it's up to the delete voters to prove it isn't notable". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue it was up to any editor to prove it is notable by establishing that in the article. Not the AFD. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err. That IGN "reliable source" is in fact an anonymously uploaded single paragraph "game profile." The second is a nice review, yes, but WP:WEB specifically requires "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." (emphasis mine) To quote WP:WEB again: "Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service ... The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." Feel free to cite such multiple reliable sources. RGTraynor 18:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also [61], but in any event an adequate search would need to be done in magazines like PC Gamer. Look beyond the internet. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were I to try to demonstrate the notability of an article, I wouldn't link to a graph that showed the game was the 6,246th most frequented online game or MUD of the ones the site charted. That aside, as you know, the burden of evidence is on an editor wishing to save an article. My position is that multiple reliable sources on this game do not exist. RGTraynor 21:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough editors argued convincingly to keep last month and enough editors are working on it and enough evidence exists to suggest that there is no general consensus to delete the article and that plenty of editors believe in its potential. It takes time to go through game magazines, i.e. more than 5 days on a volunteer project. As it is not an obvious hoax, copy vio, how to, or libel, that it at least has some degree of notability (it is not some game that I invented and only play with a handful of buddies), there's no urgent need to delete a work in progress. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making statements hoping people won't check them is ... futile. Lesse, last AFD, 5 keeps. One was a developer of Star Sonata. Of the remaining 5, 4 are "weak keeps" (I count mine as a week keep), two are SPAs and all were based on the article being improvable; people hardly "argued convincingly". Also, about the WP:NOEFFORT issue, that's about content. Not about notability and verifiability. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, still five keeps to no clear deletes (the nomination was a procedural relist with no argument per se for deletion). As for the first AfD, three editors do not represent the consensus of a community of thousands of editors and even there, one of the deletes was a "weak delete", the other delete was not even signed. The nomination then is essentially a WP:JNN with shortcuts to pages that are themselves edited regularly (see [62] and [63]} Notice, for example, on the same day that the first Star Sonata AfD closed such edit summaries on the short cut linked pages as "still working towards consensus". Thus, if those were the reasons for deletion, well they didn't real have consensus and even after that day and over the past several months, the policy has revert after revert as editors edit-war and continuously attempt to change it. So, who knows which version actually matters.) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, almost all the references are starsonata.com. Second, nothing (relevant) on Books or Scholar, and almost nothing (press releases, etc) on News. Fails WP:N, little potential to properly satisfy WP:V. Jakew (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Game Tunnel review in external links could be cited, together with the GameZone review that makes a reception section. The interview could be used for a development section. That's multiple independant sources and would result in an article as opposed to an unsourced gameplay description which would be nothing more than an entry in a games database. In terms of reliability Game Tunnel is an established site with named authors, a set of reviewing standards and an identified editor (Russell Carroll) to take responsibility for the writing. To my way of thinking it's notable, not monstrously so but enough to warrant an entry. Someone another 00:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:V: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." RGTraynor 12:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Looking at WP:N, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt for the reliability of GameZone and GameTunnel (two sites I'm not familiar with, but they appear to have editorial oversight). Marasmusine (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Faraway Tree (novel)[edit]

Also: The Enchanted Wood (novel)

Hardly any information provided on page, no citations at all. Possibly delete, or merge with The Magic Faraway Tree (series). Cheers :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised that if you deleted this article it would be recreated in a few months, your probably just better off with just redirecting the articles to The Magic Faraway Tree (series). The series article is also so lacking that I would suggest people just add on that instead of individual novel articles. --Sin Harvest (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now, I understand that these two articles aren't exactly in great shape, but surely that should be dealt with by editing not by deletion? I believe these books are notable, and thus qualify for their own articles, under criteria #5 of WP:BK: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." Also in 2003 The Magic Faraway Tree (novel) was voted #66 in a poll by the BBC to find the UK's favourite book. I've added this information to the article and cited it. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article can be expanded and sourced – that's why we have nag tags and WikiProject Literature, so that low-quality articles about a clearly notable book by a historically-significant author can be fixed up and improved rather than deleted. --Canley (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Enid Blyton is definitally of historical significance and meet's WP:BK#5, ergo the book qualifies. Also, it possibly meets #3 too: The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country. Whilst I haven't been able to determine if it has been broadcast, there certainly is a DVD available - it is available on Amazon.co.uk. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 09:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kijafa[edit]

Another non-notable wine. References include a cocktail database and a shopping site. I couldn't find anything more of note. Merzbow (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In this case, I can't even find a link for YMKT, the company that supposedly makes it. Several Epinions links, though. Duncan1800 (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could use a good scrubbing and better referencing (it's not that difficult to locate). But the wine itself is not non-notable (hey, they serve it at Disney World).Ecoleetage (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you demonstrate that it is notable by providing reliable sources? I can't find any. - Merzbow (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to try a simple Google search. I just pulled up this article from the Florida-based Tallahassee Magazine: [64]. Kijafa is not popular in North America, but in Scandinavia it has its fans. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed try a simple Google search, and found basically squat. The only mention of Kijafa in that article is in a recipe and in this sentence: "To make the traditional Danish wedding cake, almond-flavored rings with a macaroon-like consistency are assembled around a bottle of cherry wine called Kijafa". A passing mention, at most. - Merzbow (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Try this Google search: [65] -- with coverage in the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, Detroit News, Sacramento Bee. In view of this, I might recommend withdrawing the nomination - notability is not in question. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think to try a Google News search. OK, withdrawn. - Merzbow (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calloway Crossing[edit]

A minor supermarket wine, apparently. According to a press release. Merzbow (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As below, create an article for McGuigan Simeon Wines first and make this part of a product listing. Duncan1800 (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Duncan1800; very little/no information available from independent, reliable sources. Hal peridol (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no independent sources. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bright's Pale Dry Select Sherry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bright's Pale Dry Select Sherry

Non-notable wine. We've got two links to shopping sites and a link to "bumwine.com". Merzbow (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. However, a page needs to be created for Vincor International (a division of Constellation Brands), the company that makes it. The wine doesn't seem to be notable in itself, but it could be included in a list of Vincor products. Duncan1800 (talk) 07:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the text of the article is basically copied entirely from BumWine (scroll down a bit). Duncan1800 (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, wasn't/isn't there a "Wikipedia is Not a wine guide"? Blast Ulna (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyright violation of this page. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only a non-notable wine, a very bad wine. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki and delete. Once the transwiki is done and the article deleted (go ahead and tag it as WP:CSD#G5 if I miss it), feel free to create a disambiguation page if need be. --jonny-m t 03:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crew chief[edit]

WP is not a dictionary. (WP:NOTDICDEF) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written like a dictionary,--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 08:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The individual definitions are best described within larger topics, pit stop perhaps being the best example (crew chief is actually very well-defined under pit stops in NASCAR). The others are more esoteric, but still relevant (perhaps under tank or bomber). Duncan1800 (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikitionary as a dictionary definition. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per Alexius08 above or, in the alternative, disambiguate: "crew chief" may refer to crew chief (auto racing), a crew chief (baseball umpire), a crew chief (military) or to a team lead. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary as a dab page will result in a bunch of redlinks. If someone wants to create the various articles, a dab page would be fine. Cricketgirl (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dolphin[edit]

Delete or merge with Chadwick School. Lack of independent references, notability not established. Prod template removed by anon IP. WWGB (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and not suitable for redirect either. Punkmorten (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So not notable that is not suitable for redirects either. Moreover, chances are that "The Dolphin" as a search term might be needed for a redirect to something considerably more important. Nsk92 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nintendo Gamecube, as that was the codename of the system. A far more likely search term than some high school. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A highschool yearbook is obviously non-notable and not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable yearbook. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Barnas[edit]

Non-notable pageant contestant, no national of regional titles, no sources beyond competition press releases. MBisanz ^talk 05:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep precedent exists that Miss USA state titleholders who competed in the national Miss USA pageant are notable. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 05:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Five Years 05:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all contestants in Miss USA are regional title holders in order to qualify for the national event. Being the regional title holder means notability is established. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, notable as a regional Miss USA title holder. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regional title holders are notable per precedent. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna surname[edit]

A genealogy article with no sources. Fails to mention even one notable person with this name. Most of this article is not even about the stated topic, but about Italian surnames in general. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not WP material. Punkmorten (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notable material/all unsourced. Looks like someone trying to add there last name to wikipedia Matt (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your reason is...? Duncan1800 (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, its up there now. Matt (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced OR at this point. No indication at the moment that the subject actually exists as a separate well-defined topic. There might be some notable Fortuna families/dynasties from the middle ages and if so, one could perhaps create separate articles about them. But this certainly requires specialized inquiry into sources first by a knowledgeable editor. Nsk92 (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. I can find one notable person, though. Nick Fortune, the bassist with the Buckinghams (US #1 hit 'Kind Of A Drag'), his real name is Fortuna. But the page is unnecessary, goes off the topic and is completely pointless. Rdbrewster ♪♫♪ 16:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a person with the name does not make for a notable surname. There does not appear to be any research into the significance of this last name, and WP is not a genealogy project. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know what the author is trying to do and its not a bad thing--but the subject is not that important, has been orphaned and is unreferenced. Artene50 (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Withdrawn. While I still see this bio as failing completely, I think I should have waited until after the election to re propose deletion. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Alexander (politician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The last AfD was a conditional keep, for providing sources. This has not been done, and I allowed 2 months to provide them. The only citations indicate the existence of the person, not his notability as a politician. The articles primary claim to fame is being a vice presidential candidate and nothing else. During the last AfD, something went overlooked. King Vegita, who displays his real name on his userpage, presented a major COI by using himself as a citation. So I say delete per no realiable third party sources and fails all three points at Politician. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak delete. I'm kind of surprised that the subject doesn't have more coverage as a vice presidential candidate. I've hunted for some sources, but unfortunately, they just don't seem to exist. I suspect that there are some socialist newspapers out there that could be used, but I'm not terribly familiar with the subject. If someone can bring some up, then great; otherwise, this needs to go. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and cleanup. The article doesn't seem to have changed much since (the end of) the last nomination, and neither has my view of it.

The sources issue seems to be ending up a bit catch-22, since if those of us who have them add them, we may be accused of COI, while if we don't the article may be deleted. How about I list some here, just to establish that they exist?

Considering only printed sources that have no connection to socialism or the Socialist Party still gives Ballot Access News issues in October 2007, November 2007, January 2008, and March 2008; The Fresno Bee (archives no longer accessible but a copy available here); The Tampa Tribune (again, no longer in their online archives but still accessible here); The Fresno City College Rampage;

Adding similar purely electronic sources gives another half dozen or so posts at Ballot Access News, more at Third Party Watch, to say nothing of various articles on The Daily Radical and several Indymedias. (At some point we lose consensus on reliability.) There are also references, say, at the California Secretary of State's Web site.

Then we can add sources which, while independent of Alexander himself, have an interest in his candidacy. For instance, a recent issue of The Michigan Socialist has Alexander on its cover. The Socialist discusses Alexander in this issue and this issue, along with various issues of The Organizer and the Socialist Party of Boston Bulletin. Those were printed sources I'm aware of, Web sources include socialistparty-usa.org, vote-socialist.org, votesocialist2008.org, votebrianmoore.com, and peaceandfreedom.org.

So far I've been trying to limit my involvement with the article, due to COI concerns. Perhaps I should see if I can find some time to play with it. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 07:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I can see this took some time to do, and I commend you for it, seriously. Although none of your examples meet the requirements I've specified. They do support the fact that he is in the race, on the ballot, and prove his existence. However, they do not prove that he is any way, shape or form, notable. Let me show you, from the links I presented in my nomination above, exactly what I mean, bolding where appropriate:

Taken From Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources, which is policy:

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Taken From Wikipedia:POLITICIAN#Politicians and is a guideline:

Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.
Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

As far as I can tell, there are no third party sources, i.e. anything outside the world of Socialism to denote his notability. If in fact I am wrong, I am willing to withdraw accordingly. But I'd like a keep !vote to be based off of a policy, or at least a guideline. And my apologies for not notifying the editors to the article. I will do this now. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it didn't take that much time, since I knew where most of those sources were. Whatever effort I put in went into arranging them in order of both reliability and independence. This is why I start off with undeniably third-party sources such as The Tampa Tribune, The Fresno Bee, and Ballot Access News -- all most certainly "outside the world of Socialism".

Perhaps we are of differing opinions as to which "subject" the sources must be "outside"? My impression is that this is the "subject" of the article itself -- Stewart Alexander -- and all of the sources I link to above are completely independent of him. Most of them are also independent of his supporters in the Socialist Party and Peace and Freedom Party, and even setting those aside leaves plenty to establish notability.

Just a final note on WP:POLITICIAN -- I remember the discussions (around WP:BIO and WP:C&E) from the 2006 mid-term elections that led to the awkward phrase "unelected candidates". Others who were active at the time may recall that this formula was used to acknowledge the notability of elected party nominees such as Alexander, on the grounds that they had already won election in primaries or at conventions and were not (necessarily) just cranks with Web sites. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 19:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I sympathize with your views, I still do not see how this biography is notable. And I commend you for being calm and cool. Although there are three outside sources available, they merely source the fact that he is in the race, nothing more (need I even bother to say that a Socialist will not be the next president come Jan. 1st?). If it can be established that he is notable notwithstanding his candidacy, then I will withdraw, as mentioned. Can you show this here, now? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Notwithstanding his candidacy"? Alexander is notable in large part because he is the elected vice-presidential nominee of the Socialist Party. This notability is established by the sources I included above (along with those I may have missed and those yet to come). I think I should change my position to "strong keep" if this is the reason the article has been nominated for deletion. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim per the sources that have been provided. At this point, there's an assertion of notability per the general notability guidelines. However, there's a lot in there that needs to be trimmed out. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - First, I want to clear something up, Wikipedia:COI#Examples states: "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." I believe the reason was there, it was used to help establish notability in the face of SynergeticMaggot's first nom. The source is a third party source published as the official publication of the Socialist Party of Michigan, and though it is not an academic journal by any means, it was peer-reviewed. Statements in another article I wrote for that issue was heavily editted despite me being editor. This was done in reason, and with prompting.

Second, the WP:POLITICIAN guideline is written with intent to keep local politicians off of Wikipedia, a national level candidate running in the only nation-wide race, of a notable party, is not intended to be kept off. There is a non-explicit consensus on Wikipedia that third party presidential candidates are included. There is a template specifically for Wikipedia articles on Vice Presidential candidates from the Socialist Party.

Third, I would like to point out that this is a bad faith nom. SynergeticMaggot is upset over this diff in which I didn't bother to log in but posted something to him about an argument we had over whether the clap was clymidia or gonorhea. He threatened to have me banned (IRL) if I posted again without logging in, despite it not being against the rules if not used for sockpuppetry. He found the page through Wikistalking, which is against the rules, and expressed interest in trying to get Brian Moore (politician) deleted in the interest of aggravating me. KV(Talk) 22:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - the consensus in the last AfD was not that it needed to be cleaned up to be kept, but rather that it should. It still should, if someone has time to work on it. The closer put words in collective mouths. KV(Talk) 22:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That dif has absolutely nothing to do with this article being challenged, and your remarks about banning are way out of line. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has everything to do with it; your attempt to have things deleted for personal reasons is way out of line. KV(Talk) 22:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as A7, no assertion of notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MC NT[edit]

Non-notable young rapper. Fails WP:BIO. To quote the article, "MC NT recieves little critcal attention..."[sic] Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 03:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 per tag already placed on page, no assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya short hisory[edit]

All of this content exists in the Kenya article. Mblumber (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kenya is better written, better named, and has all that info. --Mark (Mschel) 04:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for a duplicate article. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 04:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already exists at Kenya and History of Kenya — Insanity Incarnat e 04:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an article with duplicate material. Happyme22 (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There's no need for "short" versions of articles on Wikipedia. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to the article Kenya. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone. Unnecessary, um, fork? Maxa megalon 2000 05:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant to History of Kenya and Kenya. No need to make a "short history" of an article. Wikipedia does not have a size limit (forgot the shortcut to that) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have History of Kenya and Kenya. All the information contained in this article is already there. No apparent need for another split at the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is anyone really too lazy to go through the actual article on Kenya? And has anyone noticed the typo in the title? Nobody's gonna search this. Fails WP:Everything. Rdbrewster ♪♫♪ 16:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:SNOW has fallen. Please delete. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you're a student, please do not post your junior high school homework on Wikipedia; if you're a teacher, please do not encourage your students to post their junior high school homework on Wikipedia. It's not much different than using a crayon to improve a library book. Mandsford (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kenya anything worth merging (which is not much - if anything at all), then delete (not redirect as "history" is misspelt. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The page's creator has more or less requested that the page be deleted. — Insanity Incarnat e 21:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pferdekamper's Paradox[edit]

This paradox, although interesting and possibly discussed in legal literature somewhere, appears to be a neologism - the cited reference does not mention it, and I couldn't find any other references to it on the web. It doesn't even mention who "Pferdekamper" is - I could find no reference to such a person in the field of law, and I suspect it to be a name or alias of the article creator. Nevertheless it may be legitimate, as the creator appears to be a legitimate, although inexperienced editor, and if they can give a reference I would consider merging instead of deleting (I don't think there's enough to say about this for it to stand on its own, unless it's been a subject of detailed academic legal debate). Dcoetzee 03:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google only comes up with Wikipedia mirror sites. I would say its a hoax, but considering the creator's semi-legit history I would say its an unnotable neologism. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a real enough paradox that someone has almost certainly mentioned at some point, though I couldn't find one. More important, however, is that there seems to be nobody significant named Pferdekamper who has defined such a paradox and been noted for having done so. More WP:NFT than WP:HOAX, perhaps, but still not a proper basis for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this as an unnotable neologism. However, the concept itself is definitely notable and I'm sure has come up throughout legal history. Perhaps merging the content into rape? (obviously removing reference to the neologism). The Dominator^Talk_Edits 05:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly, hoaxy, and not even close to a paradox. The gist of the "paradox" is that if a juvenile delinquent attacks and rapes someone, the victim is "guilty" of statutory rape. One might as well say that a stabbing victim is guilty of vandalism. A good indicator of a hoax is the lack of a first name for "Pferdekamper" Mandsford (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur And Company[edit]

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

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

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

Hoax, not actually signed to Columbia Records. Once you remove that, they're another non-notable band. Enok^talk 03:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a member of the band, we're legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codyrhodescaw (talk • contribs) 03:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No assertion of notability. --Mark (Mschel) 03:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merely being signed to a major label does not pass WP:MUSIC; releasing two albums on a major label is necessary. --Dhartung | Talk 03:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As A fan of their music, and they have released 3 albums on Columbia records, I dont think its right to delete them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.132.44 (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get ahold of Columbia if you wish, or try and contact me through my talk page if you want proper information, I assure you we're legit and simply ask what you would like for proof with legal properties and wikipedia guidelines of course 71.202.132.44 (talk) codyrhodescaw
I have also heard their music and I think it is one of the best on the local scene right now. They come from Sonoma and have played many shows for the local kids their as well. Please do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.179.168 (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question to the Nominator, where is your evidence to back up your claim that they aren't actually signed to Columbia? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The burden of proof lies on the article editors, not the nominator. Punkmorten (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But if you do want proof, there's no mention of this band on Columbia Records' webpage, and a Google Search for "+"arthur and company" +"columbia records"" just gets this AfD and a private MySpace page, neither of which are reliable sources. This is pretty obviously a prank. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, joke or hoax. Punkmorten (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As mentioned, doesn't appear on either the Columbia or Sony BMG artist lists. The article itself notes that they had a "lack of record company support" - when the article states it for me, I won't disagree. Duncan1800 (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

they played The Shop last weekend here in town, and I saw them at The Fillmore last month 21:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Ryan T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.102.103.18 (talk)

and in all fairness, a simple google search is unreliable unless the band has a website (they don't), and if they have lack of support from columbia, why would they be on the website? 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Ryan T. (again) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.102.103.18 (talk)

Funny, they're claimed to be signed with Columbia Records, and now they don't have any support from the label? Which one is it? Secondly, if they had played a concert at a historic venue like The Fillmore, there probably would've would've been a couple websites or newspaper articles in the Bay Area that covered or even mentioned the performance. And if they supposedly had performed at the places you're claiming and actually had three records released by Columbia, there would've been a lot of coverage of this band that would've been available online and searchable through Google. And yet a Google search of the band gets me absolutely nothing. You and your friends need to get a better hobby than posting some really weak hoaxes on Wikipedia. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we ask our information not be released online without our consent due to file sharing and what not, so we keep our stuff off the internet, thats why we havent created a webpage.Codyrhodescaw (talk)! codyrhodescaw —Preceding comment was added at 23:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked Sony if they would be kind enough not to make money by selling the releases in their online store? That sounds like a reasonable request that they would agree to. You don't need to know a thing about the record industry to know that bands have no say whatsoever in that. --neonwhite user page talk 00:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh and we havent played the Fillmore, I dont know who it was who posted that, but we played The Pheonix, The Fillmore, no. So whoever said that is providing false information 23:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)~ codyrhodescaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codyrhodescaw (talk • contribs)

You missed my point, it's not about whether you have a website or not. If this band has done what all of your are claiming (have three records released by a major record label, played at big Bay Area music venues whether it be the Fillmore or the Phoenix Theater), then other newspapers, magazines and websites would've written articles about and had other coverage about this band. Yet I cannot find one single shred of coverage of this supposed band anywhere. As far as I can tell, all of you are trying (and failing) to pull a pretty poorly-done prank on this site. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax. Regardless of any claims of notability, the article is a hopelessly unsourced vanity piece full of unsourced peacocking. As NeoChaosX says there is no evidence of this band or there claimed releases anywhere including [[66]]. --neonwhite user page talk 00:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to suggest they pass WP:MUSIC. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Meadows School[edit]

Unencylopedia, Basically is nothing more then a free advertisement for the school Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article makes claims of notability. Editing the article to address perceived "advertising" issues would be a far more productive solution to the issue than deletion. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alan, I would like to point out that if this article is allowed to stay then every other small school in the U.S. and around the world for that matter will want to have an article on Wikipedia and they will cite the fact that this article was allowed to stay even though it's not significant enough to warrant an article and yes I understand that Carolyn Goodman the wife of Mayor Oscar Goodman started the school but still. Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ALLORNOTHING; another possibility is if we consider this article individually and it is allowed to stay and then as other articles are created we individually consider them, that we will keep the appropriate articles and thin-out those that are not appropriate. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Currently the article fails to assert that it meets the general notability guideline of WP:N, which is that it must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If it could be shown that there was at least a small handful of sources providing independent coverage (by a cursory google search, the closest thing I could find was this), then it would pass muster. -Seidenstud (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, school has produced two 2008 National Merit Scholarship winners, as reported in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. That means this is not some fly-by-night charter school. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that link hardly represents "significant coverage" - it just contained 2 of the school's students in a list. -Seidenstud (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to represent significant coverage, just pointing out that the school is legit. There are numerous other sources, try a Google news search. Blast Ulna (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we don't delete articles because because they are spammy; we clean then up. Sure the page needs lots of work but that's what tags are for. There are plenty of sources that can be added. They include a mention in the state assembly after a student won a national championship here, the Mayor's gin controversy here, an award winning school newspaper here and many others. TerriersFan (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources adduced above makes substantial claims of notability. This should go. Eusebeus (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a notable high school, probably more then most. The schools ties to Oscar Goodman clearly have some positive impact on notability. The fact that it may need cleanup and a tone based rewrite is not a cause for deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as high school. Valid content with reliable sources and more than a mere directory listing. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An informative article about a school, with amongst others, high school aged students, so therefore notable imo. RMHED (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Xoloz/Schools and User:Silensor/Schools. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as blatant advertising. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CHIRAD[edit]

This article reads like an advertisement and contains no third-party references. I am bringing it here for discussion because, despite the article's serious shortcomings, the organization might be notable. Someone please try Google and do a cleanup if it's justified. Thanks. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy) Delete per nominator. Perhaps this can even get trough as a G11 advertising. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 04:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant advertising. So tagged. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Selket ^Talk 21:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Meshack[edit]

This seems to be a non-notable actor in terms of the bio guidelines. I PRODded the article, but the PROD was removed, with the IMDb profile added in a second time. This deceased actor evidently had 9 roles spanning from 1983 to 1992, half of them unnamed. I did a google search for widespread notability in press, but seem to come up with directory style listings. Barring reliable sources to verify that this gentleman meets notability guidelines, I believe this article should be deleted. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a handful of walk-on roles over a decade does not notability make. --Dhartung | Talk 03:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Holding a job, even a really cool job like "actor" does not make one notable automatically. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Jayron32. Roles like van driver and cashier are cool, but non-notable. TN‑X-Man 15:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This one is subjective - I think it could exist quite comfortably on Wikipedia within the core policies, but I also think that the deletionist arguments are making quite legitimate interpretations of these policies, so I defer to the weight of consensus. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orthopox 13 (Destroy All Humans!)[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of plot elements from the Destroy All Humans game articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains some information not featured in the game articles. SWJS (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If its important enough, it should be in those articles. This character needs to establish WP:N Notability through WP:RS Reliable Sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is important enough it can be in its own separate article just as Battle of Arbela will expand on information not covered in Alexander the Great. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this couple of days old article per Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, and Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. The article concerns a main character in a recognizable series and includes some out of universe information. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I not sure but this article has the same right on wikipedia as crpytos. Electrical Experiment (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources, even one, are required from the start, and if there are none, there is no "chance". Also, giving an article a chance implies it has notability, which this article has not proven. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me sir. I am a direct and dedicated fan to this series. If you would please remove the deletion templates, I will try and aquire the reliable sources. --SWJS (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know where you got the idea that "reliable sources are required (to even get a chance)", but if you could point out that policy or guideline to me I'd appreciate it. The claim that the article subject is non-notable may well be valid, but I take exception to your other claim. You may reply on my talk page if you like. Gigs (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More hits on Google than I was expecting, but I did not find anything to establish notability. First five pages contain passing mention on video game sites and guides, posts on unreliable forums, fanfic, some blogs and myspace junk, etc. It doesn't appear to me that this character specifically has ever received substantial coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Secondly, the article consists only of a paragraph of plot summary and then a list of the character's exploits in the fictional universe; there is no real-world context in the form of critical analysis, development, or impact. Lacking both established notability and encyclopedic content, the proper course of action is deletion. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you try any published video game magazines? Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doctorfluffy: inherent WP:V and WP:PLOT problems. Also, I tried some additional searches more likely to find WP:RS than plain Google. There's nothing in Books or Scholar. and only two apparently brief mentions in News. Jakew (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, we've established that the subject exists and is from a notable franchise, but the sources for it would be published game magazines, not necessarily online sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - The existence of the subject is not relevant to notability. My right knee exists, but we don't (and shouldn't) have an article about it. Nor, for that matter, is the notability of the logical "parent" subject relevant: notability is not inherited from one article to another, which makes perfect sense when you think of "notability" as "could an article about this subject ever meet WP:V?". The pressing question is one of plausible sourcing, and while it's possible that print publications may exist, one has to ask how likely that may be. If it proves to be so difficult to identify sources that we're reduced to speculating about print sources that might exist, then it's probably safe to say that the subject is not notable. Jakew (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apples and oranges. Your or my right knee is not comparable to something familiar to millions of video game players and that very well could meet notability as it is indeed likely to be referenced in game guides, video game magazines, et al, as this is a current series and as many such publications and TV shows even feature segments specifically on characters. It is safe to say that sources likely exist and that not only does this subhec inherit notability from the franchise, but is indeed notable per our standards. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Judge & Jake. There is no credible assertion of notability that can be established with reference to reliable sources. Eusebeus (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article per Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, and Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. The article concerns a main character in a recognizable series and includes some out of universe information. This article may also be useful for people who are confused about the characters. --SWJS (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. It is doubtful at the moment that this article can ever be improved to a reasonable standard, and what can potentially be added later should be mentioned in the main article first before a new article on individual characters gets created. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The subject of the article clearly exists as part of a bona fide fictional universe. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable cruft. Biruitorul ^Talk 06:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of which are valid reasons for deletion per WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, how about this: unreferenced, in-universe, no assertion of notability, no third-party coverage, and, if we're going to cite essays, WP:STUPID. And, yes, it's not notable (has an assertion to the contrary been made?) and it is most assuredly cruft. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As others said, "cruft" is never helpful for these discusions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, "what others said" isn't necessarily that important, unless it's a guideline or official policy. But again: unreferenced, in-universe, no assertion of notability, no third-party coverage - that seems enough reason to torch this. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But there's no real reason for actual deletion as even in an extreme worst case scenario it could be redirected to Destroy All Humans, especially as it can be referened, does have an assertion of notability, and is covered in third party sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No assertion of notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability asserted through non-trivial coverage in reliable verifiable secondary sources. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 16:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article asserts notability through non-trivial coverage in reliable and verifiable secondary sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. First, that's a source, not "sources". Second, it falls short of non-trivial. This is the full extent of what it says about the subject of the article: "You play as Cryptosporidium, who serves as the right hand of the supreme alien leader Orthopox." And that's it. Jakew (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a start and sufficient enough for our purposes. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see WP:N#General notability guideline for information about what is sufficient. Jakew (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, it meets that. Numeroues reviews of the games in which the character appear that mention the character are significant, reliable sources independent of the subject. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Jakew, there's a disparity between trivial and non-trivial coverage. The subject of the article receives a mere mention in that article that offers no critical reception or review, which is what is necessary for articles to assert notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A main character of a mainstream franchise is notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not necessarily. Simply because a character is featured in a franchise does not automatically convey notability. Per above, if there is no non-trivial coverage, then it should not have an article; it is not exempt from our notability guidelines. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - In instances when the subject is potentially notable and where there are temporary valid redirect locations, we do not outright delete the article in question. This article has a realistic chance of sources turning up and in the meantime in a worst case scenario could be redirected to the game series article so that as sources turn up the edit history remains in tact and editors do not have to start over from scratch. There's no reason for an outright deletion in this case. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The available evidence is that the subject isn't notable, and that therefore the content is original research from primary sources. It is therefore dubious that the existing article would be of use in the (perhaps unlikely) event that reliable secondary sources were identified. The only purpose of a redirect, then, would be in the very unlikely situation that someone searched for "Orthopox 13 (Destroy All Humans!)". Let's be realistic here: the chances of that occurring are slim to nonexistent. Deletion is, therefore, the obvious choice. Jakew (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I must diagree because someone may likely search for simply "Pox" or "Orthopox 13", and then they may be redirected to the article in question. I myself believe that the game articles don't supply enough understandable information on these characters, therefore, these pages are a great asset to Wikipedia. I rest my case gentlemen. --SWJS (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If someone searches for "orthopox 13", they can find six other articles about the series quite easily. If someone searches for "pox" they'll find pox. These concerns appear to be unwarranted. As for the game articles not supplying enough information, that may simply reflect the lack of available sources. Jakew (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        On the contrary, there are thousands of reliable sources. I spent most of last night adding some to the article. I don't see why all of you insist on having the article removed. We've added valuable resourses, gave good explanations for defending it, and so forth. If you continue to insist on it being deleted after standards are met, then it would be considered Vandalism. Am I correct? --SWJS (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        With all due respect to your efforts, but there is still not a single source for non-trivial real-world information (e.g. design, development, reception and cultural impact) so that the article would pass WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is no reason for the disamb part of this article name (there's nothing at Orthopox 13) - my guess is that the editor that created this one also created the Crypto one which did require the disambig. If this article is kept, it should be moved to Orthopox 13, and if merged, moved to Orthopox 13 and changed to a redirect to the series (Redirects are cheap as long as its a reasonable search term). --MASEM 13:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lou the Devil (character)[edit]

This article is just a plot repetition of a minor aspect of Guitar Hero III, and is totally duplicative the plot section of that article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. I remember reading a story on how Charlie Daniels did not like this Devil because he won sometimes. If anything that should be mentioned in this article, but its not. This character is non-notable boss, just fancruft. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that particular fact/quote would be more appropriate for The Devil Went Down to Georgia. -- saberwyn 02:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The importance of the character beyond the plot is not demonstrated in the article, and I personally doubt there would be any WP:reliable sources that would add anything beyond the context of the game. Weakly oppose redirect, as Lou the Devil is far more likely to be what the casual searcher types into the search box, and that already redirects to the game. -- saberwyn 02:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable character. Per saberwyn, there is no need to redirect since the likely search term "Lou the Devil" is already a redirect. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This belongs in Guitar Hero III, and it is. No need for this article also. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. The fact that this was speedied prior has no bearing in this case because the article is vastly different from the article from 2005, (I checked the deleted edits), including new indications of notability since 2005. No other reason for deletion given. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Simonetti[edit]

Non-notable skateboarder, Google just turns up youtube clips and his myspace space. His article was already deleted before[67] -- WildyMedic (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Further Google search shows an appearance on Late Night with David Letterman and some news reports about him (registration required for most, so I didn't add them) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment You do realize that it is acceptable to recreate an article if you improve it, right? Unless an admin can show that this is the exact same material that was deleted, it gets to stand on its own merit. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion for recreated material only applied to material that was deleted from an afd. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a growing area of interest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.173.10 (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Ty 01:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stass Shpanin[edit]

Contested PROD. Artist of questionable notability. No references provided to verify notability. A google search returns just 21 unique hits. Roleplayer (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the Russian version of this article, that was created at the same time, was deleted on 20th May. -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. freshacconcispeaktome 00:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of corporate executives charged with crimes[edit]

I prefer to improve pages as far as possible. However, I don't see how this can ever be encyclopedic. There is no criteria for inclusion (what is a corporate executive? How is "fraudulent behaviors in corporate scandals" defined?) so it seems to be an indiscriminate list that can never be complete. At present it deals with a selection of US executives but presumably could include all corporate executives in all countries charged with any fraud crime. I would add that the preamble is much more restrictive than the title. Delete. Smile a While (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of inclusion criteria, too broad a scope; beyond that, probably impossible to maintain even if a criteria was given. SkierRMH (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably better to convert this to a category (if one doesn't already exist), otherwise there will be far too many members, and like Smile a While said, it's going to become an indiscriminate list that can never be complete. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (fairly) indiscriminate list. JJL (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Move to category. Five Years 05:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories that are the intersection of two other categories are discouraged, except when dividing a category by nationality. WillOakland (talk)
Delete, too broad. Besides, charges are not convictions. WillOakland (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate, charges are not convictions, unmaintainable and far too broad. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this WP:BLP-offensive magnet in the form of an indiscriminate list. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for above reasons, particularly WP:BLP Drieux (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Being charged with a crime is not the same as being convicted of a crime. Happyme22 (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While I think that ideally, this would be a wonderful list, the sourcing would be very difficult to achieve. Also, the current zealous "no-negative-material" attitude of most BLP regulars here would make this very difficult to maintain. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a potentially defamatory, indiscriminate list. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thief: The Dark Project missions[edit]

This article is just an in-universe repetition of the plot one of the Thief video games, and is duplicative of that content. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - textbook case of WP:NOT#GUIDE. No notability asserted also. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:Not. Five Years 05:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - game guide. Una Laguna^Talk 06:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not GameFAQs Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:PLOT, and WP:V. Jakew (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#GUIDE, redirect to thief.wikia.com Sxerks (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No point in creating a soft redirect to a non-Wikimedia page, but I think the wiki could be mentioned in Thief (series) (where it already is). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I often disagree with plot-element CVG nominations in general, I definitely agree here; this article is just wayyyyy overly detailed and is better off completely rewritten as a shorter section in Thief: The Dark Project. ~~I may consider translating the plot summary I wrote for fi:Thief: The Dark Project, which is much more reasonably sized IMO...~~ --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch that, seems that there's already adequately detailed summary in the main article. I need more coffee. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, article needs better sourcing, if no improvements are made it can always come back to AfD at a later date. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Makow[edit]

This person fails WP:BIO and appears to be someone promoting his vanity press books (which fall under WP:NB) and articles. There is nothing I note that makes him notable unlike other "famous" conspiracy theorists that have wikipedia articles. All of the sources cited in the article are not mainstream, and violate WP:RS. Given the nature of his claims, though, I am unsure of how you could find any reliable sources - I looked. Note to editors: The problem with his appearance in the news articles is that it does not have any relevance to his supposed article - all instances I can find appear to be him getting himself in the news, IE, the news using him as a story about online dating. This does not make him notable, in my opinion. A book search for his books are vanity press (although other books by authors of the same name are not). AnotherObserver (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to have some notability, but not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I agree with the nom that the references listed in the article do not pass WP:RS. However, there is some reasonably significant newscoverage by reliable sources. GoogleNews gives 46 hits[68], a decent number of which pass WP:RS. E.g. New York Daily News [69], Washington Post [70], CBC CanadaNews[71], as well as these ones [72][73][74] and others. There is also a reasonable amount of coverage in this GoogleNews search of his childhood "AskHenry" column, although I don't know how much that counts now. GoogleBooks gives 45 hits [75] (I am not sure how many are actually related to him). GoogleScholar produces 26 hits total[76], a few of which appear relevant, such as this[77]. Granted, this is not much, but for a conspiracy theorist it is not that bad. Reliable sources usually avoid them. So I think one could stretch WP:BIO here a bit. Nsk92 (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep. If better references could be found, it would meet the Reliable Sources test. He certainly has sufficient notability. This should be an articles for improvement candidate--not an AFD candidate. Granted, Makow's views are controversial (and some of them even laughable) but that should not be allowed to color the debate on deletion. Trasel (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Trasel & Nsk. Five Years 05:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. His invention and original marketing of the Scruples game before it was picked up by Parker Brothers and Hasbro is far more worthy of note than his more recent fringy conspiracy theorizing. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The board game element actually seems like it could be notable, but the article doesn't really cover, source, or address it at all. Seems like it's playing the right game in the wrong ballpark here. - Vianello (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nsk92, I believe that this person meets WP:BIO guidelines for the reasons stated above. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't he create a best-seller game, in addition to being a tenured literary doctoral professor at an accredited university. That would merit a bio.

- Since when was being a tenured doctoral professor at an accredited university merit a bio? There are literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of people with PhDs at universities across the world. I also note the prolific scattering of "PhD" after his name, which is questionable given that the title has nothing to do with his current conspiracy stuff. 69.134.38.13 (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Fanfiction[edit]

This is an unreferenced, non-notable, potentially endless list with no standards. Wikipedia is not the place for it. Erechtheus (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless multiple, WP:reliable, published sources can be found and used to demonstrate the notability/importance of the subject that is Halo-related fanfiction (NOT just the existence of). As it stands, this is just a poor laundry list of fan writings that would be of better use on the fanfiction 'publishing' website(s). -- saberwyn 01:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course, an article on this genre of fan fiction would be welcome under the parameters of this project. The only reason I didn't approach this in that manner is that the text is so far away from that now. I agree with you is what I guess I'm saying. Erechtheus (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Needs reliable sources, has none. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete let me put it this way: there is no Star Trek fan fiction article (many fanfic terminologies come from there). Unsalvageable. JuJube (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reliable sources are needed, none found. Soxred93 (u t) 04:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N. Five Years 05:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources added to the article nor does it pass WP:N. It is also poorly written.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 07:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't mind an organized and useful list, but this can never be either of those. It would be easy enough to clean up, but to what end? Regardless of any of that, the only "source" provided (which I had to open an editing window to find) is from a Halo forum - this article appears to be a cut-and-paste of it. Duncan1800 (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an easy one. Poorly done, and not worth the effort anyway. --AnnaFrance (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like someone just writing something they made in a day (would give link, but forgot shortcut). RC-0722 ^247.5/1 22:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete!!! My god, get rid of this thing now--it should've been speedied as patent caca a long time ago. Qworty (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and salt If I recall, I had this article speedily deleted last week (although the title was a bit different).--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Wikipedia isn't for things made up one day, and that's pretty much what fanfiction is. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Hopeless garbage. Someone needs to close this as snowball and delete immediately. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfucking believable.

Why is it, that everything I do on this site is either contradicted or ignored? Honestly, this article wasn't hurting anyone. I was still trying to organize, and fix the formatting when you people got rid of it. I just don't get why you all hate me so much. I'm not a Republican, or Conservative, or anything like that. It just makes no sense to me. --CPO Pieman (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in the Thief series[edit]

This article is just an in-universe repetition of the gameplay and plot sections of the various Thief game articles, and is entirely duplicative of that content. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Five Years 05:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless substantial out-of-universe information is added and it seems unlikely that it will. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 05:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC) PS: probably better to redirect[reply]
Delete. No need for a game guide here. Duncan1800 (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - superfluous info. PJM (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per game guide, redirect to thief.wikia.com Sxerks (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are articles for each individual game, with coverage of the settings. This article is, as Judgesurreal777 says, duplicate information. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Wizardman 21:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Lane[edit]

Bitter Moon I: Triane's Son Ascending (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Related articles added by Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable writer who has paid notorious vanity-press iUniverse to print four non-notable books. She fails WP:BIO, while each of the four books fails WP:BK, as there are no WP:RS to establish notability for any of them. The WP:single-purpose account that created this article also created four articles for the non-notable books. Google throws up nothing but blogs and sales portals such as Amazon--and please note that Amazon and BN listings do not establish notability, as any vanity-press author can have titles listed on those services. Wikipedia is really getting taken for a ride on this one, and all five related articles should be deleted, since we are not an advertising platform for non-notable vanity merchandise. Qworty (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The author is absolutely not notable per WP:BIO, and her books fail WP:BK quite easily. I added the books to this AFD to ensure that their pages get deleted too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, the account that created these articles is not a single-purpose account. I have been a contributor since November 2004. Not as active as you, certainly, and not as knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies, but I am not trying to take anyone for a ride. Next, I concede that the books are self-published. Does that automatically exclude an author from Wikipedia? Vulnerable has sold over 1000 copies and is ranked #31 in its category at Amazon (Books > Science Fiction & Fantasy > Fantasy > Fairies & Elves). I think that's pretty notable. Jbergerot (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about some reliable sources to assert that notability? Amazon isn't a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Her books are held in the collections of several public libraries across the US. Would WorldCat be considered a reliable source? Vulnerable, Wounded, Bound Jbergerot (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In terms of Wikipedia notability, Amazon and BN.com don't mean anything, because any vanity-press author in the world, such as "Amy Lane," can arrange to have vanity books listed there. Also, authors can manipulate Amazon rankings through bulk ordering. Much the same holds true for libraries--any vanity-press "author" can donate copies to a few libraries. In order to understand some of the relevant policies, please read WP:BIO, WP:RS, and WP:BK. The fact of the matter is that this woman and her books do not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. As for the issues of WP:single-purpose account, while it is true that other types of edits were made early on, lately the account in question has been going on an orgy of "Amy Lane" promotion, creating the non-notable "Amy Lane" article, creating four extensive articles (complete with spam links) for all four of the non-notable vanity-press books, and then, if that weren't enough, spamming wikilinks to "Amy Lane" onto many other WP articles. All of this adds up to one thing: WP:SPAM. So when I say WP is being taken for a ride here, that is what I am referring to, and a permanent ban for spam is probably in order. Finally, it should be noted that while the account in questions has, from time to time, made non-"Amy Lane" edits, many of those edits concern the exact geographic location where "Amy Lane" is purported to live. Hmmm... Qworty (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you deal with a lot of spam here and it is probably difficult for you to accept that I posted these articles in good faith. Obviously we disagree about the notability issue. I believe that the wikilinks were all appropriate to the articles, assuming the articles themselves were acceptable (which, I understand, you say they were not). The geographical edits you refer to were on the Natomas page, which is where I live. (Amy Lane lives in a nearby town called Citrus Heights, a page which I have not edited.) Is it inappropriate for me to edit the page for the town where I live? This kind of attack will drive away inexperienced but well-meaning contributors. Or, perhaps that is what you have in mind? Jbergerot (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of notability is added. Otherwise, I'm inclined to agree with the non-notability argument. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Five Years 05:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability requirements. Jbergerot doesn't look like a single purpose account but, probably should have look at the policies and guidelines again as a very infrequent user and things around here most likely have changed. The authors contributions to their hometown should be ignored and the articles up for deletion should be discussed on their own merits. Unfortunately, all the articles seem to fail notability and verifiability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines every way that you look at it. SPA or not, the material simply isn't notable, and I don't think that should really have any bearing on what we do with it, since anyone can edit it if they feel so inclined. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the notability requirements specified at the notability policy page. The last four also fail WP:BK. Razor flame 18:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Characters of Lufia. ➪HiDrNick! 02:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinistrals[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of the plot of the Lufia games. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's more than just a repeat of the plot. It describes the main character's personalities and actions throught the 3 main games adequetly, and the reliable sources are provided in the external links section. Not every stub on Wikipedia needs to be deleted. Granted, it could definitley use more work and additional cites, but I strongly disagree that it should be deleted. It passes WP:V and WP:N.--Koji †Dude ^(C) 00:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Characters of Lufia per WP:FICT. Asserts no notability through non-trivial coverage by reliable verifiable secondary sources. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. Five Years 05:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, Merge per Sephiroth, definitely seems to be the best idea. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 05:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- I feel Sephiroth lays out the facts here well. There's no asserion of notability per WP:FICT, therefore, should really be merged. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Sinistrals now has a section on Characters of Lufia. I haven't done a thorough check to see if any of the content was copied from this page. So I guess Redirect to be on the safe side of copyright issues. Jay32183 (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as per the excellent reasoning of Sephiroth. No notability independent of subject itself, see WP:GNG. Randomran (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:Keeper76. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Cade[edit]

No assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I think it was deleted as you nommed it Fritzpoll (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It got fixed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close Take it to WP:RM, not here. I'll let you off this time, but I'll trout you if you do it again. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UC Berkeley College of Chemistry[edit]

Propose Rename the following articles:

All should be renamed to something of the form University of California, Berkeley ... to avoid the abbreviation UC in the title. --UC Bill (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC) (Yes my username is ironic in this case.)[reply]

Support — prod? --Sapphic (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close This should be at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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