The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted as A7. While the text is actually quite neutral, there is just no claim at all, that this is notable and no sources. SoWhy 22:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No notability, no appearances on Google besides their own website, forums, and self-published sources The359 (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non notable company. Article probably created by company owner as logo was uploaded with statement that the owner created it himself. Almost a speedy candidate as spam. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as spam. Alexius08 (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No found reliable third-party souces. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Google turned up little to nothing. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 05:02, 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 speedy delete (A7) by Chaser. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Steiner Lawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by author. Unsourced, zero Google hits. I wanted to tag this for a speedy, but the (probably fictitious) claims of TV appearances therein could be construed as a tenuous assertion of notability. --Finngall ^talk 23:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't exist. Article claims he appeared in season 8, episode 11 of The Bill. Not according to TV.com. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:43, 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Several reasons for deletion. First, it's an autobiography. Second, the man is not especially notable, with many of his hits appearing on forums and self-published sources. Third, this page too is largely sourced from his homepage and the defunct (and presumably self-published) Crusades Encyclopedia. Fourth, given that he's only published one book and that three others are "in project", it seems he's using Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes. Fifth, his position as a mere department head at the National Archives of Romania does not render him especially notable - if he were head of the archive, maybe, but not just another cog in the machine. Perhaps individually, these might not be strong enough reasons for deletion, but put together, I think they make a compelling case. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. See this Google scholar search. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's the beef? Sure, he's written some papers; we didn't need Google Scholar to tell us that. But does that bring him any closer to satisfying WP:PROF or WP:N? -- Biruitorul ^Talk 23:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but seriously trim. I wouldn't hold it against the fellow that he created his own article, but it needs to be a lot shorter. Wikipedia is not a vanity site. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:PROF or more generally WP:BIO. Google Scholar returns four hits with no citations. Google News returns no hits. A search on a few academic databases returns no hits, much less citations.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Eric Yurken. Note to nom: the fact that an article is an autobio is NOT a valid reason to delete. --Crusio (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• However, it is a strong indicator of non-notability, and non-notability is a good reason for deletion. Why should an encyclopædia have an entry for somebody who can't even get anybody other than him to write a biography of him? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOT a CV site; WP:NOT a book promotion site. Let the man become actually notable before there will be an article. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A thought: maybe, rushing to get an entry of a young researcher published is a form of recentism? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep More than enough major publication for notability. His notability is not from the position at the National archives, though a professional position there is equivalent to a professorial appointment at a university & head of a division probably head of a department. . His notability is as a scholar, and shown by his publications. All we need to do to the article is remove the lists of minor publications. We do not delete articles for COI, and if people write too much, we edit the articles. 40 years is a young researcher? 7 books is just becoming notable? One doesnt expect Gbooks to have many 20th c. specialized publicationsin this language , nor G Scholar. their strong anglophone bias is what Wikipedia tries to avoid. DGG (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's only actually written and published one book, not seven. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 02:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to be nothing more than a list of everything he's written that the public can (supposedly) buy. spider1224 02:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a spam CV. Subject has not swum out of his small pond. No Google News hits, for example. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 04:46, 21 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. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article is unsourced, unable to find supporting material using Google search. Article is largely pop-culture references, the term itself appears to be urban legend. Steve Carlson^Talk 22:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nothing else to say, really.    SIS  23:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Common enough in psychology papers on drug use, e. g. here is Keup, Wolfram (1971) "The Vocabulary of the Drug User and Alcoholic: A Glossary", Substance Use & Misuse, 6, p. 353:"a psychogenic “trip” without taking drugs by being close to somebody while he is on drugs. Incorrectly for the high obtained by inhaling the smoke of other marijuana smokers". I've found several other mentions just from a couple of minutes looking at google scholar, mostly only tangential, as here: [1]. But it's clear that this is an old and well established term for a phenomenon which, real or imaginary, is discussed in scholarly literature. N p holmes (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well known concept ,sourcable, though some of it may go a bit back in time to when people where just alking about these things 40 years ago. . Medicial literature, psychology, use in the creative arts and autobio. and criticism. Just decelop the article. DGG (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a very known phenomenon that is sourceable. The problems with the article can be addressed with tags, or better yet, edits. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:47, 17 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. Cirt (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This sixteen-year-old musician doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Although he lists a discography (beginning when he would have been only nine years old), on his own blog he writes that he hopes to record a CD someday. References to the films in the filmography cannot be found, let alone any references to a Dominik Brendan. A google search finds only MySpace and Blogs. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I did find one of the listed films here but he is not listed in the cast. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No sources, no notability, and (probably) not quite true, either.    SIS  23:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I also have attempted to find sources that would help to establish WP:N notability, including searching in Google News archives, and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. I found no sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:51, 18 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 13:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disable job requests while running job pattern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable software "job pattern" There are no verifiable sources to be found. Tavix (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. On the one hand, it sounds like legitimate software. On the other hand, there are no sources and it seems to fail WP:V. Also, in parts it seems like a how-to, which has no place in Wikipedia, per WP:NOTHOWTO. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - I'm no deletionist, but the only Google hits I got were for copies of this article. --Philcha (talk) 09:55, 17 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 13:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

30350 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Unnotable number per WP:NUMBER and an unusable disambiguation per WP:D because it isn't disambiguating anything. Tavix (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Where should a user be sent who enters the number? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per our naming conventions, an article with that title is about the year 30350, so the correct answer is 11th millennium and beyond#After 15000. Uncle G (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not entirely sure that consensus would agree with that naming convention for numbers of five or more digits (or even large four-digit numbers). 90210 is a disambiguation page about things related to the Beverly Hills zip code, and many 5-digit numbers are also zip-code-related redirects (10032, 30075, 30143, 30189 are just a few that I found). 4711 is a redirect to 4711 (brand). 8080, 8086, 6502 redirect to articles about microprocessors. A discussion here seems to indicate no consensus to keep random numeric redirects to 11th millennium and beyond. DHowell (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think a page with diambig. for topics related to the number is okay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Why? This is NOT disambiguating anything. I think you are confused on what a disambiguation is. The sole purpose of a disambiguation is to redirect a user to an article when there are multiple articles of the same name. There are no articles about "30350" and thus makes the disambig. pointless and unusable. Tavix (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. But this disambiguation page provides two pieces of information regarding the number. Are you suggesting that people searching that number get no result? Ot that nothing should be put there until we get to that year? My conclusion is based on what information being included or excluded makes the encyclopedia better. But I'm willing to consider a reasonable suggestion of what would be better to include on the 30350 page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The only thing this does is give someone a fact that there are two area codes that use the number "30350". There are several sites in the vast world known as the internet that would give somoeone the same information. Wikipedia does not have an article for every area code so keeping it as a disambiguation would be useless. Honestly, I highly doubt anyone will search for 30350 on Wikipedia. If someone doesn't get any results on Wikipedia, they can always move on to Google or Yahoo!. Don't have the idea that Wikipedia needs to have every possible search result. It's just way too unwieldy. Tavix (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or redirect to Atlanta, Georgia Sandy Springs, Georgia. Many 5-digit numbers are already redirects based on postal codes, so a disambiguation page based on postal codes seems acceptable. But while it seems likely that American cities and regions would be known by their ZIP codes (90210 being probably the most famous example), I'm not sure if the same can be said about French postal codes. So whether this should be a redirect or a disambiguation page depends on whether American ZIP codes are objectively more well-known than French postal codes or if this is just a result of systemic bias. DHowell (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update The ZIP code is actually for Sandy Springs, Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta, newly incorporated in 2005. See here. DHowell (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep appropriate functional equivalent of a disam page. We could of course, make two separate pages out of it, one for the zip code & one for the postal code, & have a third p. to be a formal disam p. between them, but I don't think that would make much sense. DGG (talk) 20:45, 18 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. Cirt (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Athena study abroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advert for study company. No claims of notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Similar study abroad companies are on Wikipedia. This is to make people aware of the valuable concept of study abroad and global awareness. Many universities promote and work with Athena Study Abroad, and charities receive donations on behalf of the organization, which makes the company notable. Jbenander (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment appears to be a major conflict of interest here, J Benander is "Vice President of Marketing and Technology" of said company. http://www.athenaabroad.com/about_us/staff.php#john --Oscarthecat (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTABILITY. The fact that the writer says that this pages is to "make people aware" of a "valuable" concept (i.e. this business) confirms to me that this article is purely intended to promote the organisation. Speedy Delete.
• Speedy Delete (G11) Nothing of use; all spam. Themfromspace (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The company was founded because small schools and small school students were often overlooked, and keeping this entry would show that this is not always the case. Would it make a difference to reference articles that featured Athena? (Example articles) As long as Wikipedia approves of other companies in this field that do the exact same thing, I would think it would make sense and be honest to readers to include this submission. Jbenander (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. MuZemike (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speak for yourself, I consider it very fortunate it works that way. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referencing articles that feature Athena may make a difference, but it will require a lot more than the odd incidental mention on a college's web page. Have you read WP:NOTABILITY yet? One of the fundamental rules is that Wikipedia only has articles that have already received coverage in other third-party sources. If you don't like those rules, Wikipedia is not the website for you. Otherwise, you might as well complain that Cartoon Network doesn't have enough programs about 13th-century Czech architecture. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete (G11) — article contains spam bacon sausage and spam. Creator needs to read the basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines towards making an appropriate article. They are all located on the left-hand side of the screen. MuZemike (talk) 08:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete this isn't even spam, it's treet. JuJube (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to a regular, boldface delete; spam removed, so no longer G11 material. In the case this is deleted, no prejudice towards recreation, as the main editor of the article is trying to work to improve the article. MuZemike (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability Nick-D (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per notability issues. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:26, 18 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. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brainerd Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A church. No apparent notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Google news shows no stories pertinent to the church. Not discussed in third-party sources, so it fails WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep as a very large, long established church that has received many mentions in the News ([2]; nearly 100 unique hits in GNews), most is trivial coverage, true, but I actually think that a hundred mentions shows more notability than 2 or 3 large ones. I am currently working on improving the page with citations. Icewedge (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a at least a good dozen mentions in Google books ([3]). Icewedge (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing in the article (which appears to be a promotional piece) suggests to me that this church is notable. It was established in 1928, which is not exceptionally old. Broadcasting services on TV and radio is not in any way unusual. The church's very old Waterford crystal chandelier (not mentioned in the article) is possibly the most noteworthy thing about the church, but that by itself would not make the church notable. Additionally, the list of GoogleBooks hits (cited by an earlier commenter) does not include anything that would be considered "nontrivial" coverage. Also, the GoogleNews hits are the garden-variety stuff you could find for most churches: obituaries that identify the deceased as a church member or give the funeral location, listings of Sunday worship schedules, press releases about local teenagers involved in the church's youth programs, etc. --Orlady (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Orlady: note, by the way, that a hundred really trivial mentions doesn't make a church (or anything else) notable; after all, consensus has established that not all streets are notable, but I could find tons of trivial references for streets near my home from the newspaper. We need significant coverage that concentrates on the church. Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to East Brainerd, Tennessee, assuming that is indeed where it is. This is usually the best solution for churches of only local notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea. Neither the article nor the website say the church is in East Brainerd. (They give the location as Chattanooga. "Brainerd" is a section of Chattanooga. Apparently East Brainerd is east of -- and outside -- the city limits.) --Orlady (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have listed the related article Brainerd Baptist School for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainerd Baptist School. Orlady (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not established. Do not merge/redirect! Not a good idea...Tavix (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't know the church (or even the country) but I would want to keep the article if it can be made into an encyclopaedic, rather than a promotional entry. Dbfirs 09:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - in going through the google news results, all that can found are mere mentiosn of the church. If there is an article about the church, then I didn't see it. The references in the article itself aren't reliable sources. So at this point, there is simply no coverage that of any significance to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence seems forthcoming to suggest any notability sufficient to justify inclusion per WP:N. I agree that a merge would be unwise given the uncertain location/link. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:51, 19 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. Cirt (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most Irritating Song of all Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently a poll that was once held, somewhere, sometime, without any references. List cruft at best, utterly irrelevant at worst.    SIS  22:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Speedied at 22:03, 14 November 2008, recreated 5 minutes later. Reference now added but not particularly notable IMO. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - irrelevant per nom. --Oscarthecat (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes, there is now a reference to The Sun, a "notable" British newspaper but it is a transient throw away straw poll. For this article to be notable, the poll itself should be notable, not just the newspaper. That means notability needs to be established with references to sources independant of The Sun. SpinningSpark 22:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Strikeout Sister I can now see where you are coming from, the page is not really best suited to an encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifraser86 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC) — Ifraser86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I'm not saying the information is incorrect. I just don't see why this should be included in an encyclopedia.    SIS  23:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to "It's a Small World" Delete One time unofficial poll, not to mention I've never heard any of these songs in full. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is a thing to be glad about, I guess.    SIS  23:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another subjective list? No thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No notable and subjetive. The most irritating article of all time? Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the number of genuine AFD nominations as a measure of how irritated people were by an article, this article falls far short of that accolade. Uncle G (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Macarena (song) Delete subjective. Looks like snow, but I had to get my dig in. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems like a thinly veiled and thoroughly justified attack on James Blunt, Esquire. Failing significant independent coverage of the topic in reliable sources, this ought to be deleted. the skomorokh 20:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Most Irritating Listcruft of all Time (aka delete). McWomble (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's not listcruft because it's not a list (although the article includes the results in question, in list format). It's the name of the actual poll. Tris2000 (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Just some poll. Schuym1 (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: If anything, because of notability. The poll got wide publicity across the world, including India and South Africa. Just type it in Google. Tris2000 (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of those articles seem to be from blogs, tabloid newspapers and other questionable sources, and the coverage therein is not significant with respect to the poll itself. Check out WP:GNG and WP:RS for the sorts of publicity necessary. Thanks for your research so far, the skomorokh 17:04, 17 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. Cirt (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday wishes in other languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non encyclopedic list of birthday wishes Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 21:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDICT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millbrooky (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Blow out the candle on this one I like how the list stops at Latin. Non-encyclopedic. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Portuguese language is Brazilian language? Fail. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Themfromspace (talk) 03:58, 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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). I would invite those in the discussion who recommended renaming the article to give the article a new title. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:BIO1E. Media hype. Boshinoi (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The case of Baby P seems to be notable, in the same manner as that of Victoria Climbié. The child involved may have been notable for just one event, as per WP:BIO1E, but the page specifically mentions that the person may have been involved in a 'relatively unimportant crime': the murder of this child certainly isn't unimportant. In addition, regarding the 'media hype', it is perhaps worth saying that people like Madeleine McCann and Natalee Holloway were also associated with single events which probably had even more hype associated with them, and yet these people have their own articles. Andrew (My talk) 21:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep There are occasional cases where authorities overlook something like this it until it ended up in disaster, and the public takes such great interest--as shown by newspaper accounts--that they are notable. But I'd be a little more secure about it if there were stories in other national papers also; the Guardian has a taste for sensationalism. DGG (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I think this will become a notable case, maybe something like "2008 investigation into child protection services", for which "Baby P" will be a redirect. For now, I'd let this article develop but there is a case for saying it is a one time event and the article should wait. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 21:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Subject of high-profile controversy about public service provision and child protection. Possibly consider renaming. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. This is quite a large story, but perhaps renaming to something like "Baby P tragedy", with the council failings being the main focus, not a biography. 78.33.73.43 (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Already the subject of massive media coverage, I think there can be little doubt now that this will be comparable to Victoria Climbié. Agree that the focus of the article should be the event, not the person. Oh, and whether or not this is "media hype" is not important. If the mainstream media covers it in depth, it's notable, whether or not they should have been covering it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In agreement with the similiar Victoria Klimbé case. This infant's story and the social, and political consequences are themselves notable, as are the national and international press coverage. I would consider re-naming if the story develops, with links to the necessary WikiNews article too doktorb _words^deeds 01:22, 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. Cirt (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence of WP:BIO notability. Sources only confirm that this person is a costume designer; no non-trivial coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It would seem that one or more awards of some sort would be required for notability; nothing of the sort is claimed here, and a quick look finds none. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: it might be as well to consider J. Kevin Draves, mentioned in the article, together with this one. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that Boobs! The Musical can also be added to that list. All three articles seem to have been created together, more or less with little assertion of notability other than reference to each other. SpinningSpark 23:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete SpinningSpark 23:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO/WP:CREATIVE. No RS coverage about the person and only trivial coverage about his work. Beyond the database listings, all I found about his work was a brief mention in Playbill. • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 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 no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to Meet You (Wolfmother song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article contains no 'decent' information and the song is hardly notable anyway as it was not released as a single. Andre666 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral It was part of the soundtrack of Spiderman 3 according to this. It would be a delete if I didn't find this as Google shows only lyrics, but then keep in mind this which may or may not be non-trivial. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 22:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 5 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sources offered in this discussion establish notability the usual way. WilyD 15:13, 10 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 01:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Spider-Man 3: The Official Soundtrack. Not a single, and the google search Gene93k uses is flawed (since the title is not enclosed in quotes), as well as failing to come up with reliable sources. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:50, 14 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, MBisanz ^talk 21:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect No independent notability established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:28, 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 J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John A. Hicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article claims:

Sir John A. Hicks (May 30, 1956 – ) is one of the most important and influential economists and investment bankers of the twentieth century. He was knighted in 2004.

I can find no evidence to support any of these claims and know that he in no way could be described as one of the most important and influential economists of the twentieth century(Msrasnw (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• Weak delete He does not count as a notable economist. Perhaps he does as a businessman if anyone can find references. I couldn't. But I assume he got knbighted for some reason of some sort, DGG (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. The See also section seems to have him confused with Sir John Richard Hicks. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I am reluctant to show a lack of AGF, but I have to challenge the alleged knighthood. I could not find it in The London Gazette anywhere in 2004. Admittedly it is not the easiest site to search but I tried the site with the aid of Google also (which found Hicks's being knighted all the way back to 1683, but sadly, not this one). If the person is genuinely knighted then a reference to the exact issue of the Gazette should be possible. SpinningSpark 23:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Based on all of the information presented here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sources backing the article's claims can be found. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Google reveals two links to wikipedia, [4] [5], a link to a site which has pulled information off wikipedia [6] and some reference.com links that are not relevant at all to the subject [7] [8] [9] . We have no inkling of any reliable sources. Also, article looks like a suspicious clone of John Hicks (i.e. most influential economists). If this individual was one of the most influential economists, perhaps we'd have a reliable sources such as John Maynard Keynes, Milton Friedman, etc. Generally, notable economists tend to be well published. Fraud ^{talk to me} 03:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete -- This looks hoaxy. He is claiemd to have eben knighted in 2004, but I have checked both honours lists (see links from honours lists and he does not appear. The article is very hazy about his career. He worked for a bank from age 16 and then for various companies including KOMOSJ, only going aged 40 to London University (college not stated - but it is a series of largely independent colleges) then to another university, presumably for a higher degree until 2002 (age 46). The article was created by a user komosj, who has only edited this aarticle and a related dab article. This suggests a conflect of interest. It is not even a clone of John Hicks, but may be an attempt to freeload on his reputation. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:32, 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 Nomination Withdrawn. Hate to break into your inciteful discussion, but it would be better placed in either WP:VP or in a talk page. Thanks! (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDA^duel 21:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary School Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article about the most recent episode of South Park consists solely of the plot summary and some trivial information. There are no references, no notability established and no reason why this episode should have an own article. Recently, several shows have had the episode articles summarized in the season articles and only the most prominent single episodes kept their articles. A good example of a well-written episode article is Trapped in the Closet (South Park). However, not every single episode of every single show needs a separate article on Wikipedia, that's what another wiki is for. Probably you see that I don't focus on the nominated article only but I would like to have some feedback regarding such articles in general. This one is just an example. Thank you for your comments. Tone 19:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a brand new article, give it time. ZZT32 (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take any of ther article of the season, they are solely plot summaries. Some have references, some not. I am saying some episodes simply do not deserve separate articles. --Tone 20:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is in fact Merge. --Tone 14:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Most episodes deserve articles. Since this is basically a brand new one, give it some time. Articles can and will develop. If, after a month, the article is untouched, bring it to AfD again. _David^WS _(contribs) 21:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Most articles do indeed develop, especially from a popular series like South Park. If this is to go, I would like to see the nominator go through and similarly tag every other non-notable (in their opinion) episode of South Park and every other TV series on Wikipedia. Alastairward (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is sometimes done. The recent series that had had the episodes summarized are for example Stargate and Smallville. Random check, maybe The Arsenal of Freedom. There's a separate wiki for those. --Tone 22:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS by the way. --Tone 22:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote Change: Keep I would like to formally apologize for my initial vote of the matter. I was stupid and ignorant. I tried to use this vote to reflect my personal sentiment regarding Wikipedia Television articles. Disregarding Wikipedia Policy is not basis for a deletion, and I can now set aside personal feelings and look at this article for what it is. Though I hold the opinion that Wikipedia shouldn't be TV.Com, I know trying to delete one article is stupid. I cannot change Wikipedia Policy, and no matter how much I dislike it, as a wikipedian I must clear my conscience and change my vote from delete to keep. Wikipedia Policy has kept Wikipedia as the largest online encyclopedia and whether I dislike/like it, I will always uphold it and cannot reasonably keep my vote as delete. Bigvinu (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Until the article has enough legs to stand on its own, it should be merged into List of South Park episodes.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 23:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am someone who had read this article and I strongly disagree about his/her/its reason for the episodes to be deleted. The episodes should be summarized if someone does not have the chance to watch the episode. I also believe that Bridon's dad should have his own page. That is why i don't think this article should be deleted.

• 'Comment The examples listed above are articles which disgrace wp in various ways. The Stargate list appears to be copy paste from a tv guide, as it gives not episode summaries, but teasers; any summary bending with .... is unencyclopedic. A episode summary that says something like "The Atlantis expedition is put on trial" but doesn't give anywhere the result of the trial is unencyclopedic. When NOT says we are Not a program guide this is what it is properly referring to--we tell what the episode is about, and summarize in a paragraph or so what takes place ini it--not give a tag line to encourage people to watch it. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide information, not publicity. The Smallville one has longer entries, but the same problem: "WLex does something unexpected with the unproven antidote." An encyclopedic description prepared from an actual source for the material will say what the expected something is, not leave it as a hook to the potential viewer. " Things go awry when she discovers that her kryptonite-enhanced beauty causes harm to anyone she kisses." A proper summary describes what happens, which is probably the point to the episode. "and Chloe attempts to set the school on fire." does she succeed or not, and how does the episode close? All this is program guide material, not actual description. But in contrast, The Arsenal of Freedom is a very long overdetailed description of each turn in the plot; the corresponding article in MemoryAlpha describes the plot much more clearly (though in similar detail) but also add much more encyclopedic information about the production and other externals. There should be a middle ground, except I very rarely see it. Perhaps if people who know the series would work on these articles, instead of arguing about removing them, we would get somewhere. Either good reasonable size episode articles, or good adequate season summaries: either would do. DGG (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. What you suggest was done at the Stargate SG-1 series - reasonable plot summaries at the episode list, of those articles that are about specific episodes, two are GA and one FA, the seasons articles are being worked on. An approach that should be applied courageously for other series as well. Lost (TV series) has a great approach, most of the articles are referenced and much more than plot summaries, several FAs and in depth season articles. --Tone 00:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that people have such a hard time comprehending Notability? Notability is not ARTICLE notability, notability is SUBJECT notability. It doesn't matter HOW GOOD the articles on Lost are, the subject they cover (specific articles) is PRECISELY AS NOTABLE AS A SOUTH PARK EPISODE, and actually much less notable in my opinion, as South Park actually covers topics of general interest. Even if our Einstein article was just a stub, and our Frank Tirnady article was 2,000,000 words long, Enstein would still be MORE NOTABLE than Tirnady. PyroGamer (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I don't understand why this particular episode is less worthy of its own page than any other preceding it. There has been a standard set in terms of giving South Park episodes their own page, and I don't see a reason to change that. Stuartfaz (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." -- Masterzora (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, WP:NOT#PAPER also says that, in bold, that This policy is not a free pass for inclusion. MuZemike (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, there is one of the core criteria in Wikipedia and this is Notability. In any case, some of the people here seem to be missing the point of the nomination. I don't oppose this specific article (which is still bad and IMO should be merged to the season article), I am just demonstrating that several episodes do not pass criteria for separate articles. There were some attempts to get a consensus on this but as far as I know the summarization has been done for a couple of series only. Sometimes, this was pretty radical, for example, see Wikipedia:Pokémon test. --Tone 11:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are absolutely correct in that it's not a free pass for inclusion, and that articles must abide by the content policies. However, nobody has pointed out a single policy that this article violates, so my original statement stands. Further, note that your link, WP:NOT#PAPER references the same essay from which I pulled the quote regarding how there is no reason we shouldn't have an article about every episode of a TV show. -- Masterzora (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep So by deleting this article, you want to set a precedent so every article covering 12 series of South Park gets deleted? Hell, why stop there? Lets start deleting episode articles about Star Trek/X-Files/The Simpsons, et al. If it's the manner in which the article is written, why not ask for it to be re-written? Just because one Wikipedian deems a page irrelevant, doesn't mean others feel the same way about it. This is one very strange deletion request. --Factorylad (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was not ment as a precedent nomination. I am just trying to point out how the standards should be raised. Check the last season of Lost, every article has much more than a plot summary and trivia. I am not saying every article needs to be deleted, only the bad ones. This is an encyclopedia, not a tv guide. Other wikis are for that. Check a FL, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. Episodes that have notability asserted (won awards, gained media attention etc.) have separate articles, the others haev the plot summarized and there is a link to wikia where all the details are more than welcome. What I am trying to show is that this is a better encyclopedic approach. --Tone 14:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going by that notion, I'm sure there are plenty of unworthy articles in List of The Simpsons episodes and List of Family Guy episodes of which every episode has an article. Bear in mind that this article is still in it's infancy. I'm sure articles such as Trapped in the Closet (South Park), which you referred to didn't appear overnight and are the result of ongoing work. --Factorylad (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have probably chosen an older article to demonstrate the point. For that purpose, maybe The Arsenal of Freedom is more illustrative. Most of the articles will never get over the plot summary since there's not much to add as they are just episodes. My proposal is not delete, but Merge. --Tone 14:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point still remains that any action you wish to be taken with this article should be adhered to with similar articles (for example, articles included in List of The Simpsons episodes and List of Family Guy episodes as I referred to). Why stop at television shows? Does Wikipedia really need a single article for every element in the New Order discography? On a separate note, if your suggestion is to merge and not delete, you should consider removing the article for deletion box and replacing it with { {merge} }. --Factorylad (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the notion that hard drive space is cheap, what do we gain from merging into a season summary? Nothing it seems. What do we lose? The extra detail and perhaps the encouragement to go ahead and add to the article. Seeing everything squeezed like this might be off putting to newer editors.

Besides which, this article seems to have been chosen as an example for the nominator's idea of how articles should appear in general, not on the merits of how it might turn out, which seems sort of wrong to me. At the very least, the assertion that "Take any of ther article of the season, they are solely plot summaries" is wrong. What about The China Probrem and the controversy caused by the sight of George Lucas raping Indiana Jones, that seems outside a mere plot summary. Or the production segment of About Last Night.... It doesn't help the nomination that the nominator doesn't seem to have read the other articles from this season. Alastairward (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep South Park being a culturally significant series, popular internationally, even single episodes are notable enough to have their own articles. You want to include only really important subjects, such as countries and human organs, there are literally a million less relevant articles in Wikipedia one should get rid of first. Granted, this might not be the most significant South Park episode in terms of controversial plot elements etc., but it would be near-impossible to agree on which episodes deserve an article of their own, should this one be deleted.--Almost Anonymous (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete of all South Park episode articles. Keep only the main South Park article, the one for the movie, and the list of episodes. Kill all the episode and character articles; none of them are notable in the slightest way, and the South Park Wiki exists for the fans. --Captain Infinity (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Wikipedia is *wikipedia* and trying to imitate every other encyclopedia in the areas they lack compared to Wikipedia is just doing everyone a disservice. If you want to read traditional encyclopedia, please by all means log off and go buy one. The only sensible alternative to Keep is to create a sub-section of wikipedia that's dedicated to hosting this type and other trivia information and in the process of moving the content also create links from the original content, not to some 3rd party site (driving revenue and value away from wikipedia). I think it's reasonable to assume the person who proposed this has a financial motive having noticed people prefer to go to wikipedia for same information that certain commercially natured sites offer.

Notability: 1.(dated) Capable of being noted; noticeable; plain; evident. 2. Worthy of notice; remarkable; memorable; noted or distinguished.

People all over the world see these episodes. Are articles about rare disease that only might occur in US near some old chemical spill area or obscure science and math subjects notable by definition 2 ? I don't think so, yet no one is arguing for their deletion. Clearly the case here is that commercial sites have taken interest in Wikipedia competing with them. Fact is that gamefaqs and so on lack some of the interesting information you have on Wikipedia and they could go down any moment for various reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.125.142 (talk) 6:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Per common sense. 71.64.154.24 (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to LoE / new season article until this episode has (at least) been nominated for an award or has otherwise caused controversy (WP:NOTABILITY), or has been improved to support a spinout per WP:SIZE without violating WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF, WP:RS and WP:OR. Note to nominator: Tagging plot-only articles of notable/popular shows with ((notability)) usually works better - either the articles get improved (great!) or not (at which point there is proof that they aren't getting improved and should be merged/redirected/deleted). Note to SP wikiproject: maybe it's time to reconsider your approach. WP:SIMPSONS and WP:LOST are doling out GAs and FAs at high speed and thus can reasonably assert that they are improving the other articles as well, and WP:STARGATE and User:Bignole with his Smallville articles have stopped adding WP:SEWAGE to the already polluted pond and voluntarily cut back heavily on their in-universe and plot cruft (SG is still in the process, SV has already succeeded). – sgeureka ^t•c 17:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per common sense. Jonesy702 (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep It has been the accepted standard on Wikipedia to have pages for episodes in series, be it Simpsons, Seinfeld, South Park, whatever. It is shameless that a user would attempt to brute-force his own opinion against the accepted consensus by attacking a single page and causing all this chaos. If you don't think Wikipedia should give television episodes their own pages, then there should be a general talk page to discuss making broad sweeping changes to accepted Wikipedia policy. Removing a single page by brute-forcing an adf would make Wikipedia look dreadfully inconsistent and unpredictable. Users who regularly visit Wikipedia for information on pop culture such as films and television episodes would suddenly be inconvenienced and denied pertinent information because someone had a hissy fit over the existence of an article they didn't happen to like. If any of the other pages stay, then this page stays. For the sake of consistency and common sense: STRONG KEEP. PyroGamer (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, it's an episode of a notable TV show. The episode itself is the primary source for the plot summary. And notability cannot be "established" — it's a subjective opinion. Go write an article on the topic of notability and you might learn something. There is no policy against "trivia" — that's because just about everything on Wikipedia is trivia. You cannot know what an orange tastes like by reading the Orange (fruit) article — it is just a description. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no reason why episodes of notable shows cannot have articles on Wikipedia. No, this is not "what another wiki is for." If you want to make Gil Penchina richer, go ahead and delete the article. But Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Saying "This is Wikipedia, not TV.com" is irrelevant. This website is obviously en.wikipedia.org, not tv.com — but that doesn't mean this article should be deleted. You might as well say "This is Wikipedia, not IMDb.com" and try to delete every film article. It doesn't logically follow. The nominator has suggested a "merge" so I don't even know why we're here. Please only nominate articles for deletion if you think they should be deleted. AFD is not for discussing merges. So if you want to merge the article and not delete it, taking it to AFD is a waste of volunteer's valuable time. In response to Bigvinu, I don't care what Wikiproject Video Games thinks, or does (and as if they all share one mind). If a TV show already has season pages, great. But that doesn't mean we should delete every episode page on Wikipedia. No article on Wikipedia is "necessary." Tone, you do not understand what Wikipedia:Notability says. It says topics should be notable. This episode is notable. Notability guidelines list evidence that the community considers evidence of notability. But that is not the only evidence of notability. Saying "This is an encyclopedia, not a tv guide" is irrelevant. Like Masterzora said, Meta:Wiki is not paper says "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." It's sad that the people making these deletion nominations don't realize they're doing more for Gil Penchina and Jimbo Wales and Angela Beesley than the readers of Wikipedia. --Pixelface (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• After that last entry, when do we remove the AfD box? --Factorylad (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My interpretation of the GFDFact is that gamefaqs andL license is that text from Wikipedia cannot be moved to Wikia, like Captain would like to, only copied, because the "original document must be made available" and obviously if you delete the users contribution made here then the original is gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.125.142 (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that I've seen many articles deleted a while before they became "notable" and then people being unable to add it back. Therefore I propose the Notability policy to be changed so that article must be atleast one year old before it can be suggested for deletion based on notability. For example. Suppose someone made article about assasination of Obama and you would speedily delete it and then few months later Obama was assasinated. I think the police would be very interested in why was the article detailing the assasination plan deleted as obviously it was notable, just not when the article was created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.125.142 (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty, plenty of articles are less notable/have less claims for notability. Most South Park episodes are already notable by virtue of their existence. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Articles like these make Wikipedia what it is. This latest article on this week's episode of South Park is informative and consistent with the over 150 previous articles like it about past South Park episodes. My jaw dropped when I came in this week to get the info on the latest episode and saw the deletion message. If someone doesn't want these articles then they've got some serious issues with core Wikipedia ideologies -- not just this article. We'd have to go and delete every South Park episode entry, every Star Trek entry, all TV episodes entries. How about we just be happy that people are willing spare their free time to expand Wikipedia to cover all directions of human endeavour whimsical, scientific, cultural, economic and otherwise. If TV episode articles are not your cup of tea then don't view the articles. The articles don't get in your way. JA (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep dido Pixelface. - poof money

• Keep, why the hell is this episode being singled out? Someone obviously has a bias as there's no continuty between this and other eps. --TheTruthiness (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, Ditto to TheTruthiness on the singling out. This is obviously just some who just don't like South Park who want it removed, for example person who said remove all episodes and character pages, are you kidding? Keep the page and stop the growing Wikipedia bias. --Mothball666 (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, I don't get it. Like Mothball666 said, people just want it removed (only who don't like South Park). Its really situation to say "What the hell?!!".. Rogerchocodiles (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Rogerchocodiles[reply]

• Keep. All South Park episodes gain enough media attention to classify as notable. There are numerous relevant Google News hits to prove this. I've also added a section on the episode's reception, so it's not just a plot summary anymore. 96T (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. You're trying to tear the building down while it's still being built. All articles have to start off somewhere, and just because it needs improvement does not mean it needs to be immediately deleted. We have plenty of articles lacking in references, more information, and the like, but that does not necessarily mean it merits deleting. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Never get rid of episode articles. Where else would we get episode info? Nowhere! So keep this article. Whoever nominated this made a large mistake.

• Strong Keep, I just saw this episode and I came here to see what little bits of information and references I missed. When I saw it was up for deletion, I was kind of irked. Wikipedia has always been about information about everything. Start limiting it here, what else would we have to get rid of? seanfury —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Incredibly Strong Keep You're just like the quarter of Americans that thinks there was a conspiracy behind 9/11. This episode is only 5 days old. The article isn't that much older. You cannot delete it. If you want this deleted, you might as well wipe it off Wikipedia itself. I was pleased when Wendy Testaburger got her own article, as she is an important character- she is Stan's girlfriend. If you want this deleted, just delete all the articles on South Park. Then delete important stuff, we might as well delete the articles opposing Robert Mugabe's regime- and Robert Mugabe is the most evil black man ever. Hell, we might as well delete articles on current dictators to keep the dictators happy. Allow the Chinese government to censor Wikipedia to keep the leaders happy. If we want Wikipedia to remain a good source of information, then we cannot delete important stuff. Stuff about episodes. There is stuff to delete, like Wendy's bio on the students thing after expanding her main article, but not articles about major stuff. Sorry I ranted a bit, but that's what I feel. It's like censoring random things: it's unnecessary, unhealthy and completely stupid. nintendomaster3, not user (yet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.27.174 (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Thank you all for your feedback. I am happy that the responses have been civil though the nomination itself was pretty provocative. I think I have gathered enough opinions now. Since the nomination is losing its point because most of the people is just voting for keep and not suggesting any systematic improvements to the episode articles in general, I feel it is time to withdraw the nomination. I am happy to see that the article has been slightly improved, though it still includes an unreferenced trivia section at the time I am writing this. As DGG mentioned above, there should be a middle way between well-referenced articles that span beyond plot summary and season articles that make an overview. Somehow, if you compare a tv show to a book, episodes are like chapters. The show or the book can notable by itself, but that does not necessarily hold for chapters. Anyway, I think it is more appropriate to continue somewhere else. With this I would like to conclude this debate and ask an uninvolved admin to close the nomination (keep, obviously). Thanks again. --Tone 10:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok before you end this, think about this: Part of the reason why Wikipedia exist is to provide more insight about topics that expands as an encyclopedia that gives information about every aspect of something. Deleting the article being discussed is going against the Status quo of wikipedia. i have noticed on this page that one person suggested that ALL the episodes should be removed from wikipedia and only keep the main South Park article. But what if someday, someone very new to South Park comes along, reads the main South Park article, and says "hm, i wonder what the episodes of this show is about so i can get an idea of what is satired in South Park." If we remove those articles, that person would be very disappointed because he was unable to read sourced information about the episodes of South Park. He will then look at an unsourced and untrue website about the episode that wont provide the information correctly, and he would be very skeptical of it. One of the reasons why i got into South Park is because of wikipedia. Denying that chance for someone else is selfish. I think Wikipedia needs to be there so people can get the right information, and South Park articles do just that. We already have 12 full seasons of the show in seperate articles. Why not just finish it out till the show ends in 2011? If people think that the article is irrelevent, which its not, simply improve the article so that it is more formal, provide sources for the information, discuss the content before it is added so that people reach a consensus, then lock the article. end of story. --J miester25 (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might also add that this deletion proposal was premature. The episode had barely been out for two days. Expecting the article to be perfect after only two days is unrealistic. I suggest that you wait a lot longer before proposing to delete something like this.--Matt (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I feel I have to add something here. Please, check Free Hat. I could have tagged it because of exactly the same reason - no references and nothing but a detailed plot summary. Anyway, I was not proposing a complete removal of the articles, I just find that a short summary of each episode at the season article would suffice. Like 5 sentences, most episodes could be covered with that. For those that need more, separate articles, sure. So all the relevant info is accesible for those interested and Wikipedia does not turn in a fanpage. --Tone 17:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J miester25, exactly! I feel bad about the link to Memory-Alpha in the Star Trek episode articles for just that reason. It may be a pretty good fan wiki, but it's not wikipedia and as such information in it goes from the cited to fancruft. SP is a popular series, why not offer viewers the opportunity to read about the series knowing that we've sifted through the rubbish to give them verifiable facts?

I added the reference to the article, with is the episode that is found on SouthParkStudios.com that an adminsitrator in a previous arctile talk page stated that it would verify the claims good enough. I will also remove the Sources Tag. --J miester25 (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Strong Keep. I disagree with the reason for opening this article for deletion, as well as a few of Tone's supplementary arguments.

• Tone's thought that only the 'well written' articles, or the ones that do more than 'summarize the plot' can be kept, but extras can be cut. Unfortunately, a lot of the better articles became that way through the process of Wikipedia's revisions. Ergo, they are what they are because they weren't deleted at this early stage of the item.
• Tone weakens his argument by saying 'some' articles are acceptable. Considering that all episodes are of the same duration, judging which ones were monumental (besides the first and last) is strictly up to opinion. On that note, if some are acceptable, all should be acceptable.
• Of my own personal thoughts, South Park is one of the longest running animated series. On this note, each article on it is suitable, versus brief series with less lingering cultural impact. --SoreThumb (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answering Tone. Only having a season article does not provide enough insight for each specific episode. Not only does the plot need to be inlcuded, but also the references to pop culture that the specific episode makes. If there is not a seperate article that shows these attributes of a specific episode, there is no way of knowing what is satired in the show and the main South Park article does not hold the water for the entire series, and neither will 15 season articles. ALL 180+ episodes need to have their own specific article. Also, if information is placed on wikipedia, like a plot summary without references as you suggessted, would not be verifiable and follow Wikipedia Standards. By providing a seperate article for each episode would you be able to verify the claims that are brought forth for each episode. --J miester25 (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slight misunderstanding here, I believe. The problem with references to pop culture as I see in most of the articles is that they are mostly original research. Chech the talkpage of the article in question, there is a debate whether a specific detail is a reference to some show or not. One needs external reference for that, like a magazine review saying "this episode of South Park satirized this and that show". I don't see what you mean with last two sentences here, all should of course be sourced and therefore everything should be easy to check. I remember from one debate that too detailed plot summaries are close to copyright violations but I can't direct you to that debate so I will not go further on this ground. Anyway, the plot of this episode can easily be summarized in something like Guys find out that they know nothing of the new fad, that's causing everyone to sing in a way that resembles High School musical. The most prominent singer is a new guy called Brydon. Stan tries to convince Brydon to play basketball instead but this proves to be hard because of Brydon's singing obsessed father. At the end, Brydon chooses to play basketball. After resisting to follow the fad the guys decide to go along singing but then they realize that everyone is interested in basketball. The reason is that they liked Brydon and not the fad itself. Ok, could be done better but I believe this is perfectly enough for a summary. And again, some episodes require more place because they generated controversy or won awards or were significant in some other way. The rest were just episodes. There is no need to have an article for every episode just because there are articles for some of them. Are we coming any closer here? --Tone 22:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something can be summarized in a few sentences doesn't mean that's the correct way to do it. If you can provide all the information on a subject, why would you go with the bare minimum? Wikipedia is about giving information about everything to everyone, why would you want to limit the topics covered? It makes no sense. seanfury —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC). \[reply]

First of all, cultural references are not original research. We established this with admin. Nightscream. The cultural references that are provided from season 1 to 9 on this website is from DVD commentary that user Alastairward did most of the work on with other users, and provided sources for his inquiry. Though some of them, like Free Hat, that you mentioned, that SHOULD have cultural references to movies such as Star Wars and Indiana Jones, will be provided with sources that come from SouthParkStudios and DVD commentaries. I will begin this construction in Decemeber, since I am currently dealing with school. The seasons afterward, some of the articles, are provided with fact tags that need references when the DVDs come out in the near future. Season 10 and 11 are currently under construction for such reason. Also, if you look at the original Star Trek episode articles, they provide a WHOLE bunch of information that gives a lot of insight of that episode, none of which are original research and provide resources for their inquiry. Also, the summaries on these South Park articles are not mostly short, but that is because the information comes from a primary source such as the DVD commentary and content of the episode. The reason why these are not shortened for the episodes coming out now and the recent past as of 2006, is because the information comes from a primary source: the videos that are posted on SouthParkStudios.com The references that are on these articles come from that primary source, and those that cannot be proven until later are marked with Fact Tags. And like what SineBot said, it does not serve the article justice to simply have a few sentences of it. While summarizing an episode, you need to provide the intro, conflict, rising action, climax, falling action, and conclusion. What you suggessted does not do any of it and it goes against the status quo of episode articles on Wikipedia. Also, this is not a "fan site" as you claimed. The information comes from very direct refernces and proves the claims made to be true. What you suggest does not do that in any way and does not seem right by any means. Secondly, artilces such as Trapped in the Closest has the same plot length as most of the articles of South Park episodes, but provides more reception and more information because it had such a greater impact than other episodes. That is ok. That does not mean you exclude other episodes from being able to show what it is about and you must cleary define it, instead of having a few sentences. And no we are not getting any closer because you cannot realize the REALITY of Wikipedia and what it stands for. Finally, you are completely misunderstanding the issue here. I am not. I know what should happen here, and I know how to handle this right. You apparently do not. --J miester25 (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to ease your tone a little. The interpretations of what should be written in the Wikipedia articles are different and there are many people who agree with you and many who don't. In any case, since you say that you are willing to improve the articles, I am happy to hear that. I think I have already presented all my arguments in the discussion so I will now retire from the debate. Maybe some Wikipedia guidelines need reshuffling but I will not engage in any debate there for some time, maybe later. As I have stated before, this nomination can now be closed. --Tone 08:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. It is commonly accepted on Wikipedia for several notable television series to have individual articles for each episode. Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia; it's not intended to be, and that's why there are articles on so many more things than in an encyclopedia like Britannica or World Book. The fact that some episode summaries are copied-and-pasted from a television website is disgraceful, perhaps, but there's nothing keeping you from rewriting the summary yourself, and that's no reason to nominate an article for deletion. The bottom line is that this is just your personal crusade against episode articles, and nominating an individual article for deletion is not going to automatically overturn some precedent. If you really want to mess with the status quo, there would have to be a discussion on changing Wikipedia policy -- because as it is now, there's nothing wrong with having articles for individual "South Park" episodes. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I disagree with many policies on Wikipedia. But I don't act on my opinions like this. I'll say I don't like them. But I won't go around act in blatant defiance of them while they still stand. I know the rules. They are there for a reason. They keep things stable. A personal vendetta is no reason to try to delete something.Matt (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a final comment. episodes are usually not like chapters! Chapters can not stand alone, in any sense whatsoever; they're basically pauses. Episodes in contrast are written to have some degree of internal closure, to be viewable by themselves--you won't know the background, you won't appreciate the motivations, but you will know at least the resolution or deliberate non-resolution of the particular incident. Look at the descriptions--this is almost always the case. In most good books, if you skip a chapter, you usually miss something necessary to understand the action and as things go on, you get more and more confused. Episodes are usually written with enough hooks backwards to explain the continuity. They more resemble & I think derive from the structure of comic books, which is why there is such an easy translation between those media. (There are of course other possibilities--the structure of those 19th century novels published as weekly chapters usually do not stand alone--they are not true episodes. ) The traditional form they most closely resemble is connected short stories. My favorite example is Wodehouse, with stories using the same repeated characters. Thats why we almost never have articles on individual chapters of novels--there are very few where it would make the least sense, even if a particular chapter is famous for its particular artistry or complexity of development. DGG (talk) 22:20, 18 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. SoWhy 22:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject is not notable per WP:BIO. When this article survived previous AfD last year, contributors insisted the case was notable and the article could be improved. The article is full of unreferenced claims and there is no evidence that this case was ever legally significant. Subject appeared in news articles prior to his execution because of his intent to tell a joke at his execution. No joke was ever told, and the subject only garnered brief publicity, and does not merit an article. Talmage (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Talmage (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in spite of the article's numerous issues. While it is undeniable that the Patrick Knight case was newsworthy at the time, the question is really whether the information about the subject is still notable enough to now be worthy of being preserved in an encyclopedia. I'm inclined to say yes, because Knight has been one of the more notorious criminals in the 2000s, if only because of his plan to tell a joke as his last statement. Yes, the article is a mess -- a wealth of unreferenced information that could be original research for all we know, given the fact that there are exactly two sources for the numerous paragraphs. Yes, it is almost told as a narrative -- this version would be better as a chapter in a book rather than an encyclopedia article. But those are things that can be improved, and while the case may not have been legally significant by establishing precedents, it was certainly significant enough to prompt a tremendous amount of coverage in newspapers and on television across the nation and even in other countries. This is not a run-of-the-mill criminal case which will be forgotten right away; it was in the news for well over a year, after all. The "Controversies" section underscores the significance; if we could just get citations for all those quotes the article would be improved greatly. With a lot more references added and significant changes to certain sections to end neutrality disputes, this article could turn out fine. Thus, I say "keep." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would just say that in 16 months, the page hasn't been improved. Most importantly, I think WP:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information very much apply in this case. Talmage (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I wasn't around for the first nomination, but if the page hasn't been improved in 16 months then someone should try to improve it by getting some sources. And I will reiterate that the subject of this article was heavily covered for a year and a half, inspiring much controversy. Furthermore, I disagree with you and believe that it is not simply news; therefore neither of those policies apply. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep the legal qy is also notable, so this is more than NEWS. There is no deadline in WP for improving articles. DGG (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My main point is that there was no legal controversy, or at least no more than results from any capital case. The sole significance is of a joke that was never told. He was not a notorious criminal. John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, or even Karla Faye Tucker are infamous, but Patrick Knight isn't even in the same league of notability. He's a typical Texas inmate put to death with the exception of brief publicity garnered from a contest to find a joke that was never told. Should there be a Wikipedia page for every executed criminal in Texas? I'm not sure there's enough space on the server for that, considering someone is executed nearly every ten minutes in Texas. Talmage (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No, there should not be an article for every inmate executed in Texas, but that doesn't mean that this one should be deleted. While he was not as notorious as the serial killers you listed, he was certainly notorious enough to generate well over a years' worth of heavy coverage in the media, which eventually sprawled over into the realm of satire. It is one of the most noteworthy executions this decade, and as from an inclusionist perspective I feel this article should not be deleted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There was coverage only for a brief period of time. Please cite examples of how this sprawled into the realm of satire. This is documented nowhere on the page, and I can't find any reference to it and can't find any coverage related to this guy except right before and right after his execution, as is typical with all who are put to death in America. Talmage (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Unfortunately I am unable to cite any specific examples of its portrayal in satire, although I do recall satirical columns about it. However, I want to reiterate that the case was heavily documented in the news throughout his appeals process, so the coverage is out there. Now, I would like to say that while we both have discussed the subject's notoreity, notoreity is a pretty subject thing, so I think we should leave that out of the rest of this discussion. In addition, I believe that your claim that the case had no legal significance or controversy beyond the typical death penalty case is untrue. The section in this article on lack of mitigation, which you have repeatedly removed, is indeed original research, but it's also what establishes this case as legally significant. If there are indeed third-party sources out there which could provide similar information about the case, it would in my opinion make the case legally significant enough to easily end this debate. Unfortunately that is not the way things are. I would like to offer a suggestion. Perhaps we should move this article so the subject is the case (presumably Knight v. State of Texas or something similar) and not the criminal. Of course, that would depend on the lack of mitigation information, which is likely to stay out of the article as original research until someone can come up with the references to back it up. Regardless, I remain opposed to deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Delete This is an example of recentism and of unfair weight given to people with contemporary media coverage. An attention-seeking murderer might have interested the media for a little while, but the memory will fade in time. On the other hand, I do believe Wikipedia should be comprehensive and the great advantage is that it can include stuff that isn't included in any other encyclopedia. This, however, is pushing it, we need to think about whether anybody not associated with the case will be seeking this information in ten years or so. Attention-seeking criminals are not that uncommon, and neither are people solely on the basis that they got the death penalty. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 18:06, 14 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  19:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not news, and while this individual may have been notable if he had followed through with his plan to make a joke, since he didn't, the article is nothing but news. Wikipedia shouldn't have an article for every person executed, only the notable ones, and while this person was in the news a lot, that does NOT mean he is notable enough to warrent a Wikipedia article. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that if a criminal is in the news across the world for such a long time the person, or at least the case is (I will reiterate my proposal to move rename the article after the case), they become a notable part of the public consciousness. Take, for example, the Scott Petersen case. There wasn't really anything too notable about the case except that it caught national and perhaps international attention and was covered heavily in the media throughout. There is a Wikipedia article on Scott Petersen, in spite of the fact that his trial did not spark an legal controversy and really was not notable except for the fact that it was heavily covered in the media. Petersen is not more notable than Knight; the fact that his inclusion in Wikipedia has never been disputed is a double standard. If the Knight article is deleted, I will nominate the Petersen article for deletion as well on that basis. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • After some quick internet research, I found multiple news results including ones from outside the US and I think it does assert notability. I hate to change my stance so easily, but I just didn't look this one through properly; will change to weak keep, however, the article needs to be completely re-written and more references added (search Google News Archives and use the "NOT" parameter for the word coach). If you want help, I've got nothing much else to do on Wikipedia, so I can help you with this one. And you are going to be accused of WP:POINT if you nominate Scott Petersen for deletion. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 06:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Perhaps I would be accused of WP:POINT, but wrongfully so, I think. My goal would not be to make a point; it would be to make sure that articles are not held to different standards unfairly after being nominated for deletion. Surely you would not say that articles should be held to double standards unfairly? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see no reason why an encyclopedia, especially a non-paper one, shouldn't preserve information like this. There will be less interest in it as time goes on but a reader ten years from who's researching issues related to the death penalty might come upon a reference to Knight and want to know more. JamesMLane t c 19:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would disagree. The reason being, Knight's case was not legally significant, and his media attention was solely related to a publicity stunt. In response to a previous point, I don't think this is much of a comparison to Scott Peterson. Peterson's case dominated the news and is therefore culturally significant. Hours of coverage were spent analyzing his case each day on the cable news shows. This is not the case with Knight. He received a few blurbs after announcing his joke contest. Neither his crime, his case, nor his joke contest received significant national coverage. His joke contest was widely reported, but only briefly with little detail. He was not subject to the same type of continuous round-the-clock detailed analysis as Scott Peterson. You will find many Google hits, but most articles are essentially the same syndicated story, stating either his intent to hold a contest, or his failure to follow through during his execution. On the grounds that he attained only minor notoriety for a publicity stunt, I believe this article should be deleted. Furthermore, he never had a household name like Scott Peterson, but is just known as "that murderer who was going to tell a joke". If I mentioned Scott Peterson, most people would know instantly whom I was talking about, but this is not true for Patrick Knight. Talmage (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Perhaps Scott Peterson was more of a household name, but the basic facts for both murderers are the same: Each was a murderer, sentenced to death, whose trial, while not legally significant, was heavily covered in the news. The degree to which it was covered is a somewhat subjective decision on your part, Talmage. But I will not actually nominate the Scott Peterson article for deletion because I know that people will cite the same things you did just now as a reason for keeping, and likely accuse me of WP:POINT. It's a shame that a double standard such as that would exist if and when the Patrick Knight article is deleted and the Scott Peterson article stays -- but I'm not here to stir up trouble, just to offer my thoughts. I've presented my explanation of why this article ought to be kept thoroughly, and I truly have no more to say on the subject. Therefore, I will extricate myself from this discussion and leave the rest to other users who wish to post their opinions, and to the administrator who will decide whether or not to delete. I appreciate the civil discussion, everyone. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: This is wrong. Knight's trial was not heavily covered in the news. Degree is everything and ultimately everything in life except mathematics is subjective. Talmage (talk) 18:20, 17 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. was deleted by User:Athaenara as Wikipedia:CSD#G7: sole author requested deletion or blanked page. (non-admin closure) DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is about a rap artist which has no reliable sources to verify the infromation presented, nor establish notability. A search on Google News turned up no relevant results. Not even any event announcements. A Google web search find his myspace page and similar sites, but none that could be considered a reliable source. The article was originally proposed for deletion by another editor but the PROD was removed by the article creator. Tags for references, and notability have been removed by the article creator, but the sole reference provided is not a reliable source, nor am I able to figure out how it even covers the subject of this article. Whpq (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Meets speedy deletion criteria, tag removed by original author, then page blanked by original author, which was reverted. Blanking by the only significant contributor constitutes speedy deletion criteria under CSD:7. Clear deletion. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Theseeker4's explanation and investigation and explanation by nominating editor.ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete by the above accounts, especially after the author blanked it. Synchronism (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominated for WP:CSD#G7 'author blanking'Synchronism (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:15, 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. Cirt (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Exchange (crime syndicate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely non-notable fictional group -- minor within the games, wholly insignificant in the real world. Completely unreferenced content. Redirect was undone with no actual contributions to the article; ditto prod very close to expiring. Article, such as it is, is entirely plot summary and cruft. --EEMIV (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of notability and failing WP:PLOT. Fletcher (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Tag as references needed? Everything in nomination is true, except that I'm not sure it's not notable as part of two very popular games. Could any of it be sourced at least to gaming magazines?ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Also I found this in the edit summary, "reverting to article, as the redirect target literally does not mention "the exchange" (and didn't when the redirect was put in place, either). Prod it or merge it if you want." So perhaps a good faith merge could have avoided this? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing to merge/worth merging. --EEMIV (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it even mentioned in the parent article? Are you questioning its existence or whether it's notable enough for its own article? It just seems to me that if whatever relevan information was included in the parent article, at least one editor wouldn't have recreated this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's not mentioned in the game articles. The Exchange is a minor bit of "scenery"/a group that background NPCs are members of in both games. --EEMIV (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not important. Keyshours (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect Someone would have to do some miracle sourcing to show that this in notable outside of the game. AniMate 19:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Raven1977 (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:23, 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 Keep. I think that, on balance, WP:BLP1E is inapposite to this case because the underlying premise of WP:BLP - avoiding harm to individuals by respecting their privacy - is not implicated here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Three years on, it is now evident that this one-time winner of Big Brother squarely fails WP:BLP1E. The subject has not had any achievements since the show. The biography contains a paucity of reliably sourced biographical information, which suggests that her notability is not high. Note also that this article has survived deletion when bundled with Eddie McGee; it has also been tagged merger candidate for over a year. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the appropriate Big Brother article, per WP:BLP1E--Boffob (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- as the winner, I think it is marginally notable enough to maintain the article; also, this really should be looked at from the standpoint that she is one of 10 people who are basically in the same boat -- winners with nothing since. I think a mass nomination of the winners would be the way to go rather then a one-off discussion. As a possible compromise, how about a Winners of Big Brother (US) article, there are 10 of them now.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:18, 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,  Sandstein  16:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Once notable, always notable. Notability does not expire. We don't talk much today about people who were members of the New Jersey legislature in 1922, but we recognize them as notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 17:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Winners of Big Brother (US), per jordan's suggestion, the other winner's articles should be AFD'ed if this one succeeds. Some of the winners might merit their own articles independent from the winners list, other not. (And, as per WP:BLP1E compliance, this article is not a biography but just a mention that she won the contest that year and some circumstances around it, so it needs to be merged somewhere). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The winner of each season is notable, and the best justification for that is that it makes sense. I've seen lots of articles get written when its 9th place, or something like that and that clearly doesn't count. . I';m not sure about 2nd and 3rd, but certainly 1st. One achievement at the top level is sufficient for notability. BELPIE applies only when someone is incidentally caught up in something or on the periphery--not the center, not the winner. DGG (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC) DGG (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She's notable because she was the winner. Big Brother is definitely a notable competition, and was a pioneering series in reality tv. 128.118.242.160 (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. She's notable only because she was the winner and for no other reason, hence fails WP:BLP1E. Big Brother is notable but notability is not inherited. McWomble (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nom is exactly right. Why do we bother having BLP1E if editors are blithely indifferent to its application. Eusebeus (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability other than winning the series, hence fails articles about people notable only for one event. McWomble (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Big Brother 3 (U.S.) seems like the most sensible outcome. -Halo (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. On BLP1E, I think there is a distinction as to whether a person actively worked for the event, or passively was affected by the event. In this case, the subject was a fully willing participant in the show, and won it. There is nothing particularly negative in the article either. The celebrity status (this is a major reality show, on a major network, in a major country), as well as Eastmain's argument is my reason for going with keep on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Where the heck does WP:BLP1E say that the subject has to be an active participant on the event? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I assumed that was right but apparently not. WikiScrubber (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as this article is sparse and has had ample opportunity to be improved. WikiScrubber (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Once notable, always notable, like being a king or queen of Narnia. In this case it might be being a king or queen of a really dumb show but that doesn't matter. BLP1E is made primarily to protect people who have gotten in the news for a single event. Strict application of BLP1E is thus highly unreasonable when the individual has gone to much effort to be the center of attention. Furthermore, there have been followup sources post the original win that give her continuing notability and thus isn't BLP1E anyways. I'd love if we could delete everything related to so called reality-tv but policies, guidelines and common sense don't let us do so. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:00, 19 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, following Phil Bridger's cleanup of the article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Hyderali Shihab Thangal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

consted prod Article does not explain notability of the subject and is uncited Oo7565 (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable person. Being the relative of some notable person does not make him notable. Also the article (without citations) claims he has been a judge in the Kerala's muslim community which itself doesn't appear to be a very notable post. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no source for notability.--Boffob (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It appears that he's a senior figure in the Indian Union Muslim League, being touted as a potential leader, although why the article creator omitted to say that in favour of listing his relations I'm at a loss to understand. I've added some references to the article and there are more sources available from a Google News Archive search. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:25, 10 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  16:49, 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 g11, disguised website ad. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Badness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:OR, WP:DICT.. anything else? -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 15:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete This nonsense should have been marked as such (((db-nonsense))) and never gotten to the AfD process in the first place. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. I nominated this for speedy, viewing this as original research, unsourced, and yielding no Google hits, a test page at best. I would have marked it as nonsense, but I know that some would make the literal interpretation that the article is coherent, and thus... JNW (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to drop a speedy too, just couldn't think of a criteria. That article doesn't appear to be a test page (original research, unsourced doesn't fit g2), I don't believe its gibberish either. -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 16:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find a good Speedy Criteria for this one, but it's clear that the subject is non-existant at worst, and non-notable at best. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rationale for not applying speedy understood and appreciated. It just looked like a freshman level test balloon, a first-time contribution, so one had hoped that a speedy death would be most merciful. JNW (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Made up in one day, or more like one hour. Someone snowball this, please! Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 00:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP is not Urban Dictionary and WP:OR The muffin is not subtle (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per just about every policy. Themfromspace (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails the Everything test. JuJube (talk) 11:26, 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 13:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable Greek businessman. Article has been tagged for notability and reliable references since Dec 2007 to no avail. It makes no real claims to notabilty, other than "Sotiris is known for...", but then makes no effort to say who he is known by. Article is unreferenced (claimed references are links to tourist accommodation websites with which he may be asociated, but these do not confer any notability, though they may establish that he owns a hotel - not in itself sufficient reason to be in Wikipedia. A Google search returns 10 hits, all Wikipedia or Wiki copies. (I appreciate that a search on Greek Google may be more productive, but don't know Greek.) In summary, it looks like we have a case of Wikipedia being used for advertising or growing a business again. Emeraude (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No real claim to notability as per WP standards, not blatant advertising to justify a speedy delete, but a non-notable bio all the same, so delete. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, no reliable sources. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:N per that this article has no sources at all. I tried looking up this person, but I couldn't find anything to help keep this article. ~Beano~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:15, 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 merge to Young Dracula. Merge here means: Merge everything that can be used, then change page to disambiguation page. SoWhy 22:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is the main character in a Children's BBC series. Although that makes him notable enough to mention in some detail in the programme's article (of course), I'm not at all convinced that he is notable enough for his own article. The fact that he is discussed in sufficient depth in the parent article, Young Dracula, the fact that the article is written in a primarily in-universe style, and the fact that an article containing a list of Young Dracula characters just went through an AfD and was deleted, lead me to believe that this article too should be deleted. _TalkIslander 14:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. My impression is that the character is covered in the Young Dracula article, and that this is mostly redundant. But perhaps this should become a disambiguation page between Young Dracula, Count Dracula, and Vlad III the Impaler. Someone searching for "Vladimir Dracula" may not be looking for this character specifically. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete content as not suitably notable for an independent article, but per above suggestion this should be converted into a disambiguation page as a very possible search term for someone looking for one of the other versions of the Dracula character (obviously one of the links can point back to the TV series article). 23skidoo (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to dab or redirect per above rationales. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the series article. Jonathan321 (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to disambiguation; what more can I say?. — The Man in Question (sprec) · (forðung) 21:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Smerdis. Likely search term for any of the three individuals mentioned. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for closing admin: my initial nomination for deletion can be taken as either a nomination for deletion or as a nomination for deletion and recreation as a disambig page - the reasons given above are sound. _TalkIslander 22:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep first time I've seen something starting out "he's the main character ... " that wasn't a keep. It continues to seem logicval to me that the [principal characters of shows are the ones who get the articles. DGG (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 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 Deleted per A9. Skier Dude (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable album by a non-notable group. Fails WP:MUSIC. SummerPhD (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - CSD-A9. Now tagged as such.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 22:41, 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 Keep (non-admin closure) sufficient sources to demonstrate notability have been uncovered, all delete votes were made prior to Michig's presentation of sources. Consensus is that those sources along with the ones in the article demonstrate notability per WP:MUSIC #1. Icewedge (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. SummerPhD (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The customary standard of two releases on major labels does not seem to be fulfilled. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references. Passes WP:MUSIC on other grounds, including extensive media coverage, national touring, and having at least one individually notable member, Alissa White-Gluz. Note that passing any of WP:MUSIC's criteria or the general notability guideline is enough to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Re notability of Alissa White-Gluz: I don't see it. Her article is sourced to youtube, myspace and the record label's site. At the moment, her article's AfD seems to be heading toward a delete, or a redirect to the band's article. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This one is tough. So far there is only one release on one of the more notable indy metal labels so the band do not meet criteria Criteria for musicians and ensembles, criteria number 5 yet. Because of the singer being a contestant on Canadian Idol there is a perceived notability going on that might help the band squeak by Criteria for musicians and ensembles, criteria number 6, however outside of Canada and outside of bloggers and message boards there is not much coverage as the singer did not go that far in the competition. I can find sources that are not allowed per Criteria for musicians and ensembles, criteria number 1, except, such as press releases and reprints of press releases, bios, user submitted news and trivial mentions of the band on blogs because of Canadian Idol, but not any articles on the band as a whole that would come across as "Significant coverage" as defined at the general notability guidelines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The band passes WP:MUSIC based on coverage. This allmusic bio is perhaps too short to be classed as significant coverage, but this allmusic review certainly is, as is this MTV article (already referenced in the article) as is this article from the Montreal Mirror and possibly these from The Gauntlet [10], [11], and this from Dutch site blastbeat (translated here). Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources constitutes notability and appears to be easily satisfied here. Two releases on significant labels is only one criteria that would indicate notability, and failing one of the criteria of WP:MUSIC is not an indication that a band is not notable.--Michig (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:MUSIC with the ref's Michig found.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 22:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - newly uncovered sources demonstrate notability the usual way. No reason to not follow precedent. WilyD 23:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added one more reference as well. The band meets the WP:MUSIC criterion #1 requirements. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Two releases on major labels is not an absolute minimum requirement for a band to have a Wikipedia article; it's one criterion among several which may be met. And by the looks of this article as written, the band does meet others on that list. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 18 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 soft redirect to wiktionary entry. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely ever to become much more than an acronym definition. bodnotbod (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, dicdef. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to OMG. It's the same meaning, just without the four-letter curse in the middle. – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as dicdef. All this is, of course, is a variation of OMG, used by some people who think that it makes them look non-conformist. Not notable. Mandsford (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to OMG. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep soft redirect. Until this morning, minutes before this nomination, the article was a soft redirect to the Wiktionary version. This is not really even the proper venue for this discussion, as soft redirects are supposed to be subject to TFD RFD, not AFD, since they are functionally much more redirects than articles. I've restored the soft redirect, since the article had been a soft redirect for many months, and a dictionary definition article for minutes, before this debate started. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • TFD? Why? Stifle (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. RFD. Sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I guess. The redirect to OMG is tempting, but a redirect to a dab seems silly (do we add OMFG to the dab?). Another alternative would be to turn it into a dab-- there is Official Meeting Facilities Guide at http://www.omfg.com/ and the Ohio Milling & Farming Group at http://www.omfg.org/. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as soft redirect per TexasAndroid comment below. Changing it to a dab would, of course, have the same effect, but I doubt either of the orgs that bear the initials will ever merit an article. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A few more arguments for keeping this, and keeping it as a WP:Soft redirect. These internet slang terms get continuously recreated as dic defs. Deleting this is not going to prevent that. So deleting this will soon result in the article needing to be salted, which is IMHO a much worse situation that the current. Currently it is watched, and dic defs are generally reverted within hours at worst. And the soft redirect also serves to direct those who search for the term (and there are many) to the proper place for it, on Wiktionary. Without the soft redirect, we are left with a hole that will be repeatedly filled by well-meaning editors until the hole gets WP:SALTed. This is what soft redirects are for, and this is where they are at their most useful. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another approach is to have a non-dictionary article to redirect to. See Special:Whatlinkshere/LOL and Special:Whatlinkshere/LOL (Internet slang), for example. Uncle G (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this survives the deletion, redirect vs soft redirect is more of a debate for the talk page of OMFG. For now I'll just say that I generally do not object to local redirects replacing external soft redirects if a suitable local target can be found. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as soft redirect per TA. This soft redirect solution has worked before, and I think is appropriate here as well. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good link there. I had forgotten how much text I typed out on that old debate.  :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to OMG in Wiktionary. Whether this is the right venue or not, at least a consensus is getting established that this may not be the best place for this. MuZemike (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft Redirect - redirect to wiktionary. It's a dicdef, but it might as well soft redir to the wiktionary article... _David^WS _(contribs) 21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WINAD The muffin is not subtle (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to OMFG dicdef (OMG != OMFG). WikiScrubber (talk) 22:39, 18 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 13:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empty nose syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is very little medical literature that uses the term "Empty nose syndrome" and at this point in time it is quite hard to define as a separate entity with clear symptoms. It relates to a nose crippled by over resection of the nasal turbinates, but the symptoms are so variable and changing from one person to another that it is impossible to really define. It's a bit like putting all the causes of nasal obstruction under one term and calling it - "Blocked nose syndrome". Not very scientific... So - I would like this article to be deleted. I am the original author of this article. My old registration name which I used back then was "Allon a". Many thanks. Rock2000 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The amount of references and discussion in journals means this meets WP:GNG. However, the article does contain a certain amount of synthesis which could, and should, be trimmed. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a strange nomination. Per the article, the term was coined by Doctors Kern (of the Mayo Clinic) and Stenquist, and has figured in the title of several journal articles, so calling it "not very scientific" seems doubtful. It is well written and well referenced. The extended section of quotes should be reduced, the forum link removed, and any apparent OR removed, but otherwise it seems like a fine article. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are enough references here to document notability, as Stifle notes. Even if medical literature is limited on the subject, having some reliable medical literature reference it is sufficient, I think, to warrant keeping the article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Somewhat referenced, well written and notability asserted, meets Wikipedia guidelines. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 17:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Well written, references, in journals, etc. Meets notability guidelines. 'Nuff said. _David^WS _(contribs) 21:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - multiple high quality sources already cited, easily establish notability by the usual criterion. WilyD 23:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the subject may just possibly be notable, but there is no real indication that nobody except one particular researcher, Houser, uses the term. Are there any references usingthat as the main term for this not from him or his group? If not, is a neologism that didn't catch on. The article is furthermore written as a polemic, and in a style inappropriate and out of place in a general encyclopedia. We should cover science and medicine fully, but this is not reasonable. I am glad the author thought better of it. if kept, which i dont think it should be, it of course can be cut down to size very readily. DGG (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep — this is obviously referenced and verifiable. The reason to delete seems to be based on WP:IDONTKNOWIT and possibly an attempt at disruption, as the user has had a long track record of voting the opposite in so many AFDs. MuZemike (talk) 08:37, 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 13:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heading up and barring off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Useless article. Delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamc714 (talk • contribs) 2008/11/14 02:22:25

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - even if the two subjects merit articles, it's obvious that combining them into one article like this isn't the way to go. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mangoe and due to lack of references. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Sailing, if there's anything here worth merging. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though I disagree strongly with the nominator on this one; the article is not useless, and even if it were, useless isn't itself a criteria for deletion. That said, what little purpose this article might serve is already found at Sailing, so a duplicate article is unnecessary. If there's a fork of Sailing, I'd imagine it would be something like Sailing Terms or some such, which would include these two items and others. So, nothing to merge, and this being an unlikely search term (though Heading up and Barring off might not be), I think we can delete this one. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just like any other major sporting term, these are manuevers used in sailing. Shall we delete Tackle, goal, and Hail Mary from the site as well? I didn't think so... Coastalsteve984 (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether or not the terms deserve their own articles, combining them into a single composite article name like this is surely wrong. Mangoe (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:25, 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 speedy deletion (A7) -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hoax article. No article on German Wikipedia for either the label or artist. Google search for the label with its founder/artist (-wikipedia and myspace) returns two hits. Fails WP:V. Prod removed without comment. Sole contributor is single purpose account Msbmusic (talk · contribs) —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't seem to exist. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Alexius08 (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Company with no assertion of notability and a blatant COI (judging by the author's username.) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:41, 17 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. SoWhy 22:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Non-notable software; reads much like an advert. Whilst the idea of playback at greater speeds may be notable no notability for this implementation is proved, nor can I find any myself. Blowdart | ^talk 07:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While there are 9 references, none appear to be relevant to the topic. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The references are relevant to the Background section of the article. Rosso1876 (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• — Rosso1876 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• The MySpeed software is new and the only one of its kind at the moment; thus it is hard to get coverage by mainstream online sources. However, MySpeed has been featured in many Blogs recently and was a Featured Download on LifeHacker. LifeHacker is considered notable because it has passed the test for Wikipedia. LifeHacker has also received many accolades from mainstream sources such as Time Magazine, CNET, Wired Magazine, etc. You had removed the section to Variable Speed Playback on the Web, but the New York Times article from 2003 stated Perhaps the most popular is Enounce's 2XAV plug-in. The MySpeed software is an implantation of the same Enounce Time-scale tailor technology for Flash media where this capability did not exist. The New York times has said our previous software at the time could be considered the Most Popular, I would argue that the NYT article is relevant to MySpeed software and does give reliability and notability to this article. Also, Blowdart has said that Variable Speed Playback is notable and the Wikipedia articles Words per minute and Time-compressed speech support this. Shouldn't being the only implementation (for Flash) of a notable technology make this implementation notable. Rosso1876 (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Prior to this most recent rewrite, i canvased a myriad of similar pages for software tools: Many of which charge for the product:

cooledit (single outbound link), MindManager, Cooliris, DragonDictate (two external link references), WinZip, RAR, WinRAR

These tools and their pages are useful for users. The submitted page is no different. The current page has a similar link count to legitimate independent third party pages refering to this technology. I have done the homework on this review, I would appreciate a direct response to me over a phone or other medium that points out difference between this new page and the items i have referenced. I have carefully read the pages referenced above which have passed the "standard" and beleive whole heartedly that this page complies with that standard. Thank you for reviewing the submitted page and addressing your concerns within the text or removing the spam label. DonHejna (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep. None of the comments so far address my original points about the other software pages listed. I am willing to remove anything that is objectively advertising "jargon" and would welcome edits from you or others but so far no one has made reference to specific statements in the article or changes needed. Given that i reviewed the following product pages and found no discernable difference in "notability" between their products or utilitys and ours I feel i have been give no instructions for how to modify the page and basically been told to go away -a very disappointing user experience with the community:

• Cooledit (single outbound link)
• MindManager
• Cooliris
• DragonDictate (two external link references
• WinZip
• WinRAR

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DonHejna (talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately other stuff exists isn't an argument you can use. Nor is notability inherited, so being a replacement for something else that may have been notable isn't enough. Given that you've slipped into language should as "our" and "we" there are now COI concerns as well --Blowdart | ^talk 21:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that users do not "own" articles. MuZemike (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have reviewed the Other Stuff Exists other stuff exists page and noted "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". I find *the* article submitted to fall well within the range of the SIX (6) examples i provided. Statistically that's significant and begs the question what is it about this one of six articles that has offended the editors while the six other articles remain unflagged, unquestioned and contain far less reference material AND exist in the same category in the encyclopedia. If the editors told me, "thank you" we have flagged the six articles referenced i would feel the process was perhaps consistent. Again i await specific recommendations for modification to the current page to bring it into compliance so that it may provide useful information to users of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.200.42 (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• • The difference is that the six articles you mention are of widely used and notable products. Cooledit has about 12000 mention at Google Scholar, MindManager has a ton of books on how to use it, Cooliris has been all over teh blogs, WinZip... it's Winzip fer chrissakes! -- etc. I'm truly sorry, but you are going to have to come up with a better argument than Other Stuff Exists. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's look at the facts regarding Cooliris. Mvuijlst cites that it is all over the blogs. I reviewed that entry's history and it was first submitted in Feb 11, 2007. How many blogs was it all over at that time (nearly two years ago when the product hadn't been around for more than a month or two? Likely no where near 12000 mentioned. If all over is the criteria, please provide a number. Again we very likely have more references and more mentions than Cooliris did at the time it was first accepted. The history for Cooliris reads: (cur) (last) 10:56, 11 February 2007 Austinshoemaker (Talk | contribs) (This article had been submitted prematurely. The revision being submitted is factual, balanced, and relevant in the context of web HCI.) and was heavily edited in its first few days by a single advocate. I see no difference between the articles. What is going on here? DonHejna (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• MySpeed also has been in plenty of Blogs lately including LifeHacker as I mentioned above but was told Blogs are not a reliable source and these were removed from the article. I'm sure Bloggers would say differently but that's another debate. However, I'm not trying to make an argument that Other Stuff Exists, but I couldn't let this slip by. I've read the Other Stuff Exists, and the important point is consistency, perhaps we should all try to bring the other articles up to the WP standard. (Revised) Rosso1876 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hold the phone — The IP must obviously be DonHejna. Please explain. I am surely hoping you plain forgot to login and failed again to sign your comment. Otherwise, there may be problems. If that (i.e. forgetting to log in) is the case, then be advised that you cannot say keep twice in the same discussion. You can discuss all you like, but as mentioned in the template up top, this is not a majority vote. For now, I will assume you made a mistake and striking the second keep. MuZemike (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the above comment was from DonHejna and I'm sure it was just a mistake that he forgot to log in before posting his comment. It's a newness thing and not an attempt to be deceptive.Rosso1876 (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • There is no subterfuge here. I am not familiar with the complexities and protocols of logging in and editing. Apparently i did not log in for one of my comments but it was infact mine. I added the "keep" to my comments in an effort to simplifiy and streamling the discussion points, thinking this would aid anyone reviewing the discussion. I did so after seeing that the editor had placed "delete" and thought the protocol was to identify ones position before each comment.

This process of a some priviledged few, making inconsistent judgements about "notability" smacks of the very thing wikipedia was supposed to be differentiating itself from. Where is the democratic process in the body of knowledge when an earnest effort is met with vague one word indictments rather than suggestions for changes required to bring an article into compliance with a nebulous and inconsistently applied standard. It's like being imprisoned without being told what one did wrong. This whole experience has soured my view of wikipedia and its editors. I would like an editor to explain the appeal and escalation process to me or point me to the protocol. -DonHejna —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonHejna (talk • contribs) 20:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The sole article is a brief Lifehacker article. The New York Times is not about MySpeed so stretching that out to claim that a NY times article that happens to mention a related product establishes ntoability is tenuous at best. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 19 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 13:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Still not notable; prevoius AFD was finished with No Consensus, article is written like an advertisement, possible copyvio, possible hoax, none of the movies he's been in have wiki articles ( i couldn't even find some of them on IMDB), long list of problems. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 18:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: previous AFD is here. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 18:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Verifiability is the only problem here; if everything in the article was true, it would be an obvious keep. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are a few more mentions of the subject available online since the last AfD, all in the context of an anticipated marriage to Kavya Madhavan. See here, here, here, and here. It's sad to say that this represents an improvement in the level of coverage that's available, but there you are. I'm neutral on this out of respect for the fact that there's probably a bit of systemic/language bias at play, but I recognize that it is going to be difficult to find reliable sources to write much of an article, especially as the subject seems to have left the film industry. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep AFD initiated by blocked sockpuppeter. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 15:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the results of the last AfD and the sources offered by Xymmax, as diligent searches can establish his notability as a child star, even if not adult. And since notability is not temporary, ipso-facto, he's still notable, even if no longer in film and even though he has no new notability in his subsequent career. Apart from this, I am most disturbed by this AfD being tainted as having been nominated by a user now blocked for puppetry. Past my earlier comments, one has think toward the nom's motivations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:27, 18 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. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video Masters TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sure about this - Video Masters TV is a monthly internet show devoted to reviewing classic and modern television shows, video games and movies. History shows one main editor who has made very few edits between April 26, 2008 and September 15, 2008. All related to this article. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am adding this to the "Television-related deletion discussions" because the article also says "Before the Internet - Video Masters TV actually began in early 1995, as Video Masters." Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:21, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:08, 9 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, MBisanz ^talk 12:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I smell a WP:COI here. Also, fails WP:RS and WP:N --Numyht (talk) 13:28, 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. Cirt (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common Grant Application (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sign of notability apart from press releases in industry publications & most of the article is about why the concept of the company is good, rather than about the company itself. I initially CSD'd this as A7/G11, but decided to restore & bring it to AfD instead.. Versageek 07:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no reliable independent source for notability, also spammy.--Boffob (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello! Some of these points were previously discussed with Pedro :  Chat  before the initial posting and are part of Talk:Common Grant Application. It should be noted that the industry articles listed on the page were not the result of any press releases, but in fact were initiated in all cases by the respective authors/editors independently contacting the Common Grant Application. As a question, what additional information about the company do you feel would be helpful? Lulayellowlab (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple sources, important project. Probably could find a few dozens o more, but it does not seem necessary. DGG (talk) 02:22, 6 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:07, 9 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, MBisanz ^talk 12:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, references seem to amount to trivial coverage and/or unreliable sources. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Misleading title: not about a "common grant application", but rather about an online grant application and management system - i.e. a commercial business offering a programme to generate grant applications. Judging from the titles, the supplied references deal generally with grants. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 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 Keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

not notable Xx236 (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - I wouldn't say it's not notable because it's reliably sourced (with multiple cites), but it may fall within WP:NOT#NEWS. So I'll stay neutral for now until better arguments on either side are offered.--Boffob (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliably sourced - maybe, but what is sourced - a possible candidate for local government, author of a booklet printed in 230 copies, a person changing his opinions, a small criminal? There are millions of such people.Xx236 (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as poorly-sourced, negative BLP. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sorry, but are we looking at the same article? This is not a speedy and not a poorly sourced article. The article is already properly sourced to reliable sources and there are quite a few more out there. There is plenty of detailed and specific coverage of the subject, which is spread over a considerable period of time, so that certainly is not a WP:NOT#NEWS case. There are even quite a few books that discuss the subject of this article. Several such books are cited in the article, and there are more in the googlebooks search[12]. Definitely passes WP:BIO and the negative info in the article is well-sourced, so I do not see compelling BLP grounds for deleting it. Nsk92 (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nsk92, this seems like a "one event" case, which is why I am recommending deletion. A search for news covering him returns many hits, but primarily related to one event, which calls for deletion based on WP:1E. He does not quality under WP:PROF; a search on a few academic databases and Google Scholar returned almost no hits (when false positives were removed) and no citations.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err, no. If this is a BLP1E case, then what exactly is the "one event" here? That he is a notable Holocaust denier? That's not an event, but a sign of notability. Moreover, you are quite wrong in saying that BLP1E just calls for deletion. It says: "cover the event not the person", the key word being cover. If there is an alternative name/target for an article that covers/would cover whatever you think is the underlying notable event is here, I'd be perfectly happy to consider it. Nsk92 (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my veiw, the one event in question is one instance of a class of events, namely Holocaust denial. The instance is his Holocaust denial in Poland. (Note: I do find it somewhat surprising that it is a crime in Poland to deny the Holocaust, given the freedom of expression laws in many countries.) But, as Ali G. says, I digest - I hope my point is clearer now. I am, as always, open to more discussion and even to changing my recommendation--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being a prominent proponent of a particular point of view is by definition, not an event. An event, by definition, is a specific occurrence of something, that takes place within a specific brief period of time, such as a meeting, a battle, a crime, a speech, an athletic competition, etc. A "class of events", especially one that took place and received coverage over extended period of time (in this case years) is most certainly not an event. Otherwise one can easily argue that BLP1E applies just about to anyone: an athlete is notable for, to quote you, a "class of events", related to his/her performance in a particular single sport; a scientist is usually only notable for work in one specific field, and so on. That is not what BLP1E is meant for. Nsk92 (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good point, but look at this: another interesting fact that can add to our discussion, and that does support the WP:1E argument, I think. The article states that he received a low sentenced because “… Ratajczak's self-published book had only 230 copies and that in the second edition and public appearances he criticized the Holocaust denial.” That is, his media coverage does not stem from his maintaining his views over time, like other deniers, but for writing a book with claims that he himself criticized later.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is really splitting hairs. It does not matter if the book sold any copies at all, the fact is that is caused a significant public scandal and received a lot of coverage (negative of course, such as this article[13] in a 2000 issue of The Journal for Historical Review, but significant coverage nonetheless). This was followed by his firing, a criminal trial, that also received a great deal of coverage both nationally and internationally, conviction, appeals etc, all coverer over the period of years in both Polish and international media and in various books. With a very great deal of a stretch one could maybe attempt to make an argument that the main notable event here was the initial publication of the book and that everything that followed proceeded from there. Even if that were the case, creating an article about the book rather than the person would not make much sense here. As Ronit Lentin's 2004 book[14] put it: "Finally, Poland has 'achieved' its own incarnation of David Irving: Dariusz Ratajczak (1999) published a book that indirectly denied the Holocaust". Nsk92 (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • • David Irving and Dariusz Ratajczak, a highly motivated man and a humilated, terrorised person, used by some politicians and journalists. If Ratajczak is Polish Irving, so I'm Polish Pullitzer, becauase I write here.Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And of course he does not qualify under WP:PROF, but he does qualify under WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's his whole career as an author , not just a single publication. There was one particular notorious one, but this doesn't make it One event . Sufficient references even so, showing the event is important enough. If there is a continuing discussion of it, it doesn' tfit under oneevent. DGG (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An author of a series of booklets, without ISBN numbers. Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keepper Nsk92 and DGG. --Crusio (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nsk92 and DGG. A clear keep by WP:BIO based on sourcing already in article. No article with as much written elsewhere about the topic, see also gnews, gbooks, should be deleted.John Z (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I presume that he is notable, becasue he is notorious for Holocaust denial. Unfortuantely, if it is to be comprehensive WP has to cover some unpleasant subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ratajczak isn't notorious. He admitted he was wrong. unpleasant - what is unpleasant here - the lack of freedom in Poland comparing to the USA?Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Dariusz Ratajczak affair. No reason to argue notability of the scandal. Agree with user Xx236, few self published booklets doesn't make him notable as a person, but the affair obviously is. I refrain from further comment regarding this individual, afraid to be accused again for BLP violation. greg park avenue (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

affair? 230 copies and a humilated man is an affair? Comparable with billions lost by US and European banks?Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Compare Anne Applebaum article - Pulitzer Prize, a number of books printed in many countries, and the article is shorter than the one about Dariusz Ratajczak. Is this Wikipedia a serious project? Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject Holocaust Denial is discussed in this article [15]. A number of notorious deniers are listed there: Ion Coja, Radu Theodoru, Albert Szabo, István Csurka. Strange but noone cares to inform about them. Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 17 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. Cirt (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Cook (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Contested prod.) Fails notability guideline at WP:ENTERTAINER - the two film credits listed are yet to be released. In fact, there's not even any evidence that the second has gone into production. A fair bit of the article is copy/pasted from the sources used (mainly his IMDb bio and that published by his agent). Deletion is not cleanup, so I won't elaborate on its reading like a resume, the POV and the desperate need for a copyedit/wikifying. —97198 (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At the risk of sounding mocking, can I say the lead sentence is the least NPOV sentence I have read on Wiki. Unfortunately, at this stage the subject does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER nor does the subject meet the general notability guideline. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sources offered not sufficient to establish notability to pass WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:N, blatantly promotional.--Boffob (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability not established. WWGB (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At least wait for the movie to come out. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no non-trivial third party coverage of this person. The two film credits include one film yet to be released, and another that doesn't even have a title yet - not a really great indicator of importance. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:33, 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.