< May 23	May 25 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the press coverage of the article's subject rises above the level of trivial mention, so it is notable enough to meet the standard of WP:N. Darkspots (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last Blood[edit]

A webcomic which, while consuming about 30 minutes of my time (which was spent reading it; cool storyline), doesn't appear to have much notability. Only fan-site coverage and one small mention in a Variety Film. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 04:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Shouldn't the article be flagged as undergoing an AFD? I would have to go with a Strong Keep solely on the basis no one has flagged the article as such. Turlo Lomon (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Close~~ - Step 1 of AfD process is "Put the deletion tag on the article." This has not been done, and as such, this AfD is invalid. Turlo Lomon (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So he forgot a step on an hours-old AFD. That doesn't automatically means it should be closed. Now if the the AFD had been running for five days and the AFD tag wasn't placed until that fifth day, you might have a point, but this is just a simple mistake. There's also nothing in policy that requires an AFD be automatically closed just because the AfD process wasn't followed in the correct order. Stop wikilawyering. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neutral - Since my concerns have been addressed, I am withdrawing the request for a speedy close. However, I would like to conduct further research before deciding if notability has been met or not. Unfortunately, this topic is blocked at work, so it will have to wait until I get home. With regards to the wikilawyering comment, I can only say that perhaps I should have just left my original comment in place instead of changing it to speedy close. My apologies for any confusion in that area. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I used Twinkle to create the AFD, and I have no idea why it didn't tag the article itself... weird. Well, that's cleared up now. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~. I did some extensive searching, and all I could come up with, aside from fansites, is a rotten review at salon.com. But there were such a lot of fansites mentioning this comic that it does appear to be notable within the genre. Find some recognition with reliable sources, and I'd love to change my opinion. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in Variety and Salon is fairly notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two sources such as Variety and Salon does give a level of notability. Might be a weak keep, but a keep. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but only small mentions. That doesn't establish much notability. We need a full-on, comprehensive source (or multiple sources). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 12:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Perhaps I am wrong, but is there a specific policy that unequivocably states that mentions have to run X-number of words? If not, then the mentions in Variety and Salon are clearly notable for the fact that two highly influential and deeply respected media sources have taken notice of this endeavour. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This is the article from Variety, which is not my idea of a "small" mention: [1]. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that Variety and Salon make 2 good 3rd-party sources, and that was the only reason for my initially unfavorable comment. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:06, 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 Speedy delete. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and the City (video game)[edit]

This is a very likely hoax. The first several pages of Google results for "Sex and the City" along with "video game" make no mention of any game in development. No sources are cited, but the unregistered user who removed the prod made reference to a blog that claims this is a Wii game that involves helping one of the girls get as many sexually transmitted diseases as possible. Right. Erechtheus (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Blatant hoax. So tagged. All of user's other contributions are video game articles prodded as hoaxes. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure it's a blatant hoax, which is the only reason I didn't go with a speedy. The idea that a movie might have a video game is pretty plausible, and it seems to me plausibility is a good description of what would go beyond hoax to the level of a blatant hoax. With that said, I'm not going to cry if all of these articles (I placed the prod on at least 2 of the others) are speedy deleted. Barring a sudden deluge of reliable sources, they are all wrong for this project. Erechtheus (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as hoax by an author whose only contribs are apparent hoaxes. No info exists on this game yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, G3 – Definitely a blatant hoax, and not even an original one at that; I found a "reference" on a site that contains entirely humorous, fake articles. — λ (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No legitimate sources have been found that support the existence of this video game. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - created by a known sockpuppet Krabs502, Same MO. See Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Krabs502 for all his known sockpuppets. Also obviously trying to imitate me as well. Strongsauce (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced hoax (groans). Not funny or in any way believable (from the creators of GTA4? Come on, that humor barrel's nothing but wood shavings on the bottom by now). Nate • (chatter) 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. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Sanez[edit]

non-notable fitness trainer. She's never won a significant competition, simply coming between 2nd and 10th in what appear to be unimportant ones. Ironholds (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree 100% with the nomination. --Triwbe (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nothing seems to indicate notability treelo _talk 23:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of blog and advertising hits on a google search but nothing that would appear to meet the requirements of WP:BIO in terms of reliable secondary sources. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:45, 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 redirect to Young Frankenstein Waggers (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Frankenstein[edit]

not important enough to have it's own page outside the central "young frankenstein" page. Ironholds (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Young Frankenstein. There's not much worth merging, and no claim of real world notability that would justify keeping the article. However, it could be a valid search term, so a redirect would be useful.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Can't justify the seperate article which isn't explained within the parent article well enough already. treelo _talk 23:27, 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, fails WP:N. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Burge[edit]

Non-notable comedy writer Mangostar (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google doesn't show any reliable resources. The article itself fails WP:N and WP:BIO.--RyRy5 (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs a lot of work but WP:BIO says that an entertainer can be notable if "Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." And looking at [2], this person has been in multiple seasons of Tittybangbang which is notable. And WP:DEL says "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."--Captain-tucker (talk) 01:07, 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 as yet another software ad. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PrivacyView[edit]

does not meet notability guidelines for companies. Inverviewing with tucows, being a finalist in a local technology award show, does not make a company notable, and it has no other secondary sources establishing notability to the privacy community or the Internet community at large. Article itself is spammy, and it's been a whole year, and the creator has shown little interest in asserting his software's notability, much less improving the article on the whole. For an Internet software company, the most remarkable aspect of the company is the lack of comment. I think more than a podcast is needed to make this article look like anything other than a web directory listing. Napsterbater (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above comments Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are references to the article but they aren't primary sources. Footnote #5 doesn't mention this company. However, it appears to be notable--a google search turned many references to this company's products. [3] It looks like a legitimate software company which should resolve any verifiability issues. But...the User who created the article may have some connection to the company judging from his talk page:[4] Its a hard call. I wonder if there is a conflict of interest here. Artene50 (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - not a particularly notably topic, however this article is intriguing. It looks at some controversy surrounding PrivacyView receiving funding when it is producing software touted as being of value on the pornography industry. I'm not sure if the controversy makes it sufficiently notable to keep, but it might be worth considering. Either way, I haven't had the chance to add the information to the article yet, but if it survives AfD (or at least is still around when I get some time to spare) I'll do so. - Bilby (talk) 08:01, 31 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 01:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guyana Punch Line[edit]

Insufficient notability Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chris Bickel. Independent notability not established, and no refs provided. No gnews hits, the few ghits are lyrics and fansites. Frank | talk 20:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - band has 3 albums on Prank Records, a larger independent punk label. The band also contains members formerly in In/Humanity and Antischism. This seems to pass Wikipedia:Notability (music) c5 and c6. The article could definitely be improved by the addition of some sources. BeastmasterGeneral 14:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeastmasterGeneral and per coverage here and here (both are only previews, not the full articles). I've added two sources to the article, which partly addresses the verifiability issue noted by Stifle. Merging is primarily an editorial decision and would be better done through discussion at Talk:Chris Bickel, where the editors of that article can also know about and participate in the discussion, rather than here at AfD. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:MUSIC#C5. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:MUSIC#C5 as Prank Records is "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable"--Captain-tucker (talk) 01:13, 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 by Singularity (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). 12:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Sotto[edit]

Delete. Unreferenced, unable to confirm any notability. Mainly a collection of starry-eyed trivia. WWGB (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also unreferenced and non-notable:

Delete WP:NN, WP:RS & WP:V. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note Special:Contributions/Jemarth_Lalic, Special:Contributions/90.194.215.82 and Special:Contributions/Alicia_Sotto. All have their only contributions to this article or articles closely related and have removed prod and AFD templates. Also see Imelda Salvador, Jaypee Sotto. Some of the user pages contain what look like related things. In every case, when an IMDB link is provided, it goes to somebody else with a different name. --Tombomp (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also, looks like a hoax or completely not-notable at best. --Tombomp (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Removed the trivia and reduced the POV, but there's still no sign of notability. Edward321 (talk) 04:34, 30 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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Dussan[edit]

Delete. Unreferenced, unable to establish notability. Fails WP:VER and WP:BIO WWGB (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NN, WP:RS & WP:V. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is full of unsourced claims of knowing notable people, but there's no indication the subject is notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:46, 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 speedy delete - author blanked page. PhilKnight (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss USA 2009[edit]

Article is about an event that will not occur until next year. As such, this fails WP:CRYSTAL. The article could be created again once more sources are available or more participants are known. TN‑X-Man 22:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CRYSTAL, as the article itself shows, there isn't much information on it. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G7 Author blanked page. Already tagged by another user. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:11, 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. Singu larity 08:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prison Statistics[edit]

I'm sure the content of this is in Prison, so it's more or less redundant, plus it's not referenced. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 22:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOT#STATS. "In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader," so I suggest moving info into Prison? The info (when properly sourced) will be very encyclopaedic. ——Ryan | t • c 22:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What study? Which country? Needs removing per WP:V and WP:NOT#STATS. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm) can be linked to from broader article, if it isn't already. Marasmusine (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#STATS. The title kills it dead, also it needs verification (Maramusine, I think the country is the US, because that's the only country where the term "African American" would apply). Also it looks a bit like school work Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The conclusions to what sounds like an opinion piece on African Americans in prison are not verified. It's all covered in Incarceration in the United States and United_States_incarceration_rate anyway. Nk.sheridan Talk 22:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SMerge or Delete and redirect to Prison. I think it's a good enough search term to justify a redirect. I'm just not sure whether anything in the current article would actually need to be merged into the existing prison article (which does have a statistics section). Erechtheus (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, find a citation for the study mentioned in the article, then merge content into incarceration in the United States and finally, redirect to prison. Bwrs (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as random stats; nothing worth merging. JJL (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dont even bother with merging. I dont know where the stat's are from, what country they refer to, and so on, but on their own they aren't important enough for an individual article. Ironholds (talk) 00:33, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. There's consensus, though, that this should be merged and/or made into a disambiguation page if kept. Sandstein 21:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brain fog[edit]

This is a highly subjective term that leads its own life on messaging boards for hypochondriacs. The article is entirely constructed of original research trying to sound pseudoscientific by employing neurological terminology. It could also be termed "I just don't feel right, doc". Delete, no merge opportunities. JFW | T@lk 22:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks refs and is a colloquialism with no specific definition. The only useable reference in the article actually discusses chemo brain, a notable topic which has its own article. Note: saw this AfD in a posting at WT:MED, in the interest of full disclosure. MastCell ^Talk 22:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge to one line in organic brain syndrome or mental confusion, which should be merged with each other anyway. Non notable and obfuscates rather than clarifies knowledge. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply delete. Appears to be a coatrack on which to hang an external link to a website of the same name. Nothing to do with either chemo brain or organic brain syndrome. -- The Anome (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A common term for a valid symptom for people with fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and other similar disorders. As someone highly familiar with research around fibromyalgia research, I would request that one consider this valid and not simply throw it out as a hypochondriasis, a dismissal that happens far too often with people who suffer from that all-too-real disease. Eauhomme (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you're familiar with the usage of this term in fibromyalgia research, perhaps you could provide some reliable sources we could use in the article? Peer-reviewed literature or material from organizations with a reputation for accuracy and respectability would be most useful. MastCell ^Talk 02:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's stick to medical terms that appear in medical dictionaries, rather than neologisms. Colin°^Talk 09:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Brain fog seems to be a genuine term used in some reliable sources to describe either Post-chemotherapy cognitive impairment or alternatively a form of mental confusion when associated with among ather things intoxication, ageing, and the medical conditions listed in the article. Since the first use already has an article I'd merge any relevant information intothe Mental confusion article which can be verified by reliable sources (which might include: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]). Guest9999 (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge There are many scholarly sources which mention this including a book on the subject which I have cited in the lede. No doubt there are other articles on similar and related topics but this material should be merged rather than deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge concept that won't have been mentioned in the mainstream, WP:RS press independently of M.E., fibro and such like- not independently notable. Sticky Parkin 18:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Unless someone has a really conclusive source stating that this topic falls under one specific medical term/article, its merger would be a sort of original research. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Impaired concentration is a pretty common feature of many psychiatric and medical illnesses, from depression to influenza. I can't see how reifying it in this particular case is helpful or informative, hence merging option. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please take the time to read Wikipedia:Speedy keep before arguing that an AfD should be closed as "speedy keep". MastCell ^Talk 02:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I seriously believe that the reason behind this AfD is bias and POV, hence my vote. Thanks. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussions are not votes. The point of some of the discussion is that confusion is a symptom of many, many illnesses. IMO, treating it as a single 'thing' without redirecting to mental confusion or something similar is far more original research as it would require lumping a whole bunch of conditions together on one ill-defined page. WLU (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The de jure understanding of policy is that AfD contributions are not votes. At the same time, the de facto form and its interpretation by closing admins are most certainly democratic-like vote tallies (even deletion review is in form such a process). That aside, brain fog is a valid term and topic as judged by referencable sources. An editor's sense of truth (opinion, POV, or otherwise), even if comprehensible, is supposed to be mostly irrelevant. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except there are no reliable sources - there's a source that could go in chemobrain, there's an unreliable discussion in a self-published source which is very far from a WP:MEDRS, and an EL that's to a forum, also out per WP:MEDMOS and solely about ME/CVS from the look of it. Based on extant sources, there's no reason to keep the page. Also, !votes with opinions and rationales are given far more weight than just votes and per nom/X statements. I don't actually see a keep rationale based on notability. "Because I think another editor is biased/POV" is most definitely not a reason to keep a page and unconvincing to most editors. WLU (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reliable sources available for this, as I said above. The symptom seems associated with a variety of conditions such as hepatitis C and so does not belong with a single one of them. In covering symptoms as topics, we should use the lay language which patients use to describe them. Patients suffering from brain fog are more likely to use such plain English rather than jargon like aphasia. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard quite a few laypeople describe the symptom of aphasia, and while they've used many interesting metaphors, "brain fog" is not among them. We should absolutely use the correct term, but we should also explain that term properly. Layperson's terms are great, but this is after all an encyclopedia and some level of actual terminology and knowledge would be useful. Take a look at WP:MEDMOS for starters. We don't say: "Hepatitis C is when a tiny bug gets in your liver and messes it up and gives you brain fog." MastCell ^Talk 22:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joe Versus the Volcano. A "brain cloud" is a fictional disease invented within that film by an unscrupulous doctor to trick Joe into thinking he's dying. That seems more notable than the made-up syndrome described here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or briefly merge to mental confusion. As Colonel Warden says, there indeed is a book on this subject. In fact, there appears to be precisely one book on the topic: "Brain Fog" by Dr. Binyamin Rothstein. The book has been, I think, heavily promoted. Note that Binyamin Rothstein is not a psychologist or psychiatrist or anything of the sort. He's an osteopath. I haven't read it, but everything about the book that I've seen indicates that it is a popular "sickness of the day" publication, not a work of science. That doesn't mean that the topic shouldn't have all or part of an article, but the current one, which treats it as medical science, is misleading in my opinion. Tim Ross (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about disambiguate - there are a variety of conditions that produce mental confusion. Some have their own articles (chemobrain and it's awkward on-wiki title being one of them). 'Types' that are notable enough to have their own page can be disambiguated. I think there's a need for distinction between the various types of mental confusion that exist and condition-specific pages, but there's no need for a mostly unsourced page with a single inappropriate external link (and seems dedicated to ME brainfog exclusively) and a pop book that is self-published. The sole other reference is appropriate for the chemobrain page. If not DAB, the delete, but a loose page dedicated to a nebulous concept isn't a good choice. WLU (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the disambiguate suggestion (which I suppose is a form of "keep", with a request to edit the page so that it becomes a disambiguation page). Since the term "brain fog" seems to be used often enough that someone may want to look it up in wikipedia, links to all actual medical topics that may be relevant to the term "brain fog" could be useful. Either that, or edit the article heavily to make it clear that this is not a generally accepted medical term. Klausness (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. Like WLU and Klausness said, it seems that there are many situations that one could term "Brain fog". For someone trying to look it up here, a disambiguation page would direct them to some possible causes/diseases/states. J kasd 18:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For a model of how to disambiguate this, see Headache which is likewise a lay term for a symptom which is the result of many different medical conditions. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:38, 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 No consensus to bulk delete, without prejudice to a renomination of the articles individually. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie View coaches[edit]

(delete) – (View AfD)

(by the way, it's Prairie View A&M University... Prairie View A&W is a cool place to get root beer)--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination relates to the following pages:

I speedy-deleted these pages under CSD:A7 as there were no overt assertion of notability in any of them. After a discussion and a DRV supported by four editors (all from WikiProject College Football) I undeleted the pages and am now listing them here. Four of the articles are on separate AFDs as they may be more notable than the others, and the current year's coach is not listed at all.

I feel this articles should be deleted for the following reasons:

The subjects do not meet any part of WP:BIO
The team which they managed does not even have its own article
The articles contain no citations from reliable sources, which are required under the verifiability policy
- Note that cfbdatawarehouse.com cannot be considered a reliable source - it is merely a college football enthusiast site. I would expect to see news coverage or similar, secondary sources.
- Note that pvamu.edu cannot be considered a reliable source as it is a primary source. See WP:SPS.

In the interest of full disclosure I would ask members of WP:CFB to declare their membership when giving their opinion in this AFD. Stifle (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - I believe the relevant part of WP:BIO exists here, stating "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)" (emphasis mine) meet the notability requirement. Now, these coaches all coached at the highest level of amateur sports in their division (I think past consensus has determined that the FCS division is still considered "highest level"), so they meet the first part of that right there. The next part it must meet is the secondary sources published about them requirement. I believe the college football database is a reliable source, and it is linked to literally thousands, probably more than 10,000 pages on Wikipedia for stat and bio information. If this is determined not to be a reliable source, I think there needs to be a much larger discussion to determine that, as that would affect thousands of articles, and would also apply to the baseball, basketball, and hockey portions of that website, affecting even more articles. Additionally, I think the section linked above on "Self-published sources (online and paper)" is being misinterpreted to classify the school's very own website as unreliable. That section states that "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable". Note that the example of websites cites personal websites. I don't believe the intent of that at all is to exclude an otherwise-reliable source to not be reliable in the case of writing about a subject related to them. Under that logic, no university press release could ever be considered reliable unless reported on by another source. And yes, I am a member of WP:CFB, although I would hope that would be irrelevant. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely if the team they managed was anyway notable it'd have its own article... Stifle (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  (edit conflict) One might think that, but Wikipedia is far from complete. I created Brown Bears just a few weeks ago, and that's not even on the football team alone, that is about the whole athletics program in general. Harvard has yet to get an article on their athletic program, let alone their football team, and one would be hard pressed to declare them non-notable. I don't think WP:OTHERSTUFF is the best argument to make in this case simply because an article on their football program doesn't exist yet. In fact, you will likely prod someone in to creating it by the end of this nom, if I were to make a guess. VegaDark (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, at least if that happens, I'll have improved the encyclopedia by the nomination :) Stifle (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Team articles (and even team football articles) are rather recent developments. An example is Brown Bears, it didn't have its own article until recently, whether or not the coaches are notable had no bearing on the existence of that article. Wizardman 22:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All Yes, I'm a member of WP:CFB. I'm also the original editor of the articles in question. Here are the reasons for keeping the article in question:

Consensus has already been reached on similar articles: (examples)
Consensus from Speedy Deletion Review#Head coach articles was reached on all coaches in question, with 4-1 in favor of "Overturn All" or "Obvious Overturn All"
Wikipedia:WikiProject College football consideres all head coaches (past and present) of notable college football programs to be notable, and notable college football programs are further defined as NCAA (Division I FBS, Division I FCS, Division II, and Division III) as well as NAIA programs. This school in quesiton is a Division I FCS school.
The program and several of the coaches are known for their exceptoinally poor record and the school owns the longest losing streak in college football
As we have continued to do research on this project, we find that more and more coaches are linked together and the project grows. Harold Elliott is just one of hundreds of examples of articles that started out as just such a stub article and has grown to a robust article.
Upon further research, we have found that at least one of the coaches is in the College Football Hall of Fame.
These are just some of the many reasons that we have found. Please include reasons in discussions of coaches listed above as examples.

And now, to address the administrators specific points:

"The subjects do not meet any part of WP:BIO"

The subjects all meet the criteria "Additional criteria/Athletes" with the specific clarification "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)" -- Varsity head collegiate coaches have indeed achieved the highest level in amateur sports.

The team which they managed does not even have its own article

First off, this is not the "manager" of the team but the "head coach" of the team. College football team managers would not even be considered for inclusion unless they did something really, really special. Second, part of our project is to build those team pages. And third, see Prairie View A&M University#Football.

"The articles contain no citations from reliable sources, which are required under the verifiability policy"

The articles cite the school website (which would be considered an authority of who the coach is) and also, the College Football Data Warehouse.

- "Note that cfbdatawarehouse.com cannot be considered a reliable source - it is merely a college football enthusiast site. I would expect to see news coverage or similar, secondary sources.
- Note that pvamu.edu cannot be considered a reliable source as it is a primary source. See WP:SPS."

Our project has been recommending and using this as a resource in thousands of articles. I do not know of any complaints so far except for this one. If you wish to dispute that source, then I would recommend creating a separate discussion on that topic instead of blindly deleting pages.

However, CFDW indeed DOES meet the criteria on WP:SPS because it is neither a "self-published source" nor "non-English" source. Also, the pages meet the criteria "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so" -- the information has proven time and again to be reliable, it is by an established expert on the topic and is relevant to the field and the author has been published by reliable third-party publications. A cursory review of the site would make that clear. It certainly is not a "self-published book, newsletter, personal website, open wiki, blog, or forum posting."

Unfortunately, to be fair, I must also include some comments about the administrator in question--simply because of the behavior of the admin has seriously brought into question the ability of the admin to make a reasonable judgement:

On the page for Oscar Dahlene, the admin tried to "re-speedy-delete" a page that had been closed consensus keep. The admin's comment in the history is "only admins may remove speedy deletion tags" in an attempt to say that it was a violation of Wikipedia policy for the user who deleted it to do so. Please visit User talk:Paulmcdonald#Oscar Dahlene to read the conversation where the admin refused to retract the statement on the page in question.
Another user, on another subject, the admin is attempting to make another user believe that only GFDL items can be used in Wikipedia. While that's preferred, it certainly is not the only option. See discussion: User talk:Stifle#Kulveer ranger
On the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#HELP! Emergency Action Required! page, I informed the project team about the issue and what to do about it. I was accused of "vote-stacking" -- you can read it on your own and figure it out for yourself.

It has been very time-consuming for me to follow up with these points. I reserve the right to add more comments later.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These points, particularly #2, are completely irrelevant to the current debate and my behaviour is being discussed at ANI. I would ask Mr. McDonald to refactor and remove them. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Keep but it would seem to be more reasonable to make an article on the team first. If the team is really notable, then each of its individual coaches will be. But I do not assume that a college's team will necessarily have been notable for all of its history. I think that this one probably is, because its long time coach from 1930-65 is in the College Football Hall of Fame. His successors may be less highly notable, but they are likely to be notable enough. As for his [predecessors, that depends on the history of the team. I do not think this it is the case for all college teams even in football as a matter of course, and also not necessarily for other sports. the college football project may consider all football head coaches notable, but they're wrong just by common sense: Many small colleges have an insignificant team. They may want to assert this standard, but, if so, the general community can and should tell them otherwise.
I think that my experienced colleague Stifle knows that non-admins can remove speedy tags, even if he thinks they should not be permitted to. Notifying a project is nt vote stacking; tho some people think it should be otherwise, consensus is firmly that its OK. The mass deletion by speedy was of course a mistake, and DRV set it right very quickly. This was not a case where an admin should have acted on his own , but at should have placed he tags and let some other admin judge. But a whole group of low quality articles for a single college does tend to arouse a certain degree of annoyance. DGG (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Touché. There is, however, no prohibition on admins outright deleting articles that they feel meet the speedy criteria - we are not required to tag them for someone else to delete. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Re:PaulMcDonald. Precedent has been set with other articles. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please specify which other articles and why Wikipedia:No binding precedents should be ignored here? Stifle (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought, but I would say that it doesn't apply because Wikipedia:No binding precedents is a blank... page... did you mean to do that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I suck at linking. Meant Wikipedia:No binding decisions. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh that helps... It does not apply because: 1) no one brought "fresh ideas", 2) no "new needs" have been identified, 3) we did not "find a better way to do things", and 4) no other new reason has been brought up. Sure, the previous keep decisions shouldn't be binding forever, but to overturn that someone should at least bring a new idea to the party.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with everything Paul does, but I do have to agree here. I just don't believe you've made your case that the article has drastically changed from what it was when consensus said that the article should be kept. I'd be willing to hear more arguments, though. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except possibly Ronald Beard with its external sources. No independent sources and no assertion of notability other than being college football coaches, which isn't a reason for notability per WP:BIO for sportspeople. Contrary to the claim above, no consensus has been reached on such articles - I am not entirely sure why Mike Gottsch was kept, Oscar Dahlene and Fred Clapp should ber added to this AfD, and Fay G. Moulton was found to be notable for a completely different reason - being an Olympic athlete. Without citations as to whether these people are notable for any other reason, these article aren't viable as they stand. Black Kite 07:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:BIO actually supports keep. "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)."
- Comment the other articles mentioned were kept because the consensus decided to do so and regarded the accomplishments as notable. Why are you asserting that a consensus was not reached when it was?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just noticed above where the original admin stated "current year's coach is not listed at all" ... and I have to wonder, does this mean that the editor agrees that the current coach is notable, but then will become "non-notable" when he leaves the post and we then have to delete the page? And if not, all the previous coaches were at one time the "current coach" -- so if holding the post is notable, then why would "no longer holding the post" suddenly and automatically make them not notable?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but Ronald Beard. With the exception of Ronald Beard, none of these articles pass notability requirements for secondary coverage in independent reliable sources. A considerable amount of the sources are primary data about the footballing team's record, which, while useful, do not constitute RS. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They all pass WP:ATHLETE pretty straightforwardly. "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." --Smashville^BONK! 21:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add the required secondary sources you seem to have found to the articles, or at list them here? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Dorsey [10]
Clifton Gilliard [11]
Greg Johnson [12]
Hensley Sapenter [13]
Ronald Beard (who is also the losingest coach in major college football history) [14]
Haney Catchings [15]
Conway Hayman [16]

There are a few hundred sources after about 5 minutes of google. --Smashville^BONK! 21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of non-trivial and independent sources. Somwhere between the Superbowl and the sandlot, a line gets drawn. I think it's drawn higher than college football coaches, since there is no evidence that any meaningful number of them are subjects of independent biographical coverage. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that's a sweeping delete for all of them despite the fact that 2 hours before in the response directly above them I provided hundreds of sources on 7 of them? --Smashville^BONK! 00:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add 134 sources for C.L. Whittington. --Smashville^BONK! 00:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that somewhere between the sandlot and the Superbowl a line should be drawn. Let's see... Sandlot, Pee Wee, Junior High, High School Junior Varisty, High School Varisity, Junior College, College, Professional,... Super Bowl. And since the Super Bowl is a part of professionall, we can really scratch that. At the college football project, we considered National Junior College Athletic Assocation and decided not to extend notability there. We also discussed high school coaches and while there certainly can be merit from an exceptional high school coach, or a high school coach that continues to college and professional coaching, we decided (by consensus, I might add) to exclude those. We decided to draw the line right before "College" -- hence, the project we are involved in. Wanna raise that bar, draw that line higher? Okay, let's discuss. What are your reasons?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All - I am a member of CFB project. With that said here is my explanation:
- "The subjects do not meet any part of WP:BIO"
  - WP:ATHLETE states: "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports(who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." PV is FCS which is Division I, which is the highest level in amateur sports.
- "The team which they managed does not even have its own article"
  - WP:OTHERSTUFF - Does not matter as editors are creating it now.
"The articles contain no citations from reliable sources, which are required under the verifiability policy"
- "Note that cfbdatawarehouse.com cannot be considered a reliable source - it is merely a college football enthusiast site. I would expect to see news coverage or similar, secondary sources."
  - I believe CFBDW is a reliable source. wikipedia and other websites rely on it a lot. The College coach infobox uses the website as apart of its template.
- "Note that pvamu.edu cannot be considered a reliable source as it is a primary source. See WP:SPS."
  - WP:SPS also states "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."
    - I believe pvamu.edu would qualify as a reliable source. But I also belive there should be secondary sources as well. I think CFBDatawarehouse qualifies. But, if to attain a consesus, other sources should be found.
      - Just curious--exactly how would an accredited college or university not be a qualified source?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly, it is a qualified source. This sentence: "Note that pvamu.edu cannot be considered a reliable source as it is a primary source." does not make sense to me. Its one thing if John Doe starts a blog about something, but its totally different if a established university publishes information about their university. I still think the university source and cfbdatawarehouse.com are sufficient enough for these articles. These websites are only needed to establish that these people in fact were coaches at Praire View. Once that is established/agreed upon, then they are notable under WP:ATHLETE. -PG Pirate 12:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The problem is that pvamu.edu is not independent of the subject (Prairie View coaches), and hence must be considered a primary, self-published source with respect to the article. That doesn't mean that it is completely unreliable, but it must be used with care, and should not form the basis of an article. For example, it is quite legitimate to cite pvamu.edu in moderation in Prairie View A&M University, as long as we cite plenty of third-party sources. Since numerous third-party sources attest to the notability of PV, that's not a problem. The question is whether specific staff employed by PV are notable, and we need to apply the same test. cfbdatawarehouse.com cannot be considered a reliable source at all. What is needed to establish notability (and, importantly, to satisfy WP:V and WP:PSTS) are multiple independent reliable sources; see WP:BIO#Basic criteria. Jakew (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd say that the problem is a bias against sports. If a chemistry professor had done research and discovered a new kind of goo and published their findings through the university, we'd have no problem listing their accomplishments and they would be considered completely reliable. Why should sports have a different standard? And when you're answering, please remember that sports as a business is legitimate and huge and may indeed surpass chemistry as a business in many, many ways.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm afraid you're mistaken, Paul. There's no bias against sports, but we don't make an exception for sports. To consider your example, firstly a new discovery of "goo" would, almost certainly, be reported through the news media and through scientific journals, not just on the university website (conversely, if the discovery is only reported on the university website, then we have to ask how notable it really is). Secondly, discovery of "goo" may not necessarily mean that the person making the discovery is notable. Thirdly, we don't have articles about random academics; we have notability guidelines for academics which are, if anything, stricter than those for sports coaches. And the reason is that simply being an academic, employed by a university is not itself evidence of notability (and if the only sources that can be found for an academic are the university website and chemistryfans.net, (s)he might not be notable). Similarly, simply being a sports coach, employed by a university is not itself evidence of notability. The basic test of notability, as determined by Wikipedia, is whether the subject has been noted in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That's not a particularly high standard, is it? Jakew (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: Wikipedia:WikiProject College Football/Notability#Common arguments encountered covers this in some detail. You can specifically review the "academic standards" section, an argument we tend to encounter from time to time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-PG Pirate 13:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are we ready to come to a conclusion on this discussion? It's been over 5 days. Reference Deletion Discussion for policy. We have 6 editors in favor of at least some form of "keep" and 3 that support "delete" (two of which want to keep the Ronald Beard article). Of course, it's not a popular vote but it can help to know those results.

Therefore, I propose the following:

Keep the Ronald Beard article and remove the AFD tag, consensus result is "keep"
Keep all other articles in the list and remove the AFD tag, either as consensus is "keep" or there no rough consensus, which normally defaults to "keep".

Any objections? Discussion on closing this way?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per VegaDark, but especially Ronald Beard. While a few of these may possibly warrant deletion, they would be better handled through separate nominations that allow consideration of the the unique circumstances of each article. The "no consensus" compromise suggested by Paul McDonald, which would permit renomination of the articles without any substantial delay, seems reasonable to me, but it's ultimately up to the closer's evaluation of the discussion. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as suggested with no prejudice against individual renominations of the less sourceable individuals. --Dhartung | Talk 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and allow for individual renominations as appropriate - there's clearly not a consensus to remove all the articles listed en masse. Townlake (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment look, most if not all of these articles have the ability to be expanded. Coach McKinley, for example, coached at three different schools and had a victory in the Gold Bowl in 1980. We need to close this as keep all, let the editors do their work at a reasonable pace instead of a scrambling pace--and then if revisition needs to happen, so be it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:03, 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 - Keep - non-admin closure. Peripitus (Talk) 10:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Stevens[edit]

I speedy-deleted this page under CSD:A7 as there was no overt assertion of notability. After a discussion and a DRV supported by four editors (all from WikiProject College Football) I undeleted the page and am now listing it here.

I feel this article should be deleted for the following reasons:

The subject does not meet any part of WP:BIO
The team which he managed does not even have its own article
The article contains no citations from reliable sources, which are required under the verifiability policy
- Note that cfbdatawarehouse.com cannot be considered a reliable source - it is merely a college football enthusiast site. I would expect to see news coverage or similar, secondary sources.
- Note that pvamu.edu cannot be considered a reliable source as it is a primary source. See WP:SPS.

I have nominated most of the articles together but am separating this article as it claims that the coach is one of the four most successful that this team has had, therefore there is an extra chance that he is notable. In the interest of full disclosure I would ask members of WP:CFB to declare their membership when giving their opinion in this AFD. Stifle (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments in the main nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Re:PaulMcDonald in Prarie View A&M Coaches. Precedent has been set with other articles. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have improved the article with additional information and sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are coaching records and tables of data, not the coverage mandated by notability guidelines. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The man left Prairie View 57 years ago. Looking for online sources is a little unfair, no? --Smashville^BONK! 21:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The search databases I use have full-text articles going back to 1913. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it really matters, though. How does he not pass the notability guidelines? To claim that there was a higher level that a black football coach could coach at in 1951 is completely ignorant of the culture of the United States pre-1980. --Smashville^BONK! 21:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I don't care about what level he coached at; I know absolutely nothing about foot-ball. I'm only interested in coverage in third-party reliable sources, which the subject doesn't have. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:ATHLETE pretty straightforwardly. "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)."

Where are these secondary sources? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably on microfilm somewhere. I highly doubt that google has various African-American newspapers from the 1930s-40s. --Smashville^BONK! 21:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not in a free search database, no, but I imagine that if it existed, it would be found by any of the 15 search databases available to RIT that I'm looking for them in that carry material from that period. You can't assert notability using sources that you can't verify. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is where common sense applies. White mainstream newspapers in the 1940s and 1950s in Texas were not going to report on the exploits of African-American football coaches and their schools. --Smashville^BONK! 21:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They did with a more notable coach in Florida in the same time period. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is fallacious for two reasons. A) Prairie View A&M is in Texas, not Florida and B) Billy Nicks is a Hall of Fame coach and I can't find any sources from the era in which he coached. I state again that looking for online sources for a coach that last coached at the school 57 years ago is completely unreasonable. --Smashville^BONK! 21:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it wasn't in Texas. That was just a random search of black coaches from that era (there are 4,795 newspaper articles regarding that particular coach written between 1900 and 1970). I was simply pointing that that your "There are no sources available from the time period" doesdn't work, because there's coverage of other colored coaches. I'm not looking for online sources. I'm looking for print sources. There are several databases that archive images of microfilm print sources back to the turn of the century. There just simply isn't enough secondary coverage in reliable sources to justify keeping this article; while he may pass part of athlete as a coach of whatever level of football, it still requires coverage in secondary reliable sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the statement "Of coure it wasn't in Texas" really brings another point--Texas newspapers and Texans in the time period were less apt to report on, reconginze, and reward the activities and successes of African Americans. So because he was coaching at an underfunded segregated black college in Texas, it's not worth an article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a corollary; it's not worth an article because there's no secondary coverage of the subject in reliable sources, which is how we gauge notability. If a few things were to be written now about him now, then sure, he'd be notable. The problem is there isn't anything, which means this doesn't pass n, and only passes V because footballing records show that he exists. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out again and again, it was over 50 years ago, so reliance on online databases is unfair and more or less irrelevant. Consensus has shown that head coaches of programs that are currently Division I are considered notable. The intent of the guideline is to prevent every walk-on and assistant kicking coach that ever existed from having an article. --Smashville^BONK! 16:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's been over 5 days. I propose that the article be kept with a consensus of "keep" -- any objections or discussion?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there were no sources at all (a deeper problem of verifiability), I'd favour deletion. But as it stands, keep per WP:ATHLETE. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 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 speedy close, nomination rationale inconsistent with article content. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 22:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Korea Times (Los Angeles)[edit]

Neologism of questionable notability. RonaldMolina20 (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable neologism. RonaldMolina20 (Talk) 22:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; you don't need to !vote as the nominator. By the act of nominating this for deletion, the closing admin knows you are for deleting the article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the nomination. The article is about a Korean-language newspaper, not a neologism. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:09, 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, since one successful act does not make a label notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Country Thunder Records[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable label. Only notable act is Heartland; the only other acts on this label aren't notable enough for their own pages. The refs are either primary, trivial, or unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment any thoughts on these sources? I'm a country fan, but don't know enough about indie labels to determine what's enough to make them notable _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All are trivial mentions. The last one is more relevant to Heartland than to Heartland's label (even tho' Heartland did chart "Once a Woman Gets a Hold of Your Heart" on Country Thunder). I should note that Veronica Ballestrini is a red link because her page got AfD'ed about a month ago. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see what. I just wasn't entirely sure whether labels had to pass WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP or some other criteria altogether in terms of standards for music labels. I probably couldn't name more than a handful myself so notability is harder to gauge. I agree that they don't seem to meet WP:CORP and ghits just confirm its existence. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be notable. The label can claim a hit (with Heartland), and has a notable artist. Izzy007 Talk 01:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland's hit on the label was a #53. They had their #1 when they were on Lofton Creek. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RED Distribution. I don't think this label merit a standalone until sources exist to verify notability. WP:MUSIC identifies "one of the more important indie labels" as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable." This label is a year old and evidently has one notable band in its roster. The fact that the artist was already notable when it came to Heartland is a point in their favor in my book, and one of the reasons why I believe the redirect may be appropriate, as it is a plausible search term for that fact. But I don't think there's sufficient notability established for this label in the absence of other notable acts or widespread press. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 21:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - TenPoundHammer is correct the sources are "trivial, or unreliable" and they don't talk about the company but simply mention it, I mean it's clear that the company is not the subject of the sources. Delete per WP:CORP.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS. Non-notable...articles should not rely on "inherited" notability, i.e. one of the bands they have happens to be notable. WP:MUSIC says a band is notable with 2+ albums with a major label, not a label is notable by having signed a notable band. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 20:37, 31 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 10:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Elaine Hughes[edit]

The article fails WP:RS and WP:BK. Unfortunately, having a few community-theater pieces produced and having a few short plays anthologized in small publications does not make Ms. Hughes a notable personage in the vast world of the American theater. Compare David Mamet or Arthur Miller or Lillian Hellman. Ms. Hughes did work for a theater company at one time in a managerial position, but there are thousands of such companies around the country. Ms. Hughes has published a few things in local papers, but she has never published a hardcover or even a paperback book, so she fails author notability per WP:BK. Also, there are significant WP:AUTO and WP:COI issues here. Qworty (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing indicating notability of her work as a playwright or freelance writer. The Stockyards Theatre Project, based on a check of Google News Archive, might be able to pass WP:ORG if an article were written; she could be mentioned briefly in that article as the founder. --Dhartung | Talk 22:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:V sources at all. Her forthcoming book 'Wacko' was turned down by her own publisher: [17] This may be a vanity article since Ms. Hughes herself created it in 2006:[18] This article feels like an autobiography made by the author herself. Artene50 (talk) 07:11, 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. Singu larity 08:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theta-[edit]

Unverifiable, probably nonsense. There is an external link to a website but it does not mention the prefix. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and WP:V. The external link does not mention the prefix 'Theta-'. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked the HTML version of The NIST Reference on Constants, Units and Uncertainty, and I saw no mention of the theta- prefix. I also checked the NIST Guide for the Use of the International System of Units, and used the "find" function in my browser, and the only mention of "theta" that I found was in connection with the Greek letter; however, this source appears to be a style manual for internal use within the NIST, and as such, contains material that may differ from common usage outside the U.S. government [for example, "it is unacceptable to use kilo (k) to represent 2¹⁰ = 1024, mega (M) to represent 2²⁰ = 1 048 576, or giga (G) to represent 2³⁰ = 1 073 741 824." (The NIST Reference on Constants, Units and Uncertainty use less-strong "should not" verbiage).] Bwrs (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not mentioned on SI prefix either, even as one of the proposed extensions. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is thetibit real? JuJube (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't look any more real than thetabit or thetabyte. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should be AfD'd then, shouldn't it? I'd do it but I'm unfamiliar with the terms. JuJube (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've added it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thetabit. No point in creating yet another discussion for what's effectively the same deletion. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:43, 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 both. Singu larity 08:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thetabit[edit]

Unverifiable, probably nonsense --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thetabyte. Useight (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theta-: no evidence this is a prefix that anybody uses, or even that anybody has seriously considered using. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added Thetibit to this discussion - it's basically the same constant, except as a binary prefix instead of a base-10 prefix. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Bwrs (talk) 16:04, 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. Singu larity 08:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thetabyte[edit]

Unverifiable, probably nonsense --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell, this is a hoax. I believe Yottabytes to be the largest term in use and this claims to be the one unit above yottabytes. Useight (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article includes no references making it non-notable. I don't see it much as nonsense as the nom said, but it is non-notable.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 22:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theta-: no evidence this is a prefix that anybody uses, or even that anybody has seriously considered using. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bwrs (talk) 16:07, 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 as non-notable reality. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent Reality[edit]

Notability tag since May 2007. Is this notable? DimaG (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In answer to the nomination, yes. There are secondary sources to prove it. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the article is cleaned up, shortened and reliable sources provided. --Stormbay (talk) 02:49, 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 10:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biology (band)[edit]

unnotable band Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:MUSIC#C6. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the article has enough notability to be an article. With four sources of information, the band is known.--LAA Fan 22:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability criteria in WP:MUSIC#C6, I replaced the fourth bad reference link with an article/interview with Francis Mark found at aversion.com. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:53, 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. And the wikifaeries giggle, because they know about this stuff. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O RLY?[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article has problems mainly in the verifiability department. One source is a forum; one is from a newsgroup; and one is from 4chan. The other two sources are about a virus that used the O RLY? Macro. Note that earlier this month, I deleted a whole, largely unsourced, trivial list that was nothing but examples of O RLY? in common use (diff). While the term does seem to be very widely used, this is little more than a dicdef and examples of its usage, and will not likely grow beyond that. The last AfD from 2006 was peppered mostly with "keep it, it's notable" !votes from peeps who didn't even bother to sign their bleeping posts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weak keep I've added in one reliable source I could find searching through Google News, but to be quite honest, there are not many reliable sources for this meme. Still think it should be kept, ~~but tagged with ((refimprove)).~~struck because it's already tagged with it Kesac (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICDEF and WP:V. The phrase isn't as globally recognised as the internet abbreviation/slang word LOL which has even found it's way into the dictionary now. ——Ryan | t • c 21:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect ~~to Image macro~~. Sources can be found that explain it but not enough coverage for notability. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not sure if image macro is notable. Maybe merge to List of Internet phenomena instead. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed opinion about suggested merge target: List of Internet phenomena, not image macro (see my comments in particular the one above this and my reply to user:Memset). --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to image macro or interenet phenomena list. These things very rarely have enough non-trivial coverage for a standalone article but can serve readers as a part of a list. --Rividian (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, a few sources do exist (Tiger Weekly, Toronto Star, and this book: [19]) and permit short article in compliance to WP:V. Merging into an article describing several of those memes is possible, but no such article exists at the moment; Image macro is unsuitable because the article in question is not only about the owl picture but also about the "O RLY?" expression itself; List of Internet phenomena is intended as an overview linking to specific articles. -- memset (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Internet phenomena includes a few that do not have separate articles, for example Kersal Massive (actually that one was deleted as the result of AFD, recreated after DRV, and deleted/protected, incorrectly as CSD G4 and apparently out of process, but there are others that do not have their own articles). --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kersal Massive was unanimously found non-notable in its AfD entry, in fact it should be removed from List of Internet phenomena. If O RLY is notable (I think it is, and notability wasn't really questioned this time) and there is more than a single sentence of verifiable content about it, it should have either a seperate article or a section in some article. The list will become too bloated if we start to merge complete articles into it. -- memset (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kersal Massive was deleted as the result of the unanimous AFD on 26 December 2006, and a new version was restored via deletion review on 6 November 2007. I am not saying that it should still be a separate article, and would support a merge/redirect if it was relisted at AFD, but I think it should be restored to allow useful content to be merged to its entry at List of Internet phenomena. Returning to the topic being discussed here, I also think the O RLY? article should also be merged and redirected. There is not enough coverage in reliable sources, and the sources in the article are useful for the understanding of the meme, but the majority do not constitute coverage of it. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I was actually looking for this term. I strongly agree with Memset here. — N-true (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'd note that as an "internet phenomenon" sourcing for this article, almost by definition, is going to be difficult to acquire and largely limited to forums and newsgroups. If the primary sources for this were books, then it wouldn't be an internet phenomenon. —Astarf (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forums and newsgroups are not reliable sources, and give no indication of importance. The Lolcat article has more sources, and asserts notability, but it looks like only one reliable source is cited in the O RLY? article. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP. NO WAI should you delete this article. O RLY is too famous.--Jack Cox (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question— Why can't this just be reduced to a stub? It's not exactly what I would call a dicdef, as it could still be a valid sub-article with sufficient context. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 01:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per 2nd voting. --Tbonefin (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. O RLY? --FlagFreak ^TALK 20:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RLY Weak Keep. It exists, and there's some evidence of notability in reliable sources, although it's pretty thin. This could very easily be covered as a subsection of the Internet phenomena article, but equally I think there's about enough to justify its own article. Terraxos (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Memset and Jack Cox. Gizmoguy (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. O RLY is important internet history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.247.10 (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It squeaks past, and works better separately. In addition, I'm in favor of restoring at least some of the deletions TenPoundHammer mentioned, as featuring in commercial releases of such things as Steve Jackson Games and Capcom products and prominent anime is not trivial for something like this. --Kiz o r 19:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, as it is a rather popular Internet meme, if not, merged into List of Internet phenomena ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ya'll suckas be hating, o rly be making, your money yo cars, that sheet takes it far, orly kicks but, gota funky ol' strut, beat's your best page, well off da gauge, so don't try to front, you'll all take da brunt, of orly's 'leet force, He'll win- Of Course.... Wack ass sucaks be fronting on da owl, he out on da prowl, gonna kick down yo door, don't post here no more- fool65.185.93.86 (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability established. Existing references talk about the notability of Something Awful, 4chan, and the Hooting virus. However, the references do not establish why the meme itself is notable. At best, merge/redirect elsewhere. --Alan Au (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it seems marginally notable due to all the references it gets in so many different places. Everyking (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)'[reply]
Merge witg internet phenomena- that's what it is, just with a few sources. Lu na ke et 13:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Internet phenomena or transwiki to Appendix:Internet slang. —Animum (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 fork. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Donkey Kong games by genre[edit]

This article is an unnecessary duplication of the List of Donkey Kong games article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete or redirect List of Donkey Kong games does a much better job of listing the games informatively, this is simply redundant treelo _talk 23:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Donkey Kong games. I don't especially like the way LoDKg is set up, but that's a different issue. --Izno (talk) 19:58, 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, was borderline A7. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opal Carew[edit]

The WP:PROD was contested, but without making any changes that address the problem. No reliable sources to show recognition by independent third parties of the work of this author. This article has been mentioned at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:64.230.71.197 as being the result of a promotional editing campaign that added mentions of this author's books to several articles including: Swinging, Group sex, Sex club, Polyamory, List of romantic novelists, Ménage à trois, and Open marriage. The creator of this article, who signs as User:ElizabethBC, might have a relationship to Elizabeth Batten-Carew, a name which is given (in this very article) as being the real name of the novelist Opal Carew. Nothing prevents us from keeping articles written by the subject provided that they are neutral and notability is shown. This does not appear to be the case here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. For discussion of another article recently created by this editor, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of erotic romance authors. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At no time has notability been established. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence that she is a notable author. Also, if WP:SPAM has been violated here, I'm going to address that situation on a case-by-case basis. Thanks for the heads-up. Qworty (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established. Macy (Review me!) 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup While the article should be copyedited, this article has enough notability to stand as an article.--LAA Fan 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet any of the guidelines listed at the notability guidelines. Good sourcing, but none of the sources seem to be very reliable. Razor flame 17:50, 31 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 as an unsourced and unsalvageable biography of a living person (the accused murderer, not Aarushi herself). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aarushi Talwar[edit]

Apparently relates to current news item in India. Firstly the historical notability of the subject is suspect Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS, and secondly I would have thought that we had a duty of care to this girl's remaining family. Deadly∀ssassin 18:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear WP:BLP problems, low quality of prose, and zero citations. An article about the crime itself might be appropriate at some point, but not this. Townlake (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This thing is not even remotely encyclopedic. Violates WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:BIO, etc. Qworty (talk) 19:53, 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 per WP:SNOW and likely copyright violations. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DnD Limit Warriors[edit]

This was nominated for speedy deletion under G11, but it didn't quite fit. I was tempted to delete it for G1, but I felt it didn't quite fit. I believe that this article most certainly fails WP:N and likely should be put out of its misery sooner rather than later, but I couldn't find anything to speedy it by. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with SchuminWeb. The article appears to be copied and pasted from various web forums, etc. Does not meet WP:N or qualify under WP:FICT. TN‑X-Man 18:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above. No evidence of notability and does not appear to be original content. --KurtRaschke (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There should be no issues about closing this early. It fails notability and is a likely copyright infringement of several different web forums. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not a Wikipedia article, and evidently a blatant copyright infringment. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it's not a copyright infringent, it's a non-notable fan creation. Edward321 (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A gibberish and fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:00, 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. Singu larity 09:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Tennessee[edit]

Article even admits that this is WP:CRYSTAL what with "The only track we have heard the rest is TBA". No other verifiable info exists on this album besides the title and label. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and then recreate if a notable album by this title is ever released. Qworty (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now per WP:CRYSTAL, but once the album comes out it should be recreated. Happyme22 (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references and the TBD sounds like WP:CRYSTAL. macy^{[User talk:Macys123|talk]]} 22:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently not suitable for an article as per WP:CRYSTAL. treelo _talk 23:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per WP:CRYSTAL. Rosiestep (talk) 02:24, 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 speedily A7 as a very worthy CV. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Nelson[edit]

Unsuccessful candidate for an election, no other claim to notability. Blueboy 96 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominee of a major party for congress, founder of a nonprofit, author. At worst, would meet WP:BIO while failing WP:POL. MrPrada (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonprofit only gets 20 Yahoo hits and 41 Ghits, and his book doesn't get nearly enough coverage to pass WP:BK. Blueboy 96 18:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS, WP:HOLE, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, are all arguments to avoid. They make a case for cleanup, not for deletion. MrPrada (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per MrPrada and the fact that he has been officially endorsed by WesPac [20]. --Ave Caesar (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BK, being notable neither as a politician nor an author. This appears to be little more than a platform for spamlinks, violating WP:SPAM. If he's ever elected to anything important or ever writes anything notable, then he will merit an article. Qworty (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's an impressive dude, but seems to me that he doesn't meet a single WP:N or WP:BIO criteria, and there's no obvious common-sense reason to override those policies. Townlake (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep The opposite of the argument presented by Qworty; if he fails WP:N and :BIO after losing the election, (if such happens) then the situation may be re-evaluated. For now, any candidate for a national-level political office is inherently noteworthy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ender78 (talk • contribs)
- Policy Note WP:POLITICIAN explicitly says otherwise. Townlake (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Coverage-just of the campaign, some of which is significant and non-trivial: Florida Times Union, CNN, Savanahh Morning NEws, Brunswick News 1, Oxford Press, Brunswick News 2, Brunswick News 3, Jackonsville.com, Brunswick News 4, and this list does not include editorials, endorsements, and election results from the New York Times. There is plenty more for those willing to do the research. Deleting this would set a bad precedent. MrPrada (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Candidates for a national legislature, even "nominees of a major party", are not considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Founding a non-profit is not notable, although founding a notable non-profit may be. Being an author is not notable. And while Google hits by themselves make a weak argument, the lack of reliable sources makes a rather strong one. --Dhartung | Talk 22:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither does WP:POLITICIAN inherently exclude such. Taken as a whole, it appears that the candidate is worthy enough to remain for now, on the basis that several items that, taken individually, would not equal notability, nonetheless add up to equal notability.Ender78 (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on both your comments I believe you misunderstand what is meant by inherent notability. Inherent notability is that which is acquired automatically by certain criteria. In the case of politicians, WP:POLITICIAN states that any member of a national or state legislature is inherently notable. You say "any candidate for a national-level political office is inherently noteworthy", and they may be noteworthy, but in Wikipedia terms, our guideline says that they are not inherently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Firstly, this was a 2006 candidate, so all of the concern about spamlinks etc are unwarranted. Secondly, there was enough independent, non-trivial coverage of him to satisfy WP:BIO, even as he fails WP:POLITICIAN. There is likely further coverage on his other accomplishments, which means this is more then BLP1E(and arguing that an election is 1E would be a stretch). I think there's enough notability to warrant a keep. Also, I disagree with Dhartung's assessment that nominees of a major party party are not considered notable, JamesMLane has argued the opposite successfully at AfD and DRV. MrPrada (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I stand by WP:POLITICIAN, which does not grant inherent notability to candidates. If there are precedents -- people who do not otherwise meet WP:BIO who were kept just for being a nominee -- I suggest you point to those directly. --Dhartung | Talk 03:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A major-party nominee for an important office (such as the national legislature) is generally notable, in my opinion. AfD discussions of such articles have gone both ways. It seems to depend on who shows up to comment. JamesMLane t c 04:19, 28 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 close) RMHED (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mush Records[edit]

Appears to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I happen to be very familiar with Mush Records and some of it's artists. Aesop Rock being my favorite. At any rate, this article needed to be tagged for several things which I have done, but it certainly has potential and should NOT be deleted. Carter | Talk to me 18:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just added some new sections, and tried a little cleaning. Not much, but with some work it will be much better. Carter | Talk to me 18:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a massive roster of notable artists; this is clearly a culturally significant label. Chubbles (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep XLR8R magazine recently devoted an hour podcast mixed with only Mush artists, so my vote is for keep. That being said the page needs allot of work!

Pedter (talk) 02:14, 31 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 if only cuz the name of their record label is cool. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lymbyc Systym[edit]

Declined A7 nomination. However, still appears to fail WP:MUSIC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this article meet the criteria for a notable artist (WP:MUSIC) for the following reasons:

They have two releases on a notable indie label, Mush Records that has been active since 1997 and has a roster of notable artists including Busdriver, Daedelus, Her Space Holiday, cLOUDDEAD and Aesop Rock to name a few.

They toured internationally, including US, Canada and Japan.

They have collaborated and/or toured with several documented wiki artists, The Album Leaf, Daedelus, Dirty on Purpose, Eliot Lipp The One AM Radio, Her Space Holiday, etc.

The band has been featured in print and online in several respected Music Publications and media outlets, many with national/international distrobution. Some are listed below:

[URB Magazine] [rcrdlbl.com] [KEXP Podcast] [Spin.com] [Live Music Blog] [Phoenix New Times] [Seattle Stranger] [Prefix Magazine] [Rave Magazine (Australia)] [Drowned In Sound (UK)] [Pop Matters (UK)] [XLR8R download] [Earplug] [Seattle Stranger Interview] [Scene Point Blank] [Remix Magazine] [Spacelab Review] [lesinrock.com (France)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fost01 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fost01 (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fost01 (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Blatantly fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND. Looks like promotion, as do the comments above. Qworty (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To continue the WP:MUSIC discussion, here is another part of the criteria that Lymbyc Systym meets.

"Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network."

KEXP, dedicated a 30 minute segment to a Lymbyc Systym interview & live in-studio session, which you can read about & download here: [depts.washington.edu/kexp/blog/?p=2349]

Fost01 (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The group definitely meets WP:MUSIC; tons of press about them out there, as noted above. Chubbles (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lymbyc Systym Page Edits made[edit]

The Lymbyc Systym wiki page was edited to remove the elements that seemed promotional. It was made more concise, and only includes information that is documented by credible 3rd party sources (All Music Guide, Pitchfork, etc). Also, a list of sources was added.

I feel at this point, the page deserves recognition as a valid Wikipedia article.

Fost01 (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the sources are mushrecords.com, and many of the rest are of a self-created/user-contrib nature whereas anyone can submit their article/blog/opinions. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the validity of sources for Lymbyc Systym[edit]

I was referencing a new list of sources, at the bottom of the actual article. I'll repost them in this discussion page:

Sources

I used these sources for the entire content of the revised article. All of these (All Music Guide, Spin.com, Pitchfork Media, College Music Journal, rcrdlbl.com) are widely used and respected music media sources. All of these are 3rd party sources, and link to their respective 3rd party web-sites. These same exact sources are used to accredit many of Wiki's band related articles.

As for the numerous sources listed near the top of the page; those were used to simply give an idea of the scope of the band, to wiki editors who are unfamiliar. But, in fact, most of those sources are in fact 3rd party, well-read, respected music news outlets, including the following:

KEXP.org, Livemusicblog.com, Phoenix New Times, Seattle Stranger, Prefix Magazine, Rave Magazine, Drowned In Sound, Pop Matters, XLR8R, Earplug, Remix Magazine

I believe your last comment about "three of the sources are mushrecords.com" refers to these sources:

Lodown Magazine, URB Magazine & Devil In The Woods Magazine

These do in fact link to mushrecords.com, but I simply posted them to show actual, scanned print articles about Lymbyc Systym. The actual sources are all internationally distributed music magazines, that one can by in a well-stocked Borders or Barnes & Noble.

The Urb Article is from the April 2007 issue of URB, which you can also read here, on URB's site: [urb.com/promotions/next1000/profile.php?BandId=68]

For the sake of keeping the discussion on course, and having all the sources by 100% valid, I will change that link above in the discussion to URBs 3rd part site, and also delete the sources linking to Mushrecords.com.

As far as the comment "many of the rest (of the sources) are of a self-created/user-contrib nature whereas anyone can submit their article/blog/opinions", that is simply not true. As I already have shown above, all of the rest of the sources are 3rd party articles. Some simple research will show they can only be edited by the people who run the sites themselves. None of the sites listed are "user-contributed".

Fost01 (talk) 18:28, 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) --MPerel 01:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Livraria Cultura[edit]

Delete Non notable store Ave Caesar (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Hard to see how this odd little stub could ever be expanded into a full-fledged article. Qworty (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The largest bookstore in a major nation. Easily expandable. See Powell's Books as an excellent example of how it can be expanded. --Oakshade (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has a reliable source saying it's Brazil's largest bookseller. If that's not notability then what is? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Notability isn't based on floorspace! Does this bookstore have any cultural relevance whatsoever? Do they publish important books themselves? Are they historically associated with notable international authors? For a look at a notable bookstore, compare the article on City Lights Bookstore. Qworty (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You can answer all of those questions by expanding the article from sources such as these and these and these and these. Just because the article is incomplete it doesn't mean we have to delete it. If that was case we would delete everything, because Wikipedia is a work in progress. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's an odd argument. We evaluate AfD's on what the article presently consists of, not whether notability might be achieved in the future. And of course it isn't true that every article in the project qualifies for deletion! Qworty (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We certainly do not evaluate articles at AfD based solely on what they presently consist of. Notability applies to article subjects, not article content, but anyway, are you really claiming that having a verified claim to be the largest bookseller in the world's fifth most populous country doesn't amount to notability? Just sit back for a few minutes and think about who's making the odd argument here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Comment. Now you're shifting the terms of the argument. Being the largest bookstore by floor space and being the largest bookseller aren't even the same thing. Nowhere does this article assert that this company sells more books than anyone else in Brazil, or even anybody else in the city where it is located. At best, this article is an example of WP:TRIVIA. Qworty (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about floor space apart from you? The source from Publishers Weekly (sic) which was in the article before this AfD started has in its headline "Brazil's Biggest Bookseller". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself states "largest bookstore." That's not the same things as "largest bookseller." Furthermore, the PW article you cite doesn't say anything about this store selling more books in Brazil than any other bookstore. Qworty (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A store's size doesn't make it notable. Further, the size of the country's population is completely unrelated to whether or not the size of a store within it is notable. A highly populated country's largest store could be a shack next to a disease infested creek. More importantly, a store's notability is not derived from its size relative to other stores but by the depth of coverage concerning the store. If the store is important to people then there should be plenty of sources included in the article to establish that fact. It is not, however, established in the article.--Ave Caesar (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are only required within articles for the purposes of verification. Notability depends on references existing, not on them being in the article. If you would just spend as much time on looking through the search results I linked to above as you do flogging your and Quorty's dead horse of an argument you would see that this is a clearly notable subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V does not state that. Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:DICK. Warm Regards, --Ave Caesar (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The source from Publishers Weekly is being misused here. It in fact does not say anything about this bookstore selling more books than any other store in Brazil. Rather, it is a story about more floors being added to the bookstore. It is a story about the physical size of the bookstore, which isn't enough to establish notability here. Qworty (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Largest bookstore in a country of over 185 million people. Confirmed by a reliable source no less. --Oakshade (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I live in Brazil and I confirm that bookstore is notable in my country. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Clueless belligerence from a pair of uncivil users doesn't outweigh the many reliable sources demonstrating notability, particularly the many sources found at Google News discussing the high profile the subject enjoys in Brazilian business. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:36, 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. Singu larity 09:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After Liverpool[edit]

Article features only a short "Plot" section and a "Cast" section with the only two characters. I tried to search for more information, but a Google search gave me only a few unrelated hits. I'd say it is a hoax. Also, the creator of the article is called "Rasbasht", while one of the actors is " Sophie Rasbash ", whose article has been deleted three times. I don't know if it is a coincidence of if the author is in the middle of a WP:COI. Anyway, "After Liverpool" fails to establish notability as per WP:MOVIE. I proposed its deletion, but author erased the template, so I'm doing and AfD now. Victor Lopes (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax or very non-notable. (Although it's odd that a movie critics were gushing over would get zero hits in Google News and not be listed in IMDb.) Note that this is not the same movie as the 1974 German movie of the same name, which doesn't seem to be notable, either.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. The author Rasbasht has been known to perpetrate several hoaxes on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, may be a hoax. macy^talk 22:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally unverifiable article since it is unreferenced. May be a WP:HOAX Artene50 (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe speedy or snow. There's no hope for this article. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Cricketgirl (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Incidentally, this editor has created another hoax at Tokyo film award. A Google search reveals zero hits for this prestigious award. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 28 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 per arguments pointing to long-standing consensus about standards of notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul series mystical weapons[edit]

No assertion of notability for these weapons that justifies their own article, and thus violates WP:NN. The information seems to be pulled entirely from the game itself, thus violating WP:OR. No reliable third party resources to verify these games, thus violating WP:V. If you remove the headings of the article, you realize that the article is entirely comprised of in-game plot information, and violates the WP:PLOT policy on excluding plot information except to provide a concise summary -- which this article does not. Also violates the WP:GAMECRUFT #3 guideline on lists of weapons being unsuitable for wikipedia articles. These are 5 reasons, 3 of them fundamental to wikipedia policy, that justify the strong deletion of this article. Randomran (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Randomran (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm tempted to think that these weapons might have notability outside the game, but with them being eponymous it's difficult to track down reliable coverage about them and not just the game. Article as presented fails WP:Writing about fiction guidelines and WP:Verifiability policy. Marasmusine (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic to demonstrate any notability. Fails WP:WAF as it stands also for being completely in-universe. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as titular weapons of a major franchise that can easily be verified in game publications. Astonishingly notable weapons per Soul Edge and Soul Calibur. Article meets notable guidelines and is consistent per our First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on video games or fictional items. Material in article can be verified through everything from reviews of the game to published books about the games in addition to the games themselves and so cannot legitimately be called original research. MANY reliable third party sources can be used to verify these games, thus passing WP:V, but just need to be added per Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. WP:ITSCRUFT is never a serious reason for deletion. There are fundamental policy reasons that justify the strong keep for this article. Note regarding the claim that it doesn't meet the game guideline, see who added that section. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be misleading. The policy was there long before I got there. "The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the weapons available in a game." That has been the consensus for a very long time. And the video game articles have reflected that consensus for a long time too. Randomran (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you are quoting is actually in regards to things such as a "list of available weapons in GTA San Andreas", not articles about individual weapons. McJeff (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear Le Grand refuses to agree with game guide policies, so he chooses to think the policies don't exist. Which is disruptive, and not helpful to debates on video game weapon lists. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sephiroth BCR, and I note that the article also fails WP:PLOT. Also agree with Marasmusine: notability is difficult to establish due to the names of the weapons. Jakew (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though these are titular weapons form a major game series that can be backed up by many reliable sources? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure that there is significant coverage of the games themselves. Since this article is about the weapons, the question is whether there is significant coverage of the weapons in independent reliable sources. Jakew (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just linked to some below. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Licensed toys & replicas are not independent, LGRdC. Jakew (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, they are. They are not part of the game and because not all game weapons have toys and weapons made, they show that they are more notable than your typical game weapon at that game related guidelines do not apply here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Please see WP:N#General notability guideline. Jakew (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which the article's subject passes. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As the page I linked to quite clearly indicates, it passes if there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 'Independent' is defined such that it "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject", and would thus exclude licensed merchandise. Jakew (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The articles passes such standards by also being able to be verified in independent reviews. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Those are the ONLY way it could pass such a notability standard. I haven't seen these reviews. Are they reliable? (And don't just make up your own definition. Read the policy on reliable sources and the policy against self-published sources.) Randomran (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable elements of a fictional universe which have not received substantial coverage from sources independent of the subject, and the article is entirely plot summary with no real-world analysis or significance. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though they are incredibly notable elements of a recognizable fictional universe that have received substantial coverage from reliable sources and are significant to people in the real world, i.e. in the form of not just being the titular subject of video games, but also appearing as toys and life-size replicas? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Hi, can you please provide links for the "substantial coverage from reliable sources" you mentioned? Or are you proposing those commercial websites (which as far as I can tell, fail most of what is required for a WP:N source.) Marasmusine (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any search of either weapon reveals their notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. User:Krator (t c) 15:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet, because they do not only appear in the games, but also as life size replicas and toys, game guide does not apply. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. It's still a game guide. Clean the article up (and rename it to a toy list or something), then it wont be a problem. Until that happens, it's a game guide. Don't twist around policies, just because you want the article kept. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I was going to keep out of this one as per a RfC agreement, but in the case of this particularly AfD, we have one editor, Le Grande Rois, who has well established that the article is adequately sourced and notable in a real world context, and a bunch of editors who just don't seem to like him, or who at best fail to give his comments adequate weight because he's a ferociously strong inclusionist. I see borderline personal attacks on him (accusing him of "twisting policies), that's not acceptable. Yes, the article is a mess at this current point; way too much WP:PLOT. Then again, I'd like to remind everyone that while excessive plot is discouraged, plot analysis is an essential part of many fictional articles. Also, the quality of the article should not be used as a point for deletion unless the article is given a chance to improve and does not do so. McJeff (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where has it been "well established" that the material is notable? All that has been provided in this AFD are a few links to Amazon searches with the names of the swords simply plugged in and a few minor (bordering on sketchy even) online stores which sell toys. Lists of products are not sources and do not establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Titular weapons of one of the most significant fighting games that is even going to be made into a movie, that can be covered in video game magazines and published game guides, that have been made into toys and replicas available at multiple venues is unquestionably notable by an reasonable standard. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All that has been provided in this AFD are a few links to Amazon searches with the names of the swords simply plugged in and a few minor (bordering on sketchy even) online stores which sell toys. Lists of products are not sources and do not establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at reviews of these items? Lists of products are sources as they are evidence and establish notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reader reviews of products are not reliable sources and do not establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try published magazines. In any event, we do not outright delete legitimate search terms. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any search will reveal that this topic is not notable since it has not been covered in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By contrast at this point, actual searches have revealed that this topic is very notable as it has been covered in reliable sources and therefore the only basis for deleting now is "I don't like it." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The searches provided do not establish notability. Reliable sources are necessary. They have not been provided. Any search of reliable sources will clearly show that this topic is not notable. Therefore, the only basis for inclusion is WP:ILIKEIT. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The searches provided establish notability through reliable sources that have been provided. Already conducted searches of reliable sources has clearly shown that this topoic is notable. Therefore, the only basis for exclusion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources have been provided to establish notability. The searches above yielded only product listings. Therefore this article should not be included on Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources have been provided to establish notability. The searches above yielded product listings, published game guides, and independent reviews. Therefore this article should be included on Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make a suggestion, LGRdC? Since you are apparently certain that you've found reliable sources through your searches, why don't you incorporate say half a dozen of them into the article? That way others can evaluate them, and see whether we agree that they are sufficient to establish notability. Jakew (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to do, but why not help me? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply provide the links to the reliable sources you have found here, and I will personally add them to the article. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I began a reference section, but see also [21], [22], [23], [24], etc. Pretty much any review of the games mention the weapons in some capacity. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a user created game mod, which is not reliable and does not establish notability. The second is a sales listing, which the concept of reliability does not apply to since it is not a source for any sort of content and it does not establish notability. The third is a homemade youtube video, which is not reliable and, even if it was, does not contain any content which could be added and naturally does not establish notability. The fourth is a gallery of pictures with a short review on a blog, which is not reliable and does not establish notability. Most of what you provided breaks WP:SPS. Perhaps you could have a look at WP:RSEX for some good examples of reliable sources and why certain types of sources are considered unreliable. It appears to me that you are simply providing links which contain the strings of the sword names without doing even a cursory check as to their suitability for Wikipedia. Do you have any sources that clearly meet the reliability criteria? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research/gamecruft. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they're notable fictional swords. The nominator doesn't appear to understand the policy on no original research or verifiability. Summarizing a source (a game in this instance) is not original research. And before someone says WP:V requires information to be third-party verifiable, no, it just has to be verifiable by appearing in reliable sources. And PLOT is disputed. So there is no policy basis for deleting this article. And there are tons of third-party sources that have written about the games these swords appear in. WP:GAMECRUFT links to a WikiProject guideline which was invented by members of a WikiProject, not the Wikipedia community at large. The article isn't a game guide because it does not tell readers how to beat the fighting games in the Soul series. The article could at least be merged into Soul (series) per the editing policy. And the term "gamecruft" is about as valid a reason for deletion as "thoughtcrime." --Pixelface (talk) 10:25, 30 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. Singu larity 09:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harun hilton[edit]

I suspect this is either a hoax or a nn person. Most of the references are personal pages on social networking sites, Google doesn't seem to have a lot of interest in the name other than video sites (which is surprising for an internet celebrity), and the videos that are posted of this person invariably get less than a hundred views or so. If someone can find out more information about this subject, please do. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reference that seems of any use, to a newspaper, doesn't lead to anything that mentions this individual's name(s). The rest is self-promotion and irrelevant links like one to a page for his school. Doesn't seem to demonstrate notability to my mind, although it certainly asserts it. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Accounting4Taste. Three of the references were just links to Wikipedia itself (which have since been converted into wikilinks), two are to the subject's own pages on social networking sites, and the remaining two don't mention the subject. No real indication of notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i still don't see why it shouldn't be deleted. yes, a few edit mistakes need to be made, but other than that, i have listed many reasons why this article must stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harunhilton (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. No reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; fails WP:V and WP:NOTE. --KurtRaschke (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:V. Happyme22 (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this blatant self-promotion per WP:SNOW. Qworty (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IT ISN'T A SELF PROMOTION. everything that is on there is TRUE. and there is tons more to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.161.101 (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article only just asserts enough to scrape past CSD A7, but the subject is not notable, and notability is not demonstrated by how many times one's channel/website/MySpace is visited. WilliamH (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete definite WP:COI and fails WP:N and WP:RS. treelo _talk 23:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if the article is not "based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article", then why are there articles about other bloggers and enteratiners? and like I said, the article is nowehere NEAR done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.185.10 (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are articles about other bloggers and entertainers because, in many cases, those other bloggers and entertainers have been discussed in independent, reliable sources. If Harun Hilton has been discussed in such sources, I haven't seen evidence of that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:35, 28 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. Redirected to outreach until rewritten, because there's just no meaningful content here right now. Sandstein 21:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community outreach[edit]

As it stands, its little more than a dictionary definition. I'm not sure how this could be improved into an article....I realize that the idea behind the term is important...but is there a better way to express it in an article? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many notable organizations have a position for a Community Outreach Director/Advisor/Coordinator. Michelle Obama functioned in this role. I would say that the concerns expressed above are tantamount to a cleanup, not an AfD. MrPrada (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak ~~Keep~~Delete While I would normally agree with MrPrada, I do have to side with the nominator on this one. There is very little room for expansion apart from listing EVERY community outreach program there is, or, god forbid, naming all prominant community outreach directors like Michelle Obama. I say we can live without this article. Carter | Talk to me 18:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MrPrada is correct that the topic itself is notable, but it is a broad one that would require an enormous amount of expansion... and respectfully, this article in its present state seems to fail WP:NOT given its limited development. Townlake (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Community outreach is an important aspect and significant topic of not only economy, but to society also. Several books have been written only on this topic.

Community Outreach and Publicity by Kathleen Petrie, ISBN: 0888022301
Community Outreach Handbook ISBN: 0949469009
Community Outreach by Vincent T Covello, Erin Donovan, John E Slavick
Community Outreach: Focusing on Assessment (1997)
Community Outreach by Barbara Brown ISBN: 0894430149
Community Outreach by Edward Stemme
A Guide for Community Outreach by Shirley Kurz (1992)

At present the article too short and a stub and not well-written, but an underdeveloped article needs rewiring and expansion, not deletion. The article certainly need to be expanded and needs massive referencing. References can be easily found on this subject. What is need to do a general overview of the concept of community outreach, this should be written carefully with maximum possible sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody's saying to salt the topic so it can never be written about. It just needs to be restarted; there's really nothing to salvage here. Townlake (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as empty. The topic may be notable, but the article is not encyclopedic. We loose nothing by starting from scratch. Maybe some information and citations from the above potential sources could save it. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 28 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. If someone wants it for a gaming/strategy wiki, let me know.-Wafulz (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superweapons of Ace Combat[edit]

No assertion of notability is in this article, and no assertion of notability seems possible. This would require research from reliable third party resources, and this article can only offer research from the game itself. That constitutes original research. As such, violates WP:N, WP:OR, and WP:NN. Also see WP:GAMECRUFT #3 about lists of weapons being unsuitable for inclusion in wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Randomran (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:Writing about fiction, fails WP:Notability, fails WP:Original research, fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. Marasmusine (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Do you think it would be possible to combine the information in Organizations of Ace Combat, Militaries of Ace Combat, Earth (Ace Combat) and Superweapons of Ace Combat into an Universe of Ace Combat article? This was done with Kingdom Hearts (see Universe of Kingdom Hearts). Thanks! (RCX (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It's generally really tough to save weapons articles and they usually get deleted. But one thing that tends to stand up well in wikipedia is lists of characters. If you combined all of them into "list of characters in Ace Combat", I bet you'd have a stronger article altogether. That could incorporate the countries, the organizations, and maybe a brief note about where they're all situated (the map). That's why I recommended the weapons article for deletion, but felt that the other articles deserved a fair chance at cleanup. Randomran (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:WAF for being completely in-universe. No reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic to demonstrate notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per existence of reliable sources and WP:ITSCRUFT not being a valid reason for deleytion. Passes our notability guidelines and is consistent with what Wikipedia is. Unquestionably suitable for inclusion on our project. Note regarding the claim that it doesn't meet the game guideline, see who added that section. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reliable sources are strategy guides on the game, which certainly are reliable, but are not independent of the topic and show no critical reception; ergo, they do not assert any notability for the topic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is fine for spinoff or sub-articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Go read WP:SS and WP:FICT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could always Ignore All Rules as there is far more benefit to Wikipedia by keeping the article, whereas we gain nothing by losing it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main guideline was there long before I even first saw it. "The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the weapons available in a game." For all your assertions that this is notable, you provide no demonstrable proof that this should override the general rule that we don't do articles about lists of weapons. As shown by Sephiroth, first party sources cannot prove notability otherwise everything in the world would be notable. Randomran (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In some games perhaps, but not games that have things like "Combat" in the title. Given time, somone going through back issues of game magazines, is likely to find commentary on the weapons of the game. In any event, when the article is not a copy vio and a legitimate redirect location exists, AfD is not the right venue. Any article created in good faith represents a legitimate search term and so there is no reason for outright deletion here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like you have a problem with deletion policy in general. You're entitled to the opinion that all articles created in good faith should be immune to deletion. But then that opinion should go up the ladder to wikipedia policymakers. AFDs are about enforcing policy, not criticizing or making policy. Randomran (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try to do what I can as a lot of the policies and guidelines being cited in some of these AfDs just do not reflect the actual practise of the community at large. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the community might engage in edit wars, it doesn't invalidate the 3RR. Just because the community might love pictures, it doesn't invalidate that wikipedia follows copyright laws. Just because the community might add advertising, it doesn't invalidate the rule against ads. Just because the community adds non-notable information, it doesn't mean the notability requirement is invalid. Just because the community reads articles that eventually get deleted, it doesn't invalidate the deletion mechanism. Randomran (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is an example of bad faith editing and is not fair to compare with the creation of these articles in good faith. Have you notified the various editors of this notable article to participate in this AfD? If you haven't, then please do so, as we should hear from them as to why they believe this article should be kept. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring can be done entirely in good faith. Both parties engaging in the revert believe they are improving the article. It doesn't make it right. Contrary to your belief, good faith cannot justify violations of fundamental wikipedia policy. Randomran (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research from primary sources, in-universe, and beyond the scope of WP. Significant coverage in third-party sources would need to be found to demonstrate notability. Jakew (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perfectly acceptable as a spinout article and even in a worse case scenario it's a legitimate search term with avalid redirect location. WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for anything and there is no reason for outright deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Spinout articles are indeed perfectly acceptable, provided that the spinout subject can itself satisfy WP:N (and if it can't, then it is unlikely ever to pass WP:V or WP:NOR). Furthermore, I did not claim that it was cruft; please read my comment carefully, paying attention to the contents of the linked pages, rather than just the titles of the shortcuts. Jakew (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is a contested shortcut that lacks consensus. This article can easily pass verifiability and is not original research. Any concerns over it are talk page in nature as even if someone really does not like this article it can be redirected. Maybe someone could make a case for a merge or a redirect, but there is absolutely no valid reason for an outright deletion, however. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I confess that I'm utterly mystified. I don't understand how the status of a shortcut could affect the legitimacy of the argument. Nevertheless, if it will address your concerns, here's the fully-specified page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Scope of information.
      - As for your statement that it "can easily pass verifiability and is not original research", I'm sorry but I don't share your confidence. Obviously, however, if you or anyone else were to insert appropriate references in order to prove that it is verifiable and not OR, I would reconsider that opinion. Jakew (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In-universe plot summary, trivia and original research with no evidence of "significant coverage" by reliable, third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it is a legitimate search term, there's no reason for outright deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So your standard has shifted from "because it's not a hoax or libelous, keep it" to an even broader, "someone might look for it, keep it"? Increasingly dubious. --EEMIV (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not a hoax, nor is it libelous and over 5,000 times last month alone people have looked at it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - can anyone even offer a citation to substantiate the use of the term "superweapon" in the series and the verify the vague definition of "extraordinary characteristics and capabilities" with either "inconceivable armaments" or providing "tactical combat support to ground and aerial forces." "Extraordinary" and "inconceivable" are vague, probably fan-"established" terms. "Extraordinary" and "inconceivable" to whom? What are the criteria for inclusion on this list with such vague terms? --EEMIV (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "superweapons" common to the Ace Combat series are titular to the plotlines and make significant changes in gameplay. Opinion changed, see below.ZappyGun, his (empty) talk page, and what he has done for Wikipedia. 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We don't make subjective assessments of notability. The standard for notability is the same across all wikipedia articles. Please see the general notability guideline. If there weapons are so notable, you should be able to find journalists or scholars who have written about the superweapons of ace combat. Randomran (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though notability has been asserted through reliable sources? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where? I don't see it. Randomran (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please be sure to look over the articles nominated. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If I'm not mistaken, all of the sources cited in "References" section are the games themselves, hence not independent, and not evidence of notability. Jakew (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, that's all? I saw those when I nominated the article. None of those meet the standard of the notability guideline, which is sources independent of the subject itself. If that's all you have, then I'd politely request that you change your vote. Randomran (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete the article it's awesome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.119.169 (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC) — 69.253.119.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment That is not a valid argument, see WP:ILIKEIT.ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 13:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki (if not already) and Delete. Non-independent sources, sources do not assert notability, WP:PLOT. Belongs on Strategywiki. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 13:57, 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 No consensus (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Literotica[edit]

Contested PROD. Fails WP:WEB, a high Alexa ranking seems insufficient to establish notability. —Ashanda (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Err ... just short of the top 500 in websites is damn near a prima facie determination of notability all by itself, quite aside from articles in the Stanford Daily, Penthouse, Marie Claire ... Ravenswing 15:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the high ranking, perhaps that should be added to WP:WEB? After shelling out $6, I found the Penthouse reference was actually an advertisement. The Marie Claire reference seems like a directory listing. The The Stanford Daily review is substantial for what it's worth being that it's a student newspaper. Even with these I'm still borderline on the subject's notability. —Ashanda (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the surprising number of academic references. Pburka (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing WP:N from WP:RS in the article, and I'm having a hard time digging through all the hits on search engines from sites that aren't reliable sources. porn sites of all sorts are notorious for being good at gaming things like alexa, SEO and linkfarming. If there are valid references, please add them to the article and I'll change my opinion. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Literotica has never been accused of such things to my knowledge. It is a porn site, and it covers its costs, but it doesn't spam. It's genuinely popular. --Dhartung | Talk 03:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not saying that literotica has done those things, I have no evidence either way. It is just that the links I followed, and I dug around way too much, all offer trivial or incidental coverage, or are from sources that aren't considered reliable (blogs and such). If this was an article about some beetle or the history of a castle, I would be far more willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Please, if you can come up with reliable sources to back up the notability, please add them to make it easier to prove. Wrs1864 (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Even if there are scholarly sources, no one knows about them because they aren't in the article. Happyme22 (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N doesn't require that the sources establishing notability be included in the article (if it did, we'd be bringing half of wikipedia to AfD). It only requires that the sources exist. That's why AfD nominators should generally do at least a quick search for sources before nominating an article for deletion. Klausness (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did so but was unable to find any non-trivial, third party coverage from reliable sources. The Stanford Daily hit that RGTraynor found above is the closest thing I've seen so far, but it's not enough to push me to the other side of the fence. —Ashanda (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not seeing any non-trivial coverage... [25]. This is a case where popularity doesn't apparently equate to Wikipedia-style notability, which is really more about the quality of reliable sources. --Rividian (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the google scholar hits noted by Pburka, there are also plenty of google books hits. Klausness (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply an advertisment for a porn site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheekykidz (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC) — Cheekykidz (talk • contribs) has made NO other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. It appears that the site provided the content for a book published in 2001 under ISBN 1892723093. That seems to be very notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I hadn't heard of this site before the AfD, which is perhaps unsurprising, but in looking into it I found a couple of things in its defense. The first, as Vegaswikian points out, is that at least one book has been published collecting stories from the site. The second is that it was a major source of material for Susanna Paasonen's paper "Strange bedfellows: Pornography, affect and feminist reading" in Feminist Theory, and it has been used as a source in a few other papers when required. I've also added some refs to the article from Jacob's Netporn: DIY Web Culture and Sexual Politics which has a bit of info on the site. None of these seem to me to be knock-down arguments for keeping, or even, for that matter, overly strong arguments, but I'm tending to lean in that direction. - Bilby (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had already checked those. The "literotica" book mentioned by vegaswikian appears to be self-published and therefore counts neither toward being a reliable source nor notability. I checked the "strange bedfellows", but I can't access it to see if it is more than incidental coverage. The "netporn: DIY" book has excerpts on google books and from what I could see there, it was just incidental coverage. Again, I checked this stuff early on and haven't found good sources, but I have found a large number of vague/poor references. If this website is as popular as it appears to be, I would hope that someone would come forward and cut through the junk and give some good pointers. Wrs1864 (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The publisher of Literotica is iffy - I've looked into it now that you pointed it out, and I agree with you. I don't think that the "Netporn: DIY" was incidental (although I can see an argument either way), but it is non-trivial. It was enough to provide some valid references. Most of the academic sources were certainly using Literotica as nothing more than a source - they tended to mention that it exists, or refer to one or two stories. However, the "Strange Bedfellows" was certainly non-trivial. It was looking at pornography, and used Literotica as one of the main sources. It wasn't positive, but then I didn't expect it to be. :) Finally, if it is of any help to the discussion, Literotica gets mentioned in a few rating (Nielson, Alta-Vista search terms), and it does seem to have evidence that it is (or at least was) very popular. To be honest, I don't think this is a clear keep by any means, and can understand votes either way. I'm just falling on the (very) weak keep side, based in part on the popularity and in part on the two real sources (Paasonen and Jacob). But if consensus is otherwise I'm comfortable with that. - Bilby (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ravenswing, Pburka, Klausness, Vegaswikian. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:22, 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, fails WP:N by a few hit records. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Bottoff[edit]

Insufficient notability Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notable as a member of two notable bands. The stub needs at least 2 cites, though, to prove what it says is true. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 15:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ronnie Dio and the Prophets. He was in one borderline notable band with two names. The band was notable primarily due to the later success of another band member. Pburka (talk) 17:38, 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 speedy delete under G7 - only author requests deletion. --Oxymoron⁸³ 15:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Nirta (born 1913)[edit]

Pasted text in the wrong entry Mafia Expert (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Qualifies as speedy delete G7: Speedy request by only editor. Will tag the page. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:21, 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 delete. Wizardman 19:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roark Junior[edit]

Despite him being a antagonist in Sin City, this guy doesn't assert ANY type of notability. He doesn't need his own article. ZeroGiga (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 21:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent coverage. Graevemoore (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP, This charactor does play a very important role in the book and movie, and as stated is the primary antagonist. 69.196.141.228 (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 14:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party sources, so it's all OR. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure WP:NOT#OR. Razor flame 19:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete A7 speedily with lots of salt, 'n aye that's but a record shop's house label y'all. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cauda Pavonis[edit]

Thrice-speedied non-notable musical group - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 and salt Absolutely no notability per WP:BAND. ~~So tagged.~~ Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it states in the Criteria that 'A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:'

This article demonstrates that not one but three of these are met:-

1 It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1]

- The passing reference in the book 21st Century Goth cannot be verified and is likely trivial. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That as may be, however that still leaves two where one is requiredDarqmann (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries[2]

10 Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)

No valid references to prove that. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I shall find references to as many of the compilations as possible - Give me time Darqmann (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three more referenced added to compilations - There can be no doubt that the criteria are met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darqmann (talk • contribs) 17:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12 Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

The reason for the previous spedies is that the Author did not complete the article before deletion.Darqmann (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The Tony Head reference is not valid per WP:CITE. How else can we verify this? Also, I would challenge the source "LocaleTV - beta" as a reliable source. How is a beta website reliable? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite quite a stringent requirement, I have seen far shakier evidence on wikipedia, but ok I'll find another referenceDarqmann (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

besides, I'd suggest that the TV Listings engine is in Beta but the data held within is valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.38.74 (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just for S&G, let the AFD work through so we'll have a ((G4)) to back us up. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keepDarqmann (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 6 days since this debate went cold, could the consideration to delete be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.156.240.17 (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 14:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt Three times A7 speedied and still failing WP:MUSIC should be enough. treelo _talk 00:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, there was only one A7 actioned - the two prior deletes were due to perceived copyright enfringement - despite the materials used being freely distributable163.156.240.17 (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Please demonstrate how this fails, the article qualifies on three counts. 163.156.240.17 (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - have added another instance of "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." with reference163.156.240.17 (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - and another163.156.240.17 (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about the reliability of the ref to the show 'Magick Eve' refuted with a further reference to its existence163.156.240.17 (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's another 5 days, No-one has argued successfully that there is a problem with this article. It should stay.Darqmann (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know nothing about goth music but WP:MUSIC#C5 says that a group is notable if it "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Now I can find [26],[27] of their CD's for sale on amazon.co.uk, both of which were released on Resurrection Records, so it would appear that they meet the criteria in WP:MUSIC to be notable.--Captain-tucker (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just seems to scrape past WP:MUSIC#C5 as per above. RMHED (talk) 19:35, 31 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 deletes have definately managed to show issues with WP:N, WP:V and WP:NOR. -Djsasso (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buttigieg De Piro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

As with an AfD filed yesterday by the same creator, this is a turgid mess about a non-notable Maltese who seems to have assumed an old extinct title of nobility. The article has zero biographical information about de Piro himself (and sources describing more seem near to nonexistent); it is entirely about the granting of the title, describing the order of precedence such titles should be accorded, and a great deal of original research. Beyond that, there seems to be a spurious claim, as Malta ceased to recognize such titles in 1975, yet this title was "revived" in 1987 for the current claimant. Much of the article is in Italian or French. Fails WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:SYN. The previous AfD had the startling Keep reason of "Page looks legitimate" and an equally startling unanimity of "Per above." The article hasn't budged in two years. Ravenswing 14:52, 24 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 No reliable sources I can see. Moreover, it looks like it was cut-and-pasted from somewhere, or copied word-for-word from a source. Blueboy 96 18:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SAVE What a load of nonsense.. no reliable source... I think you guys are on drugs... and making my life hell by putting these in for deletion... If you actually read the material and question the SOURCE before putting them to deletion you MIGHT UNDERSTAND. User talk:Tancarville 937;, 25 May 2008 (EST)

Comment: Quite aside from the insults and the WP:OWN problem you seem to evince, I've a few comments. First off, this ought be no surprise to you, because a glance at your talk page shows you've had numerous articles up for deletion before, on much the same grounds. Secondly, you have quoted yourself as a source in each of these articles, something WP:V explicitly states is not acceptable. Thirdly, there's an outright undue weight going on here, where you claim notability for dozens upon dozens of noble titles for a nation slightly smaller in size than the town of Plymouth, Massachusetts, many of them long extinct and with articles that contain much of the same text cut-and-pasted throughout. Fourthly, the sources you quote are either very unlikely we could obtain them for review (quite aside from that the "Secretariat of Grace and Justice of the Kingdom of Castile" does not seem to exist) or are conveniently found on your own website. Ravenswing 05:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment: The sources which the administrator is saying are "unreliable" include the record of each grant found at the National Library of Malta, the findings of a Royal Commission and published by the House of Lords, other official correspondences presented to the House of Lords, as well as the official records found in a number of previously reigning houses and the records of one still reigning house (Spain). There is no reason to delete. - If however the real objection is only that some of the text is in Italian, Latin, French, Spanish or Maltese, then the relative translations (or synopsis) will be introduced over the next period. This should also be viewed: [28]User talk:Tancarville 1702;, 25 May 2008 (EST)

Delete. It looks like a copypaste because it pretty much is - most of this editor's articles are virtually identical copies of each other. andy (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save. The Marquis Buttigieg de Piro is the Marquis de Piro.. Why is there another page being reverted? Nicholas de Piro is only the Baron of Budaq and the title of Marquis is Spanish and the Marquis Buttigieg de Piro is the only registered member of this title. Secondly this is the second time we are heading into deletion... I feel that the latest works by User talk:Tancarville is purely historical and a whole lot better then what was published, including with the rest of those recently done.. Please see sense and make comments rather then delete. User talk:Tancarville is a recogisable genealogist and historian in Malta. User talk:Count Gauci 20:58;, 26 May 2008 (EST) — Count Gauci (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Further comment

1. It was Wikipedia who asked Tancarvile to improve the articles. Tancarville has started to do this. The emphasis is to highlight the historical relevance and issues concerning each title.

2. All recent updates contain a precise reference to the grants. Checking each and every reference for this arcane subject, in no less than five languages, is no easy task. Postitive criticism from a Wikipedia administrator is appreciated but vindictive undermining is not. There is always room for improvement.

3. Each title has its own history. In regard to those which were created by the Grand Masters who ruled Malta, the "remainders" vary in their meaning and effect. For this reason it was thought best to quote verbatim the respective remainders, and this in Latin i.e. the original text.

4. The fact that titles are no longer recognized at law in Malta, does NOT mean that they have been abolished.

5. In regard to the foreign titles of nobility which were recognized by the Grand Masters, these are by far even more complex, not only because of the 1739 ad 1795 legislation, but also because the most of the original fons honorum have long gone (with the exception of the King of Spain).

6. It is a useless exercise to merge all titles into one group. At best, one can identify different classifications. (For example, the 1878 Royal Commission classified Rohan's creations into 3 groups). - But in fairness's sake, this is an exercise which could only be done once all the relative information is up and runnning.

7. If anybody has issues with the fact that by 1800 Malta had an advanced form of Nobility, that is his/her problem. - Facts are facts.

8. Tancarville has also made available the FULL texts in *.pdf format of the 1878 Royal Commission and official correspondence.

9. Whilst the 1878 Commission's findings are regarded as authoritative, some aspects required revisiting not only because of some apparent errors and contradictions found in the Report itself, but also because of subsequent developments.

10. Moreover, at the end of each title's description, there is a list of direct and indirect proofs of each title's legitimacy and authoritative documentation, emphasising the Primary source and moving downards in terms of (relative) importance.

11. It is definitely not true that the only difference between one title and the other is "a change in the date an heading". Some may be very similar, but others are radically different.

12. Old general legislation (i.e. pre-1800) is quoted in full for the convenience of the reader. If anybody ventures a argument or claim in respect of any one of the titles, he/she might as well be reminded of the general pitfalls. This "problem", which is common to all updated entries, can be solved by the simple expedient of setting up a separate page.

13. If Wikipedia's administrators want to get some sort of warped pleasure out of creating unnecessary polemics, simply because they are jealous of the Maltese nation's historic identity, let them please delete the whole lot. User talk:Tancarville 1:08;, 26 May 2008 (EST)

Comment: Alright ... here we go. First off, almost all the non-self-published sources Tancarville cites are unavailable for review to the vast majority of Wikipedia editors, which debars them from qualifying as reliable sources. For the non-English language texts, WP:V holds the following: "Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher ... Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors."

Secondly, while Tancarville holds himself out as a renowned geneaologist on his own and a number of websites, no reliable sources say so. A G-search for "Charles Said-Vassallo" turns up only 83 unique hits, all of them various webpages. There are zero hits on Google Scholar for him, something of an ominous sign. WP:V further holds:

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." (emphasis in the original)

So far, and in violation of WP:V, we are taking Tancarville's unsupported word for the existence of the sources he claims and for the accuracy of the information he gives on his website ... and startlingly, we have been doing so for years now. It's also an ominous sign how readily he accuses anyone questioning his sources or seeking to apply Wikipedia policies and guidelines to his articles of being "vindictive" or having some animus towards Malta, and I'd appreciate some answers that don't boil down to "How dare you?" Ravenswing 14:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no animosity towards Malta; but policies are policies and they should be followed. No one has yet succeeded in verifying these sources, and therefore the article fails WP:V. There are notability concerns (WP:N) if no one can find much about any of the holders of the title. In two years, the article hasn't changed, and therefore there are sufficient concerns to warrant deletion. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have concerns about claims made before and all "references" here are housed on the user's website. Charles 18:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We read above that 4. The fact that titles are no longer recognized at law in Malta, does NOT mean that they have been abolished. Oh. Then I wonder what "abolished" means. Legally, they're meaningless. In what other sense might they be meaningful? Do the Maltese think about them? Well, one Maltese (or perhaps Australian) "noble" says: I doubt the general population occupies any of its waking hours thinking about the nobility. The article leaves me confused: Is it a Spanish title? Whatever title it might be -- Maltese, Spanish, Bhutanese, Martian -- why should anyone be interested that D. Anthony Buttigieg de Piro claims to have it? The article doesn't say that he's a notable scientist, lutenist, unicyclist, flint-knapper, anything. -- Hoary (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It means, I daresay, that like many other defrocked nobles, the claimants still loudly proclaim them to anyone who'll listen. Ravenswing 16:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should not have lasted this long on wikipedia. Quale (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When the subject of Maltese nobility was previously discussed back in 2005/2006, and it was decided that the articles could be kept, the concept of notability on Wikipedia was in its infancy. The discussion was thus largely around verifiability, which was thought to be borderline in this case (because it's all one person's research and no-one else claimed to be able to access the sources) but passed muster at the time. However, these days notability has taken on a much more definite form: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independant of the subject. That's the criteria that determines whether a subject should have an article, these days. The articles cite research by the author, who apparently makes claims of Maltese nobility for himself, and is therefore not independant. Therefore such research cannot be considered as evidence for notability. What remains are the sources listed that appear independant. The question is, what evidence is there that they contain significant coverage of the subject? Is it not more likely that these Maltese titles are mentioned in passing or in lists in these sources? Unless it can be demonstated case by case for each of these titles that they have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independant of the subject, they should be deleted. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INHERITED (even if this were a notable title it wouldn't necessarily confer any notability on its current claimant) and WP:COATRACK (contains no information about the purported subject of the article but has been used as an excuse to pack in all sorts of claims about other things). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 28 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 G12 as copyvio by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul College - Roxas, Oriental Mindoro[edit]

Promotional essay; no references. Looks like a copy and paste from somewhere. KurtRaschke (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G12 as copyvio of this, already tagged by someone else. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:46, 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. Wizardman 19:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodride[edit]

Neologism of questionable notability. KurtRaschke (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 17:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable neologism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is not notable. Razor flame 19:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artweld[edit]

Article concerns a non-notable neologism coined by the article's creator; the article has no references other than the author's own web site. The article also serves to promote the author's commercial interests. KurtRaschke (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism, advertising. JIP | Talk 17:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Modernist (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. freshacconcispeaktome 00:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established. Coverage in independent reliable sources not provided. Frank | talk 03:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I am perhaps a bit new in participating and in fully understanding 100% of all the specific requirements and entire criteria within "Wikipedia" ... I will gladly provide any and all necessary reference, evidence as well as additional substance that I'm sure will prove this page to be both worthy and necessary in sustaining it's listing ... and should also satisfy the recent few who have suggested and/or requested that "Artweld" be deleted.

I am now in the process of compiling a variety of actual past and present documentation including highly respected local and national "Printed Publications", Professional Trade Journals, and also a segment from a widely acclaimed documentary styled and formatted Television Show that will further support the validity of my request to keep this page active and alive ! Glen Mayo (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Your effort at contributing is appreciated and welcome. There are many, many articles that can use some help. However, Wikipedia is not (among other things) a place for original research. Everything contained here is to be referenced from independent, reliable sources, not primary sources (such as self-published material). If this term / process / artistic method receives coverage (journals, newspapers, books) then it would be appropriate to have an article about it. Your efforts would be welcome in any of the (literally) millions of existing articles, or, if independent coverage of this subject exists, adding it to this article. Frank | talk 03:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable neologism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:41, 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 speedy delete under G7 - only author blanked the page. --Oxymoron⁸³ 14:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unal Yucel[edit]

Not sure if notability is asserted or not, but doesn't seem to be notable anyway. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:34, 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. Singu larity 09:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

José-María Siles[edit]

I'm sysop at gl.wp, and we have found a conflict of interests on the article gl:José María Siles. We have deleted it there, but the strategy includes cross-wiking and sockpuppets, so I am afraid that's a common problem for many wikipedias concerning articles about José María Siles. Probably, problem goes further than simple deletion.

See Talk:José-María Siles in order to read all the evidences (not all, but most of them). --Xabier Cid (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be deleted Searched in google.com a couple of minutes ago: Results 1 - 10 of about 1,180 for "jose-maria siles". (0.05 seconds). Enough reasons to keep the article José-María Siles on en.wp. Siles is a very well known journalist in Europe. --AYZ 14:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A high number of Google hits doesn't establish notability. // Townlake (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, Townlake But we always look for references to analyze before taking a decision. // AYZ (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.59.249.130 (talk) [reply]

Don't forget to sign your posts the proper way, please (i.e., don't just copy-paste someone else's sig and substitute it with your own name). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything suggests that there is promotion (or self-promotion). --Arco de Rayne (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I guess this is a perfect case of conflict of interest. To assesse the relevance is pointless: we have to take into account the deliberate promotion of a career, using different sockpuppets, on several wikipedias (en., de., fr., es., gl., ast...). By the way, User:AYZ is one of the users created in order to promote this CV, as it is easy to check on here. --Xabier Cid (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another non-notable journeyman journalist who hasn't even published a book. Fails WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:BK, etc. etc. Qworty (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although he may claim some notability in Spain, I don't think it's notable enough to be included in the English Wikipedia. Even if kept, a full rework is needed, since none of the provided external links provides the information included in the article (it's sensible since it's Siles itself, or a close friend or relative, the one that has written down the biography). --Ecemaml (talk) 16:20, 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 no consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newburgh Mall[edit]

Tagged for references and notability since August. No reliable third-party sources found; mall is far below super-regional status. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nontrivial coverage located here from third-party sources. "Superregional" is a subjective definition, the mall used to be superregional, twenty years ago, now its on its way to deadmalls.com, but notability is not temporary. The local library would likely be the source to flesh out information on the mall's heydey. MrPrada (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Super-regional is not subjective; it's a definition by the International Council of Shopping Centers (anything over 750K square feet if I'm not mistaken). None of those sources in the Google News search seemed substantial; they were just about events in the mall. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There were enough Times Herald-Record sources for me (The robbery, etc) to demonstrate nontrivial coverage. The TV show Orange County Choppers has also done an episode there. Also, as stated above, the Mall likely attained "Superregional status" back when it was the only mall in the area in the 80s. Notability is not temporary. MrPrada (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails my understanding of WP:CORP. Of the sources cited above, very few are primarily about the mall. Those which are about the mall appear to be press releases, not independent news coverage. Rossami (talk) 23:01, 30 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 bunch of stores in Spotsylvania. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spotsylvania Towne Centre[edit]

Apparently non-notable mall in Virginia. Found a couple sources pertaining to remodeling and the addition of a Costco, but none seemed substantial in content. I think I once saw something claiming this to be the first mall-based Costco, which might make for notability; however, I can't seem to find the source that said so. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet my understanding of our generally accepted inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's an article about a run of the mill mall, and it only cites one source. ~~We don't need it.~~ GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "we dont need it" argument is not a valid reasoning as it tends to rely on the WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning. Who are we to decide what is/is not "needed" in an encyclopedia ? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I say keep it, it just needs to be updated some. CRocka05 (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per crocka05, a 28 year old mall has had a lot of history at this point, lets keep itMyheartinchile (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since at the moment I don't see compliance with WP:ORG. This is not a super-regional mall and there are not reliable sources citing anything special or notable about the place. The article includes two local paper reports on a major refurbishment but such remodeling's routinely take place and are reported at very many malls. Smile a While (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it doesn't have ads.Morefight (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Morefight[reply]

[[== *KEEP okay, before i tell my reason as of why it should be deleted, think of this.

If your going to delete Spotsylvania Towne Center, then delete Mall of America. Why, Here:

1) It's a mall

do you get the point?Morefight (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Morefight ==]] [reply]

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

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

The result was delete another boring shopping mall with a name meant to make folks think they're going somewhere a bit less boring. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marley Station[edit]

Tagged for lacking info on notability since August 2007. It's pretty close to super-regional in size (which is generally accepted as an assertation of notability here), but there don't seem to be any reliable sources pertaining to the mall proper. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence has been presented either through the article or here that this organization meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, corp shouldnt really apply as that is for an individual company as far as i know, in the meantime we should take note that other similar malls are considered notable, the article is ugly and needs some work but its on a definitively wp:n'able topic.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability, and does not meet general notability guidelines. WP article is GHit #8, and none of the ones above it are independent sources (business listings, the mall's site, and the management company's site). Google News brings back nothing that you wouldn't expect at any other retail establishment (e.g., shoplifting and celebrity appearances). Therefore, it is not notable. MSJapan (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as to this business venture renting new space to 9 stores. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hadley Corner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Planned shopping center that doesn't seem to be the subject of reliable sources. One source is an opinion column, the other is more about another mall than this one. I can find no other reliable sources about this mall, just press releases. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I realize (just now) that the last deletion was only a month ago. The main concerns in the last deletion discussion were WP:CRYSTAL, which I don't see as a problem here. I feel that the sources don't meet WP:V/WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grr, this is crazy -- they already have Mountain Farms across the street and the Hampshire Mall kittycornered across, are they insane? (takes a deep breath) Sorry, ex-resident speaking, grousing at more farm land torn up. Anyway, back to the point. I agree that the last AfD was only a month in the past, but the unanimous ground which the Keep voters proffered was that filing ninety minutes after creation didn't give the article a chance. In that time the creator has added but a single sentence, and no more sources than that. The article has had a chance, and this is no less a WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V problem than before. Therefore, Delete, without prejudice to recreation when there's something about which to create. RGTraynor 14:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I echo that sentiment. That particular region seems over-retailed, especially when they can't even keep their *(@#$ mall full... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I can add images of the progress made, and contact the developer to find out what stores besides Home Depot are currently planned, I can't argue that the article as it stands is sparse. I was hoping for help from the editor who fleshed out the two malls across the street, but either he hasn't been around or he hasn't found anything either. Since I haven't heard from him, I can't know. What I can do is to save the article locally until I have sufficient data to re-establish it with enough information to be worthwhile. Does that sound reasonable?

User:TenPoundHammer,, I appreciate the tact. Really. Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers is not my project, so perhaps it was a bit arrogant to try this. BTW, yeah, are they nuts is a good question, but I'm not sure. The idea of using the fallow commercial land in that location is hard to argue with, and the specific stores we already know about sound reasonable. It's the Lowe's currently being considered for the location next to the bison farm west on Route 9 that really bothers me! - Denimadept (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can move it to your userspace, making a page something like User:Denimadept/Hadley Corner, where you can work on the article yourself until a.) the center is completed or b.) actual sources show up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the "over retail-ization" of the area is intresting and unusual, as well the odd working relationship between Hampshire Mall, Mountain Farms Mall & Hadley Corner provides some notability. Individually, these items would not make the bar, but collectivly I believe they do. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Exit2DOS2000 collectively these are notable. RFerreira (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I am not sure that the argument of collective notability is valid but if it is, it would be grounds for a collective article, not for the preservation of individual articles. (No objection to a merger and redirect to a collective article if one is created.) Rossami (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed. Whether there is anything unusually notable about three shopping malls clustered in a small area is debatable (but certainly not unique even in the Connecticut Valley, cf. Enfield), but one would think that (a) there'd be an article covering that if it were the case, and (b) there'd have to be three shopping malls in Hadley, and as of yet there is not. RGTraynor 23:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several closely-bunched shopping malls is nothing notable. Grand Rapids, Michigan has three enclosed shopping malls and a metric buttload of strip malls all along the 28th Street corridor or nearby. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:44, 30 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 to keep. Wizardman 19:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wenatchee Valley Mall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Only mall within an 80-mile radius of its town, but that doesn't really make it all that notable. This page was previously up for deletion a year ago with a result of no consensus; during the previous discussion, I made a sort of WP:HEY attempt, and added a few sources. However, source 1, 7, and 8 seem to be press releases; source 2 is a real estate listing; source 3 is a trivial PDF from the International Council of Shopping Centers; source 4 and 5 are primary; source 6 is an editorial column. Therefore, I feel that this mall fails the reliable source test. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming the Wenatchee Business Journal isn't a press release, there seem to be a lot of news stories about the mall... as the major shopping center for 200,000 people it seems notable on a regional scale. --Rividian (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This organization does not meet my understanding of Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. While the google search does pull up a number of mentions of the mall, very few of them are primarily about the mall. Most are about stores which happen to be at the mall or about the downtown area where the mall is located. Rossami (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a notable shopping center, precedent on wikipedia seems to point out that we should keep these articles.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:40, 31 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southaven Towne Center[edit]

Non-notable strip mall. Only hits were press releases or trivial mentions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I dont usually support "strip malls", but one boasting providing 1000 jobs to the local economy has prooven its value and importance. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations have been found that this facility marks an important turning point for CBL & Associates as well as the local region, and should thus be notable in its own right. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Are we now going to judge notability by the number of employees for something? A store? A mall? A shopping district? Way too objective and WP:OR. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That number would be an indication of the effect upon the economy, both local and far reaching. We already use size in a Rule of Thumb for malls. For a strip mall I would think that this would be a pretty good indication of notability (at least in this case). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence is available either in the article or here that this organization meets my understanding of Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. Google News returns only routine stories about the opening of the mall and of specific stores which will be included - nothing primarily about the mall beyond proof of its existance. Number of employees has been considered and repeatedly rejected as a proxy for the notability of organizations. Rossami (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no need to delete this, considering it about the same amount of information as other malls or strip malls in the Memphis Area, but I see no deletion noms for them, for instance, Hickory Ridge Mall was nearly blown over by the tornadoes on Febuary 5th and is closed now, but it still has its full article. Also to Rossami, you do that same search on any mall, it'll comeback with the same information. IMO, if STC's page is deleted, the rest of the Memphis mall pages should be deleted as well, since in theory, none of them meet the inclusion criteria that Rossami so cleverly pointed out. Also to Ten Pound Hammer, I noticed that you are planning to start a page on Ashland Town Center, but when you do Rossami's infamousGoogle News search it comes up with nothing revelant either, so what is the point of nominating STC? CRocka05 (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, large malls and mall in general have a place here on wikipedia, we should be fair and not attack this article and leave the rest online. Malls are of broad interest as they are the primary commeercial areas in many communities and many people may have an interest in their histories. A university student may wish to find out about the history of them for a business, architecture, economics, or urban planning class.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:39, 31 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. Wizardman 19:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fergus McCormick[edit]

Non-notable musician; only albums were self-released. Fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for lack of notability. -- Lenky (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's here, use title as redirect to Fergie McCormick. Grutness...wha? 01:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC as both of his albums were self published. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:01, 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. Wizardman 19:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Anderson (Oklahoma musician)[edit]

He's worked with a couple notable acts, but that doesn't make him notable himself. The source is not an All Music Guide link (look closely), but whatever it is doesn't seem reliable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N AcroX 12:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. I'm not fully convinced that he's not notable, but the main sources to a fan club and myspace bother me. Happyme22 (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AfD. Seems to be enough there to keep...AS LONG AS IT IS CORRECTED AND AMENDED APPROPRIATELY...be bold! :) fatcow99 —Preceding comment was added at 02:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— fatcow99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Delete, fails the notability guidlines for musicians. Cunard (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...all music guide link works now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.247.61 (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AMG link still doesn't have any info other than name and genre. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no criteria in WP:MUSIC that would allow this article to pass. And I agree with TenPoundHammer, the AMG link provides nothing. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:10, 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. Wizardman 19:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. Alabel SDA Central Church[edit]

Non-notable local church. A ecis^Brievenbus 12:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable church. No references. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Churches aren't automatically notable, and nothing is given to show that this church is at all special. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 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 no evidence of notability for this organization _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. Alegria SDA Church[edit]

Non-notable local church. A ecis^Brievenbus 12:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable church. No references. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Churches aren't automatically notable, and nothing is given to show that this church is at all special. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nyttend. Cricketgirl (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and per above. Victor Lopes (talk) 22:23, 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 unverifiable due to lack of information on the proposed article. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enter Shikari Untitled 2nd Album[edit]

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. asenine ^{say what?} 12:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination fails WP:CRYSTAL AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete original research and a crystal ball. Martarius (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH's law. Just about impossible to search for notability if the album isn't even named, and there's no harm in waiting until the album is named to write an article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 17:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 17:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a load of balls. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per TPH's Law, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:48, 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. Wizardman 19:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarangani Adventist Youth Federation (SAYF)[edit]

This is a non-notable local church organisation. Upmerging it into Seventh-day Adventist Church would put undue weight on SAYF. A ecis^Brievenbus 12:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:21, 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 merge to Reg Keys. Singu larity 21:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spectre (political party)[edit]

This pressure group was set to stand in elections and by-elections from its formation 2 years ago. It has not stood any candidates at any of the elections since 2006. It did not stand or nominate a candidate in the Sedgefield constituency by-election once of Tony Blair, one of their apparant bete noir. Their website has not been updated for years from what I can gather. Non-notable and apparantly non-functioning pressure group. doktorb _words^deeds 12:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Reg Keys. Notable in the context of his biography, even if not independently. EALacey (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge Reg Keys into this article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with Reg Keys, as the party primarily got its notability from its founder. My gut feeling is that the resultant article should be called Reg Keys, but either way, the articles can be split out later if there are size problems. I feel this should not have come to AfD, as it is clearly verifiable and merges are easy to do without bureaucracy. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Reg Keys. If the party existed then a reverse-merge might be in order. Once the party either wins a race, spoils a race, or causes another party with representation to take on its ideas, then it will have notability in its own right. Until then, nope. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - notable primarily in relation to Reg Keys, so let's redirect it there. Warofdreams talk 12:46, 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 delete. Renata (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Triukas[edit]

A junior tennis player who really doesn't seem all that notable at all, definitely failing WP:ATHLETE and lacking any kind of references. Sole contributor's account name MoneyManPaul also implies this may be an autobiography. ~ mazca ^talk 11:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yea, I'm not seeing any notablity. Google news comes up with not a single link, and Google web search doesn't come up with any good links either. And there's not a single reference in the article. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is a wannable sportperson. If you read earlier deleted articles you would find that this person cannot decide between basketball, tennis, taekwondo, and formula 1. Good luck, and I hope he becomes someone, but right know it's just a teen dreaming... Renata (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd add more of my own commentary, but it's really all been said. Carter | Talk to me 18:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this person isn't knowable at all. If he wins an award tell us and we'll write about him. RedArmyClub | Talk to me 16:05, 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 merge to Bromley and Chislehurst by-election, 2006. Sandstein 15:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Money Reform Party[edit]

Very minor non-notable political party - if that - who have stood in just one byelection Bromley and Chislehurst by-election, 2006 getting less than 5% of the vote. They are effectivly a pressure group with no recorded action in any other constituency, or in the mainstream media. There has been one Prod nomination, removed by a user on the grounds that they could appear at a time in the future. There is no evidence that they intend to follow up any of the action they may have done thus far. This article carries little more than their website content. I created the original article at the time of the by-election to assist in creating the election results box (the metadata election box results thingy works better with created articles) but can now see little need for this article to remain doktorb _words^deeds 11:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing to gain in deleting this article. This party may crop up again in the next general election, and someone may want to look them up. Also, their exceptionally low number of votes itself is noteworthy. NFH (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may need to look at WP:INTERESTING in this case, as well as WP:N in general. There may well be dozens of MRP candidates at the next election, but as I cannot look into crystal balls that is not an argument to allow the piece to stay. The MRP have not stood anywhere in 2 years, have not contributed to the British political argument in 2 years, have not made any major contributions to the advancement of their own cause if their fairly dormant website has anything to go off. Unless notability and importance can be proven, I cannot see where the content of this article can go, other than away through the delection process doktorb _words^deeds 18:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, be it that this party is indeed miniscule, but it did run in an election and is linked from the article on the election. Replacing the current link with a red link or no link at all would not be of any benefit. WP:PAPER is worth noting. --Soman (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or you just de-activate the link? doktorb _words^deeds 22:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant by 'no link at all'. I still think keeping the article is the best choice. A causal reader, viewing the article on the bye-election without having gone through series of articles on other British elections would then get zero info on what this party actually is. --Soman (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no article on the Animals Count party who stood in the recent London Elections. if I want to know about them, I check Google. Wikipedia is not Companies House. doktorb _words^deeds 22:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to the by-election article. Until it does something else notable, an article on its own is neither notable nor maintainable. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the by-election article. The party is currently only of interest in relation to the by-election in which it stood, and verifiable details are only available in relation to it. There won't be much to merge, and the couple of sentence will provide useful additional information in that article. Warofdreams talk 12:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article on the byelection; they have no independent notability, and we can't keep the article on the basis that they might become notable in future. Terraxos (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to by-election. This party's article does not state any independent claim of notability. If it was seen as a spoiler party or if another party co-opted its ideas then maybe, but otherwise, nope. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above suggestions. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:04, 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 Speedy delete. Hut 8.5 19:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Havsland Jørgensen[edit]

Article about a living person notable only for a single event, and as long as it doesn't mention that she was never charged or convicted, it certainly isn't written from a neutral point of view. A biographical article about her based on reliable sources will contain very little information about the rest of her life, and as suggested by Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about people notable only for one event the topic should be covered in the article about the event, not an article about the person. I should add that since several sources choose not to publish her name, it is probably a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names for us to do so. Finally, the event article already has more detail, so there isn't really anything to merge. Hemmingsen 10:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an unsourced or poorly sourced attack article and defamation. So tagged. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per above. -- Alexf⁴² 13:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:54, 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.

Water in Our World[edit]

The result was Delete (I feel like a heartless bastard). Tim Vickers (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR. Despite the endearing plea... this is original research (and says so itself). Cricketgirl (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Per WP:OR. asenine ^{say what?} 12:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A school project by 5 kids, mostly OR. Nsk92 (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-admitted original research. JIP | Talk 17:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The content could actually be clean-up-abble, but the editors don't seem interested in conforming to WP's policies, so out it goes. Townlake (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Effectively no sources, probable-copyvio images (there's no way they drew that pie chart themselves), questionable information ("There are about 1.460 Pt of water in our world"). Oh, and the same information already exists at more sensible titles, like water. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:28, 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, swayed by editors noting the lack of wide independent coverage. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic Artists Guild[edit]

No independent secondary sources found in multiple searches May 2008. They have published a handbook that is widely available in bookstores, but otherwise I found next to nothing. Norwaystudent (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm not finding articles that are just about the Guild - but it does seem to be mentioned in various articles like [29] for its association with the UAW, on legal matters like [30] and in what look like independent articles like [31] -- I'm not finding particularly good references you'd want to cite - but part of problem seems to be there's too many hits on them and individual chapters. -Hunting dog (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:' Fails WP:ORG. Passing sound on references do not constitute notability. Notability can be proved by significant coverage. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep! G.A.G. has been a very significant, influential, and innovative organization for illustrators, graphic designers and other professionals in commercial art. G.A.G. has played a leading role (often in coalitions with writers and others) in work on intellectual property rights, which has affected federal legislation as well as business practices throughout the publishing industry and beyond.

If there are relatively few and vague references to G.A.G. in major media sources, that might have something to do with corporate reluctance to give publicity to its campaigns for creators' rights. It's also possible the G.A.G.'s most important work was done in the pre-Internet era, which would account for a relatively low profile on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelydra (talk • contribs) 19:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can we determine if this falls in Commercial or non-Commercial organisation? I was tending to think as primarily a labour union its non-commercial so WP:ORG#Non-commercial_organizations "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization." not necessarily 'significant coverage'? Actually I'm not that sure it fails the primary criterion anyway as mentions aren't 'trivial' as in address listings, meeting times etc. which is quoted in the policy - but are specifically selecting it as relevant example of 'x' or having influence on 'y'.-Hunting dog (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below. Non-Commercial organizations do need coverage which is "substantial". Trivial OR incidental coverage is not sufficient to establish notability.--Work permit (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has been on wikipedia for two years, and yet cites no reliable third party sources that shows or even hints that the Guild is notable. In fact, it doesn't cite any third party sources. I would say that is sufficient reason to delete it. After two years on wikipedia, the burden should not be on us to independently find evidence that perhaps it is notable. Having said that, I tried to anyway. I did a search in the NY Times and Proquest. To User:Chelydra's point, these databases of print articles do cover "the pre-Internet era". I can only find passing references to the guild. The following quotes are typical of the handful I found (apologies for the pay site):

During the hearing, held at the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, representatives of National Artists Equity, Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts, the Graphic Artists Guild and other artists' groups spoke both for and against portions of the bill. The painter Larry Rivers and the sculptor John Raimondi also spoke, as did a number of art lawyers and art dealers. ^[1]

Artists for Tax Equity - consisting of 45 organizations, including the Graphic Artists Guild and the Artists Rights Society - campaigned against a provision of the new tax law that required them to capitalize their work. ^[2]

The references in the articles Hunting dog cites are similar in nature:

For example, the UAW also represents workers in the tractor and earthmoving equipment industry (e.g., Caterpillar and John Deere) and in the aerospace industry (e.g., Boeing), and in the late 1990s it added such disparate groups as the Graphics Artists Guild (3,000 members), the National Writers Union (5,000 members), and various service, technical, and graduate student employees at more than 20 colleges and universities across the country. [32]

WP:ORG#Non-commercial_organizations "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above". The Wikipedia:ORG#Primary_criterion mentioned is that

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.

This article fails the test. All the coverage found is incidental.--Work permit (talk) 18:26, 31 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. Wizardman 19:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Sciberras[edit]

This article appears to be an autobiography, written by Arnold sciberras (talk · contribs). He appeared on one or two Maltese television shows and studies zoology. That's about it. I don't see how any of this makes him notable enough for Wikipedia. There is also no verifiable evidence for any of the claims contained in the article. A ecis^Brievenbus 09:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:COI notice template left on talk page. WilliamH (talk) 11:45, 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 speedy keep as inherently notable. Blueboy 96 18:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West saugerties[edit]

No assertion of notability.

Very little content (the other communities in Saugerties which have articles, such as Glasco, have articles giving demographics and history) - the page was created by a user whose only contribs are creating this article and inserting the community in the main Saugerties article, in January. Cricketgirl (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to West Saugerties, New York. West Saugerties is (or at least used to be) a U6 unincorporated community.[33] Settlements are inherently notable regardless of size. USGS GNIS is down this weekend, so 100% confirmation may have to wait, but we can develop this article. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All towns and villages are somewhat notable, this is no exception. I found some good sources on the intenet, so if nothing else we could expand it to large Stub or Start. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, towns, villages, settlements are inherently notable. WilliamH (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to West Saugerties, New York. Real places are inherently notable. JIP | Talk 17:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, locations do not need to assert notability, it is inherent. MrPrada (talk) 17:39, 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; withdrawn by nominator. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Tedlock[edit]

No sourcing, not complying to WP:BLP and suspicious edit by the original creator seems to indicate this is a WP:HOAX (Note that the name of the articles subject changed, but nothing else) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: not a hoax, see e.g. [34], [35], [36]. Not sure yet whether he's sufficiently notable, per WP:PROF. Scog (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm now convinced he satisfies WP:PROF, and I've added some references to the article to indicate his notability. Scog (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Named professorship at a large state university, two significant awards, adds up to a multiple pass of WP:PROF#6. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A named chair professorship at a good university and the awards listed in the article make the case. Also significant results in GoogleScholar[37], including the highly cited book with 237 citations. Clearly satisfies WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Nsk92 and David Eppstein. MrPrada (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Par changes to the article. The sudden name change of the subject made this article feel like a hoax, but it is clear that this is not the case now. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:02, 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 no consensus, not a shred. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old B.O.B.[edit]

Plot regurgitation about a non-notable robot from a bad film, The Black Hole. I am also nominating the following related page for the exact same reason:

Clarityfiend (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both back to The Black Hole article. Not notable enough for their own articles. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to the film article as neither character is notable enough to warrant separate articles. I should caution the nominator that expressions of opinion such as "a bad film" shouldn't have a bearing on whether an article is viable or not. 23skidoo (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, despite the fact that the nominator's logic isn't really true. Most of the information on both pages is of higher detail and not present on the main film page (the fact that B.O.B. and V.I.N.CENT are from the same series of robots is rather important, but never hinted at in the main article) although, granted, most of it is non-notable. Also, The Black Hole is an awesome film. Chaparral2J (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it alone. Characters V.I.N.CENT. are both notable in the film, and far more notable than some of the Star Wars robots who have their own articles. Moreover, while franchises such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Buffy and Stargate have their own more detailed wikis elsewhere, there's no such detail given on individual movies that do not have multiple movie franchises. The fact that V.I.N.CENT, Maximillian, and Old B.O.B have all had multiple toys, lunchmoxes, colouring books and other merchandise made with their images should indicate the merit of the inclusion of these articles. The fact that these merchandising franchises were in the 70s rather than being recent (like individual Bionicle characters who apparently merit inclusion), should be irrelevant. In other words, had the movie just come out with the same level of merchandising, there'd be no question. Therefore, there should not be a question now. Wikipedia isn't just dedicated to recent popular events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citation Not Needed (talk • contribs) 01:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both These are major characters from a major studio film in a time when the industry was undergoing rapid change. If every pokemon character gets an article, then so should these. there must be no ageism, or "because Ive never heard of it" or "because I don't like it" criteria. --Tbmorgan74 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Black Hole - I don't think these characters are sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles. (And to Tbmorgan above: we don't have an article on every Pokemon, in fact almost all of them have been deleted for non-notability. These articles aren't any different.) Terraxos (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suggest Maximillian (The Black Hole), another character from the same film, be considered for merging/deletion as well. Terraxos (talk) 13:26, 31 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. Wizardman 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bsnes[edit]

Article does not present any citations for substantial coverage from reliable, independent sources, so does not pass WP:Notability guidelines. Previously prodded with the rationale "non-notable software"; removed with the comment "no reason given for deletion.", without addressing the concern. Marasmusine (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the most accurate SNES emulator, and its development prompted further advancements in competing emulators. It's notable enough in the emulation world, and that alone is enough to keep the article. Define "reliable, independent source" for this matter, because as far as I know bsnes is covered in the major emulation sites, and acknowledged by the most prominent members of the community. --Lashiec (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable, independent source" is defined in the WP:Notability guideline. The subject requires substantial coverage from a source with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight; "independent" requires the source to be unaffiliated with the subject, ruling out advertising, fan-sites, press releases, etc. For software, a typical good source would be a review or interview from one of the major gaming websites or paper magazines. If you can provide some links to coverage in the major emulation sites you mentioned, that might be a good start. Marasmusine (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Marasmusine places the facts forth well. No coverage by independent sources; ergo, it should be deleted. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without coverage in reliable sources, the article is just acting like one of the hundred thousand emulation sites. If the list of them is deemed worthy of inclusion in the future, that'll be all it will require. TTN (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. I found no mention of Bsnes on Google Books (unlike, say, Zsnes or Snes9x). Kariteh (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the general notability guideline that requires coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. This is pretty central wikipedia policy. Randomran (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Actually, I think this should be kept. But the current wikifag trend to build up karma and gain levels in the world's biggest text-based MMORPG is to go around to every article, ignore that Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of human knowledge and say "This fails notability because I don't know anything about it." So, that said, "This fails notability. Get rid of it." Can I have my karma points now? anonymous (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you think it's okay for a general encyclopedia to include an article about a ZX Spectrum game I once wrote whilst still in sixth form, a band I'm in that's been heard of by about a dozen people, or any particular website I could knock up in about 5 minutes. Marasmusine (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that yes, that's fine -- so long as there is a lengthy disambiguation page to separate all 500 garage bands named "Baby Smasher" or whatever the in name of the week is. Regarding the Web site, that may be a bit too close to abusing Wikipedia for spam. (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.219.229.89 (talk) [reply]
Comment - The media tends to ignore emulation for various reasons (possibly including fear of legal action or other reprisals from hardware and software publishers who wish emulation itself were illegal and not just the copyright violations some use it for), so there are no "reliable sources" mentioning bsnes as there are few mentioning emulation at all and fewer mentioning it in-depth enough to name actual emulators. The "major emulation sites" mentioned by Lashiec above would probably not be accepted as sources, and would certainly not be accepted by certain factions. I would be happy to be proved wrong on any of this.
If I were in the mood to argue, I would !vote "Keep per WP:IAR" based on these facts and the fact that bsnes is a wikt:notable emulator, but I'm not and so I will just comment once. Anomie ⚔ 12:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - By way of WP:IAR. All delete votes point to the same issue: notability, while providing no other justification for deletion. I believe it is a mistake to weigh the entire article on this one issue alone, as well I believe there to be fundamental problems with this argument.

First, discussion of fourth-generation emulators in major publications primarily occured in the late 90's, when emulation was in its infancy, and long before bsnes was created. It is unlikely that one would find a recent gaming magazine covering even ZSNES at this point, as emulation is simply old-hat, and coverage that does occur would obviously focus on newer systems.

Second, with the commercialization of emulation by way of the Wii Virtual Console, coverage of retro-grade emulators could be seen as legally risky. For these two reasons, seeing any fourth-gen emulator covered in printed form is unlikely.

Third, this emulator is most certainly notable in the context of the emulation community. It has pioneered altogether new methods of emulation, started a movement toward enhanced accuracy in all emulators for all systems, was the first SNES emulator to reach a milestone 100% compatibility, and has a roughly on-par userbase to other emulators: ZSNES and Snes9x included.

Simply by researching the emulation community, it is evident that this is not at all similar to a band "that's been heard of by about a dozen people," rather this is software that's been heard of by hundreds of thousands of people.

One might also note the roughly 100 edits this article has received over the two and a half years it has existed here indicates that the community cares about this article, and finds the information to be valuable.

Fourth, I believe that deleting this article will only serve to harm the usefulness of Wikipedia. This specific emulator is referenced in the emulation section of the main SNES article on Wikipedia, and it serves to provide valuable contextual information for it which wouldn't be appropriate to include there.

I believe this article has its shortcomings, mostly related to the lack of printed material to reference, but that it has potential to be refined. I also believe that its notability will continue to grow with time, as it has all along. It is quite possible that reliable sources of information will exist at some point in the future.

At the very least, it is just as worthy as the other two-hundred plus emulator articles contained within Wikipedia, the vast majority of which also lack published reviews and are no more notable than this emulator. I see no reason to single this article out.

All that said, I urge you to consider keeping this article, WP:Notability aside. 199.230.203.254 (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your first and second points (as well as your last two sentences): Have you actually read the discussion before posting? I've already mentioned that Zsnes and Snes9x are both mentioned in publications; Google Books is your friend, too.
Concerning your third point: I'm sorry but Wikipedia is about verifiability (in reliable sources), not truth. Please see also Wikipedia:Original research; we can't just establish a subject's notability ourselves, we can only do so by using reliable sources and references which have already done the research.
Concerning your fourth point: it's not really an argument. "Usefulness" is a term which is not recommended in deletion discussions since it doesn't mean anything precise. This discussion concerns the article primarily, but if notability can't be established for the subject, the sentences that mention it in other articles may be challenged and removed just like the article. Kariteh (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read the previous discussion; did you read my response? ZSNES and Snes9x would be covered as they existed in 1998 when console emulation was in its infancy: bsnes did not. My point is that the standards for notability are insufficient for this category. It's a subject with shady legal grounds that few publishers would have any need (or reason) to cover explicitly, especially with newer consoles garnering much of their attention. It's just as unlikely that ZSNES will be covered in future publications at this point. I'm not saying that's good enough for your notability standard as it stands ... I'm saying that it's a poor standard to apply to this article for the reasons I have listed.
For the third point, with 50,000+ Google search results for bsnes, there's plenty of verifiability, you're simply too pedantic about your sources to accept something such as [38]. I can't possibly imagine why a book publisher would perform a costly review of an SNES emulator at this point in time, as it is not a product for sale, it is not affiliated with a company, is legally risky, and provides no story that they haven't previously covered. Yet it is still very much notable in the place of emulation history. The notability rule is simply inefficient for this specific category, hence WP:IAR.
The fourth is very much a valid argument, you simply disagree with it so you discredit it with no consideration. That you would encourage destroying relevant information in other articles just to rid yourself of this one, frankly, worries me greatly. Not all important history is recorded in books. 199.230.203.254 (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the owner of the domain which hosts the bsnes Web site. Each release of bsnes causes a miniature spike in our domain traffic with nearly 10,000 unique downloads of the Windows and Linux binaries. I have not factored in source code downloads. The emulator is also heavily mirrored by many more popular emulation sites. It may be safe to say that bsnes has, at minimum, a user base of 15,000 - 20,000 users by conservative estimates. I am willing to provide traffic totals from our logs should anyone like to contest these numbers. 17:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.219.229.89 (talk)
~~Keep~~ Merge - Notability is well established in the emulation field, acknowledged by Anomie who is clearly a subject matter expert as the lead developer of SNES9X. Numerous [39] independent [40] sources [41], while not as notable as the New York Times, are equally reliable to nearly all emulator entries on Wikipedia. Google Books results such as [42] and [43] do not demonstrate greater notability of ZSNES and SNES9X to any rational individual. Edit: changed vote, see below Ispirel (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An open wiki, someone's personal website and a forum entry do not qualify as WP:Reliable sources, and at present we're not discussing other articles. Marasmusine (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources", "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable", "In cases where self-published material has been published by a professional researcher or other expert in the field, a source published in one of these media may be considered reliable in some cases." These were but three examples. There is plenty of verifiable information regarding this emulator available at appropriate locations. You won't find detailed emulator analyses in the NY Post for reasons others have already covered above, so this qualifies as a special circumstance where slightly less reliable sources should at least be considered. Other stuff exists is a poor example, as this is essentially precedent setting and will affect hundreds of other articles on Wikipedia. This very well should be considered now. Ispirel (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you look around the emuscene, you will notice that this emulator brought something new: very accurate SNES emulation. So if you delete this, you also should delete every other SNES emulator article.--87.174.98.26 (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've done some additional research into this I thought I'd share.

1) A link discussing emulator related deletions on Wikipedia: [44].

2) Other emulator AfD discussions: [45],[46], [47].

3) A response by myself to TTN a while back: [48]

It would seem prudent to develop a site-wide consensus, rather than nominating random articles for deletion every other week. 199.230.203.254 (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose a merger of the emulation software that have not received extensive coverage in reliable sources (WP:N, etc) but otherwise have good sources for verifiability. Marasmusine (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. After reading them, I concur with Marasmusine above. If we merge this article to a generalized list, such as List_of_SNES_emulators and Nintendo_DS_emulation, my concerns will be met. References can then anchor-link there instead. If bsnes gains more reliable sources, we can re-create this article later. Marasmusine and those voting delete, how would you feel about me either expanding List_of_SNES_emulators or creating a "SNES emulation" page with infoboxes and general descriptions for each emulator there? I feel that's an acceptable compromise. Ispirel (talk) 00:36, 30 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 as a copyvio. JIP | Talk 17:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSTA[edit]

copy of http://www.opensta.org Ultra! 07:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete Clear cut case of copyright infringement. The author who created this 1 day old article knew the source but chose to not divulge it. More importantly, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No one knows if this technology will be notable in the future. Artene50 (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G12 Direct copyvio. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:56, 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. Wizardman 19:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Igbabonẹlimhin[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable term - only two non-WP ghits for Igbabonẹlimhin (with the accent) and only one for Igbabonelimhin (without the accent}. No relevant references, just a lot of POV assertions. andy (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it's a made-up word (WP:NOTDICDEF) but notability isn't asserted and WP:V ——Ryan | t • c 07:16, 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. Bduke (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aotea College 1st XI (Football)[edit]

About as non-notable as it gets. If there are reliable sources for anything relating to the team, it can be mentioned in the article on the college. dramatic (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -dramatic (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, the creator of the article has linked all his team mates to disambig pages to eradicate redlinks but none of these players are notable enough ——Ryan | t • c 06:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable sports team.-gadfium 08:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability whatsoever. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly non-notable. Giant Snowman 15:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per all the above. A long, long way from meeting our notability standards. - fchd (talk) 19:52, 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. Notability seems to have been demonstrated as the discussion progressed. It does however need attention and it should not remain orphaned. Bduke (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lewinsky[edit]

no sources at all, article does not state why person is notable - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 06:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google comes back with 250 results all of which are about different people, or rather the time periods are all different. Delete per WP:N and WP:V ——Ryan | t • c 07:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unreferenced which suggests it lacks WP:N Artene50 (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability, though in theory he could be if sources demonstrated that his works were notable enough.

Neutral per improvements by DGG that appear to demonstrate notability. I have no knowledge of the subject that would give me further cause for any opinion. ~ mazca ^talk 11:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article gives 3 published books--I have checked in worldCat, and there are at least another 3 or 4. They are in about a dozen WorldCat libraries, which for 19th century German books of the science of Judaism is significant. This is the sort of article that needs expansion andc hecking from published sources, not from google. I did quickly find some references to at least confirm the basic information. He's included in the main biographic encyclopedia in his special field. DGG (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:HEY, DGG has utterly refuted all of the delete arguments and there can be no consensus to delete now. MrPrada (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's updates. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nineteenth century Judaic scholars are not well represented on google, so should be eliminated from Wikipedia. No matter how prominent in their field they are. Also, as one poster above notes, he has the same name as a bunch of other non-contemporaneous people so should get the axe or gong. --Blechnic (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment your response reads rather sarcastically. Per WP:SARCASM I'd suggest you might want to clarify what you actually mean to avoid an outcome you might not agree with! ~ mazca ^talk 00:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This article has now been improved with 3 book references. However, we don't know the date of his birth or death of this person. The article is still orphaned. The additions do seem to address the central question: was he notable? Artene50 (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we have the birth. None of the available sources have the death. I've checked the LC authority file for this, and the Harvard catalog, and they don't have the death either. It would apparently take some primary research. DGG (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is notable for his works, not for when he died or for which Wikipedia articles link to his one, so the lack of his date of death and the orphaned status of the article have no bearing on whether it should be kept or deleted. You might just as well complain that the article doesn't tell us his favourite colour or his inside leg measurement. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and, erm, tongue-in-cheek Blechnic. --MPerel 06:44, 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 redirect to Directed-energy weapon. Sandstein 21:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laser cannon[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the plot sections of various Star Wars articles where laser cannons are used. This is duplicative and trivial and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a general article on laser-based weaponry (either in the reality, in fiction, or a combination) that this could be redirected to as a plausible search term? Although Star Wars is cool, it has not by any means cornered the market on laser cannons. -- saberwyn 05:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. Also, the Israelis are building real laser cannons, it was in the news a few months back, so an article on them would not be entirely fictional...this article ain't it though. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Directed-energy weapon- Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm torn between the DEW redirect and raygun, which covers DEWs in fiction. --Dhartung | Talk 06:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe we could dabify to both articles.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect somewhere. I was going to favour raygun over directed-energy weapon on the grounds that laser gun is already a redirect to raygun, but I also see that laser weapon redirects to laser applications. EALacey (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced in-universe West End Games trivia and redirect to directed-energy weapon. --EEMIV (talk) 05:07, 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. Unsourced content should not be merged. Sandstein 15:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud City[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of trivia involving a location from the Empire Strikes Back. As the plot section of that films article already covers anything relevant about this topic, this is duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but possibly merge with Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. Article is too small and isn't really notable enough in it's current state. However, like the nominator said, it's a trivia aspect of the movie which might fit well in the films article. ——Ryan | t • c 07:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as the article indicates that it was only a location in one film, with a cameo in another. However I might be willing to change my vote if the article is changed to indicate that it becomes an ongoing location in the Star Wars Expanded Universe franchise. 23skidoo (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. Wikipedia is not Wookiepedia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the suggestion above. I agree that this is an important location in the film, but, unless this were to become an extendedly notable location per 23skidoo's comment, not enough to merit its own article. WilliamH (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The location itself isn't notable, and the article is plot summary with nothing else. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:12, 28 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 of redirect created by userfication of original article. No prejudice to future recreation. nancy ^(talk) 20:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelWoodMusic[edit]

No assertion of notability, no suggestion of sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:N and WP:V, notability not asserted and could be classed as promotional material. This site, which is cited, doesn't even mention the subjects name. ——Ryan | t • c 07:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC, WP:N and WP:V. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If for some reason this article is kept, it needs to be moved to Michael Wood (music) and a link added to the Michael Wood disambiguation page.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might have screwed up here, but I advised the new user who created the page to move it to her user space for further work. I've moved it there for her after she created her upage following my advice. The page is obviously not ready for wiki-space, but can be worked on in uspace until it's ready. Sorry if I broke any procedures! Franamax (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I've now tagged the redirect as CSD:R2. Franamax (talk) 20:28, 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 (non-admin closure) --MPerel 01:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estadio de Beisbol Lic.Eduardo Vasconcelos[edit]

Non-notable, article does not state why stadium is notable. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 05:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only reference to it does not establish notability...which tells me it is a minor stadium at best. It is placed rightly on Spanish Wikipedia: [49] But even that is unreferenced. Artene50 (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It hosts a professional baseball team. Liga Mexicana de Beisbol is considered the equivalent of AAA. Patken4 (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More information from team website. The team website is down, but I found some history at web archive Estadio. Patken4 (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports facilities's list of stadium related deletions. Patken4 (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Stadium hosts team in Liga Mexicana de Beisbol, which is the highest professional league in Mexico. BRMo (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A minor league stadium is notable. Kinston eagle (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per being home of a Mexican League AAA ball club. --Gwguffey (talk) 20:28, 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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) --MPerel 23:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of ongoing conflicts[edit]

Strong Keep - Most of what people know comes from the news. And the news tends to skim over wars and events in "uninteresting" places. You'll never see coverage of the Sri Lankan Civil War on CNN. You'll never see coverage of the Internal Conflict in Peru on Fox. This article may be the only way people hear of these wars.

I don't see how this can be an article on Wikipedia. Its unstable and will NEVER be a stable article. Everything added to this article will eventually get removed. This is really just Current events. Im not sure but I believe everything on Wikipedia has to be in past tense, since its presenting things as history. This is suitable for Wikinews, but not as a article in a encyclopedia. Again theres no way this will ever be stable. Theres List of wars which does it the correct way. Coasttocoast (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Saying an article is unstable because it documents something that changes would invalided every biography of any living person, for starters. This is not a portal, it is a list that complies with WP:CLS in that it presents more information than a category could. This is also not news, as it does not document brief events of limited importance, but points to fully encyclopedic articles that are and will continue to be updated. Finally, it is a subarticle linked to by List of wars. I don't see a real rationale for deletion under any guideline here. --Dhartung | Talk 06:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep there are quite a few pages linking to this article. The article contains references and is an informative encyclopaedic article. I also think Dhartung is very right about this being an unfair nomination (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) ——Ryan | t • c 07:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The article is relevant as a guide for the violent and unpredictable world we live in. Wikipedia is a dictionary that is supposed to record this important topic. We don't live in a world where every country is at peace. The people who live in Sudan, Colombia, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Palestine/Israel would quickly know the importance of this 'list' in their daily lives. Artene50 (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On occasion, lists really are encyclopedic. This is one of those lists. Sourced and about a real-world, non-trivial, very notable topic (unlike, say, all the fan fiction trivia lists which are not about anything approaching real-world relevance). This is also an entry one might expect to find in, say, a print encyclopedia from 1945, which alone establishes it as a definite keep. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is one of the most interesting and original lists in Wikipedia. It is what makes this encyclopedia special and interesting. Eklipse (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a textbook example of where online encyclopedias have an advantage over their print counterparts. This list is by design intended to be updated continually. My only concern is the lack of sourcing, however as such conflicts tend to be notable, this should be easy enough to add. It also needs to be policed to make sure NN material isn't added. 23skidoo (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep highly informative, encyclopedic list of notable conflicts. WilliamH (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I think that there have already been many good arguments for keeping this article. No need to repeat them. calhounjames (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. First, it's never stable. More important, it completely lies about the ME and I can't see folks accepting the truth. For instance, it claims the "Israel-Palestinian" conflict began in 1967. It began in 1948, when the Arab Higher Committee, representing the local Arabs (Still claiming Palestine was a British invention) rejected UNR181 and joined with the Arab League (representing Arab nations) to declare war against Israel's existence. Another example is the "Kashmir conflict" that began in 1947. Pakistani and Indian troops have never withdrawn since and it's strange to say it only began in 1989. Unless everyone's willing to list such inconvenient facts, I agree the page should be deleted. ithinktfiam (talk)—Preceding comment was added at 13:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - informative, reasonably well-referenced, quite notable topic. About the stability issue: if new conflicts began and ended every day, you might have a point - but they don't; they're not that common. Keeping them all together in a list like this is a good idea, and standard practice. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well-referenced article and valid topic. If sometimes in future all over the world all types of conflicts stop, then this list certainly will be invalid and can be deleted. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:24, 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 Delete per G1 - Nonsense. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Douchebags. the movie[edit]

Just plain nonsense. 9potterfan (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already tagged for speedy deletion. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plain nonsense?? so people are allowed to put up infromation about Jackass but if i'm makign a video series i'm not allowd to put up anything baut that?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pommy93 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...Yeah! Jackass is not a "home video". By the way, dude! Learn how to spell! 9potterfan (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been deleted because of being plain nonsense.

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

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

The result was delete cuz Dusty was the coolest but OR forks about her are not. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty Springfield's legacy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dusty Springfield's legacy

Essay on Dusty Springfield which does not appear to add anything significant to an already good article about her. Delete per no OR. Deadly∀ssassin 04:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trim, merge, and anchor-redirect any reliably sourced content to Dusty Springfield#Legacy. That section could afford a little more content, and this is a plausible search string and redirection will take readers to exactly where the information is. This is not to be interpreted as a keep, per the essay-like content, the duplication (sans sources) of much of the information in the Dusty Springfield article, and the WP:original research/synthesis concerns (although I can see the possibility of a WP:HEYMANN-like improvement if someone is willing to put effort in to restructure this as a valid sub-article of Dusty Springfield and reliably source the content). -- saberwyn 05:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a substantially smaller and NPOV version to Dusty Springfield#Legacy. There's enough here to enhance that article, but this topic is undue weight for a separate article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems more like a Dusty Springfield Trivia section than an article. Virtually nothing is cited. First sentence indicates this thing is lifted from a larger work. Existing Dusty article is very solid and exhaustively cited; trying to merge that article with this uncited list just because some list entries are interesting could weaken the existing article, and hardly seems worth the effort. Townlake (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The trivia most definitely needs to be culled, but notable commentary certainly warrants mention. I also could anticipate the Heymann standard being met at some point, though the title is a little weighty as it stands, I'd suggest a word a bit less POV implicatory than "legacy". WilliamH (talk) 17:12, 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 Article deleted by Accounting4Taste, non-admin closure

Jason Bradford[edit]

Minor producer, fails WP:BIO, as no reliable sources have been cited. TN‑X-Man 03:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you throw the article-starter's name into Google, you find out this is an autobiography. Article in general fails WP:N. Townlake (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:N as of today. Article is also totally unreferenced. Artene50 (talk) 09:20, 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. Wizardman 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BreakBeatBuddha[edit]

Non-notable musical artist, fails WP:BAND TN‑X-Man 03:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on the reasons why the page is being considered for deletion. BreakBeatBuddha is an incredible electronic artist - I have tried to provide information and relevant links in the contribution. Could you please set forth reasons for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prop A Gandah (talk • contribs) 03:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - According to WP:BAND (which lists the general guidelines for musician articles), an artist must be discussed in multiple non-trivial sources, have a gold album, or release two or more albums on a major label. The article doesn't mention anything like that. Granted, there are other criteria. If you can add sources or something mentioned in WP:BAND, I'll gladly withdraw the nomination. TN‑X-Man 03:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response -Thank you. I understand the reason for marking the page now. I've added some info on BreakBeatBuddha's status as Top Selling Artist for 2007 on Addictech charts (digital sales of Mind Bombin' album). Hope that helps. His performance in DC was also reviewed by Washington Post, I think. I could look for that article, if it would help. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prop A Gandah (talk • contribs) 04:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I applaud the creator's good-faith efforts to save this article, but it's just not there. The music chart provided lists the same few performers over and over, so I'm not sure it provides the evidence that the subject is a national chart-topping performer as suggested by WP:MUSIC. The 365mag.com citations say point blank they're lifted from the performer's Myspace page. The text of the article itself reads like a hype sheet, not an encyclopedia entry. The Washington Post piece referenced by the creator hasn't been added, so it can't be evaluated. This is possibly salvagable with work, but might need to go to the User's page for more improvement before it becomes a full fledged article. Townlake (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is one of my first attempts at creating content for Wikipedia, so I appreciate the advice and comments. I haven't been able to locate the Washington Post article, which is why it hasn't yet been included. I have added references wherever possible, to back up statements about the artist. Perhaps this is off-topic, but I question the validity of the requirements for WP:MMUSIC in this digital era. Label affiliation and gold records are just not as applicable for measuring an artist's success or notability in today's world, as they were in the past. This is the era of independent artists and independent labels: Success, or notability, should be defined (at least, in part) by the artist's following and contributions to music. I understand there are other criteria for "notability" and, to the extent possible, would suggest a shift in focus to those criteria when providing opinions on deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prop A Gandah (talk • contribs) 23:36, 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 speedy delete under criterion A7, as no assertion of notability per WP:BAND has been made. —C.Fred (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pure John[edit]

Non notable band as per WIKIPEDIA:BAND. There is a claim of notability, but it is unsourced. Google searches for the band ("pure john" -gorka) come up empty. TheMile (talk) 03:29, 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. Wizardman 19:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chete Lera[edit]

Article about a person who has played bit parts in dozens of Spanish movies. The article mentions the notability of the directors he has worked under. There is a discussion about this article in Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Cbdorsett (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ENTERTAINER: "Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." Based on the article, and the discussion on the translation page, some of his films have been award-winners. Townlake (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just want to make sure it is clear my vote is to delete. I have considered the comment of Townlake, and I am sticking to my vote. Bit parts in 60 films are not significant roles. The fact that one or two of the films have won awards does not mean they are notable either. Do we have articles on all films that have won awards? No, we don't. There are plenty of directors and producers of independent films. Some of them have have won one award from some local film festival, but that (so far) is not notable enough to merit them articles of their own. If the director does not get an article, then for sure the bit players don't get one, either. Many of these award-=giving organizations don't have articles, either. Where do you want to draw the line? Cbdorsett (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On further review, I've withdrawn my previous vote because his roles apparently haven't been significant and he apparently hasn't been featured. So while I'm not sure I agree with the Delete rationale, I can't agree with my previous Keep rationale either. Townlake (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
neutral I had (previous to this AfD) cleaned it up (translation, format) coming from Pages needing translation into English. For myself I doubt he is notable enough, but as usually WP standards, with respect to people, are lower than mine I presumed it was worth the effort. I just ask anyone voting here to think what would be your vote should the actor be American and acted in tens of Hollywood movies under some of the best American directors. - Nabla (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search turns nothing of note, except for the usual IMDB entries. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 11:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I thought one article should be edit to improve it, not deleted just because it is small. Isn't the idea get knowledge to this enciclopedia? It's better to not have any information than having a little? Someone can tell me what the fuck is going on here.•-timed 16:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) --MPerel 23:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of environmental periodicals[edit]

Categories serve the purpose of this page, unecyclopaedic. There is a Category:Environmental magazines that suits many of the entries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful list. No red links. Looks fine to me. Johnfos (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course this list needs to be improved ( a lead, a description of its scope), but it is no doubt interesting, useful, notable and encyclopedic. Eklipse (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could be a useful page to many users. People who don't know that much about Wikipedia and are just looking something up may not know to look at a Category page. Besides, the list on the category page is a lot shorter than the one on this page. --Bobianite (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It would be easy to add the missing article on the list to the category: -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list is useful for people who want to access environmentl periodicals. Artene50 (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pr WP:CLS the existence of a category should not preclude a list. Taemyr (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply But WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. This list has no annotation and is simply andalphabetical list with no sorting of any kind. A category does the same thing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:27, 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 delete. Wizardman 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of environmental websites[edit]

Category serves the purpose of this page, unecyclopaedic. There is a Category:Environmental websites. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a list that will never end. Its not encyclopedic. WP:NOTDIR AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unencyclopedic list. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No clear definition of the scope of an article, and criteria for inclusion. And the list tends to include non-notable or non-encyclopedic websites. Eklipse (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list began only a day ago. Lists have important advantages over categories -- you can append short descriptions. We should make this focus on the major websites, which can in some cases be more important than periodicals. The list of environmental periodicals is receiving keep votes. This would be a nice list. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 04:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This new list is gradually being expanded with quality entries that are notable enough to have their own WP page. No red links. Useful. Looks good to me. Johnfos (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. This list is redundant to Category:Environmental websites. I fear this list may be used for promotional purpose also. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is my combined response to most of the preceding comments.
- It is common for a Wikipedia list to co-exist with a corresponding Wikipedia category, and vice versa. This does not justify deleting the list or the category. (Besides Wikipedia, the Encyclopædia Britannica exists. This does not justify destroying either of them.)
- One could claim of many articles that they will never end. This does not justify deleting them.
- The list is as encyclopedic as the other lists listed on Lists of websites.
- Inclusion of "non-notable" or "non-encyclopedic" websites is not a valid reason for deleting the whole list; neither is the miscategorization of some articles in a category a valid reason for deleting the category. (Neither is the inclusion of imperfect articles a valid reason for destroying Wikipedia.)
- One could claim of many articles that they may be used for commercial purpose. This does not justify deleting them.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies (in order)

I have no problems with a list and catgory coexisting if they are both of use. In this case the category does what the list does. The list adds nothing to WP. If it was annotated it would add something but it is not. The comparison to Encyclopædia Britannica and WP is not valid since I do not want to "destroy" all of the lists (or all of the categories).
Point taken on the extent of an article. That is why some sort of boundary is required for an article that is open to being open ended.
The lists at "Lists of websites" all have at least some degree of annotation and therefore add content. This give it value as an encyclopaedia article.
If the list was predominately "non-notable" or "non-encyclopedic" it would be non-encyclopedic. Who said anything about destroying WP?
True.

-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oops! Although I did not intend to imply it, apparently something incorrect was inferred anyway. My point about not destroying either of the two encyclopedias was only a hypothetical example for comparison. Also, my later point about not destroying Wikipedia was only a hypothetical example for comparison. (Likewise, the six short conversations at Talk:Lists of environmental topics#Commitment and suitability are only hypothetical examples for comparison.)

I understand that editors differ in their styles of communication, and that they are accustomed to meet, in their daily lives, other people who also differ in their styles of communication. This can lead to misunderstandings in deletion discussions, and is one reason for my generally avoiding such discussions. Unfortunately, when I consider the time that I have spent on an article, the value that I perceive in an article, and the progress of the deletion discussion, sometimes I decide (for better or for worse) to enter the discussion.

When an editor has to spend extra time in a deletion discussion, then (s)he is like a driver in a desert having to spend extra time in mechanical repairs, and like a business owner having to spend extra time in legal proceedings. Editors might hesitate to start articles if they have to spend extra time in defending them.

(Regarding scope and length) The scope of the list is as clear as the scope of many of the external links. Wikipedia already has many long pages, including many long lists. This list might never exceed a length limit (the list being limited by the number of Wikipedia articles about environmental websites), but even if it does, then at that time it can be split into two or more lists.

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In its present state, this list does ~~more than what a category does~~ some things which a category does not do.

It has a detailed lead sentence.
~~The entries listed are annotated.~~ It has annotated entries.
It has a heading "See also" with related topics.
It has a heading "External links" with external links.

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Revised) -- Wavelength (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Revised) -- Wavelength (talk) 00:37, 30 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. Wizardman 19:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lokah[edit]

No major notability established outside of a "hip hop mogul" and an "Oscar-nominated" individual. The external links section contains nine web-sites, and the article seems to be more of spamming the band around. seicer | talk | contribs 03:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hip hop mogul, is Russell Simmons, probably the most influential person in all of hip hop, and the "oscar-nominated individual" Sting, who there may only be a handful of more "notable" people in music. If this band is legit enough to be featuring both of these superstars< i think its quite clear they are notable enough for an entry in wikipedia.page marked for deletion because band is "questionably notable". Being that Sting and Russell SImmons collaborated on the CD with the band, should rule out any question of notability and significance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.126.216 (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited from one collaboration. The work of notable people is notable in as much as it has reliable third party sources discussing it. I can't find such sources for this album. Even so, if the album were only notable in the context of Sting and Russell Simmons' collaborative efforts, that would at most result in the album being appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, not the band.gnfnrf (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A third-party source discussing the band would be needed to establish this band's notability. Ideally, something like a album or concert review in a notable publication would of the caliber of sources provided. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 09:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Outside of the famous contributors, there seems to be nothing to make this band or album notable. I cannot locate any reviews or discussion of it in reliable, third-party sources. I say weak because I suspect that such sources may exist, I say delete because the article needs to be referenced by such sources to clean up the serious POV and content problems it currently has. gnfnrf (talk) 23:50, 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. Wizardman 19:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hockeyburgh[edit]

Non-notable nickname; likely original research or simply made up. A Google search for Hockeyburgh only yields 3 hits (1 blog, 1 message board) while one for Hockeytown, a nickname it is compared to, yields 464,000. TheMile (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research hoax. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Either a hoax or completely non-notable. Nsk92 (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an unreasonable nickname but without reliable sources to demonstrate its use, i'm going to wave WP:MADEUP at it.~ mazca ^talk 11:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost G3-able in my book ... only thing that kept me from hitting the speedy button was because of those hits. If any admin more rougish than even I am is inclined to delete it, I won't object. Also tagged with ((hoax)) and warned the author. Blueboy 96 18:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. So lame, it made me want to hockey up a burg and spit it out. "Hey, man, the Penguins are so good, they oughta call Pittsburgh... uh.. uh.. HOCKEYburgh!!!" Powerfully imaginative. Mandsford (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No eveidence of notability provided, none found. Probably WP:MADEUP. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:54, 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. Wizardman 19:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Ball[edit]

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and likewise, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep Deletion might be premature - would rather give the author a shot at getting it up to standards. (Apparently it was put up for speedy delete 1 minute after being created!) The game as described is legit, though obscure and will be a challenge to get past WP:N. Let the whole five days of AfD candidacy run and see if the article improves. Townlake (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's the nickname (game with no rules) that does it for me. If it is so freeform, I think it's unlikely it can get past WP:N now or ever. Erechtheus (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP, WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found enough about animal ball through search engines to satisfy me this doesn't fail the MADEUP test. I've added a note to the article's Talk page asking for improvements to the article - in its current state yes it fails on notability, but it shouldn't go down to MADEUP/NFT. Townlake (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vets agree-- If you find one animal ball, you're likely to find the other one close by! Mandsford (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ohhhh Mandsford. Anyway! I don't know that the minor 'undercurrent' of obscure presence this seems to have really counts. Non-notability comes in varying degrees, and something on the more notable end of that spectrum is still at heart non-notable. - Vianello (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed, notability isn't met; I'm withdrawing my request for patience, since the article hasn't been touched since its creation. Townlake (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N therefore non-notable. No reliable resources, or any resources at all.--RyRy5 (talk) 11:17, 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 per WP:SNOW and WP:CRYSTAL. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Party 9[edit]

Article about a potential video game that violates WIKIPEDIA:NOT; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TheMile (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the text of the article makes it clear this hasn't been announced. Erechtheus (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTCRYSTAL, WP:OR; no citations to anything supporting the speculation. Townlake (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Looking into the crystal Wii controller without any citations. The article can be recreated once there are reliable sources about the upcoming release, but that wouldn't seem to be any time in the near future. —C.Fred (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator is right - it's highly likely this game will be made. But without an announcement and/or discussion in reliable sources it's just a blatant example of WP:CRYSTAL. ~ mazca ^talk 11:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may certainly be so, that it is highly likely the game will be made, but until this is verifiable then WP:CRYSTAL firmly applies. WilliamH (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely made of origial research and extrapolation. Martarius (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 17:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:22, 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 speedy redirected to better article on same individual. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dov Frohman-Bentchkowsky[edit]

notable? Chzz ► 01:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The IEEE Edison Medal seems like a notable award, fulfilling the first bullet point under WP:BIO#Any_biography. Of course, it does say that "meeting one or more [of these criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included;" hence the "weak" part. AnturiaethwrTalk 01:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely notable. Seems to hold a patent and another one, won the 2008 IEEE Edison Medal (which already had an article here), gets a mention at the computer history museum...I'd say he's notable enough. Frank | talk 01:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a joke? Wow! Dov Frohman Blechnic (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to redirect to some notable dude with similar name. --Blechnic (talk) 03:27, 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. Wizardman 19:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straight to live[edit]

Apparently non-notable, obscure website deployment method. I can't find anything relevant on google, but that could be because there's so many irrelevant results. Rory096 01:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this WP:DICTDEF (which is maybe more of a glossary entry). No ghits, no gnews hits (with quotes). If it became notable that would be a different story, but...I can't find any evidence of notability. Frank | talk 01:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As there is no significant coverage in reliable source, it fails WP:N. In its present form, the article violates WP:DICT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:12, 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. Wizardman 19:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Session Identifier Security (Gardner Equation)[edit]

Article is about a computer science technique. Article seems to be created by the same guy who invented it. Apparent OR, non-notable. Rory096 01:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know much about this model theory but I did a Google check here here and found only 31 references to Session Identifier Security. Many aren't linked to the Gardner topic, however. Article seems to be WP:OR since it is unreferenced; it may also have WP:N issues. Finally, this is the only article with the 'Category:Session Identifiers' tag. The fact that the Gardner Equation was created by an "amateur mathematician in the New York City area" strongly points to the WP:OR direction. Artene50 (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a new name for a very old, basic concept out of Information entropy where it assumes the probability of each letter/symbol is equal. Also see Password strength It appears to be unrelated to the existing "Gardner equation", related to Korteweg–de Vries equation. If someone can come up with a reliable source showing this is really a new, unique idea, I'll change my mind. Wrs1864 (talk) 03:15, 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. Singu larity 03:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Junior golf rankings[edit]

Non-notable list of junior golfers. Also violates WIKIPEDIA:NOR according to the creator's comment. TheMile (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is weak content. No source.--Freewayguy ^{T C} 01:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and fails WP:VER. Frank | talk 01:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:RS LegoTech·(t)·(c) 05:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A complete mess of an article, lacks the reliable sources which are essential for an article like this. No way of knowing if it's even remotely correct. ~ mazca ^talk 11:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Borderline gibberish - it's a list of names and statistics with virtually no context. Townlake (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list, not sourced. JIP | Talk 17:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:23, 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 as advertisement and salt for 3 months, should have been G11'd to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSites[edit]

No real assertion of notability (other than usage on a few random websites); no references to non-trivial coverage, etc. Google shows 137 hits, only the first page of which has anything at all relevant; none of which would be useful as a source of notability. IMO, the majority of the article reads as promo-esque material that reads like it's been paraphrased from the company website. (PROD removed by original article author.) Oli Filth^(talk) 01:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. This article sounds like a advertisement and needs clean-up. If this page is wikified, I can change my vote. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Zero Kitsune is right. This article really needs some work. I think, though, that the software in question is probably notable enough that a reasonable article can be developed. Tim Ross (talk) 10:53, 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. Singu larity 03:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bognar[edit]

Musician that asserts notability, but does not seem to meet the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. There is one non-trivial mention, at [50], but this is the only thing I can find through a quick google search -- searching for the title of his album results in only 7 ghits, the above article, 3 self-published pages, and 3 unrelated. Article as-is seems to be written like an ad. Delete. Kesac (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete One article does not satisfy WIKIPEDIA:MUSIC. TheMile (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per WP:CSD speedy deletion is only really appropriate for a musician that's either a blatant hoax or fails to assert notability, which is different from demonstrating it. I'd agree with the nominator that this is AfD rather than speedy material. ~ mazca ^talk 11:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it's written like a curriculum vitae. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing to demonstrate notability. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC and WP:N. ~ mazca ^talk 11:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as a clear vanity page for a musician who fails to demonstrate even minor notability. --Lenky (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:24, 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. Wizardman 19:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Poetry Review Book Prize[edit]

Notability - National Poetry Review Press may not be notable. Site's website [51]. Very few G-hits — ERcheck (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this may be the group's web site. I think there's some notability...waiting for more input on this one. Frank | talk 01:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: www.nationalpoetryreview.com and home.comcast.net/~jpdancingbear/TNPRPress1.html seem to be the same pages. — ERcheck (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title National Poetry Review has some longevity, but I don't think this is the same publication. The Writer's Market has a snippet suggesting publication began in 2001. Its only notability may be the writing contest. The editor is on the faculty of a California community college, which doesn't inspire confidence. Although everything about the journal appears legitimate, it just doesn't seem notable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable poetry contest (one of too many, actually). Ecoleetage (talk) 10:22, 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. Wizardman 19:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ninja RPG[edit]

Web-based role-playing game based on the anime Naruto. Can't find substantial coverage of this online game in reliable sources, so it doesn't appear meet the verifiability or notability guidelines. Was prodded by myself, but the prod tag was removed on the fifth day before it was deleted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search came up with no reliable sources. Hits that I found are mostly blogs, myspace, youtube and multiply sites.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable game. Fails the google check. --Deadly∀ssassin 09:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable, no reliable references, let alone secondary sources that support notability Randomran (talk) 05:25, 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. Waggers (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King Me[edit]

This is a non-notable mix tape with no references to support it. The AMG link in the infobox is not to this mixtape but instead to an album by a different artist. In fact, I don't believe it likely this artist would be notable. Prod removed without comment by an IP whose only edit was to remove the prod. Erechtheus (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC) In fact, I will also nominate the artist article and an article on a supposed future debut album with exactly one source and few easily verified details:[reply]

Erechtheus (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, fails WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:24, 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 no consensus. Arkyan 17:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1999 T. F. Green Airport runway incursion[edit]

I don't see how an individual case of a runway incursion is notable. If no one died, why is it on here? Wikipedia is not a directory of near-accidents. Tavix (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not seem notable in any way an incident of this type could be... didn't get a notable level of media coverage, didn't lead to any notable changes. --Rividian (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is more like a news.--Freewayguy ^{T C} 01:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This incursion had implications on the NTSB and their regulation of runway traffic long after the incursion. [52][53]. --Oakshade (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was just one of many such incidents prompting discussion of changes. The motivating factor is not this incident but an overall increase in air traffic. --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This incident has sparked interrest, and the fact that the NTSB has released a recreation I think makes it notable. --J-Star (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article blatantly fails WP:AIRCRASH. Qworty (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unless I'm missing something, I don't think it's possible to fail WP:AIRCRASH since no policies are listed there. If you go to WP:AIRPORT they have some suggested guidelines that are appropriate to this discussion. Townlake (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Proposed Guidelines are here [54]. They are quite sensible and should be used as a rule of thumb in this case and others. Clearly, this article isn't even close. Qworty (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User: Oakshade and User:J-Star. JIP | Talk 17:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not only is this article unsourced, but it doesn't even describe an event--it describes a non-event. It's actually an article about something that didn't happen. We're through the looking-glass here, folks. Wikipedia articles should be about things that have actually happened, not things that didn't happen. Qworty (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In aviation, a runway incursion is an event. Sometimes a very serious one. The article is actually very well sourced. --Oakshade (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And have a look at the list of examples in the link you provided. Do you seriously think this article describes anything as significant as the examples listed? I don't. Qworty (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody says it does. But that's a red herring argument. Many incursions are still notable as this one is. There are no WP:NOT-AS-BAD-AS or WP:MUST-BE-DEATHS clauses in our guidelines.--Oakshade (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article describes a major incursion event and is referenced by outside links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Driftwood87 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to T. F. Green Airport. This has a heading "Incidents", which points to the article we are discussing. The present article will need to be trimmed down to one paragraph for the purpose. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's too much topic-specific content in this article to be merged into T. F. Green Airport.--Oakshade (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to boil it down to one sentence: "Two planes came close to each other on Runway 5R on December 6, 1999." That's it. Period. In fact, this entire ridiculous article should be boiled down to that one sentence right now. And then deleted. Qworty (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinion is noted. For the rest of us, this is an encyclopedia where topics are preferably written in expansive detail as opposed to a one sentence summary or a definition. --Oakshade (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article announces its completely banal triviality in every line. But my favorite one is this: "The US Airways crew operating Flight 2998 were honored for their actions of avoiding a near-disaster." They didn't avoid a disaster, you see--all they avoided was a near-disaster! This is absurd. If they had avoided a disaster it would be one thing. But they avoided nothing more notable than a near disaster. And that's just one of the non-events that makes this article a total disaster. Qworty (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be hard for you to understand, but some "near disasters" are considered notable, like this one that garnered considerable NTSB scrutiny on runway safety. --Oakshade (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following Oakshade: some of the sources in the article note that this incursion had influence on regulatory bodies. Nyttend (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral At present there is no guideline to judge notability requirement of such articles. I think a guideline will be very much needed for this types of articles which document incidents, in this case aircrash. WP:N states the subject matter of the article should have received coverage in multiple reliable sources and the coverage should be significant coverage. The article has some sources, but since their is no fatalities in this incident, I am not sure if this article merits inclusion or not. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:34, 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 as a big mess which likely could have been speedied straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

District organisations of the Sports Club Dynamo[edit]

Indiscriminate list of non-notable units of the SV Dynamo sports association. Furthermore, no reliable neutral references for the claim that these sport clubs were part of the SV Dynamo. The article has been created by User:Captain Future, who is a sockpuppet of a user who has been blocked on the German and the English Wikipedia and is known for his POV pushing in relation to SV Dynamo articles and his attempts to glorify this sport club. Novidmarana (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not enough substance to justify a separate article. Merge the club section into the SV Dynamo article, but reverse the setup, where by the clubs are listed first and the sports each club offered under it, I think this will make it far more easy to read. And I don't think, the article needs that many references, I'm sure a handful that say it all could be found. EA210269 (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I copied some of the content from this article (and similar content from the German Wikipedia article to the main article SV Dynamo. I did not copy all the information, because a lot if turned out to be contradictory. For example, there is a SG Dynamo Adlershof, a SG Dynamo Berlin and a SG Dynamo Berlin-Adlershof, and it is not clear whether this is one sports club or two or three (Adlershof is a district of Berlin). Some of the disciplines are not defined, I have no idea what discipline Expedition or Fanfare-zug is (doesn't make sense in German either). The references are not very helpful either, as many sports clubs are not referenced at all. Novidmarana (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unmanageable mess, pet of blocked POV editor. This list was originally part of the SV article which was broken up by that editor in an attempt to protect it from editing to put that article into some sort of shape, so were looking at a circular problem here. Wiggy! (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 00:00, 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. Singu larity 03:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. M. Lee[edit]

Being an author of a few sci-fi novels does not establish notability. The article does not cite any reliable sources, and the external link is still under construction. Both this article and Final Waltz were created by IPs on October 25, 2005. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete— Notability not established. — ERcheck (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. This is a 2.5 year old article and this person is still not notable. The fact it lists this author as J.M. Lee and does not give a real first and middle name doesn't inspire confidence in his notability. Artene50 (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I'm having trouble finding evidence of the existence of any of this. It may be WP:HOAX, all or in part. Qworty (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to verify due to lack of sources; whether correct or not I cannot find any evidence of notability. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 02:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can't find anything. Can anyone find the company that published the books? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete; no sources, or evidence of the publishing company. Most likely a very well written hoax. Ironholds (talk) 23:55, 28 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 Possibly disruptive nomination by a n00b. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Sawyer[edit]

Unknown politician which fails WP:Notability. Seems too trivial to deserve an article Chappaone (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep WP:POLITICIAN is satisfied - this gentleman was mayor of one of America's largest cities for a year and a half. Townlake (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Townlake said it well. WP:POLITICIAN says "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Chicago is a city of 3,000,000, so its mayor, especially an African-American mayor in a city with a history of racial tension, is very unlikely to unknown or trivial. Lots of hits in google news -- this article just needs better sourcing, which is not an AfD issue.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Is this a joke? MrPrada (talk) 17:43, 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.