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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian smile[edit]

Brazilian smile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable method of murder without sources. PROD tag removed by IP without summary. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable neologism -- a casual joke in a cartoon show, really. --Lockley (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I thought this was a Colombian necktie. Ah well. Delete. X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Absolute giblets. - Btw, a Colombian necktie is where the throat is cut and the victims tongue is pulled out through the resulting hole, Xdenizen (I forgot to sign my !vote) - Thor Malmjursson (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Lockley LinguistAtLarge (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article offers no clue that anyone in Brazil has ever died because someone else tried to transform them into The Joker. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Blanchardb (talk · contribs). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 ^(t·c·r) 01:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Non-notable Hazel77 ^talk 22:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More neologism shenanigans. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deletion (WP:SNOW) -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betty baba[edit]

Betty baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"Betty baba" is the author of this article, not the subject. In fact, there is nothing at all in the article about Mrs. Baba. This article, entirely written in French, is the author's commentary about Chinua Achebe, an opinion piece about the society being described by Achebe. This is not Mrs. Baba's first attempt to use Wikipedia as a forum. A similar article from the same author, but on an entirely different subject, was deleted prematurely as a prod earlier this week. Delete and salt. (And, no, I do not feel like going into the trouble of translating this mess just to show what I'm talking about.)  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

• Le Style de Chinua Achebe : L’africanisation de l’anglais le pidgin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For discussion prior to this nomination, please see WP:PNT#Betty baba.

• Delete as original research. User has recreated the deleted material twice, and has not engaged in discussion or shown any interest in collaboration. Doesn't belong in Wikipedia (especially English Wikipedia). (EhJJ)^TALK 00:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, this is not recreation of the same material. Mrs. Baba is attempting to use this Wikipedia page as a space to voice her latest opinion, pretty much like a newspaper's op-ed page, but without archiving. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -Yupik (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, simply because it doesn't belong in the English Wikipedia. -LinguistAtLarge (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to French Wikipedia. If deleted there, then I say delete. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 ^(t·c·r) 01:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball delete, no transwiki. It's an unencyclopedic essay no matter what language it's written in. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is original research, pure and simple. The author is summarizing and analyzing a book. Maybe some of this material could be salvaged and put into other articles, in the form of sentences that have a proper reference to the source material. It's a lot of work. By the way, the bare fact that the article is in a foreign language is not grounds for deletion from the English Wikipedia. Our policy is to review foreign-language content for suitability, then (if appropriate) send it off for translation. It's a Borg attitude, not an ethnic cleansing attitude. --Cbdorsett (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: It seems the creator of this article has requested that it be deleted. See Talk:Trastec. --Cbdorsett (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete gross misuse of Wikipedia. Block user if she keeps it up. JuJube (talk) 10:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:OR. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR. This is a book review/personal essay. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per everyone. Isn't it snowing yet? Edward321 (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Betty baba as an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Delete Le Style de Chinua Achebe : L’africanisation de l’anglais le pidgin as a request for translation with no actual content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, delete and speedy close this AfD per WP:SNOW. No point in transwiki since fr wiki will speedy it. BalkanFever 07:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Cota, Jr.[edit]

Norman Cota, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I think we need to bring this here. WP:MEMORIAL firstly, and the issue of sourcing has been brought up at Talk:Norman Cota, Jr.. There are very dubious assertions of notability (undefined and unsourced "was associated with" ... "alledged (sic) that he was at times associated with" ..."it was said") and sourcing from Find A Grave that is not reliable (being user-contributed). If the background is true, it's extremely creditable (I've nothing against that) but these shaky and unproven appeals to association look very iffy, and there is a general problem with the reliability of material from the creator (see the WP:COIN archive). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Three times the big claim is that he is the son of Norman Cota, who is notable. Unfortunately, notability isn't genetic, or inherited. The lack of sources online doesn't bother me (lots of stuff this old suffers from the same issue), but even if you take the article as an accurate opinion (Original Research), it is still obvious how far they are stretching association to link him with notability. As a USAF vet, I have all the respect in the world for him and his accomplishments, but that doesn't mean he passes the criteria for inclusion. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. If someone can find some citeable sources to support a claim of notibility, the article could stay. LinguistAtLarge (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it is worth, a cursory look found exactly nothing (9 unrelated or Wiki hits). Not even blog stuff from old military guys or forum hits. Exactly zero ghits on google books, google scholar and google blogs as well. It might could exist in print only since it was such a long time ago, but web sources are completely non-existent. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No real claim of notability, and sources are trivial. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources. The father (Norman Cota Sr.) is notable. Norman Cota Jr who is the subject of this article does not appear notable by our standards for military men. In a response to a posting at WP:COIN, whose link is provided above by Gordon, the creator of this article, Aedwardmoch, admits that he is a relative of the subject. In a second report at COIN, some editors objected that Moch was creating articles based on personal knowledge rather than reliable sources. This article would appear to be an example of that. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The COI itself isn't so much the problem as its leading to original research and synthesis, which hasn't been remedied after what seems a reasonable time.

If anyone's interested in this area of military history, help would be useful at Norman Cota, who's definitely notable - but the article has been expanded with similarly dubious material credited to "Various Internet interviews, comments and opinions from Alfred "Ed Moch" Cota. (Alledged) Biological Grandson of Gen. Norman D. Cota". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Tavares[edit]

Jarrod Tavares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonsense vanity page, no notability. Should have been speedied since there isn't an assertion of notability (other than he posts on a message board!) 2005 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately this is not a ((db-bio)) because there is an assertion of notability. It's feeble and unconvincing, but it's there. Reyk _YO! 23:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree, insufficient evidence of notability. LinguistAtLarge (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball keep per presence of sources. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can of Worms (interchange)[edit]

Can of Worms (interchange) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only thing notable about the interchange is that it is so called "named" by the local community. Places of local intrest is not-notable (see WP:LOCAL for more info). Also, this interchange is not anymore notable than the millions of other interchanges. Tavix (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Strong Keep Not many people outside of the Piedmont Triad know about Death Valley interchange outside of North Carolina, but I get to drive it every day, lucky me. Same with the many named Malfunction Junction. And a bunch more. It needs tagging, but these types of names for interchanges is common and notable enough locally to justify inclusion. It has multiple sources from reliable sources, so it passes wp:n. I think you are reading WP:LOCAL with blinders on. All things are local, especially politics. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or, if an article exists under the official name of the interchange (if it has one), redirect to that. See Spaghetti Junction. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if we can find some reliable news sources referring to this interchange by this name.  LinguistAtLarge  01:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two such sources already exist in the article. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I'll stick with my "keep".  LinguistAtLarge  01:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep. Has an entire article in an industry journal written about it, not to mention the no-doubt-countless articles about it in the Democrat and Chronicle archives. This is exemplary of a notable interchange, however few there may be. Powers ^T 01:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the keep votes still don't tell me why this interchange is notable. So far I got two WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "there is a journal written about it". I have driven through many interchanges in my life, and I still don't see why this one is so special. Tavix (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't determine notability ourselves; driving through it tells you nothing about whether an encyclopedia article can be written. We must resort to what other people have written about it. In this case, that means a comprehensive article in an industry journal, a state DOT report, and a newspaper features -- and that's just what's in the article right now. I'm not saying it's an overwhelming amount of sources, but it's more than enough per our notability guidelines. If it was just the newspaper article and the state report, one could reasonably object, but the journal article clearly demonstrates that this is a topic of national interest, not just local. Powers ^T 01:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read my !vote again, where I clearly state It has multiple sources from reliable sources, so it passes wp:n.. Two solid refs already exist in the article, plus other weaker refs. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 11:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Um no? Your vote was an example that other things exist and an interpretation of places of local interest. People who live near this interchange obviously find it notable and so people around the area would see it in a different way than other people. I drive though interchanges too but are any of them on Wikipedia? No. And why should they? Its just a spot where a couple highways come together. Also keep in mind they they aren't supposed to be "votes" but a discussion to establish consensus. Tavix (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why Dennis used the construction "!vote"; it's an acknowledgment that majority does not rule and that there isn't a very good alternative term for the recommendations we make here. Powers ^T 14:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't use the other examples as a justification to keep, I used them to demonstrate to you that a consensus already exists that says unusual interchanges are notable if properly sourced. The reason to keep is that It has multiple sources from reliable sources, so it passes wp:n. Regardless of any other comments, that statement is true. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia of subjects that you consider to be "special". That way chaos and disaster lie. (Think about what would happen if 100,000 editors were all claiming that rule.) It is a compendium of human knowledge. If a subject has been documented in depth in multiple published works written by authors that are independent and that have reputations for fact checking and accuracy, then it satisfies the Primary Notability Criterion and can have an article. Please stop applying subjective criteria and start applying our notability criteria instead. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Do I look like I am trying to start chaos? No! If I wanted to do that, I'd be a vandal. This was a good faith nomination because I fail to see how there is notability. Here is me applying WP:N like you want me to do. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources..." Can someone explain to me how 2 references is "significant"? Tavix (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N specifically points out that "significant coverage" "means that sources address the subject directly in detail". It has nothing to do with the number of references. What's important is that the sources have been written about the topic, not simply mentioning this interchange in passing. Powers ^T 14:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability established the usual way. I see no compelling reason to override our usual standards in this case. WilyD 12:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Relevant coverage in both professional journal and local press. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep went to school near there for four years, hate the intersection, but the coverage in reliable sources meet notability. WP:LOCAL mainly addresses issues where it's locally notable without coverage. This has coverage. StarM 14:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage in non-trivial sources establishes notability. 23skidoo (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 article does not demonstrate the notability of its subject, which was not independently determined here, and is in addition a copyright infringement. Any new article on the subject will need to be written in original text (unless sources are released into public domain or licensed compatibly) and verify the notability of the subject with independent, reliable sources. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Youth Choirs[edit]

Kent Youth Choirs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lack of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crookesmoor (talk • contribs) 22:06, 2 November 2008

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article has been tagged by copyright violation and is being evaluated. Looking at the source provided, it is blatant copy-paste and would most likely to be fairly handed under copyright problems. In light of this, is it possible to stop this AfD while the article is evaluated in terms of copyright? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 01:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article can be deleted on the ground of lack on notability, a time-consuming copyvio investigation would be pointless. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 22:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No third-party sources, and a Google search returns nothing of substance. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Death of Henry Byrne (Garda Síochána officer). Consensus among those engaging in continued discussion here is that the articles about the two victims should be merged to one article about the bank robbery, the title of which can be established through the editorial process.  Sandstein  18:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Morley (Garda Síochána officer)[edit]

John Morley (Garda Síochána officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails the notability criteria for WP:BIO. Tragically, numerous people are killed everyday, and it is far too commonplace an occurrence. Simply being killed during an armed robbery is not an assertion of notability for a biography. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - After the discovery of the Death of Henry Byrne (Garda Síochána officer) article about the same event, and the addition of references by T*85 to the John Morley article, it has been suggested these two articles be merged to focus on the event. I support a Merge. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is useful in the overal context of The Troubles. The article asserts notability because murder by firearm is less common in Ireland than in the United States, and because John Morley was either the fifth or sixth member of the Garda Síochána to be killed in The Troubles. The article could be moved to Death of John Morley (Garda Síochána officer), but that might be an awkward name for an article. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apparently 3523 deaths are listed for that 30 year period -- 1667 of them were people in some "official" capacity and another 1857 civilians. There are also listed 22,500 armed robberies and 37,000 shootings for The Troubles#Casualties: brief summary. That certainly doesn't support the assertion that this one was so incredibly uncommon. Any of the notable incidents are (and can be ) in the The Troubles article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 23:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notability established the usual way. I see no pressing cause for an exception to the rule in this case. WilyD 12:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge into list. Not particularly notable of its own accord unless further evidence can be found to contradict this. Not being one for throwing away information, I would be inclined to include it in some list somewhere else. But really I cannot see how this particular case has any significant relevance to the overall situation. --➨Candlewicke  ^{:) Sign/Talk} 20:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merge this article and Death of Henry Byrne (Garda Síochána officer) into an article about the bank robbery - most of the victims of the troubles were in Northern Ireland. It is a big event if a police officer is killed in the Republic even during the troubles. I tried to improve it.--T*85 (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing for the notability of the one event, however this is a biography which fails WP:BIO precisely because it is about only the one event. (see WP:BIO1E) I have just found another article, Death of Henry Byrne (Garda Síochána officer), about the exact same subject. This article apparently went through an Afd for the same reason and survived by being renamed. I would suggest as a solution that these two articles be merged and renamed to so that notability rests on the event rather than the individual bios. Does this sound reasonable? — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable --T*85 (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) to think of a reasonable name for the article. I think Deaths of Garda Officers (1980) with the appropriate redirects might work best for readers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the introduction to focus on the event, and have incorporated the two officers' personal info into the body of the text. By the way, thanks for finding and adding the news references. That made a huge difference. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lolene[edit]

Lolene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom. Previously speedied under LOLENE and re-created in a substantially identical form. Sending to AfD in order to be able to use G4 in future (or, of course, to keep if notability can be asserted). Black Kite 22:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Vacuous vanity blather, no real notability asserted, none apparent, no reliable sources.  Sandstein  22:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly Count Blofeld 23:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete - i did some research but evne my best searching could not descover anything more relevent than this or this. While i strongly believed that this person MAY bwcome notable in the future, she si not notable as of yet and this article should be deleted as poer WP:RS, WP:N, and especially [WP:SNOW]] Smith Jones (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If I remember correctly, I'm the one who tagged this for speedy the first time around. The issue of notability has still not been addressed in this latest incarnation. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't appear to be notable, and a Google search turns up very little. AniMate 05:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, simply not notable. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete A7, the article says a lot, but when you strip away the marketing copy and peacock terms, she's basically been a backing singer on a mildly successful single, done a bit of songwriting, been in a couple of small-time bands that went nowhere, and is currently writing her first album. There's nothing there to suggest notability, and lets be honest here, barring a divine revelation, this article is simply not going to be kept anyway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per A7. so tagged. Clearly non-notable and underneath all the fluff no assertion of importance or significance. ukexpat (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is an actual sort-of-notable "Miss Foo Foo", but she is a jeweller that donates part of her proceedings to african charities [1][2] --Enric Naval (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not yet notable. Speedy tag removed as part of the reason for the AFD is to allow speedy deletion of recreations (you cannot speedy a recreation under the repost criteria unless it's had a proper AFD). Exxolon (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if it were referenced from reliable sources (which it's not) it would still fail WP:MUSIC (unless the refs were from substantial media coverage). Since no refs, fails WP:V as well. WP:SNOW, anybody? —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G4 & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow Yamato X series. Rodhullandemu 00:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Yamato X[edit]

Shadow Yamato X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was originally tagged as nonsensical but declined by me. Original tagger has now come to my talk page with a reasonable request and information that this article is in fact a hoax - see here. As I am not an expert in this area I have placed the article at AfD. --VS ^talk 22:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As stated in the linked discussion, its an obvious hoax page. The supposed game, anime and manga all have a release date of "2010", despite claiming there are twenty movies an internet search provides nothing, and all of the external links lead to pages that do not exist. In addition, the actual text of the article is a random jumble of nonsene, grabbing names from various other things, such as Mega Man or Godzilla. Also note that all of the actual user edits have been done by the creator of the page, who randomly changes the text constantly to completely different nonsense.Rorshacma (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pure hoax, unencyclopedic, nonsense. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (A7) — amongst other horrendous problems with the article such as crystalballery, there is nothing, after doing a quick Google search, that indicates why this may be remarkable in the slightest (see [3], where this is listed along with Untitled Square Enix Next-Gen MMORPG and Untitled NCSOFT MMORPG). Maybe in the future, but certainly not now. MuZemike (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Official Site" . I rest my case.--Koji† 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link is dead. MuZemike (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...That's the point.--Koji† 00:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No references, could not find any news worthy source. No such game exist--SkyWalker (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Evil delete dark clone man - hoax or not, this must win some kind of award for the largest amount of WP:GAMECRUFT assembled in one place. Marasmusine (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with the Boss Special Attack (18 billion damage), after I'm resuscitated from the heart attack inflicted by the sheer cruftiness of this sizable article. I'd also like to point out that the ranks table is pretty obviously adapted from the ninja ranking system in Naruto, as if there wasn't enough evidence for this being a complete hoax. —Dinoguy1000 18:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth noting that it was created & maintained by User:Mvdgo (which redirects you to Shadow Yamato X, surprise suprise).--Koji† 18:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax, maybe even speadiable as recreation of deleted contact. See previous deletion discussion. IP editor has already removed the AFD notice once.

• Comment The same IP editor has removed the AFD notice for a second time from the article. --Farix (Talk) 00:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per Author Request, below. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forex Patterns and Forecast Methods Used Today For Successful Forex Trading! Part 1[edit]

Forex Patterns and Forecast Methods Used Today For Successful Forex Trading! Part 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This "article"/blog breaks a great many items on WP:IS NOT - including original research, and the fact that it is a how-to guide. -t BMW c- 22:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I understand and if it does not meet your standards then delete it I feel that it has good information to provide to its reader and will publish it eslewhere thanks for allowing me to comment at least. Orlando —Preceding unsigned comment added by Othompso (talk • contribs) 03:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, with the blessing of the original author (see above). --Lockley (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ChalkZone after Delete. No need to relist. Black Kite 14:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craniac[edit]

Craniac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable set of creatures. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. No sources are given at all. Same with citations. This is completely written to the universe of ChalkZone. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then Redirect to ChalkZone. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this article provides no evidence of notability for its subject matter, the content of the article is all plot summary, and its source is clearly original research. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ChalkZone. Black Kite 14:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Tabootie[edit]

Rudy Tabootie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely fails WP:N and WP:RS. There are no sources or citations. This article is completely non notable outside of the ChalkZone universe. No claims of notability. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No out-of-universe notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Chalkzone. —Ceran (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 14:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horace T. Wilter[edit]

Horace T. Wilter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Completely non notable. No sources at all. No citations given. No evidence of notability. Not important outside of ChalkZone. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. RayAYang (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete & redirect. Black Kite 14:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Bullnerd[edit]

Reggie Bullnerd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely fails WP:N and WP:RS. It is completely non notable outside of the world of ChalkZone. There are no sources or citations to confirm any notability at all. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to ChalkZone. Jonny2x4 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 14:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Sanchez[edit]

Penny Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Nothing is mentioned about this character outside of the world of ChalkZone. There are no sources at all nor relevant citations either. That being said, it cannot qualify for an article. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not assert notability through real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to ChalkZone. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kapa Research[edit]

Kapa Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced spamvertisement that someone removed the prod tag off of without a rationale. Likely a speedy candidate via db-spam / G11. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as spam as per nomination. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No brainer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielRigal (talk • contribs)
• Delete, I agree with Dennis Brown.  LinguistAtLarge  01:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 14:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watson-Marlow Pumps[edit]

Watson-Marlow Pumps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company, precious little news coverage, article started by company employee, no reliable sources on the page, and no significant sources available to support claims made there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The existing references, together with one I added a moment ago, are enough to demonstrate notability. Even a pump manufacturer can be notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm surprised by this. Per WP:CORP, the press release (currently ref #4) doesn't count. #3 is a local (Falmouth) newspaper article about the prince visiting Falmouth; relatively little about the company there. The other two are trade publications, and just above the article text we read that the articles were edited by the editorial team -- which suggests that the origin of these "stories" is press releases by the company itself. That's certainly how they read. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the prince's visit in itself indicates notability. I included the press release (currently ref #4) because it wasn't from the company. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteKeep (see below). The references for notability relate to an expansion programme which appears to have been heavily promoted: we have a press release (not independent, so does not count under WP:CORP) plus the Falmouth Packet - a local (not regional) paper, also failing the secondary source requirement of WP:CORP. WP:CORP also tells us to consider the depth of coverage - none of the articles says anything about the company per se, just that it was expanding and visited by a royal. We have no evidence that the company is eminent in its field, innovative, or has achieved anything particularly special. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notability established the usual way. I see no reason to discount the usual standards here. Just because it's about a commercial organisation doesn't mean it's spam - assuming such blindly is a disservice to our readers. WilyD 12:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Here is evidence that the company is eminent in its field - it's the world's largest manufacturer of peristaltic pumps. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But size isn't everything. Again, referring to the criteria, A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources.... 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. Where is this significant coverage? Also Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. - are there any such effects? From the info provided, I say no. If the company has developed products that have changed the industry (and we have secondary sources to attest to it) then notability is established. TrulyBlue (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please don't move the goalposts. You complained that there is "no evidence that the company is eminent in its field, innovative, or has achieved anything particularly special". I have provided such evidence. In response to "if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability", are these 650 books "multiple" enough for you? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there's a difference between size and eminence. Having said that, your book hits certainly suggest to me that these pumps are widely used in their various applications. They are not about Watson-Marlow itself, though, but I found that they won an award in 2005 and they are nominated for an innovation award this year. Overall, I would say that the evidence suggests that the company is notable, and and changing my vote. TrulyBlue (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek (1979 pinball)[edit]

Star Trek (1979 pinball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Has been a stub for over a year now, I don't see how it could ever be more than a stub. More importantly I see no reason why this topic is notable enough for an article. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We don't delete articles just for being stubs. Sam ^Blab 19:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom also indicates lack of notability, which is a valid reason for deletion, so WP:SK does not apply. MuZemike (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies. Sam ^Blab 00:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see 10k hits for "star trek pinball", so sources exist. Being a stub isn't a reason to delete. See WP:NOEFFORT. Besides, we have no WP:DEADLINE. Your other argument "I don't see how" kind of answer itself, as the problem is a lack of imagination. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing me to WP:NOEFFORT, but I'd like to remind you of WP:GOOGLEHITS. So we still don't know about this subject's notability. Maybe it is notable, and that's fine, at least you took the time to actually read my reason for proposed deletion. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that ghits are never a reason to keep. I meant to use this only as it DOES say that there is plenty of chatter about the subject matter and the possibility of sources is very real. Did you try to source the article before you went to AFD? Some people don't, but many of us think it is required by good faith. From my experience, when a topic gets a few thousand or more ghits, it usually will have a source or two. It is better to find that source and put it in the article (some say it is an editors duty). If not, then hey, you have not just claimed it isn't notable, you can say "i found 3000 ghits but none that pass WP:RS" which only strenthens your argument, and makes good faith liking people really, really happy. Then if you are wrong, well, it happens, but at least you made a good faith effort and are using AFD as it should be, a last resort. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand.  LinguistAtLarge  01:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For the record, Sam has no reason to apologise - the rationale that the article will never expand beyond stub status is not a valid point to raise when arguing for deletion -- and, in any event, it is clearly an opinion. Dennis Brown's points are valid, so there is no sense in my repeating them -- I will just give him credit for getting here first and stating it so succinctly. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • This looks like a Snowball Keep, but you guys should work on not being smugly insulting to people who are new around here. I didn't realize that having no content (except the fact that it existed) was not a valid reason for deletion. I was unaware of that rule, and disagree with it strongly but I'm not in charge around here. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only insults in regards to this discussion have come form you. SashaNein (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's no deadline on improving stubs. Machine was created by Bally and was the first Star Trek pinball machine. SashaNein (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If the production number for the machine is correct that alone would guarantee its notability, not that many pinball machines topped 15k units, being based on the Star Trek property and being made by one of the biggest names in pinball doesn't hurt either. Sure the article needs work (a picture would help out a lot) but being unfinished is no reason to delete it. The Tower of Pisa took 177 years to finish and had three difference stages of construction, what a loss that would have been if someone said "this is taking to long, tear it down." Lando242 (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Land Before Time songs[edit]

List of The Land Before Time songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable list of songs from the various Land Before Time movies and television series. Primarily just a mixed list of titles with OR descriptions of the purposes and meanings behind the songs and personal reviews/opinions about the pieces. This is not a legitimate soundtrack list, but a repeat of the various lists of songs already existant in most of the individual articles. Completely unimproved since July AfD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research, unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced, unverifiable fan speculation that can never be a decent article. I am still shaking my head at the "rationale" for keeping at the last AfD: "the article can be improved" (no, it can't), And "it doesn't require reliable sources" (Rubbish!) Reyk _YO! 23:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an article that repeats track listings and makes original thematic assessments for each song. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Its not even a proper encyclopedic article, just a fan's opinion on various songs from the movie series trying to pass itself as objective. Jonny2x4 (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 need to relist this, Black Kite 14:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe and Mildred Tabootie[edit]

Joe and Mildred Tabootie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely fails WP:N and WP:RS. No sources at all, no citations either. Not stub worthy. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep There's certainly no consensus to delete and any merge proposal is best discussed on the article talk page. (NAC) RMHED (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters[edit]

List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Excessive list of characters from a single film. Unnecessary to have a standalone list, which simply repeats the film plot with extraneous details and adds WP:OR. Notable characters already have their own articles and easily be linked to from the main article's plot and/or character section. List fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and is not in line with the Film MOS, which does not even recommend a character section for films. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The standard way of dealing with less notable characters is to merge them into a list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, for serials like television series, film series, novel series, etc. But a single film? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, actually. Most Disney films (for example) not only have list pages, but often individual articles for the characters. - jc37 05:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, considering the outright hideous state of most Disney films, they aren't really the best example to point to. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Afd is not cleanup... - jc37 05:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously, which is why those Disney film articles are not here. That does not, however, mean one can not note that pointing to BAD examples does not somehow make this list okay (i.e. no claims of WP:ITEXISTS). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I was actually referring to this nom. - jc37 08:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Much of the content is in-universe plot summary. McWomble (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 22:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, the only reason I created the list was because it used to be separate articles for each character. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the film 70.55.86.100 (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the film article, as this information is notable and relates to a notable, groundbreaking film ... but mainly because the person who created this article in the first place (and who did so to reduce individual character articles) supports merge. 23skidoo (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Discuss the merge at the poroper place, which is not here. personally, i don't hink it makes any difference as long as material is not lostDGG (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: My understanding is "Merge" is considered one of the options on AFD, therefore this is the appropriate place to discuss it as a legitimate alternative to deletion; now that an AFD is underway it's too late to discuss it at the article level. 23skidoo (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's never "too late" to discuss "at the article level". - jc37 17:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:LIST. This is simply a character list. And merging to Who Framed Roger Rabbit will merely have the list re-split due to WP:SIZE and WP:SS. - jc37 05:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  How so? Considering that films, in general, should not even HAVE character lists, this list never should have existed. If remerged back to the film, it will be reduced greatly, if not eventually removed all together as not being an appropriate part of a well-formed film article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Shouldn't have character lists? Why not? I would think a list of characters in a film or novel (or whatever other fictional presentation), would indeed be an aid to readers, regardless of where the list resides. That is the goal after all, to aid readers. Not to conform to IDONTWANTIT or WP:CRUFT. - jc37 05:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:MOSFILM. Note there is no character section at all. A film (and a singular novel for that matter) is short enough that the pertinent information about characters should be covered in the plot section. It is not the same as serial work, like a television series or a series of novels, where character information needs to be summarized from multiple episodes/volumes/etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with your position is that films (and their characters), just like any work of fiction, vary in the public psyche. (And therefore vary in relevance, which directly leads us to WP:N.) And especially in the case of Disney characters.

  And this is particularly relevant when one considers that this film is nearly entirely referential to such pop culture phenomenon, to even include characters which are not owned by Disney/Touchstone.

  Note also that these characters have appearances outside the initial film, including appearances on television shows. (I also wonder if you're ignoring the film shorts as irrelevant, and not considering them a part of the "franchise"?) - jc37 08:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable and verifiable. Necessary.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup per jc37. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Who Framed Roger Rabbit main article and drastically cut the text down to a level appropriate for an encyclopedia entry in the process. As it is, there is too much plot summary embedded in the character list article. Making appropriate cuts will also prevent it from being split out again. Keeping this as a stand-alone article could be seen as setting a precedent for every film article to have a separate "list of characters" article which is unnecessary for encyclopedia coverage. Amazinglarry (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one the basis of the argument which happens to be exemplified in the above comment, an argument that represents what i fear the most about thee nominations: the explicit attempt to remove content. When I commented above that i didn't care whether it was a separate article or not, it was on the basis that it didn't matter where the content was to be kept. But apparently at least some of those wanting to merge do indeed see it as a way of removing the content, not keeping it, and are indeed using merge with the actual meaning of delete. This is content which is perfectly appropriate for a such a landmark film, content sourceable to the primary source for the material and therefore encyclopedic. This is just what should be included in substantial detail in the Wikipedia coverage of important fiction. DGG (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep It's heavy on in-universe perspective, but if we could improve sourcing and trim the bloat it could be half-decent. Fletcher (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alexnia (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looks like you closed discussion four hours ago. Stand by your decision, and don't second-guess yourself. Mandsford (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • look at my talk page and the talkpage of this afd; the nominator didn't like my Nac Keep Alexnia (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexnia's non-admin closure (as "keep") was discussed on xyr talk page (q.v.). I've completed xyr re-opening. Uncle G (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sttrong Keep This seems like the sensible way to deal with characters. It's a lot better than having an article on each one. And there's too much information to incorporate in the main article. I hope the main article links to this list though! ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is there too much information (if all the plot regurgitation is removed)? Most of it isn't even sourced, but thinks like character creation belongs in the main article's production section anyway. Nor is the content of the list appropriate for a film article, making it a bad split. Even its creator has now said it should be merged. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You hit on my problem with trying to merge when you said, "Nor is the content of the list appropriate for a film article". This is an article on the characters not the film. If people have an interest in that subject, and it appears they do, I've concluded it makes the encyclopedia better and more complete to include this information. It's peer reviewed (like all articles here), so hopefully bad information will be culled, even though references are a problem. I think many of us have a traditional view of what information is appropriate to an encyclopedia. But who is to say that pop-culture characters are less encyclopedic than arcane political figures, math topics, or scientific obscurities? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Who Framed Roger Rabbit and eliminate "in-universe" description of characters per WP:MOSFILM. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to film. There is some content here that probably should be kept (and I'd really like to see the list of licensed toons keep around but needs to be sources, since that is a relevant aspect of the film). Most of the character bios duplicate information in the movie, and if these were rewritten as most good/features film articles (2 to 5/6 sentenses about each), it would fit nicely into the film article. Some information will be lost (for example, the entire Doom Patrol character list is rather weighty given how bit a part they play) but all these characters can still be listed in the article. --MASEM 19:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The list is not notable, it's characters from a single film, there is no real world information here that couldn't (most likely already is) be on the film page. The reason this page is in existence is to hold unnecessarily detailed plot descriptions, original research about the characters. This is not the reason acceptance of character lists was given. Character lists are necessary when you have a series of films, not a single film where all key characters can be mentioned on that page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong merge - we've been rather strong in the past (and AfD tends to confirm this) about merging characters who only appear signficantly in a single work back into the article on the work itself. As for the content itself - there's nothing of real-world relevance that should not appear on the film's article, while the in-universe material should be adequately summed up within the film's plot section. All other in-universe information is essentially trivia from the real-world perspective, and should not be content-forked in order to provide justification for inclusion within a separate characters page or pages. There's no logical argument for character information consolidation on a character page unless the information runs across multiple works - otherwise, the consolidation belongs with the film article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 14:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perry the Platypus[edit]

Perry the Platypus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

All of the other characters were redirected. I don't see much of a point in redirecting this, and if I did it would probably get remade anyway. No sources could possibly exist for this character. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated the following similar articles for deletion for the exact same reasons stated above:

Ferb Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Merge and Salt: There was a discussion at Talk:Phineas_and_Ferb#Merger_proposal that was open for over three months that I closed as merge since the keep arguments did not address the notability concerns I brought up. These are the other characters that I feel should be salted (since they currently redirect): Phineas Flynn, Candace Flynn, Isabella Garcia-Shapiro, Major Monogram, Linda Flynn, Jeremy Johnson, Lawrence Fletcher and Vanessa Doofenshmirtz. Aspects (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt per WP:FICT.--Boffob (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. (I don't know what salt means). It is certainly possible for a fictional character to obtain third-party notability (Professor James Moriarty from the Sherlock Holmes books comes to mind) but until (if) this happens, and there is solid evidence for it, all characters should be merged into the article about the main show. LouScheffer (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salting is where they change the protection on the deleted page so only an administrator can create the article. You or I could not. I think it goes back to Roman war methods of sowing salt into the arable soil of their defeated enemies, so nothing would ever grow there again. It should only be done as a last resort when users keep recreating the same article. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Create new article I recommend creating a "Phineas and Ferb characters" article. This information is obviously notable and worthwhile to people who are creating and writing these articles (citing and stopping original research is a separate issue). There's way too much to include in the article about the show, so all the merge recommendations are kind of worthless. Also, the format of encyclopedic character summaries is different from that of an article about a show. It seems to me this is a problem faced again and again and the way to go is to standardize the creation of "characters" articles. I don't like the words "list of" but I think "Star Wars characters" is encyclopedic enough. Once that article is created all these articles can be redirected and the information can be sensibly centralized. The only exception would be a character notable apart from the show or so large and significant it would need its own article. That's my two cents. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I investigated further and I concluded these articles are too substantial even to merge into a single article, although I think "characters" articles make sense. These characters are notable as being part of popular television shows, and the fight to eliminate them and to integrate the massive articles and interest they have into parent articles seems futile. I don't know how to deal with the sourcing and references problem, but I don't see the harm in having articles on these characters. In fact, I think it makes the encyclopedia more complete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Notability is not inherent. Just because a show is notable, does not mean the individual charters are notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Aspects (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, or redirect if you must. I am not a fan of having an article for every marginal fictional character, but this article has some decent external links and reasonably good content. It also has tremendous problems with OR and a lack of sources, so trim it back and tag it. Character does have their own IMDB page, which isn't RS, but indicates a potential. At worse, redirect. I have to disagree with Hammer on deleting instead of merging out of fear it will be recreated. I also think that salting is more than a little drastic. It was deleted once under A1 for a lack of content. Salting an article under the current circumstances is showing a lack of good faith, and shows poor reasoning. If we deleted every article that had some OR and had only primary sources, we delete half the encyclopedia. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I still see no reason to keep this or the other characters, especially when the show's titular characters have already been merged. Platypi are full of win in any context, but I don't see any out of universe sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I know the nom is in good faith, but in my old age, I am beginning to question why we are so quick to delete stuff that isn't obviously bad (spam/false bio/vandal). We aren't paper, and I am not so sure that deleting articles that are somewhat informative but borderline on policy is the way to go. I am starting to see that in the past I worried too much about the "letter of the policy" instead of the intent, and now my focus starts at "Will this make Wikipedia better or worse?", which I think should trump every policy and guideline. Oh wait it does!. I understand if someone disagrees. My big frustration was the two demands to "salt", which is completely out of line. In this case, Wikipedia isn't better without it, so maybe we are reading the policy too strictly. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "...but this article has some decent external links and reasonably good content." Perry the Platypus has six external links, one to a IMDB character page, two to online games, one to a video of the show's opening and two to drawings of the character. Ferb Fletcher has an external link to the Disney Channel's show page. Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz has no external links. These are not good external links that show notability of the characters. Aspects (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep either as separate articles or equally extensive sections, and create new articles or article sections of similar length for the other main characters. The argument above has it backwards--the even more important articles on the even more important characters should certainly have been kept, and the sooner we correct earlier errors the better; fortunately, we're not bound by precedent--that argument implies that if we delete one article in a group we should delete all the others, the arch-deletors never seem to understand the same argument also works in the opposite direction. As used, its another way of biasing all afds towards deletion. It doesnt doesn't matter whether in main articles of in section: The important point is to keep the content. The clear intent of merging in this case as in many others is to remove content, as can be seen from the inadequate sections in the merged article.
  
  The sort of detailed coverage in this section is exactly what is appropriate to a moderately important character such as this is moderately important fiction: an episode by episode analysis. As for plot, this is the level at which plot of such fictions ought to be covered--and it is usually clearer to do it right here, at the character level, as well as the episode level, they complement each other. As for duplication, we are NOT PAPER, and can duplicate as convenient for the reader; as for referencing if the sourcing is down to the episode level, implicit in the text as it is here, it meets the requirements., As for OR, the sort of description here is pretty obvious and is nto forbidden synthesis; as external critical work accumulates, it can be extended--I disagree with Dennis that we should ignore the need to avoid OR in general. (abridged,continued at [4]) DGG (talk)

• Tl;dr. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

abridged to the immediately relevant--give it another try. The fewer nominated, the less there will be need be to explain :) DGG (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I see your point, but seriously, do you think there will ever be any out-of-universe sources for these characters? I highly doubt it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG's persuasive soliloquy. Ford MF (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In my opinion, nothing in the Keep arguments have addressed the notability of the characters that is needed to have a Wikipedia article. These articles need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Since I started the merge discussion in July on the Phineas and Ferb article and tagged all of the character articles, only Candace Flynn added a reliable secondary source to prove Ashley Tisdale voices the character. This either shows that no one is willing to find the sources to provide notability or there are no sources to provide notability. Aspects (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted. Copyright violation. Presently, no prejudice to recreation under a free licence. WilyD 20:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GeneNetWeaver[edit]

GeneNetWeaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mostly instructions for open source program. No sources or establishment of notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as copyright violation of ^[1]. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyvio Copied from website http://lis.epfl.ch/research/projects/EvolutionOfAnalogNetworks/ReverseEngineeringGeneRegulatoryNetworks/DREAMChallenges.php ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Copyvio. Sam ^Blab 19:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Castle (company)[edit]

Castle (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP, no notability Oscarthecat (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added two references. See here for a list of reviews. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Of the added references, one is basically a press release and the other mentions Castle among several other companies. Still fails WP:CORP. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks okay to me. Seems encyclopedic and doesn't contain any ad copy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notability established the usual way. Merely being about a company does not make it spam. WilyD 20:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A Keep of course from the article's creator. Here and here are some test reports for castle loudspeaker's, is this sufficient? (Eastmain's list is also ok, I guess, although it's from the company's site itself.) I created the article to avoid the external link in this article, no advertising was intended. --Cyfal (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand but keep. Notability lies in the quality of the products and the long company history. --Say Headcheese!--hexaChord² 15:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keating Economics[edit]

Keating Economics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP is not news. The article says this was a "documentary" but it sounds more like a 13 minute campaign ad. It will probably have no lasting importance. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insignificant apart from the presidential campaign, therefore does not need its own article. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete This is article is a bad attempt at POV pushing full of misleading statements and misrepresentations. The article is about a youtube video and the statements I looked into regarding what's in the references are misrepresentations. Disturbing, and it's creators should probably be blocked. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I have removed the offending content. Now the problem is the title, which doesn't represent the article content (as well as being confusing and misleading). This conent probably belongs in the Presidential Campaign 2008. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Attack page/campaign propaganda of minimal effect on the campaign. The Keating thing was raised, and dropped. I oppose a merge b/c that would leave a redirect, although useful content could certainly be incorporated. RayAYang (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a peripheral part of the campaign, fails WP:N, we can delete especially now that it's over. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Turned out to be of minimal importance in campaign, no importance afterward. The Keating Five article already includes a brief mention of it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oak cottage[edit]

Oak cottage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unclear notability, lack of sources. Oscarthecat (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, appears to be a WP:COPYVIO of http://newjerseyhistorichomesforsale.com/OakCottageHistory.html. --Oscarthecat (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thiny veiled attempt at house-sale promotion perhaps. --Oscarthecat (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite The article is sourced but seems to be copied directly from the source. The cottage itself, dating back over 150 years seems to be notable as an historic landmark. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It was clumsily posted in relation to a real estate ad. But the property is historic. I removed the copyviolation (ie. 95% of the text). There is a lot more information on the property in the reference provided (a real estate ad detailing the property and its history) if anyone wants to expand the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The building is on the National Register of Historic Places, there is a WikiProject dealing with this subject (WP:NRHP) whose aim is to improve coverage of NRHP buildings. Thus it would seem to be notable enough to retain. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a contributing property to Schooley's Mountain Historic District, but we don't have an article about the district. The real estate agent is more than willing to tell us everything about Oak Cottage, though. (For example, it has a 6 bedroom septic system.) It sure would be nice if we could know something about the rest of the historic district, or something about the people who built this place, or at least something that discusses more than the super curb appeal of this building. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 06:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it you're not making an offer? This one pencils at 885,000. Bed and Breakfast potential! ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable as on the NRHP, although the article could definitely be cleaned up and improved. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable as NRHP listing. As far as other sources, there certainly exists a nomination form for the Schooley Mountain Historic District NRHP listing. It could be requested from the proper NJ state agency, and would certainly address the reasons for notability and info about the rest of the district. My understanding is that the availability of the nomination forms as a source is one of the reasons NRHP listings are automatically notable for Wikipedia purposes. Like Elkman, my ultimate preference would be an article for the historic district, but a contributing property is certainly notable. Lvklock (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The property is notable as a contributing property to a National Historic District.--Pubdog (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a contributor (i.e. that makes it an integral part) to an NRHP historic district, that makes it notable. Einbierbitte (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others above. NRHP demonstrates its notability. The copyright violation was a matter of simply re-writing, not deleting the entire article. --Oakshade (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Ground[edit]

Kate Ground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable under WP:PORNBIO. Being #18 out of 2007 Special Edition Model of the Year is not a notable achievement/award (follow first reference). Article was AFD'd twice before but I could not find the second discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete May even qualify for speedy as spam since the article seems to be solely promoting the website for this non notable model. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources, and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No signs of notability. Tatarian (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 need to re-list this. Black Kite 14:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snap (ChalkZone)[edit]

Snap (ChalkZone) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was nominated in February, but the result was never really taken care of. First off, this fails WP:N and WP:RS. There are NO sources or any references at all. That being said, this article is full of original research. It is not notable outside of the ChalkZone universe at all. It is not the subject of multiple third party sources. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not even worth merging. No out of universe info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ridiculously useless as an article. No citations, no notability whatsoever, and if anything, needs part of the article to be merged in the original show page. Also, nominate all the articles of characters of that show for deletion as they are ridiculously useless. Cyanidethistles {Tim C} 18:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It isn't worth keeping as a redirect to ChalkZone. Jonny2x4 (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Face the Music (Electric Light Orchestra album). consensus determined there was not enough info for a separate article. Mgm|^(talk) 19:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Down Home Town[edit]

Down Home Town (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Why should individual songs have articles? Albums and singles, but not tracks. --Cocomonkilla ^{(talk) (contrib)} 16:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While some songs deserve individual articles, nothing about this particular song qualifies it for an article under WP:MUSIC. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the album, Face the Music. There appear to be quite a few similar articles on various ELO songs (see The Quick and the Daft and Eldorado Overture, for instance). Most of the descriptions are short enough that they could go in the album articles. I think the real question is, is ELO such a notable band that we want articles on ALL their songs? I like them a lot, but I think the answer is "no". Brianyoumans (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No content demonstrating how the song passes the notibility inclusion guidelines, as well as a lack of sources, thereby failing the verifiability policy. Redirect to the article on the album as a plausible search term. Merge (if and only if) any reliably sourced content about the song appears in this article between now and the end of the discussion. -- saberwyn 23:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Face The Music as a plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 04:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recession-proof industries[edit]

Recession-proof industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is an essay on the subject, not a cited article that asserts the notability of the obviously interesting but non notable topic. Lack of citations lead to a total lack of authority, and lack of authority devalues Wikipedia. That recession is a buzzword at present is undeniable, but this article is not a useful reference point Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as possibly Original research, and an essay, not an encyclopedia entry. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete immediately as grossly misleading the reader. It all depends on the starting state of economy, the depth of recession, and the government's priorities - who gets help and who does not. Retail (especially small-scale groceries) folds first, insurance goes down with the banks, taking medical services with it... no one is insured against it. And don't even try selling ACs next summer... NVO (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete and borderline G11 due to the little spam external link at the bottom. May be recession-proof, but certainly not deletion-proof. Lacks verifiable sources and is laden with original research. MuZemike (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Certainly a timely topic, but the claim "recession-proof" itself does not belong on WP. Nor do predictions of the future. Still I am not sure how this general topic should be covered. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research, perhaps advertising, and perhaps soapboxing as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Puri[edit]

Ajay Puri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Courtesy completion of nomination for User:Bihco Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Makes some dubious assertions of notability, but cannot back the claims with sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable, quick google search gives me ^[2] and ^[3]. That is just a very quick glance at the results, this person seems completely notable to me, though the article deserves expansion. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look at the 2nd ref and it is full of gramical errors and is a blog, are blogs now suitable for use as refs in wikki?? Bihco (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although I completed the AfD as a courtesy, I'm going to weigh in on the keep side. I originally added The Times of India ref while reviewing the article before the AfD. I've since added another ref as well. I'm not thrilled with Theseeker4's second ref, but the first one has merit. Although short, it mentions an invitation by the Itailian government to speak, several honors, and a planned book. Add this to the other refs, and notability should definitely be satisfied.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notability established the usual way. No need for an exception that I can see. Otherwise, rationale-less nom does little to advance cause. WilyD 19:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Caparulo[edit]

John Caparulo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be notable. Only trivial sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems notable, has been in a major festival, has multiple non-facebook, non-Wikipedia, non-blog, non-self-published hits on google, and has been on various shows and tours. Seems to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) for entertainers unless I am misreading it. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The man has been in a movie, on multiple television shows -- even hosts a show on CMT. I think whoever put this up for deletion just doesn't know of him. -- 98.219.149.112 (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on the following sites:

- IMDB Profile - Shows appearances on "The Tonight Show", "Comedy Central Presents", "Last Comic Standing", "Mobile Home Disasters", and more.

- Comedy Central - Premium Blend Sample Video

- CMT "Mobile Home Disasters" - He is the host of this show for CMT

I think its safe to say he fits the notability profile and should be included. - TRTitus (talk) 05:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC) (Tobin Titus)[reply]

• Keep and another trout slap to the nominator. Plenty of non-trivial sources found at Google News Archive. Plus the guy is freaking high-larious. DHowell (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Notability appears establishable--please take the time to add sourcing to the article to make that unambiguous to those who don't follow CMT. Jclemens (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Funeral. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Begrafenisrituelen[edit]

Begrafenisrituelen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was originally tagged for speedy deletion as ((db-nonsense)) due to its being in Dutch. That was not a speedy criterion so I took it to WP:PNT. After it was translated, I've discovered that this is a first-person essay that says nothing that Funeral does not. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No references, no relevance, not wikified and content is a duplication of content elsewhere.--Hazel77 ^talk 14:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak merge to Bereavement in Judaism and Funeral. There are some things mentioned here are not mentioned in these two articles. E Wing (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge relevant material as above, then Delete Mjroots (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't merge and delete per GFDL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant to funeral, grief, and mourning. Not a redirect candidate. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom but merge any new content (which looks doubtful) to funeral or whatever is most appropriate. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 17:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I apologise, its my fault it got done as a notenglish in the first place. I misunderstood using what little dutch I have available (babel nl-2) and suggested it be notenglish rather than a QD. Remove, per others. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge relevant parts of Begrafenisrituelen into funeral; removing opinion. Bearian (talk)

Redirect the old stub. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tung-Wang[edit]

Tung-Wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although the first AFD result was "keep", that was on the grounds of notability. However if you look at the references given I think you will see that there is no real evidence that he is a historical figure, in fact I believe it is just a recent story floating around the internet. Note that the current references appear to be duplicates, and everything else I found on the web is also identical. Also one current reference is labelled "the lighter side" and the other is a self-published book Juzhong (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Juzhong (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A brief examination of the google hits seems to demonstrate notability, but looking deeper, there is nothing I have found that even indicates this is a real person, and not a hoax/joke. Need additional information to show this is a notable person deserving of a Wikipedia article. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Last AFD closed two days ago! A spagetti-cooking approach to AfD should not be encouraged, hoax allegation is patently silly. WilyD 15:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Looking again at the sources, I fear the nominator may be right, and we may possibly have made an overhasty stupid mistake which is best soon corrected, but I am not sure how to tell. Essentially, we are asked to make a judgement call on whether the story in Adam Genkaku Fisher's book is a pure invention of his, or whether there was such a monk who told such a story (I assume the website reprinted it, but it could have been the other way round). We need help from specialists here. There is no name given in Chinese characters, and I think that possibility has to be searched correctly, which I cannot do. (The name is intrinsically possible, as there are a number of people with that name in Facebook). But how about internal evidence, though-- was there a Han-hsieh monestary? Is the dating to the 13th year of the Earth Dragon period (898) plausible? -- not that finding t hem demonstrates the truth of this, but not finding them would demonstrate the fictionality. Cucumbers at least are native to China, butthat's not quite enough. DGG (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Googling "han hsin" monastery as well as "han shin" monastery (the story is inconsistent) just comes back to the same thing. Likewise "Earth Dragon period". Juzhong (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see no substance to the claim that Tung-Wang didn't exist. Difficulty here is to prove that the people named Tung-Wang are really this person. Definitely one book says he's real. Apparently there really was a Tung Wang in Chinese history who was somewhat of a mystic, but tying the two together is difficult (additional). I had a little think on this and have come to the conclusion that there's not enough notability for the page in any case. The existence of Tung-Wang is relatively immaterial compared to the fact that notability has not really been established and therefore this page should be deleted --Kickstart70TC 19:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, that's a self-published book, you are not supposed to count it as a reliable source. Juzhong (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tung Wang in your second book is Yang Xiuqing (Yang seu Tsing), who was awarded the title "Dong Wang/东王" meaning "East King" (search within the book for "Tung Wang". Juzhong (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We have no reliable sources at all for anything in this article. Source 1 is a self-published book of Buddhist devotional material. Source 2 is from gnvr.com's Lighter Side column, which also publishes lightbulb jokes. And although I can't see all of the Google Books preview, the text of the two sources appear to be exactly same. That's enough for deletion. I appreciate User:DGG's questions, but they're original research (and trying to check a Tang dynasty date really is a considerable research task). However, to silence the doubters I've searched in Mandarin for cucumber (黄瓜) with monk, Buddhism, and a couple of possible character combinations for Tung-Wang (assuming it's Hanyu Pinyin Dong Wang). There are no references in the early entries, which we'd expect if this was a notable person. We should be embarrassed that this made it through AfD once already. 14:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.R.Forrester (talk • contribs) Sorry, don't know why that didn't sign properly Matt's talk 14:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy procedural close as this article passed AFD with a KEEP decision only a few days ago. Articles must not be renominated in such a short period of time. If the nominator feels the previous AFD was closed prematurely then he/she should lobby for THAT one to be reopened, not start a new one. Otherwise anytime someone doesn't like the outcome of an AFD they might be able to cite this as an example of precedent. 23skidoo (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Opening a new AfD was recommended by the admin who closed the original AfD in this comment, because the reason for deletion had changed. Matt's talk 17:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't care if and how this article managed to survive an AfD two days ago if we can amass sufficient proof that it's bogus. Concerning DGG's questions: There are no Google Scholar references to the monastery. There are no Google Web hits for the monastery unrelated to this very story, either. Using the Chinese astrology and sexagenary cycle articles, one can compute that 898 wasn't a Dragon year at all. That's sufficient proof for me that the book's story is fabricated (if it weren't how did the author come to know of this monastery?). Huon (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I like to tung my wang. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As the user who opened the first AfD, I'd like to point out that the original AfD's proximity to this one has really no bearing on the case. Keep votes based solely on that really hold no substance and are irrelevant because my reason for AfD was different from this one's. DARTH PANDA^duel 20:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on the basis of the answers to my questions. The original research prohibition applies to articles--we can and often do engage in a little research in discussing them--how else can we determine if somethings a hoax for example, or if a term is the customary one, or if an asserted town is in fact a settlement not an isolated house, and so forth. DGG (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Stifle&page=&year=&month=-1

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold (comic strip)[edit]

Arnold (comic strip) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This strip was created by a red link hack cartoonist and was distributed by two red link syndicates. Only 40 newspapers ever carried it. The source cited is no doubt reliable, but there's no indication of how much detail it allots for this particular strip. I could find no other sources that would assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, I'm leaning slightly towards keeping it as appearing in forty newspapers for several years is a rather significant achievement for a comic strip. As for reviews or what have you of it, I'm sympathetic towards it on this point due to its age (pre-internet days) which could make it hard for use to find the sources for this so I won't be hasty in judging it to be delete. Mathmo ^Talk 15:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable enough to get mentioned in MAD ("The Trend Towards Rottenness in the Comic Strips", MAD #253, March 1985).SPNic (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think Mad counts as a reliable source. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The fact the syndicates have redlinks only means that no one has bothered to write articles about them -- both syndicates are actually fairly well known within U.S. publishing. The fact the comic strip was syndicated across the country would confirm notability. Clearly the article requires enhancing, but not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. According to this interview "it was in fifty six papers at one time. LA Times was one of the big ones." --Dragonfiend (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A comic strip that ran in papers for several years. - jc37 15:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The fact that the author and syndicates are redlinks is a weird ad-hominem argument for deletion doesn't actually mean anything. (So what if things associated with the article are redlinks?) The breadth and length of its syndication is no mean feat, however. There are undoubtedly sources for this article, just perhaps not many on the internet currently. Ford MF (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shalford Football Club[edit]

Shalford Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Amateur village football team which does not meet GNG or the WP:FOOTY project rule of thumb of having competed in the top 10 levels of the English football league system or in a national cup competition. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This club obviously falls below the commonly accepted level. I also notice that much of this article is a copyvio and there's very little in the way of available third-party sources to make this club in any way notable. Bettia (rawr!) 14:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bettia said it all really. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bettia. GiantSnowman 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Shame know, My Uncle played for this team during the 60s. :) Govvy (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete! It's a club with over a hundred years of history and they may not have played in the top 10 tiers but they're in the 11th right now! Sometimes the people on Wikipedia can be such tosspots. (I apologise for my bad language but I'm clearly not that articulate...) Oh, and if you're going to have an article about the league Shalford are in then why not have one about each of the clubs in that league? Seems a bit silly to me. Could be that the league doesn't meet your RoT in which case I understand completely now and you should probably delete that too... Ms331 (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I know it can be annoying but Wiki has a criteria of what a notable club should be and by those rules this team shouldn't have an article. Govvy (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discover (Why The Love Hurts)[edit]

Discover (Why The Love Hurts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable currently. Can't see any reasonable objection to this. Griever89 (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NSONGS: no independent reliable source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' Song hasn't charted or been released. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete WP:CRYSTAL abf /talk to me/ 15:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As with Boffob; it fails this. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 15:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs & WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haydn Porter[edit]

Haydn Porter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Co-ed of the Month isn't a notable award per WP:PORNBIO. No work outside a few Playboy releases. Not all Playboy models are notable. This article was deleted once with a prod. Dismas|^(talk) 13:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas|^(talk) 13:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking notability. X MarX the Spot (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, yes she is notable according to WP:PORNBIO unlike what the nominator claims. As Playboy is a major magazine (one of the ones mentioned in WP:PORNBIO if you read it). Mathmo ^Talk 15:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:PORNBIO does not say appeared a few times in a major publication, it says must have multiple appearences in notable mainstream media or be nominated for an award such as those listed in Playboy (or other major adult magazines). Therefore, fails WP:PORNBIO. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails to meet WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources, and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep multiple mainstream appearances on Howard Stern verified by howardstern.com. [5][6][7] which satisfies criteria 3 of WP:PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In past AfDs there has been the general feeling that so many porn stars appear on Howard Stern that it isn't enough to establish notability. Although, until criteria 3 is ammended you're right that technically it does pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Google searches are generally not sufficient to establish notability. Specific reliable sources are.  Sandstein  18:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Krikorian[edit]

David Krikorian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable politician, fails WP:POLITICIAN. The subject ran for a seat in the Ohio's 2nd congressional district but lost. He does not hold another political office to make him pass the notability threshold of WP:POLITICIAN nor is there any indication in the article of notability outside of politics. The article reads like a resume, was created two months before the election and contains the link to the subject's official campaign site; more or less, the Wikipedia article might have been written solely as a promotional tool in the subject's political campaign. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no independent reliable source to establish notability according to WP:POLITICIAN or WP:N.--Boffob (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you try to look for any first? Mathmo ^Talk 15:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I did. The kind of coverage below is normal for any non-fringe candidate at the local level, it's not particularly significant. You'd need something outside of the election this candidate lost to apply WP:N--Boffob (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, google news search turns up lots of hits. For instance: [8] & [9] etc Mathmo ^Talk 15:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of those sources establishes any notability. The first one is an article about his 2008 run for a seat (which he lost and, therefore, doesn't do anything to put him past the WP:POLITICIAN threshold) and the other one announces his run next term. He does not hold and never has held a "national or first-level sub-national political office" nor does he fit the description of "members of a legislature and judges", all of these being taken directly from WP:POLITICIAN. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable as owner of a novelty business. See this search. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. He fails WP:POLITICIAN and comes up short on WP:GNG. Reliable sources found indicate that he's prominent in his community, but main coverage is indirect, relating to a 2007 incident. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The content can be recreated if he runs for office again and wins. Until then, owning a store doesn't show notability unless he started a national chain and is renowned for it. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in The Nightmare Before Christmas[edit]

List of characters in The Nightmare Before Christmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Very little information on this page, no citations. Page not necessary, considering small scope of franchise: 2 video games and 1 movie. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 13:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even with only notable characters, article would be nothing more than a mirror of the Voice Cast section in the main article. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 14:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since the article has solely plot detail and no real-world context. Characters' roles can be detailed under the roof of the broader topics, the film and the video games. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge any useful real-world context that's been added since the beginning of this AFD to the film article and the video game articles with a little cross-referencing. For example, the film article could say, "Some characters from The Nightmare Before Christmas <insert names here> appeared in the Kingdom Hearts video games," and the video games could just mention the origin of some of its characters. I just don't see a compelling need for a separate list since there are not straightforward story arcs of characters like with some other character lists. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Improving this article does not include copying pages from other wikis and pasting the information in the List of Characters. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 14:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that's incorrect. Per WP:CLN: "Lists are much easier to build (fill) than categories, because entries can be gathered, cut and pasted in from searches and other sources. Brainstorming entries from one's personal education is much easier, because you don't have to hunt for the articles to place the tags on, you simply type the topics into the list." On what basis do you argue otherwise?--otherlleft (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:CLN--otherlleft (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a similar list on the main article. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 18:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it serves point #6 better as a separate page. I'd prefer expanding the list to include all characters in the movie, rather than merely those in the video game or that have their own articles, since lists "may include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and yet may yet be sufficiently notable to incorporate into the list."--otherlleft (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps inclusion dependent that the character had a notable role in the movie. One editor had added characters that were essentially extras (Invisible Man, who was supposedly seen at the beginning of the movie). Perhaps if a extremely minor character had a greater role or background given in a offshoot of NMBC, then inclusion would be acceptable. However, if this will be the case, that characters from the series will be on the list (I haven't played the games, but if there are new characters in the games), then the page should be retitled to 'List of characters in the Nightmare Before Christmas franchise' or similar.

Just to list random characters who may or may not be important to the plot would be irresponsible. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 18:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lead sentence lends confusion by conflicting with the title of the article itself, and either retitling or repurposing may be in order. However, I would recommend more latitude on how notable each character in the movie needs to be - I haven't watched it in years but if your description of the Invisible Man is accurate he might not make the grade, but in my eyes this list is simply very stubby and can be expanded to include all characters that have names and dialog. Lists permit non-notables to be accumulated in a manner that demonstrates a collective notability.--otherlleft (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the so-called Invisible Man was just that...not visible. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 18:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auzemandius, you recently suggested a page move for the article in question. Would you like to add further to this discussion, perhaps indicating why you would recommend moving the article if you nominated it for deletion?--otherlleft (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More information had come into light (some characters were in more works than I had realized) and the list could be expanded to include character that were non-notable in the original work but were expanded upon in the other works. So, if the article were to be moved to a franchise list of characters page, then I would be more apt to keep the article. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 10:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you withdraw the nomination under those circumstances. We agree that moving would be problematic at this time, and deletion policy encourages nominators to do so if they find a way to resolve without deletion.--otherlleft (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, navigational page, we have tons of these all over the wiki.

--Reinoutr (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- It is not necessary, or even appropriate, that every movie or TV show should have a "list of characters" article. This one is an unnecessary, unsourced load of original research and plot summary dressed up to look like a list. Anything that is even remotely useful or encyclopedic is already covered in appropriate detail at the main article. Reyk _YO! 22:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've lended only nominal support, but another editor has been working very hard on referencing this article - those who have voted should review and consider. I won't say it's not poorly written but AfD is not designed for that - I still maintain that it's a notable list of characters from the franchise described.--otherlleft (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Such lists are highly appropriate. It should include every non-trivial character or if the work is important enough, every named character--this is not the type of list where the individual items need be notable to avoid spamming. it;s not like alumni of a school. I cant see the basis for saying that it should include only those significant to the plot--by my standards those significant to the plot should be seriously considered for an individual article. If we really want to have merge discussions here let's amend the policy and figure out how to handle the workload properly. DGG (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – no need for a character list on a single film. Violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT#PLOT, as the characters can be adequately covered in the film article, and this list is excessive and unnecessary. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your reference to WP:WEIGHT confuses me, as it states therein: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia." Isn't the point of that section to avoid biasing a larger article with a minority viewpoint? How is it relevant here? Please clarify - I'm ready to change my view if your argument is sufficient.--otherlleft (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last sentence of the third paragraph of WP:WEIGHT is what's relevant here. It reads Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Sephiroth BCR, I assume, feels that the depth of detail and quantity of text is excessive. I agree. Reyk _YO! 07:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for adding a second comment, but I had to review WP:NOT#PLOT to avoid an uninformed reply. In what way is a list ever a plot summary?--otherlleft (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • When it summarizes plot points, as this article does. Read the paragraphs on Jack Skellington and Sally. Plot points. Reyk _YO! 07:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Thank you for providing some context for your views, Reyk. Would you or Sephiroth BCR further explain why deletion is preferable to rewriting the small sections in question? The article is not, in itself, a plot summary; nor is it devoid of in-universe context. I won't deny that it needs significant cleanup even after the recent work on it. Are you saying you cannot imagine that the plot elements could not possible be mitigated? --otherlleft (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, as I see it the article consists of three sections: the main characters, the minor characters and the new sections at the end. I believe the minor character section is trivial and lists things merely for the sake of listing them, not to illuminate or explain the subject, and should be chopped. The main characters are notable enough to be listed but once that section is cleaned up and brought to a respectable standard, it will be no more than a duplication of the list already in the main article and I just don't see the point. That leaves the new paragraphs on "reception" and "marketing". They're easily the most worthy content in this list, but I think they're more relevant to the main article. I certainly do not object to User:A Nobody writing good content, I just question the wisdom of writing it in an inappropriate place just to save some fairly poor stuff. It's like throwing good content after bad. Reyk _YO! 01:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Plot summary tidbits of non-notable characters. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for several reasons, the biggest of which is the WP:HEY job that A Nobody did, clearly demonstrating the potential for the article. Wow, nice job. Next to address the nom, Very little information on this page, no citations. Page not necessary, considering small scope of franchise: 2 video games and 1 movie. That no one was working on it, or that it was small/stub, or that you don't find it necessary aren't exactly policy violations. I am not sure which criteria it fails to meet or which guideline it fails as no AFD claim was made in the nom. You tag articles (or fix them) when they simply lack citations. It appears that this is exactly what lists are for, and the article could have just been tagged. WP:NOT#PLOT clearly doesn't apply either, else every 'List of charcters...' article would be on the chopping block. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 15:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Article had been tagged for some time with various templates. Plus, I had left out "Even with only notable characters, article would be nothing more than a mirror of the Voice Cast section in the main article." which was added post nomination. It wasn't just that the article was unnecessary, but it was unnecessary BECAUSE it was redundant. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 10:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:DEADLINE seems to be relevant here.--otherlleft (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a perfectly reasonable subarticle on a notable subject. Everyking (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perfectly suitably list article that needs cleaning up including formatting the refs. The list in the main article is of the voice actors not the characters themselves. I have no clue of the same actors were used in the derivative products but there's still no reason either list should be deleted. -- Banjeboi 19:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I call attention to [10], an edit where the nominator removed substantial content from the article, and then immediately nominated for deletion. And, as people have shown, such content could have been sourced. DGG (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator did right in removing that stuff. It was unsourced, poorly written original research. As for immediately nominating for deletion, I can remember a few occasions where I have made improvements to an article and then, on reading the whole thing through, realized it was an unsalvageable mess and nominated it at AfD. That's probably what the nominator's done here. If you're suggesting more sinister motives, I suggest you reacquaint yourself with WP:AGF. Reyk _YO! 00:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• One could only guess that the nominator could have avoided any question by providing a rationale on the talk page. Removing unsourced information is certainly appropriate, but that's a step I would generally associate with an attempt to salvage an article - in fact, I frequently do so myself. Nominating for deletion is another entirely legitimate strategy, but as its ultimate goal is to have no article at all, it is inherently contradictory to article improvement. I understand your position, Reyk, that good faith should be assumed, but should I assume that DGG's disclosure of the edit in question was NOT in good faith? It appears that he wanted to make sure that the discussion was relevant to the article in question. I don't assume the nominator did anything wrong, but I think it's important to the debate to realize that the article was gutted immediately prior to its nomination.--otherlleft (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that as a bit troubling - if the nom honestly feels the entire article should be deleted then why the need to remove any content. It all actually does look source-able to the original works if nothing else. -- Banjeboi 03:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps because the nominator didn't have deletion in mind upon removing the unsourced information, but realizing there were sections already in place with the same information, decided that the article was unnecessary. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 09:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Blink blink. Then five minutes later you nommed for deletion? I noticed you also labeled all that content you removed as cruft - also rather contentious. I guess you'll be reverting yourself to re-add that content know that several folks have mentioned how it seemed to be detrimental to the health of the article? A negative impact of sorts. -- Banjeboi 12:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, five minutes is more than enough time to change one's mind that the article was worth keeping to believing that it was pointless. I don't understand what of myself that I would be reverting... or what exactly has a negative impact. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 13:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As to impact, you removed the content and then nominated with the phrase, "Very little information on this page . . ." That phrase might not have been necessary had you reverted your edit prior to the nomination. I'm not doubt your good faith, but a large of amount of uncited information is often more reparable than very little information. Most of what you removed has since been returned, so I don't personally see the point of a revert. However, I do hope that editors weighing in have returned to the article frequently. I've only done some minor formatting, but another editor has significantly improved it. --otherlleft (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't doubt that you removed the info in good faith, or that you nom'ed this five minutes later after realizing you thought it needed to be deleted, all in good faith. Plenty of faith to go around. This said, please realize that this wasn't the smartest thing I have seen all day, particularly since you didn't seem to explain the actions on the article talk page. You shot yourself in the foot as now everyone is discussing the faith and actions of the nom, instead of the merits. In the future, your own interests would be better served if you didn't do that. And for the record, this has no bearing on why I still think we should keep the article. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 18:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the problem, personally. I don't see how my interests are involved here. I have no personal stake in this page nor any dislike for the page. All I saw, after I removed the fluff, was a page that was a duplicate of a list already on Wikipedia. Once I saw that, I realized the page was pointless. Like I said, five minutes makes a world of difference sometimes. My foot seems fine to me. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 22:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are generally used to seeing a deletion tag placed on an article as an editor happens upon it -- not after an editor works on it. I don't think anyone is assuming bad faith, I think it's just an unusual situation, but one that will probably come up again. ^Law _shoot! 01:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final helpful hint You don't have to "see the problem" to see the result. My tip: Next time you edit then decide to AFD it, I would revert to pre-edit, and SAY in the AFD "I tried, but it just wasn't notable (see history for my reverted changes)". This is honest and no one can possibly question you. It doesn't matter how "right" you are if people are paying more attention to your motives than your arguments. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article now is referenced, so that isn't an issue. Mentioning the scope is irrelevant in my opinion; it is more about the impact. Even single films and works of literature need not be a franchise to merit a character list. My appreciation to those who greatly improved the article. ^Law _shoot! 22:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (G3). Alexf^(talk) 18:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Bottle too Far[edit]

A Bottle too Far (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article on a "cult novel" that it seems does not to exist. Neither the title, nor the author's name appear on Amazon or abebooks. Though claimed to be Canadian, the book is not held at Library and Archives Canada. Google search for "Brianne Duhamel" + "Bottle too Far" brings only Wikipedia and mirror sites. The creation of a single purpose account. Perhaps a candidate for speedy. Victoriagirl (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - note this supposed Canadian author may be this person [11] and may be a joke on/by her. dougweller (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as hoax, WP:HOAX, WP:MADEUP.--Boffob (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete WP:NOTABILITY and hoax. Kalivd (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (speedy) perr all above. abf /talk to me/ 15:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under WP: CSD#G1...Imperat§ r^(Talk) 15:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not G1, as G1 states "This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes". However, it should be deleted as a hoax, and not speedily deleted. :D Imperat§ r^(Talk) 15:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete (G3) — blatant hoax. I've boldly tagged as such to move this along. It's snowing, anyway. MuZemike (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and merge. The information included fails WP:NOT, and I know you will demand an explanation as to why. Here it is: The information is not comparable to List of programs broadcast by CBS, as List of programs broadcast by CBS includes information on past programs, future programs, and current programs, and a rational discourse of which programs are likely to be included in the future. In its current state, however, Air India Express destinations lists a copy of the information at the airlines website. It does not concern itself with possible future destinations, nor any past destinations, nor does it discuss the destinations or explain them in any way. There is no leading paragraph, as WP:SAL advises. Current consensus would change, I think, if this article reached the standard of other hierarchical lists, such as List of basic geography topics. As a final note, I have taken Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations into account, but given the age of that AfD and the fact that it was not unanimous, and given the arguments below, consensus, and policy, have changed. A good start to merging this article would be to simply take the information provided, and compress it into a paragraph or two, as has been done at this page. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air India Express destinations[edit]

Air India Express destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wholly unencyclopedic information best suited to the company's own website--where it in fact can be found. Among other defects (such as the fact that nobody would look for this information in an encyclopedia and that it's fundamentally advertising), this information is subject to frequent change. Bongomatic 13:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wiki is not a directory--Boffob (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or possibly full merge with the airline). We have had discussions on articles like this before, twice actually, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations. Simply put: an airline specializes in flying people from point A to point B. We cannot have truly comprehensive coverage of an airline unless we include where these destinations are, in the airline market, where an airline flies is not something which is "not notable". Generally, these lists have been placed as separate articles because of size; the Air India Express case has about 30 destinations which is not overwhelmingly large and could fit in the mainline article, but a separate article is fine as well. In any case, this information is valid, easily verifiable from an airline website, and fully relevant as a way of describing the geography, business, and extent of the airline company. Also, the statement that "nobody would look for this information in an encyclopedia" is false, take a look at readership statistics. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: we could turn Wikipedia into a phonebook, and it would get many hits I'm sure (usually, if there's a Wiki article about something, it's among the first hits in a google search), and it would be useful. But it's a clear violation of WP:NOTDIR. Yet you are right, apparently the community thinks keeping such lists is part of the Wiki mandate...--Boffob (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• First off, trying to draw a parallel between a list of a few dozen entries, and a enormous phone directory of several thousand, is a straw man argument, which I will not spend any time refuting. I'll just say that phone books are not for Wikipedia, and that these destination lists are not phone books. Second, I cannot see how this is a violation of NOTDIR at all. The points listed in that policy are (1) "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", I have argued above for why these lists are relevant in the coverage and not loosely associated. When tied to a particular airline, they are strongly associated. (2) "Genealogical entries or phonebook entries." Each of the entries on the list are notable on their own, indeed each of the airports have separate articles as they should do. In fact, this list has a useful navigational function. (3) "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business" These lists are not airline schedules. An airline would find it rather useless to just say where they fly if they don't say when they fly. Airline schedules however, are beyond the domain of Wikipedia. The proper analogy is that we have an article on List of programs broadcast by CBS, while we don't have an article on the CBS programming schedule for tomorrow. (4) "Sales catalogs, therefore product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention." These lists make no attempt at giving the ticket prices to various airport, nor should they. (5) "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations". Not an issue here, there is only one criteria, whether this airline flies there or not. An inappropriate list would be along the lines of "List of destinations served by Air India Express and Jet Airways". Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not here to argue with you, but that List of programs broadcast by CBS does have the current schedule (with a little caveat to avoid updating it daily)...--Boffob (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote to delete that one too. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]