< November 21	November 23 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Old afd, was never listed, but consensus is clear. Secret ^account 00:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl halftime counterprogramming[edit]

List of indiscriminate information; difficult to maintain. Extensive POV judgment calls: What constitutes counter-programming and what constitutes filler? A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Though it does not appear indiscriminate to me, I do believe this is mainly original research. This is simply the author's opinion of what shows were counter programs. Just because two programs occur at the same time does not mean one is a counterprogram. Scapler (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is completely subjective. It does not represent a full world view on what or why these articles would be considered counterprogramming. If it explained why each commercial was a counterprogram, then I miiiight be open to the concept of keeping this article. Riotrocket8676 (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve or possibly merge to Counterprogramming or Super Bowl halftime shows or expand and rename to an article about Super Bowl counterprogramming in general (not just half-time counterprogramming). There is plenty of reliable source coverage and everything here is verifiable: See, e.g. "Halftime at the Super Bowl usually deserves a penalty flag" in The Dallas Morning News (you have to log in with a library card to see the second half of the article which covers half-time counterprogramming), "If you don't want to watch Super Bowl" in the Decatur, Illinois Herald & Review, and "Bowls abound this weekend with peeks, puppies and geeks" in the Washington Times. This is clearly a notable phenomenon, what this list needs is context, not deletion. (And is it really "original research" to note that things like the "Butt Bowl", the "Lingerie Bowl" and the "Puppy Bowl" are intended as counterprogramming the Super Bowl, and not just programs that happen to "occur at the same time"?) DHowell (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 02:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable phenomenon. I'll add some refs. Someday this will be a wonderful article with prose, but for now it will be a list, I guess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom - Too subjective and likely impossible to make comprehensive. Majorclanger (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep... but only if merged. Not strong enough (even with refs) to stand alone as its own article, but well-sourced items could be added to one of the pages mentioned above as examples of super bowl halftime show alternatives. SpikeJones (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I moved it. It is about Super Bowl counterprogramming in general, after all. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve per other reasons listed above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 03:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep and merge into Super Bowl halftime shows. NoseNuggets (talk) 9:34 AM US EST Jan 4 2009
Keep'--This seems to be a discriminate list of clear-cut parodies of the Super Bowl that run at the same time. Seems to be notable. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with mixed feelings - for one thing it could be original research, but there's been plenty of press coverage of television shows supposedly attempting to lure viewers away from football on that very Sunday. As long as this article cites plenty of reliable sources accurately it's ok. Let's not turn this into a dumping ground of what every single network other than the Super Bowl channel showed on Super Bowl Sunday. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'--It's a pretty handy list. It looks like the author spent a lot of time verifying the programs on the list to make sure it meets Wikipedia's quality standards. TheBigE1980 (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2009
Keep but it could do with a better title, I had to check the article to findout what it was about. BUC (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Scapler. Spiesr (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems like a notable phenomena. Artw (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 15:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Joseph[edit]

Non-notable DIII athlete. Claim to fame is winning award for best football player in the state of Mississippi. Does not meet WP:ATHLETE. Smashville^talk 23:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:ATHLETE. ~~Lastingsmilledge (talk)~~ 04:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HeureusementIci (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete: I would vote for delete for now. There is always time when he achieves national notability to be included. I live in Mississippi (40 years) and have never heard of him. Royalhistorian (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Conerly Award is not some chump change award. Other award winners were Deuce McAllister, Eli Manning, Michael Boley, and Patrick Willis. Vodello (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is given to the best player in Mississippi. That's a pretty limited criteria. --Smashville^talk 20:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The award may be fairly important, but I don't think it qualifies Mr. Joseph for the fairly limited athlete criteria - either playing professionally or at the highest amateur level. Division III is plainly not the highest level of amateur football, and Mr. Joseph has not played professionally. HeureusementIci (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he is the best football player in Mississippi. Tavix (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid keep reason. How does he meet WP:ATHLETE? --Smashville^talk 01:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to keep that WP:ATHLETE is just an expression of WP:N that pertains to athletes; it is not the authority 100% of the time for athletes. He became notable by winning a major award, which gives way to a variety of reliable sources, which in turn prove that he is notable. Tavix (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He won an award as the best football player in Mississippi. That is not a major award. As I said above, the award is based on the extremely limited criteria that the player must be an athlete in Mississippi. And considering the only thing he can claim notability for is being an athlete, WP:ATHLETE most definitely applies. We don't consider the winner of the Gagliardi Trophy automatically notable...so we wouldn't consider the winner of an in-state award notable. --Smashville^talk 02:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 02:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A marginal candidate, admittedly, but the Conerly Award victory is enough to warrant inclusion here. The article could use editing, not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted, he is a Division 3 athlete, but he is one who won a major award... against competition from all levels of college football. His winning of the Conerely Trophy was covered in the New Orleans Picayune, the Memphis Commercial Appeal and the Atlanta Journal Constitution, this award & the coverage associated with makes it notable. Frog47 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a Mississippian, I can say that the Conerly Trophy is a joke in the state now, thanks to Juan having won it this year. I mean, Juan "won" it over an Associated Press All-American in Peria Jerry. Everyone saying it's a "major" award, should stop. Of course, it will be said I am biased as I am an Ole Miss supporter and Jerry played at Ole Miss.. but it's so obvious even to general onlookers. Had he and his Division III Millsaps team played Jerry and Division I Ole Miss, he wouldn't be holding that trophy today. That said, he doesn't meet any sort of notability guideline/policy either. If ESPN, Sports Illustrated, etc. had been knocking down his door for interviews, then maybe. Should he go on to the NFL, I'll support an article for him then. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Please don't vote twice, but consensus is clear regardless. MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U-nursing08[edit]

This page in Korean should be deleted because it 1) appears to be a copyvio of a book or some other printed matter (the first sentence in the article) and 2) it's been hanging around WP:PNT past the two-week cutoff. Yupik (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There has been no attempt to translate this to English in the last two weeks. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I put a machine translation on the article. Kubek15^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 18:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. -Yupik (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Judging by the machine translation, this looks like a "what things could become" kind of article. Optimistic? Yes. Plausible? Yes, but not without problems. Notable? No. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 02:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't even make out what the article is supposed to be about. --Chasingsol ^(talk) 04:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already. Juzhong (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Juzhong (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Juzhong. -Yupik (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portrayals of The Joker in film[edit]

Article was spun off of Joker (comics) but is merely duplicative of information presented there. It adds nothing but extensive plot summary, which is discouraged per WP:PLOT. As it cites no sources, it also contains quite a bit of opinion and original research. Basically there is no reason to have a separate article on the character's portrayal in film, as this is already covered much better in the main article. Per WP:SS, the section in the main article should be developed and expanded with reliable secondary source material before a split is considered (note that the section in the main article, though better-written in that it favors real-world contexts, nonetheless only cites 3 sources). Since this article is 85% plot summary, 15% unreferenced claims & OR, it should be deleted. IllaZilla (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A comparison of a basic role across multiple works is not plot summary. The article seems to still in in process--the discussion of the different films in uneven. There is certainly enough information in the various reviews to source it, and eliminate the impression that it's OR. . considering the extent of the material and the importance of the character, a separate article seems not merely desirable but almost essential. It expands, not duplicates the information in the main article, I think it corresponds to Section 5.1, Live-action, which, quite properly, is a summary of this. -- if it does not expand on it sufficiently, it can be further developed.. DGG (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article as-is makes no such comparisons, though. It re-presents a summary of the Joker's roles in the plots of each film, and then makes unref'd analytic claims about them. Granted, improvement may be possible, but my contention is that this should not have been split off from the main article. The development needs to happen there, where some decent material already exists. In the future, if it seems the section is getting to the point where it can stand on its own, then by all means split it off into an independent article. But merely jumping straight to the independent article (without even including the decent info from the main article) is entirely premature. I'm not aware of any other media-specific character articles, so I don't really have a precedent to point to. Superman in other media, maybe, but that's really just a list article. Common practice seems to be to discuss all portrayals of these characters in main articles, ie. Superman. As I say, a future split might be appropriate, but the gun was severely jumped and it should be nixed in order to keep the development in the main article where it belongs. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article shouldn't exist in this form. As noted above the procedure is to expand the relevant section and split it off and in comics you'd split the whole "in other media" section off. Given the fact that this was previous done, to Joker's appearances in other media, and then merged back in again means this is also going against consensus that the section isn't ready for a split (if someone thinks it is then they should feel free to start a split discussion). (Emperor (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per Emperor. A redirect to Joker (comics) would be pointless. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article consists only of plot and original research. Main article already adequately covers this topic. That article may need some trimming, but that doesn't justify this article. Jay32183 (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge+redirect (see below) ~~keep~~. Joker (comics) is entirely about the comics, and is already quite long, so a separate article about portrayals in movies and possibly TV is warranted - BTW Batman is almost equally restricted, I don't understand how it reached FA with this huge gap in coverage. It would be quite easy to improve Portrayals of The Joker in film from reviews cited in the WP articles about the movies and TV shows. Remember that WP:DELETE says where possible artciles should be improved rather than deleted. --Philcha (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 points to rebut here: 1) Joker (comics) isn't jsut about the comics. That title is merely a disambiguation. Note the "In other media" section, which covers live action, animated, and video game adaptations. Same thing with Batman: An "In other media" section covering films, animation, etc. with a link to the separate article Batman franchise media. Clearly not a "huge gap in coverage", and exactly how these things are expected to evolve along the lines of WP:SS. 2) No one is suggesting that this subject matter couldn't be made into a decent article. What's being said, rather, is that it needs to develop in the main article first before it's allowed to split out on its own. Otherwise we're just going to be back here in a few weeks trying to merge stuff back in. Somebody put the cart before the horse, and instead of working on the existing "In other media" section of the main article, developing it to the point where it could stand on its own, spun out a separate article in favor of expanded plot summary and original analysis. That needs to be nixed so that the development of the content can happen in the main article, where it belongs, and we can do it now while there's nothing to be merged. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've convinced me. I've changed my vote to "merge+redirect", with the redirect going to the relevant section of Joker (comics) for the benefit of those who are more interested in the movie and TV portrayals. BTW in Joker (comics) it might be helpful to retitle that section "Movies and television". --Philcha (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see there is that there is no referenced content, so there's nothing to merge, and the title is complex enough that the chances of it being a likely search term are miniscule. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but add sources. The topic is viable; there is great interest in how the Joker has been portrayed throughout the years, especially Ledger's performance which I've heard tell has attracted some academic study (that's anecdotal heresay - I have no source to offer but if what I've heard is correct sources should be out there). Romero's performance has been addressed in several books on the Batman TV series as well as the autobiographies of Burt Ward and Adam West, which can be cited. Viable spin-off regarding a notable character in popular media. As noted above, an easy first step is to simply borrow sources from other Joker-related articles and start from there. 23skidoo (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my responses above. The contention is not that the topic is not viable, but that it should be developed in the main article Joker (comics) first before a split is considered. Splitting it now was entirely premature and resulted in an article of nothing but plot summary and OR, and by nixing it while there is still nothing to merge we can assure that the positive development of content happens in the main article, until such time as it may warrant a split. This provides a better service and context both to our readers and editors. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I overlooked it before, but there was a previous AfD of this article under a different name, when it focused solely on the Nicholson adaptation: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (1989 Batman character). The consensus was almost unanimously to merge the content back into Joker (comics). I'm not sure why that was the result, as the entire contents of the article before renaming were 3 unreferenced sentences. When there is no referenced content, there can be nothing to merge. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or merge as appropriate. Plot summary aside, there's no reason why a quick precis of each of the portrayals can't be held within the Joker article. Anything more in-depth would be more appropriate to the individual film articles. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Jay2183's comments. TopGearFreak 16:13, 27 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) 01:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kadeem Alston-Roman[edit]

Speedy declined, NN actor/dancer/high school student, nothing significant in Google. roux 23:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Maybe one day, but not today. X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage in reliable sources, minimal coverage overall. Icewedge (talk) 23:53, 23 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 04:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Golieb[edit]

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

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

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

Autobiography, heavily edited by single purpose accounts and suspected sockpuppets. Contested PROD. Seems like a case of a person only known locally for one minor event. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated: not notable. X MarX the Spot (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No third party coverage [1] Michellecrisp (talk) 05:47, 26 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.

Amish and mennonite cooking[edit]

The result was delete Nancy ^talk 10:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A personal essay. No independent evidence is presented to support the central assertion that the two groups are so linked. WP:OR. Ros0709 (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do plan to establish a link between the two cuisines. I have only just begun this article, but I do plan on expanding on the link between the Amish and the Mennonites.--Mawber (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC) [copied from talk page; --Lambiam 20:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)][reply]
Delete There is probably plenty of reason to create an article on Amish and mennonite cooking, but this isn't it and would require a complete rewrite as it is currently a short essay. Since they are not known for having comprehensive websites, this would likely have to be written from books, such as those cited. I don't want to discourage the editor who created the article, but this is just too far away from what is encyclopedic. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We might allow the creator some respite to improve the fledgling article before deciding its fate. It is to be feared, though, that the evidence establishing the alleged link will amount to original research. Are there any reliable sources attesting to such a link? If so, please supply them; else, let the article depart in peace from this encyclopedia. --Lambiam 20:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"'From the author"' I have decided to abandon this topic altogether and will not protest deletion. I'm new here! Sorry for the confusion.--Mawber (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Delete. --Lambiam 14:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball delete and salt. Magioladitis (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wii 2[edit]

Whilst there probably will be reliable information about a successor to the wii someday, this is not it. The single source for this article itself admits it is merely rumour - there is no reliable or verifiable content here whatsoever. Ros0709 (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are for interesting little tidbits in the article, don't verify the basic premise in the least. The image is a copyvio that isn't long for the world either. This is original research and crystalballing, no matter how pretty the packaging is. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, I don't understand what you are saying.

(A) What does "isn't long for the world" mean?

It will be deleted as it is a copyviolation. IE: against the law to use here. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Against the law? what is? — Supuhstar * § 17:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(B)"Original research" is false, as the research is from and by several sites. If you mean that I'm the only one who put any of it on Wikipedia, well duh, that's what you get with brand new articles.

Obviously you haven't read WP:original research. Please do. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just did. I cited several sources that are verifiable, did I not?— Supuhstar * § 17:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provide fail WP:RS ie: they are not reliable sources. Just because some website says something, that doesn't make it true. All sources must pass wp:rs. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(C)"pretty ... packaging"?— Supuhstar * § 06:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article structure and format looks ok. The problem is the content. I think you mean well but you don't understand the criteria for inclusion and sourcing guidelines yet. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I make it plain and clear that much of it is speculation, but it is all long researched, easily predictable, implied, and/or obvious.

Much of it is cited, so calling it "crystalballing" it a stretch longer than the world's longest taffypull.
"[R]eliable information" is there! I say if Shigeru Miyamoto, himself, said it, it must be taken as truth.
"The single source for this article itself admits it is merely rumour..." Only part of said article was admittant on rumor, while the majority was true. Plus, there are several references included in Wii 2 other than those from What They Play.
Most Important Of All!!! There will be another Nintendo console. No one can seriously doubt that. I put in editors notes on the page, "" It's as simple as that! Wikipedia is great becaues it can be edited on-the-fly. All information that becomes false or is otherwise updated can be chanced when needed! If they call it something else, then the article shall be moved to one with an appropriate name! I love it!— Supuhstar * § 06:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Long researched, easily predictable and obvious are not criteria for inclusion. Please read WP:N to see the criteria that everyone must follow. WP:RS is also a good read, as it will help define what is a 'reliable source'. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information is mostly speculative and nothing concrete. Mostly it's a lot of "might includes" and "could includes". either way (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vague information about "Wii 2"/"Wii HD" doesn't warrant inclusion in the main Wii article, let alone a separate article for itself. just64helpin (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt In one of the interview Nintendo mentioned that they have no plans to make another Wii.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this interview?— Supuhstar * § 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there --SkyWalker (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE It's been revised so that only that which is 100% confirmed is on the page. — Supuhstar * §17:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead sentence states that it is "in development" and gives several "commonly" used names. Neither is referenced. Ros0709 (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No ref is needed for nicknames. Do you need to reference that "William" is also said "Billy"?— Supuhstar * § 03:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mate I think you're really missing basically the whole point of verifability, notability, and all those things. Take some time to read through the policies, study the AfD process for a few months, spend some time editing. I spent about four years editing before I made my first page. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal It shoud be moved to Nintendo's 8th generation console until an official name is given.— Supuhstar * § 17:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps we should just wait until there is something of significance to write about reliably. Ros0709 (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know... That's not such a bad idea. I'll save the page in a .txt document and once an official name shows itself, I'll put the confirmed info back into an article under said name. How's that? — Supuhstar * § 18:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems entirely reasonable to me. Ros0709 (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of saving it to text you can save it in your user page for example: User:Supuhstar/Sandbox--SkyWalker (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Supuhstar/Wii 2— Supuhstar * § 19:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would easily get smashed with a crystal hammer. MuZemike (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible. (A) Crystal Hammer is only for albums, not consoles. (B) The name does not say a "probable" or "unofficial" name. It's a fact. It is Nintendo's 8th generation console.— Supuhstar * § 01:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is only an essay, but actually I would have to agree with MuZemike. I was thinking it applied when I first saw this, but just stuck with traditional crystal to prevent confusion. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have since annotated WP:HAMMER to include any unverifiable articles of a similar manner. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt — Unverifiable crystalballery. Note that article has since been recreated and deleted six times (see log), so I think salting the earth (creation protection) is in order; let the user to go deletion review to create the article again. One could also possibly argue for G4 as this was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of video game consoles (eighth generation) 2, but I personally think that is way too far back for a speedy (using common sense and ignoring some rules). MuZemike (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pouring salt in addition to my delete above. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But not permanent salt! If this does become the true next console, it will need to be un-salted and probaby semi-protected.— Supuhstar * § 01:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salting can always be undone, by an admin. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I'm an admin on Simpedia, as the "§" in my sig explains.— Supuhstar * § 03:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, never heard of it. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 11:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://simpedia.co.uk/wiki/Main_Page --SkyWalker (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very weak merge and redirect~~ Delete. Since the subject is of palpable interest and there are sources (albeit very minor ones), it might be more productive to include to condense this info and merge it into the Wii main article with the final statement that no successor is planned soon [2]. You can then redirectWii 2 and Wii HD rather than salting. I do not believe this would solve the crystalballing or lack of reliable sources issue, however.--Macrowiz (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you merge or redirect something that has exactly zero reliable sources, zero verifiable content, AND the company that is not planning to make it? I am open to hear how that is supported by policy, but that is kinda like making a redirect of Scary Movie 12 because they "might" make it someday. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my suggestion is ONLY predicated on the availability of corroborating reliable resources. I re-checked the sources, and I have agree that they are too poor to warrant its own article. --Macrowiz (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... they say "anytime soon". 2011 is not anytime soon. In fact, it is quite a while from now. 3 years to be exact. We aren't even half way between Wii's releas and then. So no. It will not be out anytime soon.— Supuhstar * § 19:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2011^{[citation needed]}. Ros0709 (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video game consoles are released every 5 years. no citation needed! Like Thanksgiving is on the fourth Thursday of November. It's just tradition. — Supuhstar * § 21:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On November 15, 2001, Microsoft released the Xbox. On November 22, 2005, Microsoft released the Xbox 360. That's four years. The NES was released in 1983 by Nintendo followed by the SNES seven years later in 1990 which was then followed by the N64 in 1996 (6 years later). The reason Thanksgiving is celebrated on the fourth Thursday of every November is not simply tradition, as you say, but by federal law. either way (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft also said that they would join the race at the "proper time" for their next console. This is common for those just starting out.— Supuhstar * § 23:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. Then apply WP:SALT, liberally. Do not merge. Do not redirect. Do not pass go. When there are better sources available we can address it then. JBsupreme (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it snowing yet? --Macrowiz (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete Absolutely nothing verifiable yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Discussion has gone way off topic. There is no verifable sources to indicate this article meets inclusion criteria at wikipedia in any way. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After researching some more, I'm going with strong delete. This is far to early to be having this article, and we're inviting a host of other problems. This should be speedy/snowball deleted. There is just nothing out there. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:31, 26 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. John254 02:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of operas by Handel[edit]

No consensus for the page. Handel's operas exist elsewhere on WP. Shouldn't be in two locations HWV 258 22:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus-driven location for the complete list of Handel's works here, and until the need for sub-pages is reached (by consensus), the List of operas by Handel page serves only to confuse. The main issue with the existence of the newly-created sub-page is that an editor may find it by accident and start to update information on it—with the result that the updates would not benefit the vast majority of readers who will naturally find their way to the official list of Handel's works (as referenced from the main Handel page). There is a debate underway here on whether sub-paging is needed at all, and until that debate is concluded, there is no need for a potentially confusing sub-page. HWV 258 23:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not a bold merge and redirect? --neon white talk 00:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete? It is reasonable to assume someone might come across the page as he's often known by his last name. Be bold redirect and merge anything useful if you can. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-page (that is being requested for deletion) was needlessly created in the previous day or two by an editor who is trying to steam-roller an agenda. No one has had the chance to know about the new page, and it would be a pity for it to become established merely to act as a redirect. There are 26 categories in the contents on the page listing Handel's works, and the new page seeks to split off just one of those categories (opera). For the sake of consistency, should we now have to split off the other 25 categories; or, for the sake of consistency, should we now have to create 25 other dummy category pages so they can act as redirect pages as well?
The new page was created without discussion or consensus and upsets the strategy that has been employed for a long time to display Handel's works (here). The new page was designed to simply split the "complete" works of Handel into two different pages (based on genre). That is not done for other composers, and it doesn't seem right that the practice should start (without discussion or consensus) with Handel. I'm glad that "merge" was mentioned above (as a solution) as that is the exact problem with the recent branch and edit—it precisely unmerges the existing list (for no tangible benefit). With this delete, I'm hoping to return to the existing arrangement as seemlessly as possible so that all of Handel's works are listed on the one page (at least until the community has had a chance to discuss the various options here).
The issue is not about Handel's name. The well-established existing page is known as List_of_compositions_by_George_Frideric_Handel so it can easily be found based on Handel's surname. HWV 258 01:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I'm not good in byte-by-byte matching, but List of operas appears to be just a cut from List of works. NVO (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no !vote I restored the content on the page. The nom in this case deleted the content on the page, nominated it for AFD, then put a "note" on the article page explaining how you could go to another page to see the duplicated content. This is not a proper way to handle this, as the content isn't contentious or BLP related. Please leave the article more or less intact while you have it at AFD, so that others may actually SEE what they are discussing. Otherwise it is poisoning the well. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator (HWV258) has also removed the link from the biographical page George Frideric Handel to List of operas by Handel, see [3]. --Klein zach 03:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment This should not have come here--its a dispute over whether to divide an article--at least I think it is, because the content is at present completely duplicated , without anything additional. If it is intended to develop this page further, into a general or summary discussion of the operas (which, of course, almost all of them, properly have separate articles) it should be titled Operas by G F. Handel, or something similar. If it's just a list, the question is whether the main list is so large it should be divided. I've no opinion on that--it is mainly a matter of style and usability. But the present page in its present form does indeed serve no purpose. DGG (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator (HWV258) moved the opera list back to List of compositions by George Frideric Handel, see [4] and removed the link to the opera list page [5]. --Klein zach 03:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Perhaps next time you'll follow WP guidelines and engage in discussion in order to seek consensus before making changes of this magnitude. You have waded into an area edited by hundreds of editors over many years and made sweeping changes—what did you imagine would happen? If you really do have something to contribute to the list of Handel's operas, perhaps you could sandpit your proposed changes to facilitate discussion. If you need help with that, I'll be more than happy to assist you. HWV 258 04:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page was split off List_of_compositions_by_George_Frideric_Handel which was 85k at the time. There is a series of similar articles at Category:Lists of operas by composer. (This includes List of operas by Cherubini, List of operas by Grétry, List of operas by Hasse, List of operas by Mayr, List of operas by Pacini, List of operas by Piccinni, List of operas by Ponchielli, List of operas by Spontini, List of operas by Vivaldi, List of operettas by Offenbach, List of operas by Richard Strauss, List of operas by Siegfried Wagner etc.) The style of title used was decided after a discussion relating to List of operas by Mozart which became a featured list (referred to here). There's no reason to delete List of operas by Handel. Splitting off sections from a long page is a normal process on WP. In this case there are ample precedents and a useful category has already been established for similar pages. --Klein zach 03:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "85K" point is not an issue here. 15 points as to why the split should not have happened (covering page size issues) are listed here. If "85K" was really such an issue, why didn't the user Kleinzach sub-page the largest list on the page of Handel's works (there are many much longer tables than the opera table)? Splitting off sections from a long list page is not a normal process on WP.
Listing Mozart operas did not necessitate the deletion of the entire list of operas from the List of Mozart's works page. For some reason, the user Kleinzach felt the need to simply delete the information on the current List of Handel's works with this edit.
The Handel entry at Category:Lists of operas by composer can simply point to the current list of Handel's operas.
The page in question for this delete request simply serves no purpose, so officially: Delete. HWV 258 03:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify The content of this article was developed by me between 17 and 21 November (see [6]). When the size of the page increased, and the format matched that of other articles in Category:Lists of operas by composer, I created the subpage List of operas by Handel. --Klein zach 04:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As previously pointed out, the size of the page is irrelevant (see here), and is being used by Kleinzach as a smokescreen excuse for a larger agenda. HWV 258 04:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't really see what the problem is here. The list seems like it's notable and useful. Further, it has the potential of being so much more than it is right now (something like the List of operas by Mozart could easily be done with Handel). As for content on the list of Handel works, that is something to be decided on that article's talk page between editors not taken to an afd. A further comment to HWV 258, I think you would have done better talking to Kleinzach and asssuming good faith on his part than freaking out.Nrswanson (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Nrswanson. The comparison with the Mozart opera page is a good one; let's develop the Handel page, not axe it. In the meantime I don't see how it cannot qualify in its own right as a WP-article. The objections seem more based on 'empire-building' than on the extension of knowledge.--Smerus (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I went ahead and added a brief intro the list. It obviously could be expanded and go into much more detail.Nrswanson (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see significant benefit to the reader by having all the works on one page. But I can also see significant benefits to the reader to have in addition a page specifically devoted to the operas - provided it can be developed into something like the splendid List of operas by Mozart. Not an exact duplicate of what's on List of compositions by George Frideric Handel, but an amplification of it. It would also have the advantage of being able to use a table format adapted to the kind of detail that's useful to a reader primarily interested in Handel's operas, but may not be desirable on the complete works page. Each page can then have a "see also" link. Voceditenore (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what the initial issue was -- Kleinzach didn't just make this page, he deleted the info out of the list page, essentially implying that operas are important enough for their own page and nothing else is. It's hard to assume good faith when he constantly makes weird edits such as this one and very often skirts the line of WP:OWN. Yes, a list with much expansion would be a very worthwhile thing (sort of akin to a 'series' article for video games or movies or whatever), but operas themselves aren't anything special in the overall grand scheme of the matter to warrant destruction of another article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see what I wrote above, "To clarify . . ." etc. Here are the recommendations in Wikipedia:Splitting:

>100 KB Almost certainly should be divided.

>60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)

In this case the original page was 85K so splitting off the opera list was a normal WP process. --Klein zach 12:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think that is a little unfair to Kleinzach (although I can't speak for his behavior elsewhere). After all he was the one who created the initial list of operas to begin with. He was also trying to be in uniform with the series of articles found in Category:Lists of operas by composer which is reasonable. Perhaps it would have been smarter for him to ask first, but I just see him acting under WP:BOLD and not WP:OWN. That being said, I don't see why there isn't room for lists on both pages as voceditenore has wisely suggested.Nrswanson (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If "85K" really was so bothersome to Kleinzach, why didn't he split out the (bigger) list of Cantatas and save even more? It's time for Keinzach to declare his real interest in editing areas to do with Handel. Is this a one-off rip (with ownership issues) in order to continue his opera crusade, or does he have any longer-term interest in improving the reader's experience on the List of Handel's works page? The following are eight points taken from the current discussion here that demonstrate why the "85K" is a meaningless smokescreen put up by Kleinzach in his rushed attempt to modify a page to his liking (without discussion or consensus).

The current list page does not feature in the Top 1000 "long" pages, and is well short of the length of number 1,000 on that page (which is about 108K in length).
Many of the pages in the top 1,000 are list pages, therefore there is ample precedence for allowing longer pages when in a list format.
From Article length - Occasional exceptions: "Two exceptions are lists and articles summarizing certain fields". There is therefore basis for arguing that this list page should not be treated in the same category as normal "long pages".
Other editors have found it convenient to list composer's works in entirety on "long" pages. E.g. Mozart and Bach are both greater than 85K in length.
The Article length page has a section on No need for haste. For a change of this magnitude, there should be time to discuss the options.
Due to the way modern browsers work (caching and staggered loading of individual parts of a page), there is not an inordinately long delay before the first (and subsequent) parts of the page are loaded. The breaking into categories of lists (operas, concertos, etc.) on the page help with browser caching and loading.
If page size is an issue, what size is being attempted? With modern browsers and ever-increasing bandwidth, surely not the archaic 32K barrier? If not, then what size (40K, 50K, 60K, etc.)?
According to Technical issues, an 85K page should take about 13 seconds to load in entirety—and that's with the slowest means possible of connecting to the internet (dial-up). Surely that's not a problem (and getting less of an issue all the time)?

And for the sake of completeness (and to indicate why discussion would have been nice), here are the other seven points from that page:

One or two sections alone should not be sub-paged in order to reduce the size of the page. If only a few sections are to be sub-paged, then how to decide? The first, the largest, etc.?
If all sections are to be sub-paged, the page would look ridiculous (little more than two sets of Contents).
Because of the way the HWV numbering system was devised, and its implementation in separate lists on the page, other pages can link to categories as the page stands. For example, it is easy for another page to link to the List of Handel's operas section without it being on a sub-page.
As the page stands, there is extra information in the various lists. I believe that much of that extra information will be moved to pages on individual works as they are created over time. For that reason, the page is not expected to grow much over the current 85K and will, over time, reduce in size.
The current format is uncomplicated (no need for multiple-clicking to investigate Handel's works).
The page is interesting in itself in terms of providing the reader with an idea of the scale of Handel's works. This would be lost with sub-paging.
The strategy of seeing all the works together is utilised on just about all other composer's list pages.

HWV 258 21:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is good to have a separate page for list of opera ONLY. Article "List of compositions by George Frideric Handel comprises of overall composition - Jay (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't see how this is any different than the many discography and bibliography lists that exist, especially since we're talking about an extremely notable composer of this genre. (I do not recognize WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as applying to this point - this is Handel we're talking about). This list helps serve a function of Wikipedia that a growing number of people seem to have forgotten about -- that it's an online reference tool. Someone doing research on Handel, and that's a given -- this ain't some obscure composer -- will be able to make use of this list; every item listed is a blue link, too. 23skidoo (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and give it some time to develop with a prose overview and more detail than the Opera section on List of compositions by George Frideric Handel and also keep the less detailed opera section in List of compositions by George Frideric Handel. In the Mozart case there's:

Köchel catalogue where all works are listed chronologically with the capacity for the reader to re-order by place, etc. and also in ascending and descending order and an explanation about the catalogue itself.
List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart a "selective" (but pretty exhaustive) list of works by genre (including his operas) with only the K number and date, and one of its "daughters"...
List of operas by Mozart with more detailed information about each work as well as a prose overview of the subject.

I'm not suggesting that Handel be treated in the exact same way as Mozart has been, I'm simply pointing out the value of having both a "mother" and a "daughter" list. Obviously, there will be some degree of overlap (as opposed to straight duplication) of information, but I think that's a good thing, and one of the advantages of Wikipedia over a paper encyclopedia. It allows information to be organized and presented in a variety of ways and degrees of detail that can be helpful to different types of readers or to the same reader depending on what they need. Incidentally, I'm amazed that there's no link to Händel-Werke-Verzeichnis from List of compositions by George Frideric Handel. Not every reader will know what HWV stands for. Likewise a "see also" direct link to the complete list from Händel-Werke-Verzeichnis would be helpful. In any case, what should be paramount in this discussion should be the best way(s) to provide a good reader experience, not personal animosities or perceived past "misdeeds". Voceditenore (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought Another possible advantage of the separate operas list is that like the Mozart one it could use a less rigid definition of "operas" (see List of operas by Mozart#Basis for inclusion) than that of the HWV catalogue and include works like Acis and Galatea and Parnasso in festa. Voceditenore (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Kleinzach and Nrswanson, who said it best...and first! Ecoleetage (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely per above. --Caspian blue 01:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer think the page should be deleted. I reacted (too quickly) to the sudden removal of information from the List of compositions by George Frideric Handel page with this edit [7] (which was made without discussion or consensus). As there was no statement of direction as to what else was to be deleted from the page, I merely wished to return to the existing arrangement in order for time for community discussion. Now that I have confidence that nothing will be deleted from the List of Compositions page, I can see value in having the Opera list page. Appologies for any inconvenience caused by my edits. HWV 258 22:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It is useful to the reader to have different lists of works of the same composer, for example by date/work number etc. It's not useful to duplicate the same list on different pages. That's confusing for the reader, especially in this case where one list (List of operas by Handel) has been developed and edited, and the other one (List_of_compositions_by_George_Frideric_Handel#Operas) hasn't. --Klein zach 01:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list doesn't have to be exactly the same (indeed it already isn't). I will however fight very hard to keep a list of Handel's operas (in some format) on the List of compositions by George Frideric Handel page. There is much that a complete list page can deliver to the reader. There will have to be wider community support for the removal of the entire list at that page, however that is a discussion for another place and time. HWV 258 02:10, 26 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 04:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnagarbhas[edit]

Multiple issues tagged since August: No reliable sources, non-neutral poing of view. I de-prodded this myself because the reasons for the PROD seemed poor, and I have tried to coach the creator of the article to improve it, but it has not been improved enough and is not a credit to the encyclopedia as currently written. Fayenatic (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no references to this that do not trace back to Wikipedia. Mangoe (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Laden with POV. Non notable. ←Spidern → 23:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Zero sharp (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems likes an interesting cross-cultural article, but needs a truly heavy-duty cleanup from someone who knows the subject, which has apparently been tried and is not happening. - idunno271828 (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sources are circular, how odd. JBsupreme (talk) 18:18, 24 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 the snowball clause (over a day at AFD + 6 !keeps without any opposition). Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAP R/3[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/SAP R/3

This looks to me like spam, but it's not clear cut enough to be a straightforward speedy-delete. I personally don't see a way to clean it up enough to NPOV - and quite aside from that, I'd question the notability - but this is a field I don't know much about and for all I know this is the Microsoft Word of enterprise resource planning. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced that this is clean-uppable, but (due to the aforementioned lack of knowledge) don't volunteer to do so myself should this be kept. – iride scent 21:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but I see why it is here. It needs to be shortened and better sourced. The software is notable (old version of ERP) but the article is very nonencyclopedic as written. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I trimmed off the most obvious of the spammy fat like material, only because I love the way you used "clean-uppable" in a sentence. I don't think I can do the whole job, but this is actually pretty informative in a "jab your eyes out with a fork" boring kinda way. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some of the content is unclear and possibly unencyclopedic (e.g. the "What is SAP R/3?" section, added recently, which may be opinion/original research), and more references are needed, but it meets notability guidelines and the article contains enough information to be kept. —Snigbrook 22:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Microsoft Office looks like spam too, so what? The subject is notable, simply because it's worth billions. But, unlike mass products, there's not a lot of public sources on bespoke systems. Those who know the systems make money by this knowledge; the users (like yours truly) keep quiet as prescribed by their profession. If, after seven years of Wikipedia existence, the community failed to write a proper article on one of two heavyweights in the area - then it just won't be done, ever. Perhaps it will indeed be better to replace this sorry stub with a redir to SAP_AG#products. NVO (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- sorry stub?? It's over 17k worth of text. Did you even read it? And before you trash "the community" for "our failure" to write this article sooner, keep in mind that no one was stopping you from writing the article. I don't see how your comments are helpful in this discussion. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No one except for WP:COI and a signed non-disclosure agreement :)). As I said, it's a closed world. NVO (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right, per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Assessment#Grades it's not a sorry stub, it's a "start" (what a pun for something created in 2003). Still a long way from 17K of bolded acronyms to a useful B-class. NVO (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. It's true the material is very spammy, it's a matter of style, the failure to change PR style into something fit for an encyclopedia, but it can be the basis of an article. Yes, it is a disgrace that nothing better were done with it, and there are tens of thousands of other articles in the same position. The less time we spend here, the more we can work on them. (Although in practice listing things here does seem to help as an incentive--sort of like hitting the mule with a 2 by 4 to get his attention.) DGG (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 07:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost 2000 books mention SAP/3. I dind't bother to count how many are about SAP R/3. This is like asking to delete Windows 98. Did anyone notice it's snowing in here? Pcap ping 07:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow. SAP R/3 is probably the single most notable piece of ERP software that exists. No objection to cleanup and expansion. SAP R/3 has indeed been replaced by SAP NetWeaver in SAP's current lineup over the last few years, but SAP R/3 was the big dog throughout the 90's and NetWeaver stands on its shoulders. The German article looks substantially better--not surprising since SAP is a German company. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't really put it better than the nominator - this is the Microsoft Word of enterprise resource planning. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:59, 23 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 redirected without opposition. Sandstein 18:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imeet fred[edit]

Delete and move information, if verified, to list of iCarly episodes; non-notable unaired episode. No episode in the series has its own article. Synchronism (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - the nominator pretty much says it all here. Not much more to say _David ^WS _(contribs) 22:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: If information is merged, attribution needs to be retained, which is easiest to do if the article is redirected instead of deleted Otherwise you get complicated edit summaries that get lost. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there is no 'attribution' or any relevant or notable content, the writer is listed as TBA. The only information to be verified is that this Fred character is going to be on this show at some point, which might be a fabrication; it is likely unattributable.Synchronism (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll just redirect it, it's much more simple, and will assist recreation later.Synchronism (talk) 22:34, 23 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. Magioladitis (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lydney Town A[edit]

Lydney Town F.C. is notable, but the club's 3rd string team does not merit its own standalone article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as speedily as possible. I don't see how an amateur club's third team can ever be considered notable.--Michig (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has no claim to notability. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 21:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not Facebook. Nfitz (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - club's third team who have no notability in their own right. Mention of their existence and current division in main club article is all that is required. - fchd (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amateur side, non-notable. – LATICS talk 23:03, 25 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) 01:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Wu: Golden Soul[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wendy Wu: Golden Soul

A future film that is unreliably sourced, and recreating the deleted article Wendy Wu 2 Ebyabe (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom sums it up. Nothing that can't be recreated if the movie gets made. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Del. Nothing presented at this point to indicate this will be the title of the film. Gimmetrow 17:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One Wendy Wu movie at a time. Bring it back if its ever made. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:43, 23 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) 01:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy wu 2[edit]

A future film that is unreliably sourced, and recreating the deleted article Wendy Wu 2 Ebyabe (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clone of the other article on this, that is also not sourced. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's unsourced, filled with grammatical errors, and appears to be nothing but a character list and a very badly written summary that has no regard for proper English. I have heard that this movie is in the works, but there is definitely not a sufficient amount of information or sources for it.Purplewowies (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search reveals that this article is a bit premature. Delete now and allow back if/when there is more that might allow cleanup and sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Wu: Golden Soul. Gimmetrow 23:41, 25 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TheGreatHatsby[edit]

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

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

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

No indication that this passes WP:N or any of the other notability guidelines. All references are blogs, which are not considered reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom. Delete as not passing WP:N. X MarX the Spot (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a very interesting phenomenon, in my opinion. If you look at the article's talk page, you can see numerous comments from people who didn't want the article deleted the first time there was a possibility of it being deleted. For other sources, here's a post on the official blog of Synthesis (Magazine) (this is obviously still a blog, but I think it's more compliant with WP:SPS): [8]. And here's a post on MetaFilter (which is a high-profile community blog, and is less self-published than a normal blog, I believe): [9]. Eurleif (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Among other things, it's a sufficiently notable nuisance for an opt-out to have been published. --Philcha (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's very useful to know why your computer is randomly making friends in the middle of the night, and the $optout command actually prevented an e-fight for me this morning. --Achellios (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. All current sources may be blogs, however, several of those (8, 13, 14) are "official" sources - blog entries by someone directly associated with the project. As far as notability, the bots can affect anyone who uses AIM and any of a number of prominent online communities. A livejournal community was created specifically to discuss these bots.Rival (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The LiveJournal community is a great point. Surely a community with about 1300 members proves something about notability? Eurleif (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the nom on this one. This does not pass WP:RS in its current state. And so we beat on.... Ecoleetage (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is about the behavior of bots written and operated by livejournal user "salmonmaster". I think that the article passes the 7 criteria for WP:SPS. Granted, it needs work... Rival (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The seventh criteria calls for "an independent, reliable source" -- which salmonmaster is not. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, by definition. However, there are at least 5 independent sources, and my personal opinion is that, given the nature of this subject, the various sources are sufficient enough to be considered "reliable". Yes, the article needs work (additional sources, renamed, possibly moved to a more generic article) but even in its present form, I don't believe deletion is warranted. Rival (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V, blogs are not acceptable as reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V, "blogs ... and similar sources are largely not acceptable." (emphasis mine) - the policy is worded strongly, but not unequivocally. Rhetorically, what WOULD be a reliable source for a phenomenon that is notable due to effects exclusive to blogger communities? Rival (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. When I was accosted by "trout" bots a few months ago, this entry was by far the most succinct and accurate explanation I found, after extensive googling. I've also referred several friends to the entry, when they ran into a trout bot and, like me, had searched in vain for a clear explanation. So although perhaps it ought to be improved or merged with another page (I'm not familiar enough with the mores here to make a call on that), as an outsider/layman I definitely think the information contained is useful and ought not be erased outright. Jsmooth995 (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I just made a new friend with one, lol. Cwolfsheep (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - when I get trouted, this is the only page with enough information and links about the phenomenon that I can point the other "victim" to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.209.47 (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Bourgian Defense Forces[edit]

I don't know quite what to make of this, but let's start with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources which would confirm notability. the skomorokh 19:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong / Speedy Delete- This article must be a joke, "Sir Bourgian" only has 5 hits on google (4 of them are wikipedia article itself. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I have never heard of this organization before. I agree that it must be a joke. TopGearFreak ^Talk 20:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a likely hoax - none of the proper nouns here even yield good hits. Looks like a copy of another article, but I can't find where it might have come from. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The logos are from Romanian Land Forces and Estonian Defence League, but I think (from looking at the article history) it was written as a separate article, not copied from one of those, as it was created as a short, unwikified article then expanded. —Snigbrook 23:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax. Icewedge (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is boolsheet. Delete. X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:09, 23 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) 01:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Male[edit]

Non-notable film by director whose article was recently deleted. Prod was removed without explanation. No evidence of significant coverage within the article and none found from a Google search. Michig (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - This documentary is only 8 minutes long, certainly not worthy of an article.BritishWatcher (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The size is irrelevant. If a (hypothetical) 8-minute documentary happens to be highly controversial, is written about extensively in the press and wins awards, it's notable -- despite its size. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I give permission to anypne to restore this article once it has won an Oscar for 'best documentary', but until then, it will lie in the Wikipedia 'Recently Deleted' Pit. TopGearFreak ^Talk 20:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable documentary. Schuym1 (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 02:01, 24 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. Consensus (excluding two WP:ATA comments that may also be canvassed) is that there's nothing mergeworthy here and that the college isn't independently notable. I'll restore the history if somebody thinks otherwise, though. Sandstein 18:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xinjiang Medical University: International Education College[edit]

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

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

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

This is not an independent degree-granting institution but rather an administrative unit within Xinjiang Medical University and it has no independent notability from the university. The only reference cited does not even mention the college. The link given as official website is the main website of the university and the link from there to the college is empty[10]. No coverage by independent reliable sources or even by non-independent primary sources here, so all the info in the article, apart from the fact that the college exists, is non-verifiable. There is no verifiable info here to merge to Xinjiang Medical University and in fact the only place in this article where the college itself is even discussed is in the first paragraph. The name is also rather unlikely as a search item so does not merit a redirect. Fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:ORG and should be plain deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's well-written, but if it continues to have no useful links and no valid references, it's gonna have to be deleted. TopGearFreak ^Talk 20:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try to find sources or useful links? It's easy to delete without trying. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment for clarification purposes. Despite its name, this is neither a college nor a university in the sense this term is usually understood. Rather, this is an administrative subdivision (a group of departments) within a university, the kind that is usually headed by the Dean, similar to "College of Arts and Sciences" or "College of Engineering" that most U.S. universities have. Such entities are sometimes independently notable, but fairly rarely. In this case there is absolutely no evidence of notability of this college and in fact no sources, even of primary and non-independent nature, regarding its existence, apart from an empty link at the university's webpage. There is absolutely nothing to merge here as the article contains no verifiable information. The fact that the college exists is already mentioned in Xinjiang Medical University article. That is as much as one can do here. And to answer the above question, yes, I had looked for sources and found nothing. Even a plain google search produces just 38 hits[11], most are mirrors/clones of the Wikipedia article and none that would come close to passing WP:RS. Nsk92 (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - colleges of universities, particularly medical colleges, are generally notable. This should have been tagged for sources rather than being proposed for deletion - we need to avoid systemic bias and time should be given for local sources to be found. A possible merge to the main University article is for talk page discussion. TerriersFan (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment directly above yours. Nsk92 (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any sound basis for your comments.TerriersFan (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, what? Which part of my comments exactly? And why exactly do they have no sound basis? Nsk92 (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"this is neither a college nor a university in the sense this term is usually understood. Rather, this is an administrative subdivision (a group of departments) within a university, the kind that is usually headed by the Dean". TerriersFan (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why do you think that this statement is incorrect? That is what both the main article about the university and the main university webpage appear to imply. If there is any record anywhere of the college being an independent degree granting institution, it would certainly deserve to be kept. But that is pretty clearly not the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the Chinese government website[12] cited in the article does not say anything about the International Education College but only lists Xinjiang Medical University when providing data for foreign medical students admissions. Nsk92 (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, if you look at the main Xinjiang Medical University website[13], the college is listed there as an item in the same menu as Department of Physical Education and Department of humanities and social science. It is pretty clear that the college has is an entity of similar administrative status within the university as these departments. Nsk92 (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"That is what both the main article about the university and the main university webpage appear to imply" - quite; you have made an assumption from the article rather than a conclusion based on fresh information. I suggest that this article awaits the provision of sourced information, which is likely to take longer than a few days; meanwhile its continued existence causes no problem. TerriersFan (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. No, I did not just make an assumption based on the article. I also looked at the university's website, at the chinese government website cited and did some google searching. There is nothing to indicate that the college is an idependent degree-granting institution and every reason to think otherwise. If someone finds some sources to show that I am wrong about this (and I did look myself), I would certainly withdraw my nomination. But based on what I have found so far, I am quite sure that I am correct. Nsk92 (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Xinjiang Medical University. The "college" is not an independent degree granting institution. As a sub-unit of the university that has no independent notability, then as per WP:ORG, the college deosn't meet the notability inclusion guidelines. The article itself does not have any referenced material for merge, so a redirect would make the most sense. -- Whpq (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a possibility, but this seems a rather unlikely search term to need a redirect. In fact, the title of this article starts with the name of the university, so the autocomplete feature in the search field would take care of this even if someone did do a search like this. Nsk92 (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but redirects are cheap. And to make sure my stance is clear for the closing admin, I don't support keeping this article, and if the answer isn't redirection, I'd support deletion as information is already int he main article. -- Whpq (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I would prefer it to be "delete and redirect" (that is, delete page history and then redirect). I have seen a few cases where an AfD resulted in a redirect, but the page history was not deleted and then the redirect was quickly undone and quite a bit of a mess ensued. Nsk92 (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Xinjiang Medical University. Even though there is a distinct lack of currently references, the basic description at the XMU article could be expanded with this information. The information is most probably accurate, so I see this as the difference between being able to verify something, compared to having already verified it. I'd add the appropriate ((unreferenced section)) tag at the time of the merge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there is really nothing to merge in this article that is not already mentioned in the Xinjiang Medical University article, which does have a subsection about the college of international education. Nsk92 (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I would keep the Chinese name of the program, the number of students that it admits, and the length of the program. None of that information is present in the XMU main article, and all of it would be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to merge, per Nsk92 -- the medical school is notable, but not individual administrative parts of it, unless there's some really special reason. DGG (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This is the only college in the Xinjiang which is responsible for recruiting the international students from Pakistan, India, Tajikistan, Mongolia, Kazakhstan and other countries. The name used in different countries for admission into the university is that of International Education College. So I think this college has a worldwide notability. As the name of the article has been changed from International Education College of Xinjiang Medical University"to Xinjiang Medical University: International Education College" it does not show the original name of the college. Plz reverse the name of the institution and keep it in Wikipedia. Plus you can check how much traffic this page is getting from users of Internet worldwide. I think Wikipedia is for the users and not the Administrators discussing whether it has notability or not. This page is having traffic from internet users it means that this is being viewed and helpful for people around the world. Thanks very much If you will consider my request + i will also be posting some examples from different wiki articles which are not degree awarding institutions but they have pages at Wikipedia.220.171.32.76 (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

As the name of the article has been changed recently by Compendium wmc so i could not get data for the previous article name as the program i use is still in beta. So i cannt post the original numbers but the traffic for October 2008 was >500. 220.171.32.76 (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above comments struck, as they were made by the creator of the article, who is currently indef blocked. Please unstrike if you feel I have acted inappropriately. //roux 12:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the only college in the Xinjiang which is responsible for recruiting the international students from Pakistan, India, Tajikistan, Mongolia, Kazakhstan and other countries. The name used in different countries for admission into the university is that of International Education College. So I think this college has a worldwide notability. As the name of the article has been changed from International Education College of Xinjiang Medical University"to Xinjiang Medical University: International Education College" it does not show the original name of the college. Plz reverse the name of the institution and keep it in Wikipedia. Plus you can check how much traffic this page is getting from users of Internet worldwide. I think Wikipedia is for the users and not the Administrators discussing whether it has notability or not. This page is having traffic from internet users it means that this is being viewed and helpful for people around the world. Thanks very much If you will consider my request plus i will also be posting some examples from different wiki articles which are not degree awarding institutions but they have pages at Wikipedia. As the name of the article has been changed recently by Compendium wmc so i could not get data for the previous article name as the program i use is still in beta. So i cannt post the original numbers but the traffic for October 2008 was >500. BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 12:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is an encyclopedia. Page hit counts are irrelevant. What is relevant is reliable sources to establish notability independent of the university per WP:ORG. -- Whpq (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with User:Whpq that page hits are irrelevant but as they have been quoted I think it is important that they are quoted correctly - the actual number of page hits for the article in October was 162 not "over 500" and most of these hits correspond to edits in the page history. Nancy ^talk 10:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you take this college's name in Chinese there are plenty of verifble sources - the fact that said sources are not in the English language does not mean this article should be deleted - we are not looking for notablilty in the Western world. Please note that the founder of Wikipedia wants to create the sum of all human knowledge here, and if you look under the reasons for deletion, you can read the following "The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." There are plenty of sources in the Chinese langauage. Let's not be culturally imperialistic. Moreover this style of college is represented if it is in the States or the UK - I would say that we shouldn't be trying to delete this articel but requesting verifible sources. Kunchan (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, as the header of this AfD says, you should have mentioned the fact that you were WP:CANVASSed to participate in this AfD by the article's creator[14]. Second, if Chinese sources exist, please add them. I don't have a problem with sources being in languages other than English, but these sources still need to be produced and they haven't been. Nsk92 (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article's creator, User:Burhan Ahmed, undertook an extensive WP:CANVASSing effort regarding this AfD (see the discussion at his talk page and his contib record). If you have been WP:CANVASSed by User:Burhan Ahmed or by anyone else, please make this fact known when !voting. Nsk92 (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with User:DGG - the college is an administrative division of Xinjiang Medical University with no independent notability and is already covered in the main university article. Nancy ^talk 09:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are the links which can show you the notability of the college.

Dalian Medical University Website
A Chinese online Magazine BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 14:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a translation in to English of the first link - not clear what notability is shown in it though. Second link seems to be dead. Nancy ^talk 15:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is essetnially a trip report for a goodwill visit. As well, being an article from the campus news of a university doesn't really qualify this as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 27 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 Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geffen Records discography[edit]

Rap-focused, far from complete discographies, will be insanely long if ever completed. Totally unsourced as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it gets too long it can be split. Should be relatively easy to verify this information. --Michig (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. If we can put some of the more-well known songs' album covers along the right-hand side, it will get rid of the big blank space there. And as Michig said, we can split it when it's done and it'll be easy to verify the songs. TopGearFreak ^Talk 20:17, 22 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) 01:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eqonomize![edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not well known enough to be included, plenty of other programs that are used by far more people do not meet the required standard for an article. (although that program looks pretty nice) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has about 5 lines, then there's a 'see also' part that has one link. Then the only external link is to their home page!! Come on. TopGearFreak ^Talk 20:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable software Bfigura ^(talk) 20:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability, no reliable sources to be found. Google search brings very few if any reliable results. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:45, 23 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 Withdrawn Didn't realize that other labels had these too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Records discography[edit]

Rap and pop-centric discography, far from complete, will be a million miles long if ever completed. Redundant to Category:Atlantic Records albums, no other label has a list of this sort. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it gets too long it can be split. Should be relatively easy to verify this information. --Michig (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually quite a lot of labels have similar lists. See Category:Discographies by record label. Whether that's a good thing or not, I'm not sure. By the way, the link to this discussion is not showing up on the article page.Voceditenore (talk) 19:26, 22 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklawn, Connecticut[edit]

This is not classified by either the state of Connecticut nor the USGS GNIS as a populated place. I believe this does not merit a stand alone article. --Polaron | Talk 02:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Entirely non-notable. ----Brandon (TehBrandon) (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge After some more review this seems to more worthy of a merge than a delete, consider this a merge/weak delete.----Brandon (TehBrandon) (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can we verify that it's real? If so, this shouldn't be deleted; it's too small and insignificant to stand as its own article, but if it's real it should be merged or redirected to another article. I'm going to check for references. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I expected to find references, but there's nothing on Google Maps or Mapquest; and the GNIS only lists the Brooklawn Country Club and the Brooklawn Seventh Day Adventist Church. Find sources and it will be a good merge topic, but without sources we can't verify that it exists at all. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklawn actually does exist as a sub-neighborhood of the "West Side" neighborhood of Bridgeport (Brooklawn is generally the area between Brooklawn Ave and Park Ave north of Route 1). The church is in Bridgeport but the country club is in the adjacent town of Fairfield (specifically in the Stratfield neighborhood). Since the West Side neighborhood does not have an article, I suppose a redirect to Bridgeport might be feasible. --Polaron | Talk 04:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and possible merge the bit about the river to the Bridgeport article. This entry is nothing more than a map in prose. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / Weak delete I did the same GNIS search and found no reference to Brooklawn as a defined place. If there is any other evidence, I will reconsider, but there seems to be nothing other than a country club and a church that use the name. Alansohn (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:44, 22 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rosenberg (murder)[edit]

NN, and poorly written article Computerjoe 's talk 18:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written is irrelevant to notability. Also I don't see the box on the page indicating it has been nominated for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Argh my script messed up. I'll add it in a bit. Computerjoe 's talk 19:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else did. Computerjoe 's talk 19:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article lacks anything which asserts notability. Computerjoe 's talk 19:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability for criminal acts, since it lacks coverage from multiple, independent sources. Google does not have much except little blips from regional sources. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. People are murdered every day. Nothing outstanding about this case. Reso lute 22:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless he was murdered by a famous killer, there is no reason to keep this. TopGearFreak ^Talk 16:56, 22 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TMD (rapper)[edit]

Non-notable/WP:HOAX. Fails WP:V. Prod removed without comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MSB MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC criteria. Has no indication of any charted hits. No albums released by major labels or by significant independent labels. No indication of any major tour. No golden albums. Virtually no coverage in a google search, save this wikipedia article. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC by a mile, google turns up jack. Probabally a COI as well, article was created by Msbmusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (TMD's record label is called MSB Music). Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:40, 22 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. Sandstein 18:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martynowicz[edit]

WP:Notability. No indication is given that this name is of encyclopedic interest. The author's interest is evidently based on his or her bearing this surname. Severe WP:Coatracking and non-sequituring, and nothing is said about the name itself other than its etymology as a patronymic for Martin, essentially a WP:DICDEF. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:OR, etc. Unless there are famous people under this surname (i.e. it was a lineage of Kings or something), it doesn't pass WP:N. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:N WP:NOR WP:NOT WP:V.... all failed. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary's name appendix (and severely cull) if the origin of the name can be confirmed. Otherwise delete, majority of the article is links and discussing patriarchs instead of the subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While granting that the obvious can sometimes be incorrect, I'll note that Martynowicz = Martyn + -owicz (son of) is transparent. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still working on research for it, of course it is in my interest to have this subject matter available and there is actually relavence in terms of famous individuals, see: Suchekomnaty_Coat_of_Arm. The basic nature of it is due to the fact that this is my first submission. More content will be added/updated. —Brian Martynowicz (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2008 (EST)
  - Response. Might you mean Suchekomnaty coat of arms? I don't see how that page is at all relevant. Since you're a new user, it may be helpful to start taking a look at WP:N and its derivative branches and the WP: links we listed above. That way, you can get a better sense as to what should be included in Wikipedia. Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! DARTH PANDA^duel 21:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response: How is it relevant? The family Martynowicz Falls under the Suchekomnaty Coat of Arms, how can that be anymore relevant? I did glance through them actually (WP: Links), however due to the fact that I am at work I cannot look at them in depth. Whenever I get off tonight 17:00EST I'll have a better opportunity to make my case. —Brian Martynowicz (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2008 (EST)
      - Response. Following this logic, do you believe that every single family under a coat of arms should have a Wikipedia page? No such precedent has been set. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Response: Okay how about this, if thats the case then why should there be a wiki for any coat of arms? Or should it only be the important ones? Precedence is not justification for deletion is it? If thats the case then how was wiki started?. —Brian Martynowicz (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2008 (EST)
        This is Wikipedia, not Wiki. Uncle G (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Response. I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. I don't believe the Coat of Arms should be deleted, I just believe the particular family name that you are touting is not notable and does not pass Wikipedia's notability requirements. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Response: I am by no means solicting my last name, theres no information on it available to the public. I would say by no stretch of the imagination there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people that are directly traceable back to some form of Martynowicz Lineage. How is this not notable?—Brian Martynowicz (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)
        Before you continue to raise factors that aren't treated as relevant to establishing notability for Wikipedia's purpose, I'd like to suggest that you read the references others have left for you and use them as your guides. I've left a welcome message on your talk page to supply you with additional links to the ways of Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Largo, I saw your message thanks for the warm welcome. I checked your first arguement towards deletion and I think you are incorrect. I am in no way influencing someones opinion on the subject matter. I can see how it would be biased in terms of me having the last name, but I am merely providing information and not trying to sway someones opinion one way or another. I'll need more time to address the other guides unfortunately :(--Bmartynowicz (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Nothing you'd written up to the point where I commented gave any reason to think that you were writing the article other than because it's your family name. But regardless of that, I was referring primarily to notability, not bias. The fact that someone who lived 300 years ago and had a surname has umpteen thousand descendants living today isn't a basis for assessing notability. Having umpteen thousand descendants living today isn't a distinguishing feat for someone who lived 300 years ago. Notable families are along the lines of Kennedys (specifically, descendants of Joseph P.), Bushes (back to Prescott, at least), Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Barrymores, Gandhis, Bronfmans, Roosevelts (in no particular order). —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If "there's no information on it available to the public", as the article's creator is telling us, then this subject is unverifiable, in contraventional of our basic Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, which is a strong argument for deletion according to our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well nothing available to the public as far as information on the internet. Need more time to go to some hard copies.--70.17.201.201 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Transwiki Delete, as there is no point to it. Or, if it has to be kept, transwiki to Wiktionary. TopGearFreak ^Talk 16:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to do more through investigation, stupid life getting in the way. I wish there were some people out there to maybe help me out....--Bmartynowicz (talk) 19:14, 24 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. Sandstein 17:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cashmaster[edit]

Non notable company producing non notable cash machines.. Paste (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Not notable. Most of the "sources" are www.cashmaster.com.--Pecopteris (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's very spammy. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has reliable sources, including http://www.business7.co.uk/business-news/breaking-business-news/2007/12/14/cashmaster-spends-300-000-on-new-machinery-97298-20251274/ and http://www.extendedretail.com/eu/pastissue/article.asp?art=269375&issue=189 As well, the company has been discussed in the Scottish Parliament, as verified by the links to that site. The fact that some of the references are to the company's own site does not detract from the fact that notability is established by the reliable sources. Similarly, "spamminess" can be fixed like any other style issue, and is not an argument for AfD. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - one of the reasons why I like to delete spam is because, in my view, any article that is created as spam will be forever tainted by it. The only way to properly de-taint the text is to start again, from scratch, with a neutral author. I realise that the present text could be altered so that it doesn't look like spam, but I argue that as long as it's built on spam, it remains tainted. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. An article's creator does not own the article. An existing stub is always a help for a good editor who wants to expand an article. And sometimes articles that look like spam are written by inexperienced editors with no connection to the subject. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete = Cashmaster is mentioned in passing in a sentence in the Scottish Parliament discussion. (The discussion lasted over eight hours.) The Extended Retail Solutions article is a press release as is the Business7 article. iExtenso says on its about page: "iXtenso presents all of the suppliers, products and services demanded by the retail sector while featuring this information in-depth." Therefore, the presence of Cashmaster products on their page isn't meaningful. (You might as well link to Amazon.com.) Portfolio has more than half a million company profiles, so this link also doesn't show notability. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is factual and accurate to the companies history as per the references and further research. Companies such as De la rue, Wincor Nixdorf, and companies under the Group Halma PLC have analogous pages and citations. Please note: Spam is an attempt to force a message on people who would not otherwise choose to receive it, this cannot be regarded as spam as the information is historic, meaningful and serves a purpose. (Cone28 (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cone28 (talk • contribs)

Keep In reply to 'Paste's comment that the company produces "non notable cash machines". In actual fact the company produce machines that count cash by weighing it. A genuine and notable alternative to counting by hand and a friction banknote counters. The wikipedia page for this actually comments on weight based counting. Surely this means the technology is in fact notable. Stewart1985 (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As far as I am aware cash counting machines that weigh the cash are by n means restricted to this company.Paste (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are right in this fact but as stated previously there are numerous reasons for the posting to be valid. Saying that the cash machines are non notable would bring other posts into question. If the machines were mentioned on their own there would be no requirement for the 'cashmaster' post I can agree with you there. But as there are other reasons for the post being made in the first place it would only be neglegant not to mention what the company do and would in turn make the post a waste of time. The original post for the technology has been clearly referenced. Stewart1985 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stewart1985 has edited only this page and the Cashmaster article. Cone28 has edited only this page and the Cashmaster article, except for edits to add a link to the Cashmaster article to the article for the town of Rosyth and the article for banknote counters. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have never heard of this company before, so why have an article on it? You may as well write an article on the family-run sweet shop at the end of my street. TopGearFreak ^Talk 16:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and encyclopedic entry on a company more than 30 years old. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I feel compelled to comment again, User:TopGearFreak is correct the arguments being used would mean that we should have an article on every company that any info can be found about on the web, albeit he is possibly being sarcastic to make a point. User:ChildofMidnight seems to be saying that we keep any article that is written in an 'encyclopedic' form and is on a company that has existed for 30 years. Cashmaster is a reputable company, I am sure, who produce good cash counting machines but that does not mean they should appear in an encyclopedia. There must also be at least some doubt about whether the two main contributors to the article are of a neutral point of view as expressed by User:Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth. Paste (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My argument would support keeping any article on a company 30 years old that is notable and has an encyclopedic article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a logical and sensible position to take. I agree with it entirely; we should keep articles that are encyclopedic and are about a notable subject. However, I don't think that this article is about a notable subject, and much of the article reads like an unencyclopedic advertisement, so I think this article fails to match the position that we should keep encyclopedic articles about notable subjects. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to fix any elements in the article that aren't appropriate. As far as its notability, it's not a clear cut case. It has some citations, but they could be better. At least we strongly agree about what we disagree about. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must agree with User:ChildofMidnight here. The argument is starting to move away from the notability of the subject and more towards the credibility and neutral position of myself. As is part of wikipedia lisitngs, the listing is not owned by the initial publisher but is free to be edited by everybody in order to improve it and make it more credible. I feel that enough arguments have been made to support the notability of the article but I do agree that improvements may be necessary to make it conform to all guidelines. I would like to state that this is not my responsibility to fix this and therefore my or any other users neutral view point has no more bearing on the argument. Also in reply to the comment made byUser:TopGearFreak that he has never heard of the company before as a reason for deletion, this is surely not a valid arguement when the whole point in an encyclopedia is to educate and inform. I hardly believe that anybody has heard of every company that has an article about them on wikipedia. Nor do I feel that an international company with offices in many different countries can be compared to a family run sweet shop with a handful of employees. Stewart1985 (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is solidly on the notability of the corporation. I looked at the article's references and commented on them above. The references barely give any information at all. The offices could be mail drops for all we know. (This is very common, and not a slight on Cashmaster, but it does mean that they're not some continent-striding behemoth. :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Neither myself or the references claim that the company is 'some continent-striding behemoth' and neither do the rules for wikipedia state that the company in question has to be a worldwide cash cow. My argument is that comparing this company to a sweet shop is not a necessary argument to make for deletion. The fact that it is not factual is one thing and the blatantly obvious point that it is clear sarcasm just supports my point that it is not a valid argument. Just like a wikipedia article this argument must be based on fact and notability, not on someones personal opinion of the company. I'm sure there are many other companies with articles on wikipedia with one office and less staff than Cashmaster. Not to divert from this argument but to support mine further, Avalon Guitars is one of many companies that I have found in the same catagory as Cashmaster that has been around for a lot less time. Further more they have a lot more information but their only reference is their own website. If this is acceptable for the way it is written then surely the Cashmaster article with a much greater number of references can be edited in a way that is deemed more acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewart1985 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument that's considered to be persuasive. Speaking to the other comments made here, I feel that you're focusing on the way people are saying things and not on what they say. Please look beyond an editor's humorous ways of putting things and engage directly with the meat of the arguments. There are no references that show notability in the article. My comment at 07:20, 18 November 2008 details this. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I wasn't just commenting on just the suitability of the refernces but also on yours and User:TopGearFreak comments that because you have never heard of Cashmaster that this is a reason for deletion. If you look back User:TopGearFreak never mentioned anything to do with the references. Sugar coating these kind of comments in humour and sarcasm doesn't make them valid or factual. My main reasoning for pointing to another article was that not hearing about a company is not a valid reason for deletion. You have backed up your opinion saying the same thing on several occasions, the comment made by User:TopGearFreak is only personal opinion. As for your comment on the size of the organisation this has no bearing on the argument whether you are relating it to the references or not. The article doesn't claim the company is a massive international company only that they do have offices in other countries. The size of these is not important to the notability of the company and therefore I feel it brings nothing to the argument mentioning it especially in a sarcastic way. Stewart1985 (talk) 12:11, 26 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) 01:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science-advisor.net[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability on two Google searches and no results on Google News and Google books. Schuym1 (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't see the point of keeping this. It's not special. TopGearFreak ^Talk 16:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is an unreferenced stub; there does not appear to be significant coverage of the site (or the company that owns it) in reliable secondary sources. —Snigbrook 17:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Schuym1 (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, besides the lacking userbase of 500, the claim it's the largest database of its kind is not surprising, from the FAQ: "Your can search and download all articles of arXiv.org (physics, mathematics, computer science) and PubMedCentral (biology, medicine)." In other words, they've aggregated the work of others... - Mgm|^(talk) 20:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this seems to strongly fail WP:WEB. While indexing sites can certainly be notable (see Web of Science), this one isn't. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's an index site, written a little like an ad, and unreferenced. _David ^WS _(contribs) 22:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — reeks of spam. MuZemike (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Website does not assert notability, needs 3rd party trusted press coverage about the association and notable reasons for inclusion. Google does not find usable references. - DustyRain (talk) 09:29, 24 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) 01:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rehab[edit]

Non-notable unreleased album with little or no substantial media coverage. What little is there is wholly unsourced. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - If you bothered to read the article you'd have noticed where to get sources. Using that as a reason to delete when a website is explicitly mentioned is just bad practice. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you had bothered to read my nomination, you'd've noticed I only mentioned the lack of sources. My reason for deletion is that it fails WP:MUSIC#Albums, not WP:V.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep The article may be poorly written and badly sourced but its mentioned on MTV and some other sites. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On reflection the info would be better off on Young Bucks page, no point in separate article atleast until its released. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep The article may be poorly written and badly sourced but its mentioned on MTV and some other sites. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC) - That was added by TopGearFreaks, must be editing clash. Still support deleting it. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete and keep?? :-) MuZemike (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and Fast. Pfffft. Why keep a 4-sentence article? It has next to no information. If the artist's fans want to re-write it once it comes out, they're welcome to. TopGearFreak ^Talk 16:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballery. MuZemike (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "[...] that the album will be released [...]" (citation from the article, gfdl, editor see history) ---> WP:CRYSTAL --> delete abf /talk to me/ 17:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Albums aren't automatically non-notable when they're not yet released. You just need more information than a name, release date and title track. In this case the most crucial extra info is still speculation and a tracklist isn't even included. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Until the album's been the subject of considerable coverage in the media or there's more information than can comfortably fit in a couple of sentences, it should reside in the artist's article. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Crystal ball and all, plus a glaring lack of content. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 26 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 WP:SNOW Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T-Bone (rapper)[edit]

This is a non-notable Christian hip-hop artist who fails WP:MUSIC. Sources cited are primary sources or the unreliable type, no evidence of non-trivial coverage from actual reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons I have outlined as nominator. JBsupreme (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of his albums was nominated for a Grammy Award (I replaced the ref with a more reliable one)—meets WP:MUSIC criterion #8. Article needs a hearty re-write, though. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More known than many who still have articles on Wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually found it quite informative. Needs a bit of cleanup, more links, but it's better than a lot of other articles I have seen. TopGearFreak ^Talk 17:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he was nominated for a Grammy, meeting the notability guideline for music. MuZemike (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One source is to the official site, and one is to what seems like a fansite. Why are the other ones not reliable? Dove award wins and Grammy nominations are easy to verify, the refs just aren't in the article yet. (That's a fixable issue) - Mgm|^(talk) 20:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This substantial bio at allmusic, a couple of substantial reviews also at allmusic, a Grammy nomination, plenty of coverage elsewhere. Clearly not a deletion candidate I think.--Michig (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 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) 01:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands whose members are all deceased[edit]

Notability of the subject is not established; this is listcruft. KurtRaschke (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rather unusually, I was in the process of creating this page, but it was created before I saved it. This is my rationale: "No reason is given as to why this subject is notable. Why not "List of films where all cast members are deceased" or "List of congress' where all members are deceased"? It may be unusual right now for all members of a band to be deceased, but in the future it will be much more commonplace (not WP:CRYSTAL, everyone dies, so this list will just grow). As well, this list also seems to be ill-defined and just applies to the rock-era, but forgets things like ensembles (which are basically bands and date back to the classical era), or even Jazz bands and Big bands." -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 16:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, this is just plain trivial pure and simple. JBsupreme (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though some of the comments above (*cough* Scorpion0422) smell of WP:WAX, this article still fails WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Memento mori - everyone will die right? This list could get a little big, to say the least. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 16:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact only two bands were listed in the death section and the editor had to go onto "almost dead" which completly defeats the reason for the list shows its not well planned.BritishWatcher (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and Fast. I'm actually sniggering as I look at the title. It looks like it came straight out of the list of really really really stupid article ideas. TopGearFreak ^Talk 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure listcruft; sounds kind of like that List of African-American presidents a while back. MuZemike (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So it's a redirect now? ;) DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC abf /talk to me/ 18:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a proponent of lists, but this is trivial even in my eyes. (PS 'whose' is grammatically incorrect) - Mgm|^(talk) 20:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everyone dies, so this list will just keep getting bigger. Plus, "band" is a vague word. Acebulf (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A band that is still actively performing despite all its members being dead -- now THAT would be notable. Otherwise this is too NN a topic for a list, plus it's impossible to maintain because it would be necessary to investigate cases where all the original members are dead, but continuation groups have been established ... doesn't work. Also, as noted above, everyone dies, therefore this list could grow to ridiculous lengths as time goes on. 23skidoo (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, record companies assert ownership of the names of bands and put up groups of musicians to "be" numerous famous rock bands, regardless of whether anyone is still living who was in the band when it originally became famous. In the concert band and big band world, it is common for "recreated" bands of Glenn Miller or John Phillip Sousa to play the charts of the famous bands of a bygone era. Ditto for some of the famous Motown bands. It is not clear that was the intent of the article creators. Edison (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 23skidoo. A good laugh, though. Huon (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since it seems to be an indiscriminate list of musical groups the authors like, mainly rock bands, but including the The Mills Brothers, who were a pre-rock vocal quartet, and never a "band." Then look at all the famous concert bands, like John Phillip Sousa's Band, all of whose members are likely deceased (apologies if any live 76 years after Sousa's death). Clearly there were countless famous 19th century and earlier bands all of whose members are deceased. How about the early 20th century jazz bands? Buddy Bolden's band broke up in 1907 when he went mad. King Oliver's band shut down well before his death in 1938. Any alums still living? How about the Big Bands. Any Fletcher Henderson alums around who were in his band up to its disbanding in 1939? Or are there living veterans of the Glenn Miller band before his 1944 disappearance? Then the list includes, amazingly enough, rock bands some of whose members are identified as still living. Edison (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 23skidoo. This list is far too indiscriminate. Everyone dies one day, unless you're a vampire. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:01, 26 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 Withdrawn per Emperor's improvements. Schuym1 (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batman/Houdini: The Devil's Workshop[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Batman/Houdini: The Devil's Workshop

I van't find any reliable sources that show notability on two Google searches. Schuym1 (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominated for not 1 but 2 Eisner Awards. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Yes, it's a good article, but the plot description isn't the greatest....TopGearFreak ^Talk 17:46, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonslayers[edit]

WP:OR/essay, unencyclopedic. roux 15:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dragonslaying is a notable topic, it just needs a better article.Northwestgnome (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of dragonslayers and cleanup. Dragonslaying should redirect to Dragon and mention how they're often slayed in legends and literature. (both are implied but not given their own section) - Mgm|^(talk) 15:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Dragon slayers are well documented in history(even though its myth), im stunned such an article on this subject has only recently been created, but it does need major improving. Name of the article is also fine IMO. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Merge to dragons. It's good quality writing, will look great if merged. TopGearFreak ^Talk 17:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. for want of secondary sources that discuss the subject per se. WillOakland (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWe do not delete for poor writing--there are certainly enough sources on this; will be in 100s of discussions of fairy tales and fantasy fiction -- not to mention on Beowulf. DGG (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those discussions are about those individual works of fiction, and maybe about the subject of dragons, but I'm not convinced that there is any published discussion of dragonslayers as a topic. If you want a "list of fictional dragonslayers" I suppose that might work, but I can't see this article becoming more than a mishmash. WillOakland (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. Are there any sources on the subject? Sure, lots of fairy tales include princes slaying dragons, but do we have access to academic or other third-party sources that discuss 'dragonslaying' as a concept? Would certainly make a fascinating article if we do, one I would definitely read. //roux 06:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is completely unsourced. It is original research to claim characters from different works of fiction are some how related without sources. Therefore, I would also be opposed to list of fictional dragonslayers. Jay32183 (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that Calvert Watkins called his book on common formal elements in Indo-European poetry How to Kill a Dragon (warning: not actually useful for the purpose advertised) suggests that this is a shared myth. Too lazy to do the work myself, but a google scholar search with "dragon slayer" + myth gets a lot of plausible looking results. N p holmes (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

such as the chapter titled "The Dragon Slayer" in a classic book and [15] and [16] and [17] "no published discussion of 'dragonslayers as a topic' " indeed. There seems to be an assumption here that the academic fields of of the humanities does not exist, or does not include such things, or that, with figures such as Siegried and Beowulf et al, nobody would think of publishing a comparison or general discussion. DGG (talk) 04:34, 24 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) 01:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makedonsko Devojče[edit]

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makedonsko Devoiche

Article about a popular Macedonian song, was previously kept as "no consensus". The song is probably "notable", in the sense of being quite popular in its culture, but we have no notable and verifiable encyclopedic information about it. Zilch, nada, nothing, after over a year of editing. Editors haven't even been able to work out whether the song was composed by a named author or is from a genuine oral folk tradition. Article consists almost entirely of the song's lyrics (which may well be copyrighted, if it is a composed work). Don't be fooled by the "external links", they don't contain anything substantial either. The only thing this article is good for is to attract nationalist edit-warring over whether to present it as a "Macedonian" or "Bulgarian" song or both. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to WikiSource if someone can prove the song isn't copyrighted. Otherwise delete Wikipedia isn't a repository for lyrics that are copyrighted, especially when no additional information is provided. The only two possibly reliable sources I found were this one (dubious) which showed a performance, and this one in a language I can't read. The other purported sources either don't mention the song, or they mention only the lyrics, or they're not reliable. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. 'Wikipedia isn't a repository for lyrics, so they shouldn't be mentioned unless the writer wants to quote a couple of lines to make a point.' I know I read that on Wikipedia yesterday. Take away the lyrics from this article and what do you have left? A few badly-written lines and a couple of half-relevant links. Delete. TopGearFreak ^Talk 18:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong editing I believe no one has put any effort into the article to find information about it. There's two sources posted but deleted by Bulgarians TodorBozhinov and Laveol. Now, I can get started in the article to find sources in a couple of weeks, but I don't think it should be deleted. Edited yes, deleted no. Mactruth (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has become nothing but a flashpoint for intra-Eastern South Slavic diasystem antagonism. And the song itself is nothing to rave about, in all honesty. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:28, 23 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 04:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RosenkreuzStilette[edit]

Non-notable, self-created game, according to the reference (I had a Japanese speaker look at it for me). roux 13:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact it's Dōjin soft really gives it away. Unless this has coverage from newspapers, magazines, books or websites not related to the creator, it's not gonna be notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There are a few unreferenced parts (they say that one character is said to be the strongest character of all time, with no reference) and a few redlinks (I hate them things), but the article is alright, quality-wise. I'll upgrade to a keep if someone references or deletes the 'strong-character' claim and deletes the redlinks. TopGearFreak ^Talk 18:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the concern isn't the quality (which is not very good; in-universe is the last of the article's issues); the concern is that the game is not notable in any way. //roux 09:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fan made game that has no coverage from reliable third-party sources whatsoever. Google searches shows mostly links back to distributors, download sites, fan sites, and the game's official site. Hence, the subject totally fails Wikipedia's notability standards. Jappalang (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even an assertion of notability, let alone verification. The article has many other issues, but the notability cannot be addressed by simple maintenance. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:17, 25 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 withdrawn by nominator; excellent rationale provided for keep that I hadn't thought of. //roux 16:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larkana Railway Station[edit]

Under WP:NOT, really. Wikipedia is not a timetable, and this article is just not encyclopedic. roux 13:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, with a clear need for improvements to the article. Since pretty much every railway station, extant and extinct, in the United Kingdom (and I expect other western countries too) is included in Wikipedia, it seems like there's something not quite right about discounting one from Pakistan which in fact has quite a lot of information. I realise as I write this that my argument is almost a question of whether all the UK ones are notable! So to put it another way, railway stations are fundamentally important to the development of their surrounding communities, so I'd say this article's subject is notable in the context of the Larkana region. – Kieran T ^(talk) 14:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't considered that. I may well withdraw, pending other comments. //roux 14:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the comments made by Kieran T. The article needs a major revamp but there are 100s of railway stations on wikipedia which have not been deleted. (most do seem to be from the UK though, so we must have alot of train fans here :) BritishWatcher (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of content (Speedy A3). If we remove the disputed time-table like content, we're left with a substub that says "the station is located in X and as a booking office." (it's obviously staffed, otherwise a booking office doesn't make sense). And really, having a booking office is not something worthy to note in an article. Pakistani stations can be written about, see Lahore Railway Station, but this one doesn't offer anything. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - railway stations have long been accepted as being notable; this page should be expanded not deleted. I also have no problem with the 'Services' section. If its good enough for London King's Cross railway station#Services its good enough for here. TerriersFan (talk) 16:44, 22 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) 01:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June Lewis[edit]

Delete. Notability not evident, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. WWGB (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone got access to the actual paper source? It might provide more information than what has been included so far. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems a bit cruel to delete someone whos recently died because they were not important enough but theres not enough information about her career. If this is the June Lewis the actor who stared in "Budgie" then there has only been a few other roles played by this person and they were not major roles according to imdb. Unless theres some more source information, its safer to delete than declare the wrong person dead. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails basically our notabillity criteria. abf /talk to me/ 18:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. So let's recap. The only thing that happened in her personal life was her birth, the only thing interesting in her career was her college choice and she was married to some TV presenter. Pass the delete button, please. TopGearFreak ^Talk 18:10, 22 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) 01:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knight rid(d)er[edit]

Nothing on google or the artist's MySpace regarding this album. Doesn't seem to exist. roux 13:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator, no evidence this even exists, no coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources BritishWatcher (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Obviously doesn't exist. Schuym1 (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't exist. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:13, 25 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. Mgm|^(talk) 15:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pathfinders: In the Company of Strangers[edit]

Mistakenly as G4 repost (wasn't discussed under this title at least). Still deleteable because it doesn't assertain the film's notability (films don't appear to be included in speedy criterion A7) Mgm|^(talk) 12:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - G4 speedy as a duplicate of an article deleted today. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathfinders: In the Company of Strangers Film/Movie. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. G4 it please. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:57, 22 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 Institut Teknologi Bandung. MBisanz ^talk 04:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sbm itb[edit]

Rejected as WP:CSD#G11(Blatant advertising) reasonable attempt to clean the article up, questionable as to whether this faculity is independently notable Gnan garra 12:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to University article Institut Teknologi Bandung Gnan garra 12:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per nom Andante1980 (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merging/redirecting per Gnangarra's proposal seems to be fine. abf /talk to me/ 18:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per nom. Beagel (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notability of the school stems from its controversial founding, since the university has always been a 'tech' based Uni. i'm having trouble finding appropriate references to back this up, however, aside from some blogposts in Indonesian. basically, to most Indonesian, ITB is the MIT of Indonesia, and now it opens a business school (much like Sloan-MIT), breaking the tradition of ITB's research-based ways. will continue to update throughout the week, including history, areas of study, etc.A.yoga (talk) 01:24, 24 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) 01:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slick Audition[edit]

Looks completely non-notable, self-promotion. I'm also concerned by the 2007 tag... either the tag was copied from another article, or this is a recreation of a deleted one. roux 12:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Since the tag was added in an edit by the initial page author, as part of the first substantial edit, 24 minutes after page creation, I'd guess it was an inadvertent copy. MadScot (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable third-party source found to significantly cover this game. Searches show mostly download sites and forums. It does not have the notability for an article. Jappalang (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion or verification of notability. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:19, 25 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) 01:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Lee Hiles[edit]

This person does not meet the nobility requirements for wikipedia. An extensive search has turned up no independent references. Nrswanson (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Canadian music and WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why didn't you speedy him? Anyway, only 60 results came up on google when searched. Definitely WP:NN Dengero (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because the entry makes the claim he performed in several operas, something that doesn't neccesarily have to be recorded in electrons. I'd check newspaper sources, before forming an opinion. The web sources (mainly facebook) are not independent. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked some of the cast lists at the opera house websites and he wasn't listed. I think he was probably just in the opera chorus.Nrswanson (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's pretty obvious the 'resume' is padded, otherwise he would have specified the roles sung. I've checked the cast lists for the performances listed in the article and there's no mention of him. If he was in them at all he was in the chorus. Note that virtually all the productions mentioned are with semi-professional companies, youth programs, opera workshops, or student productions. Filumena at the Banff Centre is just one example. When I edited the article to remove the hype, I edited out the statement: "At twenty years old, Dustin has been hailed as "Canada's next great opera star" by Canadian Idol judge, Sass Jordan" If he's only twenty years old and already singing leading roles with leading companies, and widely considered to be "Canada's next great opera star" he'd be in the press somewhere, and these are all I found [18] [19]. I've searched under both Dustin Hiles and Dustin Lee Hiles both with and without quotes and Google News all dates. I also have access to specialist opera publications - nothing. Incidentally there is no mention of him on the Canadian Idol web site either. If he was in it, it must have been a local heat. I also left this message on the creator's talk page [20], alerting him/her to the problems with the article but nothing has been done to address the issues. I wish Hiles well in his chosen career, but he doesn't really have one yet, and certainly not a notable one.Voceditenore (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on Voceditenore's excellent research. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Probably someday when he has made his profesional debut (leading role), the article starter can recreate again. Btw, his voice is not bad, tho. - Jay (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing more to say than Voceditenore allready said. abf /talk to me/ 18:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For all reasons listed above BritishWatcher (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_Marilyns_in_England#Devon_and_Cornwall . MBisanz ^talk 04:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marilyns in Cornwall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Marilyns in Cornwall

The content is already listed on List of Marilyns in England. Cornwall is not a separate country in the same way that England, Scotland, Wales, etc. are. If the all of the English counties were split into separate pages, we would have dozens of separate lists each with only a few entries. That's not helpful. ras52 (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Marilyns_in_England#Devon_and_Cornwall (I hope that sections like these in the list get an extra column to specify the county the marilyn is in.) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A county column is a good suggestion — I'm sure we can work that into the page. —ras52 (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Redirect - As suggested by MacGyver above.BritishWatcher (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was very afraid this was a list of women named Marilyn who lived in some geographic unit, and was greatly relieved that a "Marilyn" is a small hill. Why not refer to them as "hills" for better comprehension by English speakers worldwide? This is apparently a neologism in response to hills somewhere else being called "Munros," and a play on Marilyn Monroe. Hills 150 meters (482 feet) high are as common as dirt around the world, so as to be non-notable. In fact, I own one. Edison (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Hills 150 meters (482 feet) high are as common as dirt", but that's not the only definition of one. Lugnuts (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to clarify, hills satisfying the criteria for Marilyns are not especially common in England — there are only 180 of them, 84% of which have Wikipedia articles. The fact that they are unusually prominent hills by English standards is what makes the notable; no-one is disputing that if they were situated in the Himalaya, they would not be notable. Also, as Lugnuts hints at, the Marilyns are not simply hills that are 150 m high—they rise 150 m above the surrounding countryside, which is something quite different. (See topographic prominence for a discussion on how to rigorously define "rising 150 m above their surroundings".) —ras52 (talk) 12:55, 25 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 the snowball clause. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WNYT (internet radio)[edit]

Contested prod, the reason was No indication of why this internet radio stream is notable. Procedural nomination, no opinion from my side. Tone 11:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability asserted and links establish same. WTF is with all these "procedural nominations -- no opinion" watsisnames? Get some dusters people, take a position or stay outta AfD goddamit. X MarX the Spot (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep - If it is exclusive to the University, stick it back into the actual page. But if that's not acceptable, keep would be still ok. Dengero (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a legitimate college radio station from a legitimate college (NYIT). It has been so for over 40 years on carrier current, cable radio, and Internet radio. The only reason it is not an over-the-air radio station is because it is in the jam-packed media market of greater New York, where any frequency allotments were taken decades ago. –radiojon (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Procedural keep as nom gives no reason to bring to AFD, no opinion from my side... DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per User:Dennis Brown. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 01:54
Keep as notability is asserted and at least potentially proven by wikilinks and 44 years of history, more references from reliable third-party sources would be appreciated, no reason for deletion in nomination should set this on course for a speedy keep. - Dravecky (talk) 02:18, 23 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) 01:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rein Weiss Ritter[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources give any significant coverage to this fictional robot, failing notability standards. The background information and technical specifications are in-universe and out of the project's scope. There is no significant information that requires author attribution if any salvagable information is merged into a list: descriptions can be written by anyone. Jappalang (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Similar elements such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RyuKoOh/KoRyuOh have been recently deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason all other elements of Super Robot Wars were nominated and deleted. -- nips (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no real-world context, nothing but fictional history and stats. gnfnrf (talk) 04:46, 25 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) 01:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kusuha Mizuha[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable third-party sources cover this fictional video-game character. An article on this subject cannot exist on its own. The personality descriptions are original research and the background history are over-detailed and in-universe. No out-of-universe angle is offered (or could be found since no third-party reliable sources cover these). Information (appearances and physical appearance) that can be merged into a list are non-descript; they are not unique and do not require author attribution. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason all other elements of Super Robot Wars were nominated and deleted. -- nips (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no real-world context, nothing but fictional history and story. gnfnrf (talk) 04:48, 25 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) 01:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Festenia Muse[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable third-party sources cover this fictional video-game character. An article on this subject cannot exist on its own. The personality descriptions are original research and the background history are over-detailed and in-universe. No out-of-universe angle is offered (or could be found since no third-party reliable sources cover these). Information (appearances and physical appearance) that can be merged into a list are non-descript; they are not unique and do not require author attribution. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason all other elements of Super Robot Wars were nominated and deleted. -- nips (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no real-world context, nothing but fictional history and story, with a side of pointless trivia. gnfnrf (talk) 04:49, 25 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) 01:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persönlichkeit[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources give any significant coverage to this fictional robot, failing notability standards. The background information and technical specifications are in-universe and out of the project's scope. There is no significant information that requires author attribution if any salvagable information is merged into a list: descriptions can be written by anyone. Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason all other elements of Super Robot Wars were nominated and deleted. -- nips (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no real-world context, nothing but fictional history and stats, again. gnfnrf (talk) 04:50, 25 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) 01:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sleigh Presty[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable third-party sources cover this fictional video-game character. An article on this subject cannot exist on its own. The personality descriptions are original research and the background history are over-detailed and in-universe. No out-of-universe angle is offered (or could be found since no third-party reliable sources cover these). Information (appearances and physical appearance) that can be merged into a list are non-descript; they are not unique and do not require author attribution. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason all other elements of Super Robot Wars were nominated and deleted. -- nips (talk) 14:30, 24 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) 01:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ingram Prisken[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable third-party sources cover this fictional video-game character. An article on this subject cannot exist on its own. The personality descriptions are original research and the background history are over-detailed and in-universe. No out-of-universe angle is offered (or could be found since no third-party reliable sources cover these). Information (appearances and physical appearance) that can be merged into a list are non-descript; they are not unique and do not require author attribution. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable third-party sources on this character. It's reasonable to conclude that it just can't meet WP:N and WP:V. Randomran (talk) 07:01, 26 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) 01:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychodriver[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A total piece of original research. Furthermore, no reliable third-party source covers this fictional term in a video game/animation. None of its information is useful per the project's scope (out-of-universe descriptions and background); hence, nothing to merge. Jappalang (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of appropriate sources, and thus the article fails pretty much everything: WP:OR, WP:V, WP:N... Randomran (talk) 06:58, 26 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) 01:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R-Blade[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources give any significant coverage to this fictional robot, failing notability standards. The background information and technical specifications are in-universe and out of the project's scope. There is no significant information that requires author attribution if any salvagable information is merged into a list: descriptions can be written by anyone. Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable third-party sources on this subject. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Randomran (talk) 06:53, 26 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) 01:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R-Eins[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources give any significant coverage to this fictional robot, failing notability standards. The background information and technical specifications are in-universe and out of the project's scope. There is no significant information that requires author attribution if any salvagable information is merged into a list: descriptions can be written by anyone. Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find any reliable third-party sources on this one either. Safe to say, it inherently fails WP:V and WP:N and cannot be salvaged. Randomran (talk) 06:50, 26 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) 01:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R-Gun[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources give any significant coverage to this fictional robot, failing notability standards. The background information and technical specifications are in-universe and out of the project's scope. There is no significant information that requires author attribution if any salvagable information is merged into a list: descriptions can be written by anyone. Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable third party sources on this subject, and so it cannot meet our WP:N guideline. And without such sources, there can be no critical reception that allows this article to meet WP:PLOT. Randomran (talk) 06:47, 26 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) 01:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Recital[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable third-party sources cover this fictional video-game character. An article on this subject cannot exist on its own. The personality descriptions are original research and the background history are over-detailed and in-universe. No out-of-universe angle is offered (or could be found since no third-party reliable sources cover these). Information (appearances and physical appearance) that can be merged into a list are non-descript; they are not unique and do not require author attribution. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable third-party sources on this character, and thus the article fails the WP:N guideline, as well as the WP:V policy. Randomran (talk) 06:44, 26 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) 01:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R-Sword[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha). All resulted to deletion of the relevant articles. Magioladitis (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and consensus should be reached here. Dengero (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources give any significant coverage to this fictional robot, failing notability standards. The background information and technical specifications are in-universe and out of the project's scope. There is no significant information that requires author attribution if any salvagable information is merged into a list: descriptions can be written by anyone. Jappalang (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sources that would help this meet our WP:N guideline. Probably excessive information beyond what's necessary for WP:CONCISEPLOT too. Randomran (talk) 06:41, 26 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) 01:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapiéçage[edit]

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha) Magioladitis (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason all other elements of Super Robot Wars were nominated and deleted. -- nips (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A group/list article would be acceptable, but definately not an article for each. Discussion for all related Afd's are directed to this nom since it came up first. Dengero (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring Mao was in fact snow-closed as keep because it tried to bring related SRW AfDs together. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Robot Wars or List of Super Robot Wars characters and be selective about merging content. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. JBsupreme (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Doing them this way permits people to spot and comment on any particuar one of this which might be different from the others, so it's a good way of working. Merge, not delete, because o reason given why some of the content is not appropriate in a combined article. None of t he reasons apply, because the individual items in an article do not have to meet WP:N, the game itself & its guides are reliable sources for routine unconverted material, plot summary can be reduced,as can the game-guide like details, and writing down what is obvious is not OR--I think that covers all the reasons given. Was a merge attempted in the first palace without coming here? Obviously they are excessive as individual articles in general--I am however not going to check these myself in detail. But I am not arguing for a keep. DGG (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated by nominator.--Boffob (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources give any significant coverage to this fictional robot, failing notability standards. The background information and technical specifications are in-universe and out of the project's scope. There is no significant information that requires author attribution if any salvagable information is merged into a list: descriptions can be written by anyone. Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note In addition to all above discussion that resulted in deletion, any recent similar AfD resulted in deletion as well. For example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RyuKoOh/KoRyuOh. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no real-world context, nothing but fictional history and stats. gnfnrf (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No appropriate sources to meet our WP:V policy, and no real world context to meet our WP:PLOT policy either. Randomran (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient non-trivial coverage by reliable third-party sources to establish notability. This applies to each of these subjects. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:58, 26 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. John254 22:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samden Gyatso[edit]

Doesn't meet notability standards. This person is no longer active or teaching, and there are very little web references to him. Peaceful5 (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Richard Nixon is no longer US president, and John Lennon no longer sings but that does not affect their notability. Also, it only takes a few sources to write a solid article. It's not about the amount of sources, but the quality of the information they contain. Also, sources don't neccesarily have to be on the web. Please expand your reasoning with valid reasons. _ Mgm|^(talk) 11:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems to be notable enough, as the former leader of a notable organization. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as leader of a notable organisation. I've added another source to the article - an extensive profile in the Los Angeles Times [21]. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 23 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. John254 22:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paid To Click[edit]

Seems to be a spam/blatant advertising trap. Was tagged for speedy deletion as G11 back in October. [22] I cannot see anything remotely notable or encyclopaedic about this article. X MarX the Spot (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Redirect to Pay per click. It's a perfectly valid subject for an encyclopedia article, but the other article does it better. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, had another look, not the same thing. Checked gnews, crops up quite a bit, but mostly in fraud stories. Keep but fundamentally re-write, unless someone can find another article where it would be appropriate to merge this into. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with above, as this is a valid concept I have tried (earned 16c clicking 100 ads, can only cash out when one has $10 =/), but yes, it needs a big re-write. Dengero (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. In the real word PTC is notable as appearing in many obnoxious pop-up web pages and spam emails. Providing an objective of view of the phenomenon would be a public service. Googling for "paid to click" (w/o quotes) leaves not doubt that it is the correct title, although most of the hits are ads by PTC sites. Business method for internet advertising is a patent application for the business model. Other Google Scholar hits: Cyber-rigging click-through rates: exploring the ethical dimensions (International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, Volume 3, Number 1 / 200, pp 48 - 59); Systems and methods for electronic marketing- both treat PTC as a fraud witihn Pay per click advertising. Plenty for "paid to click" (with quotes) in Google Books. --Philcha (talk) 15:30, 23 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. In addition to the notability and BLP concerns raised, the article is an incredible exercise in soapboxing, going into great detail with respect to this person's authority as a trial expert, and if it were kept, it would likely continue to be misused for that purpose. Sandstein 17:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saami Shaibani[edit]

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

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

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

Already deleted as speedy (A7). Article goes to great lengths and great detail to promote its subject, but very little evidence offered to back up the claims, and little claim as to why he is notable in the first place. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's masses of evidence in the article, including copies of what I can only assume are confidential correspondence. However, the article focuses solely on the negative aspects of this person, which makes it a violation of WP:BLP and a possible G10 speedy delete candidate. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and really weird article too. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is important information on the murder trial of Michael Iver Peterson and David Aesoph. All court documents are public domain. The scans of the Oxford degrees are self-made scans and permission has been granted by email by Dr. Shaibani. This is very important information on the case of Dr. Shaibani. Dr. Saami Shaibani was accused of perjury during the trial of Michael Iver Peterson. It was later discovered that Temple University, in fact, did appointed Dr. Saami Shaibani a Clinical Associate Professor in the Physics Department in 1995. There is more than enough evidence in this article to support its claims. This article does not attack Dr. Shaibani, it simply posts facts and official documents relating to his case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvfulcher (talk • contribs) 16:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC) — Jvfulcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete and WP:SALT per nominator we are not a host for personal correspondences!!! JBsupreme (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is in no way, personal correspondence. Dr. Shaibani is front page local news in Lynchburg, VA; he is notable due to his involvement in the televised Michael Peterson murder trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.4.251.76 (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC) — 74.4.251.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- See WP:BLP1E. Saami Shaibani may warrant a mention in the Michael Peterson (author) article where relevant to the murder trial, but nothing more. Irrespective of where Saami Shaibani is mentioned, any discussion of his Oxford credentials must adhere to Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view. This mean that if any sources end up in the article that mentions stuff you'd rather wasn't said about him, you can't stop it going in. See WP:LUC. Don't say I didn't warn you. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAPBOX and lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient notability under either WP:BIO or WP:PROF here, and too many WP:BLP and WP:SOAPBOX concerns. Nsk92 (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only point of notability is a one event and should only be included in the Peterson article. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 21:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Falls under WP:1E, as already noted by others.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have began to edit to reference to include page/line numbers to clearly show that this information is verifiable from public court records in SD and NC. With the Michael Peterson and David Aesoph murder trials, this is notable on two accounts. Both murder trials were/are very notable, is this getting closer? Also edited to delete Oxford degrees, and be a neutral point of view, most everything in this article is from the David Aesoph habeas appeal and Michael Peterson trial. --jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Note The above comment is the second keep !vote in this AfD by User:jvfulcher. Nsk92 (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update jvfulcher has been discussing the matter on the talk page, and it appears Saami Shaibani has been an expert witness in a lot of murder trials apart from the two mentioned here, so that may qualify for notability provided this is sufficiently covered in reliable secondary sources. I'm keeping my vote as delete at the moment because I think it would be better to scrap this article and start again from scratch, but with the caveat that if the article is re-created in a form that addresses the notability and neutrality concerns, it can stay. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I still think that, even if a passable notability case is established, the current page must be deleted first. It is one giant unsalvageable WP:BLP, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BATTLE violation. I would not even be comfortable with the page being blanked since its content would still be availble in the history log. Nsk92 (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP. Beagel (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:BLP. There is nothing about the article that suggests any possible notability beyond one event. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 06:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update This article has gone through a massive change, almost every sentence in the article is referenced from major news outlets (USA Today, Chicago Tribune, and the AP) or Public Domain court documents. The court documents can be obtained by anyone from the Clerk of Court in Hyde County, SD or the Clerk of Court in Durham County, NC. All the documents are public domain, and not confidential. I also have listed the many papers, articles, and patent by Dr. Saami Shaibani. Currently I have 6 criminal murder trials that he has been an expert witness in, some of these trials are being appealed, so they are very notable, high-profile trials. I also changed the article to only present facts from news and court documents, like I said, almost all sentences are referenced. I believe this is a notable, NPOV, and verifible article. Let me know if something needs to be updated. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The USA Today article does now suggest that Saami Shaibani does have some notability outside of a single murder trial. However, if the USA Today article[23] is anything to go by, I must advise that once the article is written to accurately reflect all of the third-party sources, it may well end up portraying him in a far less positive light than you hoped for. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the most recent event, The David Aesoph Appeal, paints the most recent picture. With that in mind, the press has not done their research on this. The documents I presented exist in the public domain and no news outlet has found this information. The only people to see the documents were people involved in the Aesoph Appeal in Hyde County. All of the third-party sources list two major points: Perjury in the Peterson trial (or padded credentials) and the Plude and O'Brien retrial and appeal, which I just added to the Plude/O'Brien trial section with a reference. There is no reason to relist those points multiple times. The major information is all listed in the article, I didn't include quotes from the AP reporter, Ryan Foley. I only included that there was a trial, Dr. Saami Shaibani was involved, and if there is a retrial or appeal now. The article points out the two valid overall points: 2003 accused of perjury, then in 2006 found to be credible.

With all that said, I know there is always a risk on Wikipedia. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Update Another edit, removed all sentences that are not verified in the court documents, testimonies, or quotes/facts from the actual murder trials. No reporter or press quotes. No editorial spin, just coping and pasting sentences from the courts. All the positives and negatives are included, only listed once each. Was that a vote for keep Chris? Let me know if I have missed something and I will fix it. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The purpose of this article appears to be supporting the subject's credibility as an expert witness. This appears to be soapboxing and violating the neutral point of view. It also is lacking in context by failing to clearly describe the circumstances of his credibility being called into question in the first place. If this ever were to be an article of decent quality, it would look very different from how it looks now. We would probably be better off deleting this and letting the article be started over once the subject's notability becomes more apparent. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update Another edit to address Metropolitan90's concerns, moved the highest profile trial (Peterson) to number one position in article. I don't think the article supports one claim more than another now, whether Shaibani is found credible or not. Also added context to describe the circumstances of his credibility being called into question during the Peterson trial. Also included references to those said circumstances. A google search returns 773 hits on "saami shaibani" (in quotes), over 9,000 hits on saami shaibani (no quotes). Hits are mostly about Peterson, O'Brien, Plude, and Aesoph trials. I think that notability is there. Should the large list of papers be scaled down? I can understand that point. I don't understand how this is soapboxing. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I am trying to understand the notability concerns. From looking at other Wiki articles, such as John H. Smith (mathematician), I think Shaibani is much more notable and has more publications. If the John H. Smith (mathematician) article is classified as WP:PROF, then I should add "formerly of Virginia Tech". His position at Virginia Tech was never questioned in court as well. Suggestions appreciated. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't have time to check this in detail right now, but the fact that an article exists on Wikipedia doesn't necessarily prove the subject is notable - it merely means that no-one has successfully nominated the article for deletion yet. However, the issue of notability doesn't matter now. I think there's little doubt that Saami Shaibani qualifies as notable (just not necessarily the thing he'd like to be notable for). The issue now is whether this article is appropriate coverage in Wikipedia, particularly Neutral Point of View. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this article reads neutral.74.4.251.76 (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, with some real reluctance, because this article is going to be a pain. jvfulcher, you're going to have to accept that this article is about to undergo some drastic changes; other editors here will not allow it to remain in its current state. To prepare yourself for what is about to happen, I strongly suggest you read the following: WP:OWN, WP:NOR, WP:V, and for good measure (especially in relation to formatting references) WP:MOS. In any event, I agree with Chris Neville-Smith that it is now clear he is notable by the usual standard (though certainly not by WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was expecting that it would need some help. I would encourage you to read (or skim) the 26 page, Aesoph appeal. This is the most recent court document available on Shaibani. At least the article is getting closer and a keep vote. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:25, 27 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) 01:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maschetti[edit]

Hoax article. PROD removed by author without explanation. Google hasn't heard of this manufacturer. DAJF (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason and recommend that the author be cautioned or blocked for creation of hoax articles:

Maschetti T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Maschetti TM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Doesn't seem to be a hoax, see this. — neuro^(talk) 09:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. The Google hits seem mostly irrelevant. The name "Maschetti" seems to be a surname, and nearly any surname will occur in a lot of pages with "car." Google starts off saying there are five hundred hits, but it runs out after 209. Also try Google searches for "Maschetti T" and "Maschetti TM" (with the quotation marks); I got only two hits apart from Wikipedia, neither relevant. If anyone finds anything truly relevant and reliable among those 209, or any other relevant reliable source, and adds it to this article, I'll reconsider. Fg2 (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, I misread the 4th result. — neuro^(talk) 12:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm the original prodder of both articles, for the reasons stated above. Good faith google, gnews, and gbook search doesn't turn up this car manufacturer.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax - I have also looked and failed to find any confirmation. JohnCD (talk) 15:41, 23 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) 01:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor, Nina, Sonja and Misja[edit]

A book? Maybe merge to Death and the Penguin or delete The Rolling Camel (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - already included in the book's synopsis. Not a useful redirect. Marasmusine (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete. No real-world notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge/~~Delete Any useful information derived from this can be included in the book's synopsis if it isn't already. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we'd have to retain the history for attribution purposes...

Good point. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a likely search term for a redirect and the info is not encyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:26, 22 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) 01:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet stuttering[edit]

Almost certainly a hoax. —Bkell (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced, and at worst a hoax or joke. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above The Rolling Camel (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spurious sources, probably a joke. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was ready to hit the button, when I found a hit on Google Scholar linguistics study that mentions an Internet Stuttering Home Page. Unfortunately, the abstract cut off there and I don't have access to the full thing, but there may be an article in here. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the reference correctly, it is referring to prolonged-speech resources mentioned in the Speak Easy Association's newsletter and on the Stuttering Home Page (on the Internet) located here. I don't think it's referring to the alleged phenomenon described in this article. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Richardcavell. Dengero (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoaxery, and I didn't stutter! MuZemike (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D-d-d-delete: per WP:HOAX. I can find no evidence that the single reference, "Stuttering: The Many Different Kinds by Ryan Simmons," even exists. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Likely hoax, or maybe a joke. _David ^WS _(contribs) 22:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it appears to be a hoax. Majoreditor (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definition is unclear and there are no 3rd party reliable references or psychological studies to make this anything but a probable hoax. - DustyRain (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have never seen an article only three sentences long on Wikipedia (barring other AfDs). Most likely some person's idea of "funny", since I can't find any sources. gm_matthew (talk) 23:18, 26 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. Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bayard Bridge[edit]

Please also see the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilson Bridge (North Branch Potomac River).

Delete: The bridge doesn't seem to meet WP:N notability guidelines. It's a minor bridge for a county road and is not inherently unique. Brian Powell (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Brian Powell (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its just a bridge, small span and likely very low cost. No reliable sources, does not meet the criteria at WP:N. Icewedge (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bayard, West Virginia. I found one source that indicates there's more to the bridge than meets the eye. Not enough to support a separate entry, but enough to include it somewhere. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is the in-depth subject of secondary sources, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. In addition to the source found by Mgm, there's also this one.--Oakshade (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While there's an article talking about its replacement, I don't necessarily see that making this span particularly notable or worthy of its own article. I'm sure if you were to do a search you'll find dozens of articles a year discussing upcoming bridge replacements. The fact is that we're talking about a 125-foot long bridge ^[1] over a small river that's currently closed. Even when the bridge is rebuilt, it just is for a minor county road and probably won't have more than a couple hundred cars a day. Brian Powell (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Ball speculation as to the "probably" low-importance in the future is not a proper Wikipedia method to decide notability. While you might not think this bridge is important, it actually was important enough for secondary sources to write in-depth articles about it. Not only can a 125 foot bridge be notable, but a 25 foot bridge can be too. Length has absolutely nothing to do with notability. --Oakshade (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment: I'm not sure that your comment about WP:CRYSTAL really applies here - that deals with prediction of future events. That's not what we're debating. We're discussing if this bridge is notable and unique enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Based on what has been developed in this article over the least 2 years, the only discussion in the newspaper articles as being of the difficulty in finding replacement funding until 25 years after the bridge was closed, and the extremely rural low-traffic nature of the area^[2], I don't see that this bridge justifies an article on its own. As part of a larger article about Bayard or bridges of the Upper North Branch Potomac, maybe. Brian Powell (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Named bridges over named rivers are notable. For a bridge of even this size, there will always be sufficient sourced material to write an article. For all the other bridges Bmpowell alludes to, let's have articles--WP is NOT PAPER. DGG (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an officially named bridge, hense a 'place'. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 21:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The "Bayard" in the name is not really an official name, per se. It just refers to the closest town, Bayard, West Virginia. This is standard practice for referring to bridges in West Virginia. Brian Powell (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nom's concerns re: WP:N have been satisfied by sources provided. It does not matter whom considers it "a minor bridge" (as others surely will not) if there are reliable secondary sources. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:20, 25 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. Mgm|^(talk) 12:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Queen[edit]

Not quite A7 material, but not notable either. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom ѕwirlвoy ₪ 06:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it does seem like promotion by someone connected with her. The redlink original author seems to be a commercial operation. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There is one music review from The Sydney Morning Herald and apparently some off-line mention in The West Australian but I cannot find any other coverage to meet WP:MUSIC. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was a bit thin on sources when nominated but I've added a (fairly glowing) review from Allmusic and another from Popmatters. The SMH article is a good source, and I think this article is now just above the line as far as notability goes.--Michig (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There are some sources, but additional sources are needed. WP:COI is not a valid reason for deletion, although this is something we can't encourage. Beagel (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sydney Morning Herald is valid source. Also added to article are two new strong sources; Manchester Evening Review from the UK and Triste Magazine review. I feel this is above the line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityandstatemusic (talk • contribs) 10:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The The Sydney Morning Herald piece is in-depth and demonstrates the passing of WP:BIO. --Oakshade (talk) 06:28, 26 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) 01:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bifranchise[edit]

While somewhat subtle (well, as far as these things go), this amounts to either a neologism, a "up and coming" "philosophical movement", or a somewhat clever means to promote the "founding company", one "Global Importex Access, LTD". Google returns exactly one result for "BiFranchise" as a single word, and as two words (or a hyphenated word) the vast majority (read: "all") of the results are utilizing the word in a different capacity. Bottom line: it's non-notable six ways from Sunday, Googlewhack or not. Badger Drink (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like spam to me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —Bkell (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it needs sources. The fact that it's a bit grammatically incorrect wouldn't stop business authors from using the term, but we need evidence that they have used it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:44, 22 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 04:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost City of Malathedra[edit]

No claim of notability. Lacks coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no notability established. There's also clear conflict of interest issues. Reyk _YO! 05:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of independent sources. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 10:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Due to lack of substantive content, context and suspected promotion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is so lost that we can't find any independent sources! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See here for coverage for what may be reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 56,000 ghits is a lot. Tris2000 (talk) 11:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I make it 21,000 ghits, which plunges down to 889 if you filter out blogs and forums. The 5 Google News hits mentioned by Eastmain are all press releases or publisher's descriptions, which are not suitable for establishing WP:Notability. I can't accept the provided Helium source as a professional review; by his own admission, that contributor only played the game for 20 minutes. Marasmusine (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Maramusine. Google hits are not enough to measure notability, and a closer inspection of the search results reveals no reliable third-party sources that would help this meet the WP:N guideline. No one has been able to WP:PROVEIT with reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 06:43, 26 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 04:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Branislav Nikić[edit]

A non-fully professional player in Greek Third division Matthew_hk t c 16:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At what notability level do you call Gamma Ethniki when it clearly states that it is a professional league and Nikić has played in it? Does that not allow him to be notable under that? Govvy (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - do we know for sure that the league is fully professional? The statement isn't sourced in the article, and it's relatively down the league tiers, so it's a valid concern. matt91486 (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and the Greek original from which that article is taken isn't sourced either. This'll need some looking into - if the Gamma Ethniki is fully professional, then Nikic would meet WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (rawr!) 14:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment General rule is in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, personally i think Beta Ethniki meet the requirement but not for a player spent his whole senior career at a third division. Matthew_hk t c 15:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Secondly the article without source support. Matthew_hk t c 15:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a good try to find stuff for him, but unfortunately he plays a fairly low level and I think he is only semi-pro. So I am going to say delete. Govvy (talk) 01:23, 22 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 04:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AfD seems to depend on the status of Gamma Ethniki. The nearest thing I could find to a reliable source is this, that says it's professional, but the site seems to be self-published. Maybe someone who reads Greek can clear up this point? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there isn't enough evidence to say that he has played at a fully-pro level, so he fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 20:46, 24 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.

Colin Meon[edit]

The result was Delete. Magioladitis (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable music producer, that fails WP:BIO together with WP:NM. Possible hoax/vandalism page, none of the external sources mention the subject. Flewis^(talk) 08:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've been talking with Flewis about this nomination. The article CLSM previously contained almost identical content to the one now nominated, and Flewis has converted it into a disambiguation page. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see here [24] --Flewis^(talk) 10:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clean up, and move back to CLSM where it really belongs. I hadn't heard of Colin Meon, but I'm listening to CLSM on BBC Radio 1 right now, which alone should be enough to satisfy the notability criteria of WP:BAND. --DAJF (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CLSM which I have now restored. --DAJF (talk)
Delete - Sorry to keep changing my tune, but after working on the CLSM article, the supposed connection between Colin Meon and the band is not verified, which is why I have removed mention of that name from the CLSM article. Until any involvement or connection has been verified, a redirect would not be appropriate, and the Colin Meon article should be deleted as a duplicate creation of the CLSM article. --DAJF (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~'Redirect as CLSM has been restored. Needs to be fixed up and referenced as well.~~ ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:33, 18 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 03:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there really such a need for "more thorough discussion" in this case? The article was created as a result of a botched copy & paste move by an inexperienced editor. It is therefore a (now out-of-date) duplicate of the CLSM article. While making it a redirect to CLSM initially seemed to be the best option, as explained above, the connection with this band cannot be verified at present, and so deletion appears to be the only option. If Colin Meon can be verified as the name of a person involved in this group, surely it will be simple enough to create a redirect from that name in the future? --DAJF (talk) 10:11, 22 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. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 21:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folsom Public Library[edit]

While there are ghits and news hits, they appear limited to the following: 1) library closure notifications 2) events at the library and 3) voting issues, none of which establish notability for the library. Some of the text, i.e. The age, design and limited space of the building no longer sustain the needs of our city’s growing community. appears to be a copyvio but it may be offline as I can't find the source. StarM 04:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. I suspect that the reason the county library's branch was closed was California's Proposition 13 which put limits on local taxes and led to significant cutbacks in local government services. The references show significant coverage, and more can probably be found. It would be helpful to have information about the library's special collections and whether the library's buildings have won any awards. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the references show nothing of notability, local coverage of issues related to funding and expansion. Ones that I'd venture a guess are issues every library faces. I know local ones in two places I've lived have had similar issues and they're not notable either. Closed or not doesn't matter, it doesn't get notability for having been closed. I wold agree that if it's buildings won any awards it might be notable, but I found no evidence of that being the case. StarM 05:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable to me. Could certainly be improved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We dont have clear practices here. In general any library will have many inconsequential newspaper or web notices, dealing with events taking place there, and the periodic bond issue as tax rate approvals. --but they don't really speak to notability. In a range of inconsistent decisions here, usually city library systems are notable, as are large country systems. Town libraries usually not. (And obviously any particular library can be notable for some reason as an exception, just like anything else.)i On the other hand, if people want to interpret this broadly, on the basis that libraries are intrinsically so important that almost any established one is notable on the basis of its importance to the education of the community, I can't see how a librarian like me would object to it--but, honestly, I don't think we've reached that degree of public understanding quite yet, although I'm pleased to see so many wikipedians think so. :).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Folsom, California--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Eastmain. (This would be a great Johnny Cash parody tune, too!) Ecoleetage (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A library is probably more worthy of a WP article than many other things. Article is sourced. No reason to delete. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as DGG says above, that consensus is not clear. Existence is not notability. StarM 17:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Those limited sources don't get this across the WP:N or WP:ORG thresholds in my view as they're hardly 'significant coverage' or in-depth. Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio Essentially all of the article is a copyvio from their about us page I should have checked that before. If however it were important enough, one could quickly use to to write a proper article. But it isn't-- Folsum, a suburb of Sacramento, is not a county library, but a small city library in a large county. It has 73,000 books; the Sacramento City and County library, with which it is affiliated, has a total of 1.9 million items. that's just one indicator, but it's representative of importance. DGG (talk) 02:57, 23 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. Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pssh[edit]

Contested prod. In short, I don't think it meets the notability guideline. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 03:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is nothing but a poor attempt at a dictionary definition, has no sources, and contradicts itself. Move along. Nothing to see here. Reyk _YO! 03:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, never heard of it. --T*85 (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reyk, its a dictionary definition with some made up nonsense tacked on. Icewedge (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - dictionary definition, and of no value to an encyclopedia. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dicdef, not encyclopaedic. — neuro^(talk) 09:32, 22 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 keep. 4 unanimous keep votes, and notability is not temporary. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 09:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moonshine, Illinois[edit]

Nom and opine...
...Del. We have a long-standing practice (since a bot was run around 5-6 years ago to create them) of documenting every census designated place in the US Census. This is a place -- but not a CDP. It is not a town, village, or borough, but apparently a store-cum-residence plus outhouse that would have gotten a dot on a map during the seven years that the building was a post office, and presumably every mapmaker over the 130 years since it stopped handling mail has felt obliged. The only people living in this "place" own it. Apparently a national TV reporter liked the burger or conversation they got there, and did a local-color piece in, uh, Sunday morning Prime Time. IMO terminally non-notable.

Full disclosure: There are 5 articles for US places this size, and 5 smaller (pop. 1) -- and some that have no population -- but all of them appear to be CDPs. The one i'm familiar with probably sleeps on the order of hundreds before winter closes its dirt roads to all but snow machines and maybe some timber trucks, and has numerous people gainfully employed in it, in two distinct industries -- trash burial and lumbering.

--Jerzy•t 03:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the place was notable once (as it clearly would have been when the building was a post office and consequently a center of commerce), then it does not stop being notable even if the population drops to zero. The idea that notability does not expire is a fundamental part of Wikipedia's definition of notability. But apart from that, the news coverage makes it notable. Consider this paragraph from Living History:Moonshine, Illinois : "In early 2004, CBS Sunday morning program even featured the store, with film clips from the early gathering of locals for coffee at 6AM, all the way through the noon guests of this eatery. During the hour and a half show, many "teaser" clips kept building the story of the reporter's quest to find this location in the wilderness." And GNIS has a listing at U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Moonshine, Illinois-- Eastmain (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As far I can comprehend, the nom just throws up red herring arguments. Just because a place is not a census designated place doesn't mean it's not notable. A place can be notable for many other reasons. Being featured on the national CBS News Sunday Morning show, featured prominently in at least one book [25], very extensively in this online article and even featured in the Philadelphia Inquirer and Chicago Tribune [26][27] demonstrates passing WP:NOTABILITY. That the nom doesn't like the reason it passes WP:NOTABILITY ("a national TV reporter liked the burger or conversation they got there") does absolutely nothing to change its notability. I should also point out that historic towns and cities are still notable for historic reasons.--Oakshade (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP There are many places that dont have post offices and low population. The town I live in and haved lived in my whole life doesn't have an exact population, is unincorporated, and no post office Meadows, Illinois. There are several websites that refer to it and when I go thru it again I will provide a picture as I see one is being requested. The beauty of Wikipedia is the fact that you can search extremely unknown towns and learn about them. If we keep eliminating everything that isn't big and well known, we will lose alot of our heritage. And that would be sad. If it would appease you, I will re-write this, as it was one of my first wiki pages I created and probably is pretty crude.Stangboy7 (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This place has been notable, as indicated by the references in the article; it is notable partly because of the attention it has received, which in turn is partly because of its extremely small population. In a nutshell, it's a special place. Even if it ceased to exist entirely, it would still be notable in a historical sense, and from my perspective Wikipedia has a substantial historical component. Omnedon (talk) 07:05, 22 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) Icewedge (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Well (church)[edit]

Non-notable church. Only one reliable source, and that just says that it exists. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I volunteered to rewrite this article after a previous version by another editor was deleted as G11. Clearly, the self-promotional issues that doomed the earlier article were removed here. What remains now is a decent little stub. The article passes WP:RS without problem, and the Knight-Ridder news article cites it as being prominent within the emerging church movement. Its notability for its off-beat setting and services are also clearly cited in the media coverage. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficiently passes WP:N. Unlike the nom's stipulation, the Knight Ridder Newspapers article goes far beyond "it exists." Curiously, this is the nom's only argument to delete this article. --Oakshade (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mostly per Ecoleetage. The sources show exactly how this is notable, such as the Knight-Ridder news articles of the emerging church movement, so there is no reason to delete. Easily passes notability. – RyanCross (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable church. Maybe we should add every church, business, store, 7-eleven, just to be fair?--T*85 (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can provide an explanation of your !vote...just to be fair? Ecoleetage (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos on the response, Eco :P. T85:While we shouldn't add "every" church, if you look at WP:CHURCH itself most churches are notable. In keeping with the fact that AfD is a discussion rather than a vote, maybe you could cite some policy? A Slippery slope argument hardly helps.Ironholds (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the refs given, under WP:CHURCH:1. no, 2. no, 3. no, 4. no, 5. no, 6. no, 7. no, 8. no, 9. no, 10. no, 11. no --T*85 (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHURCH is an essay. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Ecoleetage. Johnfos (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per the pass of WP:CHURCH. Prominent within the emergin church movement=guideline 4. Ironholds (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You guys realise that WP:CHURCH is not a guideline, right? — neuro^(talk) 04:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per T*85 as a non-notable church. X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for reasoning and policy Per T*85. Ironholds (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for ref to back up claim of being notable under guideline 4 per Ironholds --T*85 (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Beyond the several nice refs used in the article, I also found The Bradenton Herald. Per WP:GNG this article passes WP:N. Ecoleetage did a nice job of bringing this article into line. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MQS. The Bradenton Herald coverage is also part of the Knight-Ridder news syndicate, which means this article received national news coverage in the U.S. For those who did not read it, the article is about the emerging church movement and The Well was the first church cited in the article -- not exactly non-notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ecoleetage has done a fine job of proving this church's notability. Sam ^Blab 12:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as thanks to Ecoleetage the article now has six sources and therefore establishes notability. Also, it gets plenty of Google news hits (see [28]). --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG after sourcing improvement. Still needs cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per comments in this AFD Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Party (United States of America)[edit]

Non-notable, unregistered party. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 01:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly speedy delete, as a group with no indication of notability. DGG (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Founded on November 3, 2008, and "The Independent Party of the United States of America has not and will not endorse a candidate for the 2008 election." No, I suppose not. If this isn't intended as a joke, than it looks like one person's political views. I don't think it's useful even as a redirect to the American Independent Party, the ticket that George Wallace ran on in 1968. Mandsford (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources and does not appear to be legitimate.--T*85 (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up one day as far as I can tell. WillOakland (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a personal rant. The 'party' is not registered and has existed for less than a month. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up in one day. — neuro^(talk) 09:35, 22 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) 01:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strength in Numbers (Disturbing tha Peace album)[edit]

Fails WP:NM, no significant coverage on the album. Allmusic says it was released in June 2007, but is yet to be released and has no sources verifying that it will be released next month DiverseMentality 01:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources confirming release. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as stated above. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 03:31, 24 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. nomination withdrawn Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Go (Trick Daddy song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Let's Go (Trick Daddy song)

Unremarkable, no references whatsoever, little to no content, no distinct information given. Dengero (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've established notability. DiverseMentality 02:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - my own view, regardless of what WP:MUSIC says, is that if it's been number 7 on the Billboard Hot 100, it belongs here. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If notability has been established, I'm fine with it. Can be closed. Dengero (talk) 08:03, 22 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) 01:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinglonesian[edit]

A Google search on 'Chinglonesian -wikipedia' only has 10 results, some of which are just copies of this article. So it seems to be both non-notable and not verifiable by reliable sources. Marcoscramer (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a case of WP:NEO per web search; nothing in Google books or scholar either. JJL (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of proof that this is a real word. I think I'm getting Chinglonauseous. Mandsford (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it really needs sources. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Either a protologism, or a non-word. — neuro^(talk) 09:33, 22 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) 01:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NXgen Designs[edit]

Delete - does not meet WP:CORP. Google search for the company name brings up 99 results, of which 37 are "unique". I can't find much about the game "Road to Ascension" either (even the article admits that there was not much reception). Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is reasonable to assume game design companies to have an online presence. This one doesn't, not even under the old name and every half-notable games design company releases their games through a game aggregating site like Newgrounds -- not Myspace. Doesn't seem to have created any press or cult following. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable as no reliable sources cover the history, culture, ethics, and reception of this company. Based on this myspace page, I would say this is just a small startup that is unlikley to fulfill the notability criteria here at this time. Judging from the "~edited by Co. C.E.O Michael Navalta" in the current article, there is likely conflict-of-interest here as the employees might be editing to build a presence through Wikipedia (in other words, advertizing). Jappalang (talk) 01:35, 24 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) 01:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aqib Maniar[edit]

Uncertain claim of notability ("several . . . columns for . . . well-known . . . Newspapers" could mean several regular columns, or several guest appearances), but weak at best. References insufficient.

Also appears to be a CoI. Bongo matic 00:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable, the references aren't reliable, but there's a potential in future. Dengero (talk) 13:53, 17 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) 00:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references are unreliable and don't support the idea this is a profesional columnist. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability whatsoever. Looks like a minor journalist who does not fit WP:CREATIVE. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:31, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arev Armenian Folk Ensemble[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Nothing on google seems to help. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google searches bring up a wiki mention of a 2004 Armenian Music Awards nomination, but I can't verify this with WP:RS. Lots of minor recognition in the Armenian community. Google News hits are local and don't appear to go very deep. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability suggested by article and limited coverage. I conclude that inclusion makes encyclopedia better and more complete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 17 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) 00:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google isn't the only place to find sources. Google drops links that go dead and it's quite possible that something from 2004 can't be readily found online without searching archives. The mention of a nomination for a reward that has existed for 10 years is enough to make an effort and search LexisNexis and dead tree sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, 22 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) 01:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Spirits Rowing[edit]

There's no evidence this rowing club is notable. I am explicitly not in favor of a merge to Concept2's page as I don't think the company is the right place to discuss every indoor rowing club. I also don't know that the unverified claim that it was the largest indoor rowing club registered with Concept2 is a sufficient claim to notability. StarM 05:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 05:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As notability not established and promotional. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:43, 17 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) 00:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not the most entirely non-notable thing I have seen as it does seem to be an active group (for example the forum has around 40K posts) but this group has yet to be significantly mentioned in any reliable sources. There are less than two pages of unique Google Results for "Free Spirits Rowing". Icewedge (talk) 01:38, 27 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.. lifebaka++ 16:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Affair of the Necklace (disambiguation)[edit]

Unnecessary dab page. Both secondary items are WP:DAB#Partial_title_matches. Also, the historical event is already linked in the main film article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlikely search term for part of the pages listed. The same could be done using hatnotes. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, 17 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) 00:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this disambiguation page is useful. There are three items that need to be disambiguated. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate three-article dab page, properly titled. Tevildo (talk) 13:29, 22 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 Leckwith Development. So Why 09:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Retail Park[edit]

What makes this retail park any more notable than the hundreds of others in the UK? More than enough is mentioned in the New Cardiff City stadium article. As it is, the article seems little more than an advert. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Capital Retail Park

I feelthat this page should stay because it provides relevant information about the retail park which is being built. This retail park does not really have much to do wit the CCFC/Blues stadium and is part of a development to improve Leckwith. The new staium page should not mention in detail and should have a link to the retail park page instead. I don't feel that this is an advertisement as the status column shows the development as it progresses. Your point about other retail parks in the UK is valid, however I live in Cardiff and am writing about a retail park that I use and lso live near. It is up to people who live near the retail parks (and also other features in the town/city) to make/edit the articles. I feel tat it should stay but would follow any suggestions you might have to improve the page.

Thanks, Lwebdan (talk) 20:19, 18 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) 00:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May or may not be notable eventually, but has not opened yet. Most likely it won't be: only 16 stores, about 300,000 square feet, which is below our usual standard for shopping centers. DGG (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNon notable. And perhaps WP:OR. "relevent information" is not a reason to keep. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for original information. If other publications create meaningful articles about this place we can then create an article.Obina (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Leckwith Development. The target page badly needs some content and there is material here that would enhance it. TerriersFan (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Leckwith Development. TerriersFan, that's an elegant suggestion. --Lockley (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As I stated above, more than enough information is included in the New Cardiff City stadium article. There is no need even for the Leckwith Development page either, which serves as little more than a bunch of links. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. ... and it needs moving out of New Cardiff City stadium! That article should deal just with the stadium whilst Leckwith Development should take an overview and deal in more detail with those parts of the development that are not individually notable; that's what will move it from being a link farm!. It is not a case of deleting this page more where the content goes. TerriersFan (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not convinced that the Leckwith Development is notable aside from the stadium - it can't just borrow notability from the new football ground. I don't see how a minor athletics ground, a retail park and a housing estate can be either individually or collectively notable. If they weren't part of the football ground construction, would we even consider an article for them? Nouse4aname (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - A lot of people don't consider the athletics stadium 'minor' and the demolition of its predecessor was controversial.[29] There are more than sufficient sources to stand up a page on what is a major development, in my view. TerriersFan (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect and I too agree that info about a Retail Park does not belong in a Article about a Stadium. However, a 'Parent' Article of the group that is the force behind all this redevelopment does seem notable when the entire scope of developments is considered. Once the junk is trimmed out, this (the current Capital Retail Park Article) would make an excellent 'section' in that Article. So to would a 'section' about the Stadium. The current Leckwith Development is in serious need of a cleanup and Cite'ing if it is to survive any AfD itself though. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:44, 25 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) 01:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Noize Tour[edit]

Unsourced article on non-notable promotional album. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional-only album without significant media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 17 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) 00:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:27, 23 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) 01:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Brolly[edit]

Makeup artist for a handful of productions. Doesn't appear to be notable per WP:BIO. There doesn't appear to be any sources for a biographical article available...only the 5-10 credits as a makeup artist and/or hair stylist. Contested prod. Onorem♠Dil 19:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the makeup artist for 8 movies does not fulfill the requirements for bios of entertainers or actors. No evidence of significant awards, or notability demonstrated from third party sources, or that she has made groundbreaking advances in her field, therfore fails WP notability requirements, and should be deleted. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor should it fulfill these requirements. A makeup artist is neither an entertainer nor an actor. I believe other rules apply, though I have not found which those would be yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 17 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) 00:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Mentions are trivial. So there are no non trivial independent sources. Obina (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being employed within the film industry is not equivalent to having notability within the field. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:43, 26 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) 01:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cordis (band)[edit]

Reads like a puff piece, seems to fail notability for WP:Music Blowdart | ^talk 23:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Music guidelines. (Also, don't forget to deleted Richard Grimes if this goes. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I couldn't find any significant coverage. The 4 sources semi-cited in the Notes section could potentially be enough for notability, but I couldn't find them anywhere on the internet. If these could be expanded with dates, issue numbers, etc., and ideally URLs so that we could check them out, that would help no end.--Michig (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Less puffy now. Stil, Delete for lack of coverage, lack of touring (as far as I can tell), and lack of more than one album. Michig's efforts are great and helpful, BTW, and appreciated, but right now the article just doesn't have enough. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Unless verifiable sources are found, it's not going to stay.--Michig (talk) 18:26, 21 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) 00:16, 22 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 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Kulkarni[edit]

This is a speedy I declined because it seems to assert some notability. Some editors from India may be better able to ascertain notability but it is missing proper references at present. JodyB_talk 23:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 23:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 23:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How notable is Reed Electronics? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article asserts the notability of the company more than that of the subject and bases the notability of the subject on the fact that he is the CEO of a notable company. Silicon India seems to be a very sector-specific magazine and hence i dont think that being featured in it is a big deal(anyway the company is US-based not India based). Will reserve my vote for now. --Deepak D'Souza 05:07, 19 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) 00:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The person has significant media coverage [30], although in most of these news items he is covered as representative of a company. More notable individual interviews are [31], [32] (both require subscription). SiliconIndia also has specific article on him. [33] and he has evidently started writing for the magazine as well [34], [35]. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Surely he has earned his notability. He is covered by media and CEO of a firm with over $100 million cap. No reasons to delete. --GPPande talk! 18:54, 25 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. So Why 09:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chad B[edit]

I declined this speedy because it seems to assert notability. It seems this performer may be close to breaking into notability but doesn't seem to be there quite yet. I leave to the community to determine. JodyB_talk 23:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Very close to notability, but an extreme conflict of interest. If we can fix this, however, I would probably lean towards a very weak delete. TNP (formerly Jonathan) 00:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Conflict of interest is not a valid reason for deletion. One of the sources states "[Rihanna's] “Bitch Im Special” was written and produced by Multi-platinum producer Chad B..." Even if that cannot be confirmed. Producers who worked with that many well-known artists, clearly had an effect on the music scene, and are thus notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The source mentioned is a gossip blog reprinting a press release and therefore unreliable. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide evidence to prove that. If true, that would definitely convince me to change my !vote. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article's subtitle: "UPDATE: PRESS RELEASE: NEW RIHANNA LEAKED DEMO"; from the site's About page: "Miss Xpose a.k.a 'The Skirt with Dirt'... her gossip blog 'Miss Xpose’s Blog Spot'... has given Miss Xpose the opportunity to launch her own gossip website". I do believe that he could be notable, I just don't know that he is yet. I haven't checked all of his song credits to see if any of them have been hits. With all the self-promotion, I doubt it—it would have been front and center in the article. It would appear that the most notable thing he has done (or may have done, in the absence of reliable sources) is produced a Rihanna track that was leaked. Even with a source, that's still not very notable. I did find that Chad Beats and Chad Beatz have both been deleted numerous times in the past and are now salted. Someone really wants to be in Wikipedia. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sheesh, I had no idea that the guy made several other articles about himself. Ugh.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable autobiography.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:57, 18 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) 00:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject lacks significant coverage in secondary sources, as per WP:BIO. 0 Gnews hits on full name, 6 unrelated hits on Firstname Lastname. Satisfies, so far as I can see, none of the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO either. RayAYang (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone added a link to ASCAP. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, that was me. Since I managed to verify at least one of his song credits (finding his real name in the process), I didn't drop a delete !vote. Since I'm not convinced he meets WP:MUSIC, I haven't !voted keep, either. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:59, 22 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 World Sport Overnight. So Why 09:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Couch (sports broadcaster)[edit]

fails WP:BIO. Limited coverage in Google news search. simply being a media manager or presenter is not notable enough. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, not likely suitable topic for own article, but good to cover in World Sport Overnight. Instead of only mentioning the limited coverage, please discuss the nature of the coverage in any future nominations. It's not about quantity, but quality of the coverage. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:34, 18 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) 00:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since this is a case of no-one-has-said-much-so-relist-it, my own personal feeling is that he's notable enough for inclusion. He's broadcast statewide (and formerly in another state too). His involvement with Storm pushes him over the line in my view, though only just. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to World_Sport_Overnight. Not really all that notable on his own (the article listed as a cite isn't really about Couch himself, although it does contain quotes from him), but the actual sports programme might be notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Part announcer, part soccer aficionado, part media manager - none in themselves notable, and in my view cobbling them together still doesn't constitute notability. Murtoa (talk) 00:55, 24 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. Already deleted by Werdna. (non admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euthymophobia[edit]

Upon web searches, it seems to be original research. The outro looks spam-ish; not sure if this is an alright article, so I'm taking this to AfD. SchfiftyThree ^(talk!) 00:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "I wanted to share with you an idea I have been working on for probably 20 years" is a clear admission that this is original research. No sources Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong delete per Wikipedia:NOR FlyingToaster 00:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if we forget this OR, the article still isn't viable. After searching Google, Pubmed and both the paper and digital publications of my university library, I found absolutely nothing. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted. — Werdna • talk 00:31, 22 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.