< November 26	November 28 >

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Eyze[edit]

Non-notable engineer/producer. Google News Archive returns nothing, Google web returns ~200 hits—mostly MySpace, YouTube, Facebook, etc. Fails WP:MUSIC. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references provided in the article are actually links to other Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. The external links do nothing to establish notability. It does confirm the individual has a listing in ASCAP. But in looking for sources writing about the subject under his work name or birth name, I found nothing. There are no sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:39, 2 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of informal regions[edit]

This article doesn't seem to have a point. It is totally unsourced and pretty much just WP:OR. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 23:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced, POV, OR. The book is being thrown at this by me! --Jza84 | Talk 00:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's no criteria for inclusion, and if there is some widespread or common use of the term, I haven't heard it before, nor is it in the article. LH (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think there's any need for this "list of lists", which appears to be a list of Wikipedia articles entitled "list of regions of _____". Whatever else bad I can say about it, it's certainly not "original research" or "unsourced", and I'd say that POV would be a hard sell too. Anyone can verify that, yes, the blue links actually are articles on Wikipedia, as claimed by the author. Perhaps it was intended as a navigational aid. In this case, the category "Regions by country" is more useful for that purpose, and some of these lists need to have that tag slapped on them. Mandsford (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is original research because it admits they are "informal" meaning not official, as a list they are purely POV as to what counts as an "informal region". ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 04:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is perfectly clear what is meant by 'informal' if you actualy read the articles opening line, or any one of the included lists. If you don't like the name of it, request a move. There is certainly no OR or POV being asserted here, at all. MickMacNee (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not "POV" as it contains no points of view. It is well sourced and linked. It is a useful, and used, resource.

Howard Alexander (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Um, it has no sources. --Jza84 | Talk 18:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - far better served by a category than a list, and such could easily be made - assuming that some standardised definition of exactly what an "informal region" is could be found... Category:Lists of subnational regions is probably a far better idea. Grutness...wha? 22:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories are not lists. MickMacNee (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's exactly my point. Lists usually have information that is not possible in categories - in cases where they do not have such extra information, categories are usually preferable. A category containing all the pages linked in the current page would be far more appropriate than a "List of lists" linkfarm article, and indeed most "Lists of lists" are more appropriate as "Categories of lists" - such as all these. Grutness...wha? 05:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no sources at all, and it's hopelessly full of original research because there is no unambiguous definition of what exactly constitutes an "informal region". Reyk _YO! 04:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you serious? Every single list on this list of lists has a definition of what kind of 'unnofficial region' it lists. Sources indeed, you could find a source for every single entry in seconds. MickMacNee (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having a look through the entries, the Czech one isn't a list at all, the French and Greek ones list places that used to be formal regions, the Irish one contains some areas that still are formal regions and the Australian entry is a list of vaguely delineated geographical areas. This haphazard accumulation of somewhat related but substantially different types of lists is a good example of an indiscriminate collection of information. As for sources, the burden of proof lies with the people arguing to keep. Reyk _YO! 05:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whatever. If you honestly think the pedia is better off without it than with it, then that's your call. I can't see what is being violated regarding original research/synthesis, and indiscriminate is barley applicable at all. I guess we will never know who/why/when anybody would ever look at this list. MickMacNee (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently original research. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 1 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Shaw[edit]

Gushing autobiography which claims notability but provides no evidence of it. Once all the gushing self-congratulation is removed there's nothing left, except a bit of shouting. Ros0709 (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The hyperbole is not supported by reliable sources, nor by google hits. ~~One is tempted to call this vandalism, and submit it for speedy. In lieu of that,~~ the article may have set a record for number of tags at the top. JNW (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources listed that are independent of the subject of the article are from the "International Society of Poets". This international society seems to be an organisation that anyone can join and as well as receiving a special gold membership pin will "...become one of the recognized leaders of your craft. Your friends, family, and colleagues will look to you as an example of experience, vision, and accomplishment in the poetic world...". Broadly this looks equivalent to vanity publishing so I believe this isn't a reliable source. Hence no notability established. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was told recently that it is not civil to accuse someone of vanity, merely because their first article is about themselves. I note that this is the author's only contribution to Wikipedia, and that it provides a link to www.joanneshaw.com, the official website for Joanne Shaw. For more about the "International Society of Poets", see Poetry.com here. Mandsford (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has accused anybody of vanity. The term "vanity publishing" and "vanity publisher" are widely used terms to describe organisations that allow self publication with no editorial oversight. See Vanity press. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 09:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the same token, nobody has accused anybody of being uncivil. Since Ms. Shaw is not in this discussion, we can safely observe that people who write Wikipedia articles about themselves are, indeed, vain. Perhaps this is some form of "performance art" in which someone is merely pretending to be narcissistic, and we are bit players in someone's work of improv theater. In any event, however, it has no place here on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as unverifiable self-promotion. --Lockley (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion with no independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:36, 2 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 keep. John254 04:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social protection in France[edit]

This article may constitute original research. I believe that the article is well-written, and on a topic that is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I believe that there are adequate sources for an article on this topic. However, this particular article reads too much like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Richard Cavell (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the article is not completely enyclopedic. However, you have been misled by the introduction. It is right that the introduction is not suitable (I have always difficulties to write correct introductions), but the rest of the article is encyclopedic and neutral. I will rewrite the introduction soon , so please do not delete the article, I have put a ((construction)). --Pah777 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep the lead just needs rewriting a little--it otherwise does seem a perfect good article by the usual standards, though not yet finished. DGG (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination reads more like a critical keep vote or talk page suggestions for improvement than a nomination for deletion. No real reasons for deletion has been provided. (if something is sourceable, it is not really original research). Just needs sources, tags and normal editing.John Z (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is valid, sourced, notable and encyclopedic. It calls for improvement rather than deletion. --Lockley (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a perfect article, but that's not a reason for deletion. The subject is clearly notable and sourceable, so needs editing rather than deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sources, I think it deserves at least a C-class status. --Pah777 (talk) 22:42, 30 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 G4 by JzG. (non-admin closure) THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real VMX[edit]

generic sourceforge project using Wikipedia for vandalism. does not meet WP:NN. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 22:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: We've been here before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real vmx. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:20, 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. Sandstein 16:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global layoffs in 2008 due to the economic crisis[edit]

An indiscriminate list. What level of layoffs counts as significant for inclusion - or rather, what reliable independent source do we use for what constitutes a significant layoff, and to what extent can we attribute it to the global economic crisis rather than just years of decline, as with Woolworths? MFI retail have been on life-support for years, you can't blame the crisis for that, it was when not if. And do we count layoffs in company failures anyway? Or only in companies that continue to trade? What about companies that continue to trade only on paper?

I think the fundamental premise for this article is flawed. It is much more likely that Wikinews would be the place for a blow-by-blow, until maybe June next year when the timeline articles start getting published in sources. Because, of course, Wikipedia would never be the first place to publish a class of article on any subject. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current article is heavily biased, a global one will never be complete and it can never be conclusively proven lay-offs are the result of the economic crisis to begin with. <rant>For example, a couple of banks went belly up recently - meaning the employees need to look for other work, but they might well have survived if the bank directors chose not to have their ridiculously large bonuses</rant>. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can understand why someone would want this article, but it's not encyclopedic. Besides, determining what layoffs are the result of the economic crisis is an unmanageable task. Chicken Wing (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could never pass WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename title: I think if we can rename the article to Global layoffs in 2008 and keep only layoffs that are of importance, it should be fine. Regarding WP:NOR, I think that's not a problem as every layoff has references to support it. Wiki5d (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For very few layoffs, however, will you find a citation from a reliable source saying it was due to the economic crisis. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True; but that's why I propose we rename to article to just Global layoffs in 2008 and remove the due to the economic crisis part. And the need for such an article in 2008 alone can be that this year witnessed a much larger number of layoffs than most of the previous years. Wiki5d (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way too subjective to determine in an encyclopaedic manner what should be included. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subjective; not encyclopedic content; would be subject to hideous regional biases, WP:OR violations, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:17, 2 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antagonist (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Nominating as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antagonist A.D., which deleted a cut and paste copy on the grounds of notability. I'm not convinced that the band is non-notable, but music is not my area of interest. If kept, the article should be moved to the current name. The previous AfD under this title was for an unrelated band. gadfium 21:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —gadfium 00:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but move to correct name Antagonist A.D.. Sources [1] and [2] are reliable, their coverage is non-trivial, and although partially based on a press release there are indications of independent jorunalism also. Two albums released, both in two countries, on genre specialist labels. Plus extensive touring in two countries [3]. passes general notability and WP:MUSIC clauses 1,4,7

dramatic (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C4 for the gigs in the States. While the Amplifier.co.nz & Muzic.net may be reliable sources, they are far from third party, since the bands themselves edit those profiles. Also support starting a new article under Antagonist A.D., and revert the history back to the American based Antagonist band. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:28, 2 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. Contact me or another admin for userfication. Black Kite 23:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Bogaart[edit]

Declined A7 nominee because it makes an assertion of notability. However, I believe it still fails WP:MUSIC, and based on the edit history, we have a severe conflict of interest in this article's authorship. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily userfy per WP:BITE. ((nn-userfy)) is designed for this. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, since it seems to be a case of self-promotion, such action would go against WP:NOTSOAPBOX. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:26, 2 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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per WP:NOOB, until such time as reliable, third-party, sources are provided to back up any claims of notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very limited third party coverage Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep--'seems' to be a case of self-promotion? Seems pretty obvious to me. However, the Dutch newspapers have written enough about him for some notability, though it all seems to be minor--lots of announcements, lots of local papers (the PZC was the biggest I found). But this article needs a serious rewrite, for English grammar, for the redlinks, for tone--and especially for some sources. Jacob, alsjeblieft. Drmies (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per WP:BITE]. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 2 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. The article has only two sources: their own website and myspace entry. There is no third party sources. Notability has not been established. Ruslik (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smoothvega[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)).

Non-notable musician. No reliable sources. His "massive" internet fanbase consists of 248 Google hits, most of them myspace, youtube, and blogs. I found intensely brief references at pegasusnews.com, but nothing to write a bio from, and a couple of glancing mentions at Fort Worth Weekly, but nothing at anything approaching major news sources. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources appear. I've already speedy deleted this twice. Tried to help out improving it when I saw it again, but probably futile. --Oscarthecat (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete generic unsourced bandcruft. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I have now fixed the article. It is all accurate information. We added full reliable sources. Please read and don't delete.Angie6913 (Talk) 22:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angie6913 (talk • contribs) [reply]

— Angie6913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~Neutral~~ — if anything, let the AFD run the course and see if the author has learned anything and can improve the article. If not, then needs to be deleted and salted again. Given that this was AFD'd shortly after its creation, let's give it a chance, first. MuZemike (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what AfDs are for, to give discussion a chance. It wasn't nominated for speedy deletion. However, there are still no reliable sources. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What form of reliable sources do you need? There are links up on the page to confirm what's on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.194.168 (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A link to a jpg pic of an album cover is insufficient, as is a link to the artist's own site, please take a look at WP:RS.--Oscarthecat (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're referring to the external links (inline citations are not used) all over the article. MuZemike (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete"Contains at least one notable musician; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply." (The article contains several notable musicians) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.194.168 (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 76.203.194.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Has already been speedied twice. McWomble (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - This article had been up for 2 years plus and why is it all of a sudden going to get deleted? None the less, I just added a magazine article from the XPOZ Magazine and I am about to add more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.81.14 (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 69.149.81.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- By what information did you determine that this article has been here for two years? It was created two days ago. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Google smoothvega it's on several encyclopedia sites that lists this site as the source that's how I know. They we're probaly we're just updating the article when ya'll decided to try to delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.81.14 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 00:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created on November 27. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep and cleanup — multiple reliable sources are there that satisfy the general notability guideline. However, the article needs some extensive cleanup. For starters, WP:CITE is very useful in changing those external-link references in the article to inline citations, an infobox is also essential for readers to get a quick glance at the article (WikiProject Music might be able to help out in that area as they have separate infoboxes for bands). MuZemike (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What multiple reliable sources are those? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable per WP:MUSIC. Just one published album with no indication of label's notability; no evidence of chart topping, major awards or national airplay; independent coverage limited at best. --skew-t (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:25, 2 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 Speedily deleted by JzG. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC) (non admin)[reply]

ThumbsPlus[edit]

Non-notable proprietary software, article is written mostly as advertising. No references or any sources that establish notability or can help verify the content of the article. GreyCat (talk) 21:38, 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. John254 04:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beit HaShalom[edit]

This organization's article on wikipedia is the result of recentism. The subject has his little notability and is a "one event" matter. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article may need some restructuring and changes, but the subject seems notable. It is not just a 'four-story structure', but a settler community which has a lot of media coverage right now. I may change my mind if convincing arguments to the contrary are presented. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the many concerns I have with this article is recentism. All of this recent media coverage is over one event, the possession of a household. The wider importance of this event to Israel, Judaism and Religion has yet to be explained! As such, this article is about one recent event that has recieved some media coverage. Presently, I do not believe this house has enough notabilty for an article of its own. I am open to changing my mind as well, but at present, this article is about one recent event. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Recentism is usually not a reason to delete an article. With the amount of media coverage this event got, I think it would be enough for its own article, and don't mind the article about this house (around which the event is based) being that article. The fact that it's a somewhat unique settler community reinforces the notability of the structure itself. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of references. See he:בית השלום for the Hebrew Wikipedia's article, which is fairly long and has lots of photos and references. Arguably automatically notable both as a settlement and as a university-level teaching institution. Would someone please add latitude and longitude to the article? -- Eastmain (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain more about the "university-level teaching institution?" This is the first I have heard of this information. What university is it related to? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in what way is this building a "settlement?" I have not heard this term applied to this building in any mainstream media. Could you please explain? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of references, spreading over the period of well over a year, so not a WP:NOT#NEWS case. Passes WP:N easily. Nsk92 (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - "News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this provision is applicable here. We are talking about a fairly high-profile controversy that has been covered in the national and international media over the period of about 2 years, that ended up in the Israeli Supreme Court and that required involvement of the Israeli Prime Minister. I do not believe that this qualifies under "indiscriminate collection of information". Nsk92 (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is one event - this article is about one house that is having a court case issue that has recieved some media attention. This article is about nothing more. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent that is correct, although the event here is a bit difficult to define and the house itself is the center of controversy. However, even with single events, they become notable if they receive significant coverage over a prolonged period of time; that is what makes an event notable and worthy of an article. Nsk92 (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the subject of this article has been covered extensively in reliable sources. I'm satified that it's sufficiently noteworthy to be included here. Reyk _YO! 23:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been covered for one event. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any policy that sets out a minimum number of notable events a subject must be involved with. Reyk _YO! 23:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So for what is it notable? Aside from some coverage of a current event, there is no lasting notability. This is only a passing news story, and no reasons have been provided to prove otherwise. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passing news story? The earliest source is from March of last year and the latest is from four days ago- thirteen substantial articles over a period of almost two years is not merely "passing" media interest. It's a clear demonstration of notability. Reyk _YO! 05:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nsk92 explained it well. There might be room to merge it into something else though - it currently feels quite inflated with fluff. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Committee of the Jewish Community of Hebron already mentions Beit HaShalom - a merge to this article would be appropriate. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable per sources but needs a major cleanup to comply with WP:NPOV. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the main Hebron article. There is enough room there for this report about a notable building. IZAK (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Haunted (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit)

Non-notable episode, no secondary sources. Magioladitis (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was ready to shout at the nominator for not even considering a merge, but this entire article depends on imdb and tv.com. Neither of them is reliable enough to base an entire article on. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Maybe if the article relied on the trivia sections, but that's not the case here. Just out of curiosity, do you have something against SVU? I don't see you nominated any other series' articles. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge properly see my comment for "Debt". DGG (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Notability not established for 1.5 months, and counting. Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 6) has already got a summary. It's easier to come up with one or two new sentences for the LoE summary than to find a mergeable sentence from this article. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:19, 2 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. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debt (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Debt (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit)

Non-notable episode, no secondary sources. Magioladitis (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. We really do not need to become episodepedia, since 99.9999999999% of all content in episode articles is basically reviews and plot summaries written direct form first-hand from personal observation of the episode. Sources are vanishingly rare, other than for the broadcast dates. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was ready to shout at the nominator for not even considering a merge, but this entire article depends on imdb and tv.com. Neither of them is reliable enough to base an entire article on. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge properly Comparing this with the summary in Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 6) this article is at least informative enough to indicate what happens in the episode. Almost all of the one paragraph entries in the present summary article have the same failing: they say what the situation is, and stop. It's that which is TVguide content and fails WP:NOT. The plot has to be described so its meaningful, and trailers do not do it, nor are they intended to. That's why I am very reluctant to say just merge on articles like this, until we have some way of enforcing a proper merge. (there is of course non-encyclopedic information in the present article to remove, such as the non-notable ones among the guest actors.) There is an intermediate path--but the fans want to give as much detail as possible, and the deletors as little as possible. DGG (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Notability not established for 1.5 months, and counting. Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 6) has already got a summary. It's easier to come up with one or two new sentences for the LoE summary than to find a mergeable sentence from this article. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:19, 2 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 speedy delete as G4. Also salted for three months. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AndLinux[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Does not meet WP:NN Message from XENU^{u, t} 20:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G4). Already tagged. BradV 20:33, 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 redirect to Chail_Military_School#Notable_alumni. Anyone specifically notable can be merged there.. Black Kite 23:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alumini of Chail Military School[edit]

List of non-notable people. Such lists should only contain blue links, this has no links at all. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable people to Chail Military School#Notable alumni and redirect. This nomination would have benefited from rather more research. It is not a list of non-notable people. Because of the differences in name formation each name needs researching with care. For example, the apparently nn Capt G S Salariya PVC is, in fact, the highly notable Gurbachan Singh Salaria. By their function, all MPs and Governors in the list are notable, for example. TerriersFan (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge according to our usual practice. Probably about half of these would clearly merit articles--At least the Lieut. Generals. DGG (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't disagree that people on the list may be notable, but my disagreement is the creation of a list of people with no articles. What's to stop me from creating List of people who lived in X, and make up a bunch of names? When does the validation of the list occur? It's possible that none of these people even exists! This is a direct violation of WP:V. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Merge the notable names into the main article but this article in itself does not deserve to be. Wikipedia is not facebook. --Deepak D'Souza 05:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Too long to merge - this is appropriate as a spin-out article. Sourcing could be improved, but on the face of it, given the descriptions presented, the people appear to be sufficiently distinguished to include on a list of this kind. Jheald (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: same reason as mentioned by Jheald. Most of people listed here are recipients of PVSM, AVSM, PVC, MVC etc. military awards. Check Template:Indian honours and decorations for importance of these awards, though those articles may not contain the full list recipients.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Strong Delete: the list is a copy from the reference that it uses:[4]. This article can be avoided by adding the link to the school article, if not already there.--GDibyendu (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking with dismay at the possibility that this article could possibly be kept. Let me give you a scenario: I put up an article, "Alumni of [the school I graduated from]" and make a huge list of people with no Wikipedia articles, and include my name on the list. Nobody will be able to compare the list with my User ID here on Wikipedia, so who's to say that my name is really on the list? But now, I can go around telling people, "Look, my name is on Wikipedia". If there is no requirement that a list have blue linked articles, then how do we ever possibly know that anybody on a list ever actually exists, let alone is notable, unless somebody takes the time to actually look up every single name on the list? Has anybody done this with this list? Do we know that all of the names, or even a majority of the names, are real people, and that they're notable enough to be here? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purge and Merge per DGG. If they are notable, fix the names; if not, delete. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as Wikipedia is not Facebook. Put any notable people into the school's article, sure, but no need to keep this around. Stifle (talk) 16:50, 2 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive Bonus CD Sampler[edit]

This article sites no references, has no charts or positions, and Is most likely an insignificant mix tape release and not an actual album. Ratizi1 (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is an excessively generic name, and should not be used. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional sampler with no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 06:21, 1 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 keep. If Reyk's final comment turns out accurate, a possible merge can be discussed on the talk page. Mgm|^(talk) 12:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aslan's How[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A place in a fictional universe with no indication of notability. No 3rd party references have been added in a year. Pcap ping 19:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This article has no sources, contains a lot of what appears to be original research and does not indicate any real world notability. Reyk _YO! 19:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is just WP:NOEFFORT. There are numerous sources which discuss this topic so we keep the article for further development in accordance with our editing policy. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you name a 3rd party reference (of the literary criticism variety) that discusses the importance of this hill as plot device, as opposed to just mentioning it in passing, like all the other from List_of_places_in_The_Chronicles_of_Narnia? That is the standard for inclusion per WP:GNG (significant coverage), unless you think some other standard applies... Regarding effort, the relevant policy here is WP:BURDEN. Vague claims of notability have been made at the previous AfD (which isn't even linked on the article's talk page). None have been substantiated so far. Pcap ping 21:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are ten such sources:

C.S. Lewis: A Complete Guide to His Life & Works
The Christian World of C. S. Lewis
The Dictionary of Imaginary Places
The Keys to the Chronicles: Unlocking the Symbols of C.S. Lewis's Narnia
C. S. Lewis in Context
The way into Narnia: a reader's guide
Tending the Heart of Virtue: How Classic Stories Awaken a Child's Moral Imagination
Finding God in the Land of Narnia
Imagination and the Spirit: Essays in Literature and the Christian Faith
The Ring of Words: Tolkien and the Oxford English Dictionary

Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. You are obviously bullshitting me. I'm not going to go through all those books, so I've randomly picked The Christian World of C. S. Lewis [5]. This hill is mentioned only twice in the book, on page 126. There's no discussion whatsoever about the importance of this hill. From this book we find out that out this is a "much tunneled hill", and that "attempting to go up to Aslan's How by an untraveled road, they [the children] got lost in the mountains." And this coverage makes it worthy of article? Mountains out of molehills, quite literally... Pcap ping 09:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your search seems too perfunctory. Note that other search terms such as stone table are needed to find all references to this place which is Calvary in Lewis's Christian allegory and so of some significance. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although ^{[citation needed]} and ^{[original research?]} because I cannot find a source explicitly mentioning it, the allegory is obvious to me. But then most significant places in the Bible have some allegorical equivalent in Narnia. For instance, the stone table is considered a key symbol in Journey Into Narnia [6], and it is an obviously allegory as well, but the How is barely mentioned. Wikipedia has an article about the How, but no article about the stone table. I'm not convinced that a separate article about the table is justified either, but an article about Biblical allegories in Narnia should definitely mention the table. This the problem with many Wikipedia articles about cherry-picked fictional elements: they are written off the top of someone's head, contain just plot summary, and pay little attention to literary criticism sources about the topic, even when those sources abound. Pcap ping 13:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if the place is not notable for an article of its own, it's clearly notable in the context of Narnia, so merging should be considered before deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already included in List_of_places_in_The_Chronicles_of_Narnia. Pcap ping 09:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep considerable possibility of expansion, because the present article doesn't start to discuss the film & video versions. As Col.W points out, any criticism of CSL discusses the religious aspects, and a number of books have been devoted to the religious aspects in particular--not just because they're very impt. in his work, but because of the controversy about the suitability of his books from some religiously conservative groups. And of course there is no Deadline in improving or referencing an article.DGG (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm siding with both Colonel Warden and DGG on this. Plenty of sources are being cited here and I am very concerned at the accusation of bad faith being put forward towards Warden by Pcap, who I strongly recommend reviews WP:FAITH and WP:EQ. 23skidoo (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. Pcap could possibly have chosen better words, but is completely correct in saying that level of coverage isn't anywhere near enough to substantiate a full article. Reyk _YO! 02:35, 29 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 Withdraw. Schuym1 (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gobbolino, the Witch's Cat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gobbolino, the Witch's Cat

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A book being in print for 36 years seems to be an indication of notability to me. Edward321 (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't show notability per the guidelines and policies. Schuym1 (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discussed in the Telegraph[7], Independent[8] and Guardian[9] obituaries of the author, which are certainly reliable sources. The Telegraph refers to it as a 'classic' and both the Independent & the Guardian devote substantial discussion to it. It was written in 1942, and is still in print in more than one edition, one of which has an Amazon.co.uk rating of 6,698.[10][11] It has also been made into a BBC audiobook.[12] I'm not sure what more a children's book has to do to qualify, other than be written by JK Rowling! Espresso Addict (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw the AFD because of the sources that you found. Schuym1 (talk) 23:11, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1000 recordings[edit]

This article can't seem to decide what the book is called (at least three variants are given: "1000 recordings", "1000 Recordings To Hear Before You Die" and "1001 Albums") which does not inspire confidence in its accuracy. The only reference is the site for the book itself so fails WP:RS and WP:N. The list itself is probably a copyright violation. Ros0709 (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The entry is not very different from the long standing article 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. Yes, confusing that there are two books with very similar names (1001 Albums vs. 1000 Recordings) but not the articles fault. This one is no different in terms of copyright than the other one, so delete both or neither. Anyway I thought lists and indexes were not copyrightable. Despite the apersions above, the list is in fact 100% accurate. Find one thing wrong with it. And if you do, fix it, rather than complain that the whole article should be removed.

The other comparable long standing article would also be subject to the putative WP:RS and WP:N criticism. The WP:RS and WP:N issue seems specious. Both articles are saying "a book said these are the top 1000 albums/recording". The wikipedia article claims no more and no less than that it faithfully renders the list in the book. I do agree that the title of the entry should be changed. The Wikipedia user interface seems to channel you into giving it the original shorthand name you searched for, then offer no way to change it later.

I thought the article was good enough, had enough meat, for the community to build it up, improve it, rehabilitate it. But if your standards are that only perfect articles can be submitted, and that peoples goal is to criticize something they could just as easily fix, then you have just seen my first, and last, wikipedia submission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thx1138bis (talk • contribs) 23:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC) — Thx1138bis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The title of the book is 1000 Recordings To Hear Before You Die, and it is totally distinct from this book, which was edited by someone else. The topic of this article is a fairly notable book [13], although I agree that the list should probably go. Zagalejo^^^ 00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you get rid of the list in this 1000 Recordings article, then get rid of the list in the 1001 Albums article too. But that other article has been around for 2 years. I don't think you can copyright a list. I just don't see why everyone is attacking this article when it is just like an existing 2 year old article.

I removed the list from that other article. I'm not a copyright expert, but I think it's better to be safe than sorry. We recently had trouble with Nielsen Media Research because of the way we were reproducing some of their data. We could still discuss more general facts about the book, as well as the book's reception. Zagalejo^^^ 07:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources given to establish notability. That applies to 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die as well, and practically to 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die (no significant coverage, the only claim to fame is being 7th best seller for a week in Australia 4 years ago).--Boffob (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources do exist for this and all the other books. Just do a Google News search. Zagalejo^^^ 07:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such sources should be in the article, which, once (if) it is done, should be moved to 1000 Recordings To Hear Before You Die.--Boffob (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I threw in some links at the end of the article. If Thx1138bis apologizes for this outburst, I'd be willing to actually incorporate those sources into the text. Zagalejo^^^ 23:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename, there are oodles of sources for the book, but the article should ideally be renamed to the actual title of the book, per User:Zagalejo above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:46, 28 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 NAC 17:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Judith Mossman[edit]

~~Article is a collection of plot and original research. Nothing for WP:N, or even WP:V. Searching turned up nothing for stand-alone notability. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)~~Withdrawn per Sabre below.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Half-Life 2. Plot information should be included in the articles for the games she appears in. There's one item of out-of-universe material, per WP:WAF: the voice actresss, short enough to be included in a credits section, should people want such a thing. Marasmusine (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A merge is planned for all Half-Life 2 characters that don't exhibit individual notability (which is almost all of them) as the overall concept of characters in the HL series is notable, so it would be helpful if people could refrain from deleting edit histories in the meantime through AfD and the like. This character does not exhibit independent notability, but would be well suited to coverage within in a Characters of Half-Life article. I wouldn't mind a redirect in the meantime though.-- Sabre (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, was cleaning out the female vg chars cat when I noticed it so that explains quite a bit. Nomination withdrawn, sorry for the hassle.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:31, 28 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 04:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There for Tomorrow[edit]

Struggling to find any reliable coverage of this band, only a profile on allmusic seems to exist, aside from that very little. Searched google news. MTV etc, only thing that seems to come up are listings. neon white talk 17:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article notes, the band charted in the United States, and so meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C2, [14]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of any charting hit on the Hot 100, billboard.com confirms this. Top Heatseekers is not considered under guidelines, a 'national music chart' refers to the primary chart for any country in the US this must be the Hot 100. --neon white talk 14:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet as, could you please point me to a Wikipedia guideline to back that up, because WP:CHART doesn't mention that from what I can see. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 20:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a nonsensically high bar for a band to have to pass before having considered "charted". Billboard's specific charts (genre specific and market specific) are intended to indicate the best-selling groups within smaller markets, and these are just as legitimate in demonstrating a group's importance. Now, with a charting album, coverage in Allmusic and AP, an album on Hopeless Records, an MTVU award, and several national tours (with Anberlin, most recently, among others)...what's your Heymann standard here? Chubbles (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, techincally every article should have multiple secondary sources, as specified at WP:N, criteria at WP:MUISC is just additional, HOT 100 is the national chart in the US comparable with other national charts, we have never considered genre specific charts, download charts, store charts or any other specialist chart to be adaquate. The logic being that those charts are not as noted as the HOT 100. Evidence of coverage of national tours is needed. Small non notable awards arent considered. --neon white talk 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This band meets the general notability guideline, or WP:MUSIC criterion #1: Adding to the Alternative Press and Allmusic coverage, I have added references to full articles about the band in the Orlando Sentinel and The Blade. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that the 'Alternative Press' source can be considered 'significant' coverage, it's two paragraphs at most. We would need some evidence of the others to verify them. --neon white talk 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Blade article is 15 paragraphs and totals 707 words. The Sentinel article is 28 paragraphs, 581 words. Both are entirely about Maika Maile and his band. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:16, 1 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carmelita Fox[edit]

Article is a collection of the plot summaries from the games and original research. Searching has shown no references to give any notability to the subject. Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no source for notability, also WP:NOT#PLOT--Boffob (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No links. Original research. TopGearFreak 17:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Sly Cooper characters. Just common sense; that's where all the other character articles from Sly Cooper went to when the vast majority of them were AFD'd a month or so ago. MuZemike (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have actually proposed that, but the massive amount of plot involved made it seem like a bad idea.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One does not have to merge everything'. The place to discuss how much to merge is the talk page of the article one is proposing to merge to. FWIW, shje seems to be one of the 4 central characters of the game. DGG (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For precisely the reasons Kung Fu Man offered. Plot summary, original research.203.192.80.31 (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total in universe plot summary. Maybe then Redirect to List of Sly Cooper characters as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Weak keep per addition of sources, seems to be worth a start. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sources are game reviews, they do not address notability separate from the game. Nothing that warrants an article beyond the material of List of Sly Cooper characters.--Boffob (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This doesn't establish any sort of actual notability, so it doesn't require an article. TTN (talk) 20:53, 1 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 Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax/vandalism, no sources, only supporting comments are from article creator and socks. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Matthews[edit]

I can find no reference to this player at all, links that are added to article by author all fail to be anything about this Andy Matthews. I have asked the author several times to show verifiable info on the subject, he/she has ignored me. I am pretty sure that this is a hoax. Paste (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman121212 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Привет, Как русский, живущий в Москве я могу подтвердить, что рассматриваемый игрок - geniune. Я надеюсь, что это помогает. Католик Roman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman121212 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Translator, that means "Hi, How Russian living in Moscow I can confirm that the player - genuine. I hope this helps. Roman Catholic." AnturiaethwrTalk 18:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

andy matthews did play for leeds and signed for transfer to a russian team, he was a great player and is dearly missed by his club - Dr Mike Sahid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.147.22 (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The page is a biographical enrty about a proffesional footballer in the second tier of russian football. I feel it insulting that just because he is a little known player that he should be subject to such debate. Do thesepeople have nothing better too do than try have a page removed on the grounds that they no nothing about the subject. Is that not the point of wikipedia itself, for us to learn something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larns20 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Parry[edit]

Unnotable "film maker" although according to this source, he is just a sound guy for a couple of films. He isn't as great as the article makes him out to be. Tavix (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is quite misleading, agree with Tavix. Paste ^Talk 19:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the subject's movie career is as an electrician/gaffer. It would be extremely difficult for someone to achieve notability working in that capacity. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if notability cannot be established. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:18, 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. Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DBEdit 2[edit]

Non-notable software, promotional (with expression of "suitability") article written by software's creator. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ad-like article on non notable software _David ^WS _(contribs) 20:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of credible references [15] and apparent COI issue. --PeaceNT (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR 2010[edit]

Completing improperly finished nom which was appended to the end of another nom. Reasoning was, "I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, but the page for NASCAR 2010 should be deleted, no information on if that game is even being made has been released. Fisha695 (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)" Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Everything in the article is just speculation (and it is obvious because the article's author even says it is). Tavix (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Today seems to have more crystal-ballery than usual. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballery. MuZemike (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no verifiable information to write an article with. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above; I think this will probably snowball. Marasmusine (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's without sources I see no value in keeping the article. Eeekster (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MuZemike --GreyCat (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well when I first nominated this for deletion no information was available, however since then an EA representative confirmed that there will be a game, and one mode that will be in it. So I vote now that information is starting to come out about the game that the article stays. Fisha695 (talk) 20:08, 1 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Stapleton[edit]

Article was speedied as an A7 because it didn't really make a claim of notability at all; it reads more like a memorial page to a dead friend than anything else. Creator subsequently posted to my talk page yesterday, stating that because the subject once spent one summer interning for the US Department of State and cowrote a paper on the 2002 terrorist incident in Bali (although the article incorrectly stated that the paper was about India), his notability came from the as yet unsourced suggestion that his paper was strategically relevant to yesterday's terrorist incident in Mumbai. (The article was created in August.) Article contains no real sources, linking only to a standard death notice of the type that absolutely every deceased person gets in the newspaper, two profiles on college sports websites (only one of which provides any actual detail about him as a person) and the Bali paper itself (but with no independent sources whatsoever to suggest that the paper ever had any documented impact on diplomatic or strategic responses to terrorism.) I still don't see any actual notability here, but since the speedy was disputed I'm bringing this here on procedural grounds. No !vote from me. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the college rowing national bronze medal probably saves this from being speedied, but this person is just not notable in any significant way. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Athletic claim is minor, and the other claim isn't even asserted, much less cited, in the article. gnfnrf (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 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. The debate is leaning that way, but more importantly, do no harm. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Cole[edit]

Page deletion was requested by the page's author at the apparent request of the subject; however, because other authors have contributed, WP:CSD#G7 doesn't technically apply. IMO, the subject is of such marginal notability that we should respect the request for deletion, especially given the possible BLP concerns, but bringing it here for consensus one way or the other. – iride scent 16:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The original page creator has been informed of the existence of OTRS, so the bio subject can confirm their identity and intent to remove the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N (specifically meets WP:PORNBIO) Mayalld (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to closing admin The only part of WP:PORNBIO I see him possibly meeting is "a well-known award", but that was as one of six other winners of said award that year so IMO it's marginal at best. Aside from the award itself, the only source for this article is his entry at IAFD, which lists only his date and place of birth and a list of films; there is no source for any of the biographical information given in the article. If kept, this needs to either be sourced, or stubbed down to just a list of films, as at the moment it's a BLP violation from start to finish. – iride scent 16:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I think we should abide by the request. Stifle (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Very marginal notability and several similar articles have been deleted for the same reasoning. Tatarian (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Tatarian, Could you point out one or (better) two examples of such so that we can do a real comparison against a real case? An example from the adult movie industry would be best, but I suppose anything comparable would do. Thanks. --KDS4444^Talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ginger_Jolie, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Fishkin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination) are examples of people who have had their pages deleted upon request. Tatarian (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet the GNG, is of marginal notability and subject seems to want it deleted. RMHED (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have nothing against deleting an article like this, but the person's identity should really be confirmed through OTRS before the deletion happens. We don't want some anti-porn activist deleting bios by pretending to be the subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author's Response: 1.) I agree with iride scent regarding the irrelevant biographical information-- if the article is eventually kept, this should be removed (and I would take no offense). 2.) I also agree with MacGyverMagic that the identity of those involved should be verified to ensure the sincere intentions and to verify that no anti-porn activist is trying to meddle with Wikipedia 3.) If this entry is removed, it will cause the return of a gap in the Wikipedia list for winners of the AVN awards. This entry originally filled that gap. What, if anything, should be done to prevent the recreation of a vacuum of information there? KDS4444^Talk --KDS4444 03:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Marginal notability even before the request for deletion. Chicken Wing (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my opinion, this article meets WP:N if by a narrow margin, but that plus the subject's request make me lean delete. If this entry were any more notable, I would urge checking the request through OTRS. FlyingToaster 21:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - privacy concerns of the subject in a case such as this must be respected. The fact that the subject is only arguably notable should also allow us to be more sensitive to the concerns. – Toon ^(talk) 16:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PORNBIO and WP:N. GayVN award and appearing in 20+ porn videos meets the notability requirements. If specific biographical information can't be sourced, and it really is the subject requesting deletion of that information, then delete that information via normal editing, but the article, per se, should be kept. Also keep per the argument that this helps complete the Gay AVN awards listing. Even two of the delete votes admits it meets WP:N, even if narrowly or marginally. — Becksguy (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The number of videos doesn't matter, since anyone can make one, but winning the award *does* mean he passes notability. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Satyr, point taken. — Becksguy (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Second Response: I have been going over the notability guidelines and have reached the current (if hardly final) conclusion: according to Wikipedia standards, a marginally notable person who has requested removal of their entry should have their request respected. Great. However, while Sebastian Cole's notability may seem limited, the fact is that he won (with however many other people-- that's irrelevant) a national, competitive award in a recognized category, and while "only" winning one such award may make him seem "marginally" notable, it makes him far more notable than someone who got, say, an honorable mention. Inasmuch as Wikipedia is intended as a repository first and foremost for notability, this individual meets that criterion (though he may want to string me up personally for saying this about him, and probably will once he reads this). Wikipedia has decided that winners of GayVN awards are sufficiently notable to have their names (their "stage" names, mind you-- Sebastian Cole is not this actor's real name) listed on the GayVN page. Given that, and regardless of the individual's request (I realize this must seem very confusing, as I am the person who originally authored the page and am now speaking here on behalf of the actor who would like it removed), the complete removal of this entry recreates an information vacuum on Wikipedia which, if not filled in now and accurately will probably be filled at some point soon by someone (if not me). As a counterexample, Becoming Playboy's "Pet of the Month" (see discussion [[16]] is not a genuinely competitive award and does not by itself merit notability; winning (and even winning and sharing) an award for "Best Group Scene" IS a competitive award, and this individual WON (yes, shared) it. This seems to be the simplest reason for keeping the entry, albeit in a pared-down and very impersonal format, which is how his adult film career is already recorded in other places on the Internet. If Wikipedia had decided long ago that the adult film industry was unworthy of encyclopedic consideration, then this entry would obviously be inappropriate... Given that Wikipedia has made a different choice (by long-established consensus), then this is not the case. Even if Sebastian tears me a third corn shoot when all is said and done (let me re-assert that I am personally completely ambivalent about this page-- if it stays, I get credit for contributing to the world of knowledge that exists on Wikipedia but may lose a friendship; if it goes, the world of knowledge will be darker but Sebastian won't be upset with me-- I really should have checked with him first, I know, and I'm in a pickle now because I didn't, but whatever, that's my issue). I am trying to reach a reflective and Wiki-consistent conclusion that does not take any of my own intentions into consideration, and right now I guess I am leaning more towards keep based on the simplest and most internally consistent argument I can come up with. Yes?? -- KDS4444^Talk--KDS4444 15:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very thoughtful comment. Kudos. We can always keep the article, but strip the biographical details. — Becksguy (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think we have to move away from a belief that Wikipedia's notability guidelines are solid, immovable rules for inclusion. These guidelines merely provide help to show what sort of thing is and is not acceptable - it's not a court of law, precedents don't apply - it's about consensus. It's not a case of simply looking at what it says in the rulebook - this is the dignity of another human being we are talking about, and an argument based on the notability guidelines alone won't cut it. Remember: Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Let's allow this guy the privacy and dignity he has requested. – Toon ^(talk) 16:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject doesn't want an article, he's of marginal notability. Have some respect. Our project is not going to suffer for not having this bio. The world will be okay. لenna vecia 16:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author's third (final) comment: "Fine by me". iride scent, Can you go ahead and remove? This page has been up for awhile, and though I have no doubt that someone someday will recreate this entry, and though several people have argued for its inclusion, perhaps now is simply not the time. We are human, we can choose. Sebastian would rather not have a Wikipedia entry, and in the end, above all desire for accuracy and intention towards completeness, maybe this deserves more respect than anything. -- KDS4444^Talk

--KDS4444 16:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete; this, again is another case which illustrates why verifiability and not "notability" (in the sense of importance) ought to be our inclusion criteria. The GayVN is a significant award, and it is a worthy ambition for an encylopaedia to have entries on every winner. However, all we seem to be able to verify here is that the individual won the award, and a few incidental details from the IAFD. I've looked for reliable sources that include some detail about this individual's life, and could not find anything, WP:GNG-fulfilling or not. Although I firmly believe that moralizing about what the ethical thing to do in these situations has no place in an encyclopaedia, we cannot have BLP's whose basic content is unverifiable, because to do so is a disservice to our readers as we would be propagating bad information. I would much rather that the first Google hit is the straightforward, minimalist IAFD entry rather than a speculative Wikipedia article of questionable veracity. So, the ideal thing to do here would be to redirect to List of GayVN winners, where a single verifiable line of information could be included, but in the absence of that list, and of a minimal amount of coverage in reliable sources, we must delete, "notability" be damned. the skomorokh 17:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per SatyrTN's input (it was said best...and first!). Ecoleetage (talk) 03:13, 1 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DataObjects.Net[edit]

This 'development framework' was initially released 85 days ago. The article does not demonstrate that the development framework is notable, and does not give sources for its assertion that the product is different from its competition. The framework is at least partly a profit-making enterprise, meaning that this article functions partly as an advertisement. Richard Cavell (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. "It really differs from any other ORM tool at this time..." That doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Next to no information, 'differing from other ORM' claim unreferenced. TopGearFreak 15:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A1/A7/G11) — lack of context, lack of notability, processed Hormel meat, take your pick. MuZemike (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete badly written article about a non-notable late entry into the already-crowded field of ORM tools. I see no reason to keep this article. JulesH (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per others. There is no indication that this article will meet WP:CORP. Dekisugi (talk) 10:00, 1 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 Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Perkins[edit]

A non-notable singer. Schuym1 (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Had one appearance in the charts, at #76... that doesn't assert even a shred of notability. Most likely written by a fan. TopGearFreak 15:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Snow Delete 1 hit at Number 76? Not remotely notable. --Numyht (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At WP:MUSICBIO, requirement #2 says "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." I think he would pass that, if we can get that verified. So my vote would be Keep if that can be verified, ~~but if not Delete.~~

Followup, I did find him mentioned in a reliable source, found here, which may be enough to meet requirement #1 as well. Tavix (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Billboard website confirms that the song charted, so it meets criteria #2 of WP:MUSIC. Combined with the other sources mentioned, there should be enough for a very short article. BradV 20:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The MUSIC criteria don't say how high a song, single or album should chart, just that it should make the chart, which it did.- Mgm|^(talk) 22:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:MUSIC#C2. Criteria makes no mention of how high up a chart you need to be, just that it has charted. Billboard reference confirms, notability established. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:14, 28 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 Child of the Sun (Mayte Garcia album). Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rhythm Of Your Heart[edit]

No assertion of notability. Fails WP:NSONGS.

I am also nominating the following for the same reason:

The Rythm Of Your Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (misspelled duplicate)
The Most Beautiful Boy In The World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

McWomble (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, but rewrite. Singles by a notable artist. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - singles by a notable artist are not automatically notable see WP:MUSIC "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album". TerriersFan (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Child of the Sun (Mayte Garcia album). BradV 20:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with redirecting singles to the album. Non-released songs, yes, singles, no. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are free to disagree but that is the guideline and accepted practice where individual notability cannot be established. TerriersFan (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Child of the Sun (Mayte Garcia album). TerriersFan (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all: to album. Schuym1 (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all, as a plausible search term, to Child of the Sun (Mayte Garcia album). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all: to album. JamesBurns (talk) 06:19, 1 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palit[edit]

Disputed prod. This company may manufacturer good products but that does not mean the company is notable and deserves an article here. If there is notability to be established it must come through reliable sources and not corporate PR departments. JodyB_talk 16:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again — article was already A7'd; just because its products exist on newegg.com doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion here. Notability is not established via reliable secondary sources, as the nom suggested. MuZemike (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A poorly-written article about a fledgling company. TopGearFreak ^Talk 17:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A7. abf /talk to me/ 17:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For reasons stated aboveBritishWatcher (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a small local restaurant where I live, they make good pizza, but yet, is not nearly notable. Acebulf (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per above(s) Dengero (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Poorly written but probably notable, ATI and AMD hardware reviews are well covered by many technical rags. Author needs to expend more effort to pass WP:N policy. - DustyRain (talk) 08:40, 2 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 Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax/vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocknow[edit]

Either a very obscure band or an outright hoax. I cannot find any evidence that this band actually existed. McWomble (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very likely hoax. --Oscarthecat (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like unsalvagable garbage. The "style" section appears to be a description of The Police which has been machine-translated from English into another language then back again, with only the names changed...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:11, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Reid[edit]

WP:POLITICIAN, failed candidate, non-noteable. Timeshift (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that this person has notability beyond unsucessful election, thus she fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:N.--Boffob (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, well-established that unsuccessful candidates don't hit the standard. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. While legislators are inherently notable, Ms. Reid hasn't won office yet. Her article isn't the only one of its kind, by any means; it appears that in 2006, people were using the black-red-blue system to make articles about all the candidates in the Canadian parliamentary election, as demonstrated by Canadian federal election results in Midwestern Ontario. Things have changed in the last couple of years, and a mass nomination would be a good way of reinforcing Wikipedia's policy. Mandsford (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election DoubleBlue (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Birmingham[edit]

Part-time footballer who has never played professionally, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Was prodded, but removed by editor who mistakenly believed that he played for Portsmouth. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 12:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet required notability, most footballers at that level do not have their own article. Hes mentioned on the Bognor Regis page, could have a sentence about him on the Gosport F.C page but thats about it. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 19:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried site:portsmouthfc.co.uk "Michael Birmingham" on google, but nothing found, unless someone has a published history of Pompy to look him up in. I would go with delete. Govvy (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt even a published history of the club would have much to say about a player who never made it into the team, and I certainly can't think of any reason why there'd be any content about such a player on the club's official site fifteen years after he left. He clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, so delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC
Delete per nom.--ClubOranje^Talk 22:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:56, 1 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dejan D Savic[edit]

Non-notable semi-pro/amateur football player who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Was prodded, but removed without explanation by an IP. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 12:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Hockey-holic (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable 15-year-old junior footballer. - fchd (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:ATHLETE. Schuym1 (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 19:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This kid is 15 and has not played senior football at all. No evidence of notability. No evidence provided any of it is even factual.--ClubOranje^Talk 22:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:56, 1 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 keep. John254 04:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tumtum and Nutmeg[edit]

Non-notable book. Fails WP:BK. McWomble (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apart from the rather lengthy Times online review given in the article, there are at least two Telegraph reviews (paragraph long, not very extensive) of individual books in the series; [17] and [18], and a slightly longer review in the Guardian[19]. Add to that that it was shortlisted for the Waterstone's Children's Book Prize [20], and I think it passes our notability guidelines (perhaps not overwhelmingly, but clear enough for me). Fram (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of reviews to base an article on. The award nomination is the icing on the cake. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reviews alone do not necessarily meet the requirement for substantial coverage. A nomination is not sufficient - WP:BK clearly requires a book to have won a major literary award. McWomble (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not neccesarily, no, but I do think the reviews are substantial coverage in this case. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the BK guidelines state that books are notable if the criteria are met. #1 is clearly important but if it fails any of the others, it doesn't neccesarily mean it's not notable. As long as criterion 1 is met, I believe that having articles on award nominees is a good thing. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article length review in the Times, and other reviews listed by Frami qualifies under WP:BK. RayAYang (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is also a review in the following publication:
- Mears, Sarah. "Tumtum and Nutmeg." School Librarian 56.2 (Summer2008 2008): 97-97, Abstract: The article reviews the book "Tumtum and Nutmeg," by Emily Bearn. Article passes WP:BK --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:17, 28 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) 10:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Bridge (North Branch Potomac River)[edit]

Please also see the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayard Bridge.

Delete: The bridge doesn't seem to meet WP:N notability guidelines. It's a minor bridge for a county road. Brian Powell (talk) 06:58, 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 Searches are noisy because of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge (because of the qualifier in the title of this article, I wouldn't redirect there), but I couldn't find anything about the bridge up for deletion here. There's not information to sustain an article either. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought all officially named bridges were defacto notable as a "place", like cities, counties, etc. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 21:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that there's nothing to say about this bridge. There's no sources and the article only really states the location, nothing about design, use and historical significance. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not really an officially named bridge. The "Wilson" in the name just refers to the closest town of Wilson, West Virginia. This is standard practice for referring to bridges in West Virginia. Brian Powell (talk) 21:15, 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, Mgm|^(talk) 12:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - The bridge certainly doesnt need an article for itself, but a mention of the the bridge (and other bridges) on the Potomac River article might be reasonable and helpful. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - its already there at List of crossings of the Potomac River#North Branch bridges. Smile a While (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the problem is that there is insufficient sourced content to write a reasonable page. Everything in the article is already at List of crossings of the Potomac River#North Branch bridges. Incidentally, there is an issue over the relevance of the image - according to the image description, it is of the first river crossing whereas 'Wilson' is the second crossing. Further, looking at Google Maps, there is a bridge at 'Dobbin', the location in the image description, some distance from the bridge at 'Wilson'. Smile a While (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This mischief that is causing articles to exist is that some one is creating succession templates for bridges on this and other American rivers. Another mischief is the tabular structure of the article List of crossings of the Potomac River. I believe that the best solution would be to convert that article from a list into an article Crossings of the Potomac River, by converting it to text. This would mean that detail on each bridge could be added to that article. If the article becomes too large it can be forked so that there is a separate section of the North Branch, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalya Rudakova[edit]

According to the history presented in the article, this actress has had no career what-so-ever apart from this new, about-to-be-released movie. I'm not so sure that that's an assertion of notability, can you all please weigh in here? — Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 12:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete As it stands, all the article states is she's been cast / filmed a not yet released film, moved to the US and a producer seems to have a freckle fetish. I'd say, unless anything else can be provided - and imdb lists this film only - it's non-notable. Delete and re-create a better article once the film in released when she gains notability. Minkythecat (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Struck above comments to reflect films release, in which case notability is a definite based upon billing. Minkythecat (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The movie she is in (Transporter 3) went into wide release in the United States yesterday (November 26), and according to the Internet Movie Database, she has second billing in it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the notability guidelines at WP:ENTERTAINER require multiple feature films, an exception should be made here because of the wide media coverage, as demonstrated by Colonel Warden. If after the movie hype is over, she again falls into obscurity the article can be renominated at that time as a WP:BLP1E. BradV 20:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She played lead in a major hollywood production. Freckles or no freckles, IMHO, that makes her notable. Anonymi (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the edit histories, it appears the creator of the article and the editor who nominated for deletion were in some kind of editing war, antagonizing each other. Per discussion above, actress appears quite notable. Chicken Wing (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 in Hot 100[edit]

2008 in Hot 100 hasn't been updated since July and pretty much is a copy of Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States), similar articles were deleted back in June (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 in Hot 100) ---Caldorwards4 (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC) I'm also nominating the following article:[reply]

Keep both. It just needs someone to go ahead and do a good job of writing them. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The 2008 examples show there's a fair bit of duplication going on, but the shorter one is definitely better laid out and has more information tabled. Articles should be merged and redirected to the most common/used name. Same goes for the 2007 listing. Lack of updates is not a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - recreation of previously deleted material. - eo (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as redundant to existing articles, and per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 in Hot 100. These are simply obsolete dupes. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:46, 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, Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per TenPoundHammer. McWomble (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: agree with Hammer. JamesBurns (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both redundant to already existing articles. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:53, 1 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 keep. Mgm|^(talk) 12:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heat Regenerative Cyclone Engine[edit]

Non-notable (and extremely dubious from an engineering POV) commercial product. No references, no evidence of coverage in reliable third-party sources. Fails WP:PRODUCT. Delete as nominator. Tevildo (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What....I don't get it. TopGearFreak ^Talk 18:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~or Merge~~ I don't dispute that the article needs a lot of work, but it does seem to show an interesting new technology, and it does appear to be going into production (see ref I just added to article). ~~If this cannot remain on its own page, perhaps the content can be merged with External combustion engine?~~ (I have no links with the company, merely an interest in steam engines in general, and this seems like an interesting new application of steam technology.) EdJogg (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Update) just found another reference (added to article) to show that this engine has also won several awards. Yes the article is in a state, but I think deletion is premature. EdJogg (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. Cyclone Power Technologies' Waste Heat Engine Featured on EngineeringTV.com (Market Wire, June 2008) makes it seem this WP article has jumped the gun. Google gives enough hits from non-producer sources. I suggest toning down the language and reconsidering its notability in 6 months. PS I have no links with the company nor with anyone who has edited the article. --Philcha (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. We now have some references, so my primary rationale for proposing the deletion seems to have been addressed; I'm still not completely convinced that the engine is notable, however, so I'm changing my opinion to Neutral. Tevildo (talk) 15:18, 23 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, Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as covert spam, unless it can be drastically rewritten before the end of this AfD. BradV 21:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Market Watch, published by the WSJ is a Reliable Source, and a major article there about the company is sufficient, and is sufficient evidence for the awards. With the awards, there is no possible question about notability. Spammy articles get rewritten, not deleted. The Motor Trend article confirms it. Market Wire is another matter entirely--its just a publication service for unaltered press releases and has no more importance than the company's own site--I can't figure out why Google News includes it. DGG (talk) 02:12, 28 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic St. Charles[edit]

Contested prod, reason was Member of 3 bands, none of which has any established notability. Google search did not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources. Seems a solid reason to delete to me but I would like to have more opinions. Thanks. Tone 11:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I put the prod tag on this article on the 7th of October, and it seems that although it was not contested at the time, it was never deleted. I see this as an uncontroversial deletion, so it's a Delete for me. Procedurally, it could perhaps be deleted without this discussion since the prod ran its course, but if anyone feels it needs further discussion I have no objection.--Michig (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what's happened now - it was deleted and has been restored. Fair enough.--Michig (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 06:26, 1 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finding rare books[edit]

This article appears to be a how-to guide. I don't doubt that the author has acted in good faith and has tried to be helpful, but there is no encyclopedic topic being commented on in this article. It may be possible to find a use for this author's experience in wikipedia, but not in this way. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while assuming good faith on the part of the author. McWomble (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well written original research -- Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Wikipedia's not a how-to. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR, and unencyclopedic in nature. Alphageekpa (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For all of the above reasons stated. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As theres no sources and no real assertion of notability or really any way to search for any sources about this type of article, delete. It reads like a how to guide. --Banime (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We welcome new contributors, and I hope that the author understands that the comments above are directed toward the article, not the author. In this case, Wikipedia has a specific policy against "how to" guides WP:NOT#HOWTO, listed under the category of "What Wikipedia is not". Mandsford (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was going to suggest copying this over to wikihow, but they seem to have a good article (http://www.wikihow.com/Buy-Rare-Books) on this topic already. Perhaps the author could contribute some knowledge to that page. Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for how-to guides Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:49, 28 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 Speedily deleted by Lectonar as nonsense. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew dibble[edit]

This article is likely a hoax or a joke. The article is, at any rate, unsourced and unverifiable, and may be defamatory. There is no text worth saving. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G1 (for which it had already been nominated?) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:20, 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 speedy delete as G12 SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PTU's Gian Jyoti School of TQM & Entrepreneurship[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/PTU's Gian Jyoti School of TQM & Entrepreneurship

I believe that this article is written in a promotional style, and that it is better to delete this text than to attempt to fix it. The article also contains much corporate newspeak and should be rewritten in a more objective and detached tone of voice. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. No Gnews hits, Google hits appear primarily along catalog listings. Subunits of universities should have significant coverage in secondary sources to be notable in the Wikipedia sense. RayAYang (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be speedy deleted as copyright violation. If not, it should be merged to whatever it is part of. Juzhong (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are actually some google news hits, like this one: http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=154253 Juzhong (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio, then create a redirect to Punjab Technical University. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:27, 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 Speedied by Dweller. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Keepen[edit]

This boy is captain of his high school cricket team, and plays for division 5 of the North Somerset Cricket League. He has played 18 matches and has not achieved any records. I say that he is not notable enough to be included. Richard Cavell (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable sportsman, previously deleted yesterday at 13:08 per CSD A7.--TubularWorld (talk) 10:54, 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 Speedy delete a9, album by artist with no article; no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3.10.85[edit]

Non-notable album. Fails WP:NALBUMS. McWomble (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Smoothvega. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Smoothvega has been speedy deleted. McWomble (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A9 Album by red link artist. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Society of the Golden Rose[edit]

Unreferenced. Possible hoax. Google suggests a society of that name did exist in 18th century Russia but nothing backs up this article. McWomble (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references are found. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search for "Society of the Golden Rose" returns only 1 non-Wikipedia result, and | that site is not even related to this article. Kortaggio (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, possible hoax. Edward321 (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't prove out at all and the user's edit history is not encouraging. --Lockley (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources and no G-hits. There was a historical organization by the similar name "Society of the Golden Rose-Cross", an 18th century Rosicrucian or Masonic order in Russia that was banned in 1766. But that's not the same topic and probably not notable enough for an article anyway since it only has one Google books hit. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:50, 1 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 Speedy delete as nonsense. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who killed 2pac[edit]

This is unsourced original research, not an encyclopedia article. PROD removed in the course of vandalism. JohnCD (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just prod it again. It's okay to revert vandalism even if that means putting a prod back on. Vandals don't have the right to dispute such tags. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 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 speedy keep. inclement weather, nom withdraw (non-admin closure) _David ^WS _(contribs) 18:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates[edit]

Trivia, filled with OR, seems like it's more about proving some sort of point about who gets elected rather than satisfying WP:ENC. Yes, all people mentioned in the article are WP:N, and it's relatively well-referenced, but the people are notable, not their heights. roux 10:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Heightism in politics appears to be a valid topic, and this is really nothing else than an example of that. Of course the statistics are original research, so unless they can be referenced, they should go. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that US Presidents are extremely important, and that does mean that certain personal qualities become worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, which would not be considered notable enough otherwise. For example, a president's signature and religion, and the names of his children, are in his infobox. I would not think that every biography in this encyclopedia should contain those things. A president's height is something that is documented for all kinds of legitimate academic and administrative reasons. There is academic literature to support the view that a person's height affects his career prospects, his ambition, his electability, and so on. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, desperately OR and trivial. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is essentially a record of US Presidents' heights, and for that it should be kept - where else can you find such a record on the internet? If there is any OR, it is only mathematics and uncontroversial. Wcp07 (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Well presented and useful list BritishWatcher (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-researched and well-written. Good article! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this comes up every four years--the question of whether it's true that the taller person always wins. Notable topic w.r.t. U.S. presidents. JJL (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is informative, people will want to read it, and it is well researched.Captain Gamma (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep keep keep Notable, relevant, and well-sourced.--Loodog (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Its finite and can be sourced. I see no reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:20, 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. Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rania Ibrahim[edit]

Recreation of article previously deleted under G12. Article is improved but still fails WP:BLP1E. Trusilver 09:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (I new page patrolled this article earlier today). I say that this person is noteworthy. The article is verifiable and contains information of value to an encyclopedia. Speedy deletion without an AfD consensus does not set a precedent that binds AfD participants. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Trusilver 17:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Recreation of a previously deleted entry is only speediable under G4 when that previous deletion was after AFD discussion (per CSD rules). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the one-event rule, as well as this being news. The material might be worthwhile in some larger article on suicide bomers. RayAYang (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think anything is on the news around the world is notable to have a article here isnt it, this is why the article exists, plus the youtube video make it notable and the english news piece does —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banana Jim (talk • contribs) 08:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand that you are new here. Wikipedia is not arbitrary and what you "think" isn't necessarily relevant. What is notable or not is governed by policy - for example: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news stories, if you are looking for something like that, I suggest you check out wikinews. And the suggestion that a youtube video makes something notable is so hilarious I honestly have a hard time keeping a straight face. No, I'm sorry, a youtube video does not make something notable. I suggest you take a look at WP:V and more specifically, WP:SOURCES. Trusilver 20:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article subject was not a consenting adult participant in the events in which she was caught up, so privacy concerns should prevail per WP:BLP. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One short burst of news doesn't make the subject notable. lightspeedchick (talk) 01:46, 2 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Harmonics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Recreation of a previously-deleted article. Acapella group of little notability beyond Stanford University. Clear issues of advertising, self-promotion, conflict-of-interest, and general vanity. Madcoverboy (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4. Reposts of previously XfD items don't need to be taken back to AfD. McWomble (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that the previous decision should bind this discussion. The group has improved since the last deletion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Irrelevant. A copy of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version is eligible for speedy deletion. McWomble (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though only weakly. The fact that the organization has existed for more than ten years on a highly influential university campus, and released eight albums in that time, means that the organization has had a sufficient impact on the world to demonstrate encyclopedia-worthy notability, in my view. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited; the fact they are affiliated with either Stanford University or Palo Alto College is immaterial to establishing their notability as a musical group. Moreover, anyone can cut, produce, and release an album which is why reliable third-party publications are necessary to establish notability. There is no assertion of notability or importance nor is there likely to be forthcoming as is common to the vast majority of college and university acapella groups. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, releasing 8 albums seems to pass WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No it doesn't. Per WP:MUSICBIO, they must have released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels or had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. McWomble (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Watch your WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 28 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 CSD:G7. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramids of Mars (remains on Mars)[edit]

This is covered much more thoroughly and in line with our NPOV policy in Cydonia Mensae dougweller (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being a vague summary of the aforementioned article on Cydonia Mensae. I'd also recommend Pyramids of Mars (disambiguation) for removal too, as I don't believe the phrase "Pyramids of Mars" is common enough to warrant it. one brave monkey 09:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
During this discussion, the author of this article blanked it and replaced it with a link to Cydonia Mensae. I am taking that as a G7 request and have deleted the article and redirected it there. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Groth[edit]

not notable; barely found anything on Google for this particular Michael Groth -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If someone expanded the International Thespian Festival it could include a list of winners including Groth, but certainly doesnt require a single article for the guy. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - 149.142.220.66 (talk) 21:03, 1 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's accomplishments[edit]

This article is essentially an old copy of three sections of the Albert Einstein biography. I suppose that a decent article could be created on the subject, but neither the creator nor anyone else seems interested in doing so. Instead, any changes in the covered sections go into the biography and not this article. This article does not include his Annus Mirabilis papers, which were among his greatest accomplishments. Unless this article is converted into a decent subarticle, anyone who stumbled on it would be misled; fortunately that is unlikely, for no articles link to it. —teb728 t c 08:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Albert Einstein article is just about the right size, so there's no point in splitting material off, especially not when Wikipedia:Summary style is not applied. _ Mgm|^(talk) 08:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork. Original intention may have been to make it a subarticle, but that wasn't done. This article received hardly any work; it doesn't even link back to Albert Einstein. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per content fork.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 10:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Albert Einstein. 96T (talk) 22:04, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Love New York: Charm School[edit]

I Love New York: Charm School is a speculative show, and it was scheduled to be deleted tomorrow. An anon user removed the tag, but with that exception, the only editors to the page were myself recently, and the user who created the page, User:Nerdybrianc. Clearly, the page should have been deleted months ago, but no one really noticed. Even reverting back to the previous edits before I touched the page shows nothin as a reference except for youtube, and websites from January of this year. I feel that without any other input, this article has been one sided, and based from unknown or unconfirmed information.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If VH1 would announce it, it won't be until the Rock of Love finale at the earliest. Right now, it's all speculation with no sources. Nate • (chatter) 09:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CBALL. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The ball says it all. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speddy Delete: This show is not even going to happen. It sounds very farfetched. No relibal sources. --Spiderman2351 (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Spiderman2351[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Moon[edit]

Fails any criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Cybergirls of the weeks are not equivalent to Playboy playmates. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- On List of Playboy NSS models G-R, it says "See individual entry" for Sydney Moon. If you decide to delete (and I don't think she should be; she was a fairly profilic model who was on the cover of at least one Newstand special), you should move pertinent information to that list; it doesn't make sense to tell people to see an entry that no longer exists.SPNic (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I moved her newstand appearances to that general list. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this buxom babe unfortunately fails WP:PORNBIO. Though I still don't get why anyone would look up porn affiliated people on Wikipedia, except for those who pass the basic general notability guidelines.--Boffob (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject fails WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palafox Associates[edit]

Notability of the organisation has not been established sufficiently. There are no references (aside from their website), and it reads like an advert. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A very nice advertisement -- but isn't there supposed to be article in there? Ecoleetage (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an advertisement. The all-caps headings are annoying, and the text is full of marketing newspeak. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 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 no consensus. And frankly, I don't know if there will be one any time soon. For those who haven't all ready looked, there's an interesting discussion over at the WP:FICT talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (5th nomination)[edit]

Previous AFD listings:

May 2006: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-time characters from The Simpsons

July 2006: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from The Simpsons

August 2006: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from The Simpsons (third nomination)

October 2007: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from The Simpsons (fourth nomination)

This is basically a long example of listcruft, and although it appears to be well-referenced, all the sources are either first-party or taken from IMDb trivia. It seems like the article still exists merely because a lot of users like it. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since when are the Washington Post or IGN "first-party or taken from IMDb trivia"? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 18:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the nom, so the edit, talk etc aren't in the header. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only one of the references is IMDB and first-party sources are perfectly acceptable (just not in establishing notability). The topic characters from the Simpsons is already proven notable. As for the comment: "It seems like the article still exists merely because a lot of users like it." Based on the fact you call it listcruft, I don't think I'd be far of if I said you don't like it (which is an equally bad line thinking).- Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should look into this by the way, either someone misnumbered these or we're missing the true second nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't dislike it as a subject; I just don't think it's notable in itself per Wikipedia guidelines. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Simpsons would obviously become too large if this was included, so I see this as a subarticle which do not need notability for themselves, they're really part of the other article. -0 Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for three personal-judgement reasons: (1) One-time characters are nearly always nonnotable and have no connection to each other, so a group listing seems like listing for the sake of listing (some would call it "cruft"). (2) The few characters who are actually memorable/notable can be fully covered (with more context) in the The Simpsons episode articles, which don't seem to go away in the near future. (3) This list has strong similarities with a list of episodes, so why can't the characters be mentioned in the LoE/season pages in the first place (unless they are too nonnotable for the plot summary, but then why mention them on wikipedia anyway?). – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think that every show would deserve to have a list like this, but I believe that The Simpsons is unique. 24 Emmies, longest running sitcom ever, longest running animated series ever, (equal) longest running primetime series ever... A one-time character in The Simpsons is notable enough for wikipedia. I believe that wikipedia is made more useful, more interesting, and more relevant by including popular culture. We have obscure mathematical theories that hardly anyone understands, and musical works by famous composers that are rarely played. I believe that if these things are considered 'notable', then popular culture articles like this are equally notable if not more so. Don't look down on this article because it's about a cartoon. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Last of the Summer Wine is the longest running sitcom. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One time characters are not notable. McWomble (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's really an unfair generalization. There are quite a few sources out there to prove the notability for characters such as Frank Grimes and Hank Scorpio. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 18:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sgeureka. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* This section holds valuable information and has clearly taken a lot of research and confirmation. Everybody who has written here has a reason to find it, and so it has worth. Myself i was looking for the Parody Lucius Sweet is on. This page provided me with that information. Wiki is after all, there to give answers to questions. The page in question answered my question and is therefore doing its job as a wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.120.31 (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would also be able to easily find that character if the redirect of Lucius Sweet was changed from here to the correct episode. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, quite a few of these characters are notable. Rather than mentioning them all at List of characters in The Simpsons (which would then become a mess), we have an individual page here. Only three things in life are certain: Death, taxes and the annual afd for this page. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 18:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Scorpion. —TheLeft orium 19:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listcruft is an essay with no standing. And if some editors like this article, that's a good thing, not a problem. So, no policy reason to delete has been presented. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sgeureka says it for me. Springnuts (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of the best examples of how to list a minor topic on Wikipedia. There's no rambling, over-detailing or OR and the entries in the list get straight to the point. Each of the characters are significant (within the programme) as they have an influence on the plot of the episode so there's a clear inclusion criteria set at a reasonable level. A lot of the parts are played by celebrities so it would be possible to dig up a reference for those. The topic passes the GNG and V. There's simply no reason to remove this information. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A single one-off character may not be notable enough for their own article in most cases, but a compilation of such which demonstrates a range of characters as memorable as many of the main characters, often voiced by celebrities, seems pretty notable to me. A fifth nomination using the dreadful "listcruft" argument, which then suggests it was kept four times because people "liked it", is not exactly grounded in firm policy, and in my opinion seems quite hypocritical. --Canley (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many notable characters CTJF83Talk 00:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I cannot find a reason in WP:NOT or in the deletion policy in that matter to delete. The list is, for the most part, verifiable and contains summary (i.e. not excessive) material. MuZemike (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate list. Well referenced by both primary and secondary sources with adequate support for this uncontroversial material. The individual ones do not need to be notable--I don't think most of them would be. DGG (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Gran² 08:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These characters are not notable enough for individual articles, but I agree with Mgm and Bill on the appropriateness of this list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds of notability. Yes, there are a few substantial sources here (for Leon Kompowsky, for example), but these indicate notability of the episode, not the character, and such references should be merged to the appropriate article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sgeureka. This list hasn't recieved significant coverage enough to make it notable. Themfromspace (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia list itself hasn't received coverage? I don't think that's what you mean to say. ;) Please clarify. Zagalejo^^^ 22:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant that the topic of the list hasn't recieved significant coverage. Themfromspace (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Simpsons is one of the most influential television shows of all time, and has produced its fair share of memorable one-shot characters. While Sguereka and Marasmusine are correct that the characters can be discussed in the episode articles, an article like this is useful for navigation purposes. The grand list of episodes doesn't contain any episode descriptions, and while the season LoEs do, most readers will not know by heart which season a character appeared in. They'd have to browse through 20 lists, which is a bit daunting. On top of all that, readers may only vaguely remember what the character's name was, and how it is spelled, which rules out redirects to episode pages as a useful solution. But browsing through a page like this, they can hopefully find what they need. Zagalejo^^^ 22:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should we have lists of one-time characters in every other popular television show as well? [21] I don't think so. JBsupreme (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was waiting for someone to say that. :) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Meh. If there are entire college courses about those shows (as is the case with The Simpsons), then why not? I don't think anyone's seriously proposing List of one-time characters in According to Jim, or anything like that. Zagalejo^^^ 08:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These characters, if they are important one-time characters, should already be called out in the various episode lists and the episodes themselves as a character in those, redirects from their names going to those locations. Having them listed here is sorta flipping the episode lists/episodes around to describe the character in light of the episode. That is, this information is highly duplicative of what should already be listed in the episodes. There's also an arbitrariness to this list, suggesting some one-time characters are more important than others that aren't included, and that some characters have reappeared (albeit non-speaking) thus not one-time. Where there are notable sources ("Hank Scorpio") these should be appropriate listed on the episode page in the question (not that most Simpsons episodes need it, but if this was the only notable aspect of the episode, I'd say it would still be enough to keep the episode instead of making a separate character page). --MASEM 13:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable characters, in a non-notable list. If they were one time characters then they don't have their own page, and their only mentioned, and already, mentioned on the episode article page. We don't need a list of them. At best, I'd say redirect each character's name to their episode article (since this is The Simpsons and I know every episode has an article). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In many other articles, as a cleanup process, we removed characters with fewer than x appearances. (where x usually 1,2 or 3). These characters are not notable and have a very minor (maybe not at all) influence to the show alone. It seems like a way to write the plot of some episodes again. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are several reliable sources in the article, which establish notability for the topic.—Chris! _ct 19:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Not enough: notability needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" ... which this artilce does not have. Springnuts (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough? Entertainment Weekly, New York Times, Washington Post to name a few are pretty substantial and independent. The NYT and EW articles go into detail about the characters. There's not enough information to support individual articles, so The list is a good place to combine the sourced information. I can understand people have issue with the list format, but the sourcing here is pretty solid and indicates there'll be more independent sources out there too. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These sources can safely be brought into the individual episode articles to go on about the character in the reception, as an alternative to this list. --MASEM 01:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think redirecting to individual episode articles is a useful solution per User:Zagalejo's reasoning.—Chris! _ct 02:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zagalejo's reasons is based on users thinking they know the name of a character but can't recall episode or season. That's reasonable, but with redirects to catch most major misspellings, WP's search engine that guesses closely named characters, and the ability to create categories to sort characters all avoid the need for this list. --MASEM 02:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add another tool? Sometimes, a reader will have trouble even coming up with a search term. I suppose the last option could help solve that problem, but I think lists are much easier to use for those who aren't Wikipedia experts. A category also eliminates the brief descriptions of the characters, which can ensure readers that they've found what they were looking for. Zagalejo^^^ 04:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur.—Chris! _ct 06:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many of these characters have had long lasting impacts on the show and popular culture. Rhino131 (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 1/425 episodes, barely any description and no established notability. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the respective episode articles suffice all the needed information. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – coverage in the episode articles is sufficient. No adequate notability asserted for the list as a whole. The notability for the individual elements only confirms the notability of the episode itself rather than the character, and by extension, the list, making it unnecessary. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:13, 2 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm of Sickness Records[edit]

Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:CORP. No coverage of this company referenced in the article. A plain google search produces little[22], and I did not see there examples of significant coverage by independent reliable sources that would make it pass WP:CORP. Nsk92 (talk) 20:02, 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 redirect to 2004 Palm Island death in custody. Since the bio is unduly negative it is in violation of BLP. Mgm|^(talk) 12:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hurley[edit]

per WP:BLP1E. If Wikipedia's BLP policy means anything, then this article should be deleted and not redirected anywhere. Hurley is a senior sergeant, not a high ranking Queensland Police officer, and other than his involvement in the incident that lead to a death that lead to a riot, is entirely non-notable. He was, rightly or wrongly, found not guilty of the charges against him and given that this is the only thing he is notable for, we should show some common decency and remove the article. Note that the notableevents involved are covered elsewhere. Mattinbgn\^talk 06:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom, some serious WP:BLP issues here. Cover the event, not the person. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Suggest rolling information in to 2004 Palm Island death in custody, and keep a redirect to the article for Chris Hurley. Timeshift (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge viable material and redirect per Timeshift. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The event is covered in detail in 2004 Palm Island death in custody. Hurley does not warrant a separate article; his involvement is WP:ONEEVENT. There are also serious POV issues in the current article. WWGB (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cover the event, not the person. Should the article be protected from recreation like with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Sanoussi? Andjam (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - not biographical, or encyclopedic, in content. Reads like an attack page. All relevant information is in 2004 Palm Island death in custody. - RD ^(Talk) 09:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per BLP1E and if any of the information is relevant, add it to the other article. Orderinchaos 09:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect, a classic BLP1E case, although I'm not sure why the nominator thinks it should not be redirected to 2004_Palm_Island_death_in_custody, which is the one event that Hurley is notable for. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Because if there is a redirect then my understanding is that any search for Hurley would point to the Palm Island riot article, which is an improvement on the current situation but still ties the Chris Hurley page to the one event. Maybe this is unavoidable but I don't see why it must happen. I would rather leave the page as a redlink. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Chris Hurley may have originally risen to public notoriety on the basis of just that one single event, but his fame has grown beyond that to include award winning essays & a whole book discussing Hurley's life and police service in Queensland Aboriginal communities (see here & here) .. in what his biographer Chloe Hooper described at a Melbourne writers festival as "a modern morality tale about white and black Australia" (refer here). Perhaps article should be tidied up/ rewritten a little, but otherwise kept Bruceanthro (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that WP:ONEEVENT especially cover the event, not the person, precludes a redirect to the Palm Island article. I haven't had a chance to look at the sources provided above by Bruceanthro but there may be enough to pass notability aside from the riot. StarM 15:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is exactly the type of article that we have the WP:BLP#1E provision for. That perhaps the press has now taken a minor interest in things about him that otherwise would pass unnoticed (per the links provided by Bruceanthro) is not significant. Almost any figure who is captured in the media spotlight gets sort of attention to their daily life - Peripitus (Talk) 20:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the time has passed. The main article is enough, Phenss (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - salting the page. considering the redirect looking at article traffic stats[23] this month so far 260 odd times with a 20%(51 hits) of the traffic in the one day since the commencement of this discussion, other months have between 110[24]-280[25] hits per month with those figures I dont see a need for the redirect given that it raises WP:BLP concerns as Hurley was found not guilty in relation to the 2004 Palm Island death in custody, though maybe a redirect to Queensland Police as he is/was QLD police officer. Gnan garra 07:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person has become famous in Queensland as a result of his involvement in the death of Doomadgee. His trial for manslaughter was a highly publicized one, and the findings of the Coroner and decisions by lawyers leading up to to his trial also received a lot of attention and attracted a lot of controversy. I'm afraid all of this is a separate, albeit related one to the palm island riots. The Coroner's findings, as well as those of the DPP and Lawrence Street and his trial were not a part of the riots themselves. Apollo1986User_talk:Apollo1986 —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - if the article has POV issues, then we should fix it up if we truly are to keep Wikipedia a cooperative community. Hurley is definitely notable in the media and just about all the statements in that article are referenced. If you need positive references to balance it, then fine and good, but to just delete the article is purely laziness (and in effect an exercise in censorship). Bad things happen and just because they are doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't cover it. BLP1E is just an excuse to indulge in lazy editing too, so there is no good justification in quoting it as a reason to delete. INTGAFW (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BLP1E is Wikipedia policy and balance in an article is not a simple matter of having 50% positive content to balance the 50% negative. The existence of this article, in any shape, reflects negatively on a non-public person who has been not been found guilty of any charge. As for enforcing BLP being "pure laziness"—pure laziness is refusing to enforce core Wikipedia policy. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "core policy" - it's a pathetic excuse for paranoid management here who don't want to be sued for defamation and is a policy that was never agreed to by the majority of users and is just another excuse for the deletionists to flourish. It's absolute censorship if you delete this article (and especially so if you delete the redirect) and shows how much this thing is going downhill. You can find all those articles in the media articles that are linked, so you're not going to stop the information being developed. So fix it up so at least Wikipedia can be seen to have a good and balanced article on this. INTGAFW (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you retire from Wikipedia? WWGB (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)How is it censorship? No-one is stopping you writing whatever you want on the topic, just not here. It is not censorship to enforce BLP1E any more than it is censorship to enforce WP:OR by deleting non-complying content, another core policy (not sure if you class that policy as "pathetic" and "a joke" as well). WP:BLP is about more than just our legal obligations that you so blithely wish to throw out the window, it is also about our moral responsibility to treat those people we write about with dignity and respect. Given that all relevant content in this article is better placed elsewhere, the only reason for this article's existence (and the redirect if it is retained) is to tie a non-public person to the death of another person, for which he was tried and found not guilty? Why should a person, having not been found guilty of any crime and having stayed away from the public eye—both during and after the trial—have activist editors using Wikipedia as their soapbox continue to try and cast aspersions on him and why should Wikipedia allow itself to be used like that? If you want to go elsewhere and write whatever you like about the subject elsewhere, bearing the consequences of your actions yourself, be my guest. If the newspapers wish to print whatever on the topic, fine. None of that means that BLP1E should not be enforced here. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable! while Chris Hurley may (?) wish to fade into obscurity, out of the public eye, ... the fact remains that he has had a third party, in depth biographical material published about him (see previouos comment) .. .. estabishing him as a likely and historically enduring notable person in both Palm Island and Queensland history of police - Aboriginal relations ... WP:BIO notability criteria is satisfied, and future Wikipedia users researching Queensland history ought legitimately expect and find article on Chris Hurley on Wikipedia!! Bruceanthro (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Matilda ^talk 00:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if we deleted every artical that someone doesn't like or feels that it is a POV page, then we would have no pages left. All this page needs is a small reword....not everyone will be happy but that is not what Wiki is about. Chris Hurley is a part of Queensland history now and people need to know that. Oh and if Chris Hurley in NOT notable...then how can Ty Williams, Ben Harris, Carl Webb etc be notable when they are only known for one thing....playing for the Cowboys. Thuringowacityrep (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Matt's nomination and comments. Sarah 09:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2004 Palm Island death in custody per WP:BLP1E. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 2 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 Speedy delete, CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Pi Beta[edit]

Typical single-chapter fraternity, non-notable. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:38, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Resonance Theory[edit]

This article is at best a hoax, or nonsense masquerading as science. It may be a rant from a psychotic person. In any case, the references relied on do not support the text, and I cannot verify this theory any other way. Richard Cavell (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing more than pseudoscience. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and fails WP:NOTE. Perhaps it could be moved to the user's space instead, and they can work on it there to address these problems. It is currently a single edit. Verbal chat 12:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is unapologetically original research. The last paragraph says it all:

The basic experiments of this Theory has already been duplicated successfully in the Energetic Forum and are currently undergoing more intensive research. The effect of such open circuit has already been proved in the forum, further experiments are being done and results will be posted here.

--siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research pseudoscience that tries to usurp a string of words that occasionally turns up in science. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pseudoscience by non-expert. A non-notable theory apparently made up by an aficionado to explain to explain how his perpetual motion / free energy machine works. (if it was actually notable by WP:N standards then it would merit inclusion somewhere) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. No scientific basis to support the theory. Salih (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a lot of words there, and unreliable sources, and never the understanding shall be reached. Shot info (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (NOT Delete),

My appologies: I did not realize Wikipedia is only meant for reading and writing to by 'Qualified Scientists'.

Searches all over internet fails to yield results for 'Dynamic Resonance' except for an article in relation to such phenomena in biological cells - and eventhere it is called 'crazy'. YET: all the universe consist of this vibration/resoance/occilation. Therefore the "Dynamic Resonance Theory" does NOT step on any toes and does not exist in either the exact description nor claims until this posting.

NEVER and nowhere did I call for or refer to perpetual motion machine - this is not a machine, it is a very plain electronic circuit of which I would like to post the diagram, but can not find out how to add such thing.

I have added more information and reference. Unfortunately - and probably because this is not a 'normal proven well written scientific concept' there are not many possible references I can use. The current phenomena is based on unique ability of the 2N2222 Transistor and the rest of the electronic circuit which I would like to post if someone can explain to me how to add such JPG photo.

Thus gents, should you wish to delete, it is your option - but there is a void in your information with nothing else to replace 'Dynamic Resonance Theory' Corrie Lamprecht (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that a youtube video is proof of anything? #http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLmK6uBi9PA Look! I proved someone can blow fire out their ears! Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who said "Perpetual motion machine". I was referring to the fact that any circuit that can give a perpetual source of free energy can be used to power a perpetual motion machine, even if the theory itself is not about perpetual motion. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Junk. Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:21, 1 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 Nomination Withdrawn. The article has changed in a significant manner and the nomination has been withdrawn. The delete voters' concerns should have all been addressed at ths point or are not relevant due to the changed nature of the article. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDA ^duel 03:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States Office of the President-Elect[edit]

This article has been recreated in spite of speedy deletion and application of speedy delete tags, so let's discuss this here. The present article appears to be motivated by a desire to attack president-elect Barack Obama. It is unencyclopedic in tone. There were at least two previous versions of the article, which were not written from a neutral point of view and appeared to me to be much clearer attack on Obama. Perhaps some kind admin can access the text of the previous versions to put this current article in context? I believe that this article is written by an author who cannot be objective about the topic. Richard Cavell (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I withdraw my nomination - the article as it stands now is completely different to the one that I nominated, and all of my concerns have been addressed. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I fixed the attacking wording and referencing. Tell me if it's okay. (NOT creator of article, patroller) ~~Also, shouldn't it be redirected to: Office of the United states President Elect?~~(edit:boldly done) I do agree the article was created as an attack article.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, it was an attack at the beginning. Now it's fairly neutral in content following editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warion7 (talk • contribs)
- You know you just admitted to writing an attack page, right? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - it was written entirely per a foxnews article, of course it was slanted. didn't at the time of first publication realize it couldn't be based entirely on the tonal quality of one external article. current format is much better and encyclopedic. - --Warion7 (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That makes no logical sense, if you can realize now it was an attack page, how could you possibly have not realized earlier, especially since the page was previously deleted. Not to mention you cite actually stated there is a bill that legalizes the office. However, per Wp:AGF, I'm just going to place a reminder warning template on your talk page to remind you to read and make sure the content you are placing up is not an attack page in the future as advice. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Wikipedia's policies on Original Research, Neologisms, and Coatracks. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it gets deleted it gets deleted. I'm new to this, still figuring the ropes out. I have no idea what the policies on neologisms, coatracks, or original research are. nor did i realize before i posted the article as an attack post that they weren't allowed. The article has been modified to state facts only. I think it should stay as there is nothing else pertaining to the subject here. --Warion7 (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the current version fails OR as there is citations and it's fair in my POV, but..ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Can someone file a bugzilla report for me? Sometimes when I click edit, I get a blank page and the message:"you have new messages" even though I don't when I am using the secure server.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete- unless better sources can be found than Michelle Malkin and Fox News. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The government paper cite on the office isn't enough to establish existence?! ~~Also, I'm 100% sure I saw it on Cnn.com a long time ago when the sign first appeared, but I don't have the time to look for it/its probably down anyway.~~ Found NYT article mentioning the office, so regardless of CNN, there is citations.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since the government paper--assuming that we're speaking of the same one--makes no reference at all I can find to any 'United States Office of the President-Elect', no, the paper doesn't establish its existence. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it's gone for one reason or another. interesting process... learned a lot. thanks nojan. i'll probably try it again later. --Warion7 (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Its just been moved. Also, I never said I supported making an attack page, I'm kind of skeptical on even mentioning the criticism/"controversy". I'm only defending the existence of the article on a subject that is notable (the office) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - yeah, found it after the fact. --Warion7 (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the usage of a term in the news media falls under Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. If you had just made a redirect to Presidential transition of Barack Obama nobody would care, but the article is just an attack on the uppity Mr Obama--how dare he conduct business like a white man?! Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have you read the recent *fixed* version? Why would I purposely slander/allow slander of Obama when I consider myself Centrist-Liberal (international definition, see my userpage for political compass test results)?! Or did you mean warion's original usage?ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This appears to be an actual government organisation and is now cited properly. The article could do with much more work, but it's on a valid topic and the content is OK at present. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Following the source cited for the existence of this 'United States Office of the President-Elect' shows no such term anywhere in the Act. In other words, the very title is Original Research. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism, original research, and violates WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based upon current revision, but expand. Neologisms are terms coined on a small scale in a limited venue. Obama has established this office and it has been cited in the mainstream media, not just the NY Times, but CNN, etc. This could also be seen as a precedent-setting measure (though we'll need to wait till 2012 or 2016 to see if the next president adopts it). I don't know what the status of the article was at time of nomination, but as it stands now it's fine. It needs expansion and more sourcing, etc. But the topic is notable enough, and has been covered well enough in mainstream media. Article needs, however, to be renamed Office of the President-Elect to conform with naming standards, if it is kept or a no consensus decision occurs. (Note: at present that form of the title is a redirect to President-Elect). I am curious how accusations that the title of this article is original research; has no one read WP:NOR? It's a prohibition on "new knowledge"; I fail to see how a term established by the upcoming president of the United States (or possibly earlier depending on other third sources) and already used by the media could possibly be considered original research. 23skidoo (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Okay, sure, it started as a bizarre little article that essentially said "This office may not legally exist. Also? This law said it legally exists." So fix the article. It's a real office, has been for years, will be for years. --John Kenneth Fisher (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note:The article was Office of the President-Elect, however I moved it since I felt it should have the country in the name of the article for disambiguity reasons. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Coatrack. An occasionally used office played up by partisan sources. Not much encyclopedic content that is not already covered by Presidential transition. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Presidential transition of Barack Obama, which links from Presidential transition and President-elect. It's certainly a legitimate topic, even if the title is too long to be a useful search term. When people see Mr. Obama standing behind a podium that says "Office of the President-Elect", and they don't recall ever hearing of such an "office" before, it's natural to turn to the internet (and to Wikipedia) to find out when this came about. It's an odd extension of change.gov and, hopefully, something that is never heard from again after January 20, 2009. Mandsford (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that its legal basis going back to 1963, it seems a significant topic in its own right, with potential for expansion to put the main current reason for interest (Obama's transition) into broader context in ways that wouldn't be appropriate in the proposed merge targets.--ragesoss (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in its present form. The original version was POV, and cited out of context even the Fox article, which was not as negative as the article then indicated. But this now has sources over the whole spectrum, including the Huffington Post.DGG (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. has enough sources now and is certainly notable since it's been covered more than once in major national media. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This organization has been around for more than 40 years. The article should, however, be named Office of the President-Elect of the United States as that is what the organization is named. L0b0t (talk) 23:44, 30 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 04:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Sustainable Energy Days[edit]

Delete Article about non-notable conference. Borderline CSD G11 Mayalld (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:22, 20 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, So Why 21:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Tons of ghits. Improving energy efficiency has much to do with communication — Highlights from the World Sustainable Energy Days Conference summarises presentations at the 2008 conference, and I think is enough to establish notability single-handed. With a couple more hits like that, this AfD will be WP:SNOW --Philcha (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WOW, yours is the only !vote recorded, and already you are calling it WP:SNOW. The source doesn't look to establish notability. Mayalld (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: It was so easy to find the example I quoted that I think this AfD is destined to become WP:SNOW. Note that WP:DELETE says improvement is always preferred to deletion. How long do you think it would take you to improve the article to the point of unquestioned notability? --Philcha (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, of course... sigh, this one is obvious. In fact, I think that there should be a separate entry for the Energiesparmesse as well. How come the nominator thought that this could possibly be non-notable?? Most ridiculous nomination I've read here in ages. Tris2000 (talk) 11:30, 24 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 04:53, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Team Bangladesh[edit]

Notability of this organization is in question. I cannot find Reliable sources that back up the notability of this youth organization. Mentions in google usually refers to sports teams from Bangladesh or "team(punctuation) Bangladesh". I think that we can't dabify this as "Team X" like Team America since this phrase is not part of any sports teams from Bangladesh. Lenticel ^(talk) 04:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did not assert notability per WP:ORG even before the copyvio/WP:SOAPBOX was removed. Its generic name brings up many false positives on Google searches. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy: Non notable. Current one-liner satisfies CSD, so let's speedy-delete the page. --Ragib (talk) 18:49, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ossoble Adde[edit]

Same creator as Abukar Omarsson below with same problem, unsourced with great claims to notability but trying to sources leads to it appearing to be a hoax parading as a valid article. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some other guy (or him) under the same name exists, per a Google Book search. Oddly enough though, very few Wikipages link to it which makes me question its verifiability. DARTH PANDA ^duel 12:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 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) 00:26, 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 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage found in reliable sources means there's nothing in this article that can be verified. Raven1977 (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WoodyRimShot[edit]

Putting videos of oneself on YouTube is not an instant ticket to celebrity, let alone Wikipedia notability. Fails WP:RS and WP:BIO. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not established by self promotion and youtube videos. But it can lead to notablity later on I suppose...ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with and respect Ecoleetage and Childofmidnight’s opinions here as I too was unable to find any sources on Google News, Google Books, or Google Scholar and I even tried some alternate variations of the subject’s name. I also note that even though the article has a section of media response, it is presently unreferenced. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable autobiography. --Lockley (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: No chance of this passing WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Body jibbing[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - made up one day, unverifiable, no reliable sources, unencyclopedic in tone. I'm going to propose speedy criterion G13: Some kid writing about stuff that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. Only found in the Wikipedia article. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 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 speedy delete. (G4), current version has even less info than previously deleted entry. Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Instinct 3[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a very short article on a video game sequel that may never exist. The article has no information from reliable sources, and the existence of the rumour of the sequel is unverifiable. Richard Cavell (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverified rumour? Nope, it doesn't belong here. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — textbook example of unverifiable crystalballery. Possibly also a hoax. MuZemike (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Wasn't this already deleted? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to speedy delete (G4) for blatant recreation of deleted material. If there was nothing on this then and nothing now (which was exactly why this was deleted the first time around), nothing has changed. MuZemike (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ziizen[edit]

I cannot verify the existence of any 'Zii' religion. The text is very poorly written, and orphaned from other articles. It appears to describe mythology without using reliable sources. The entire article may be a hoax. Richard Cavell (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to assume notability or reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax / utter nonsense. --Lockley (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eldar Ikanović[edit]

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition. Swiss second division is not fully pro according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He's on the second tier of the Swiss League; no other evidence of notability. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 19:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Jogurney (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:55, 1 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Mei Long[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/Rapiéçage. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Magioladitis (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Magioladitis (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comment for other, but Move Masō Kishin to Super Robot Taisen Gaiden: Masō Kishin - The Lord Of Elemental. It's full game[26], though the setting expand beyond that one title. So it may need some heavy rewrite, but worth to keep nonetheless. L-Zwei (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing here really referring to the game and do you think this game is notable? Do you know the release day at least and if any site/magasine reviewed it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SIGH* I already include link to Gamefaqs, but fine, it's Japanese-only game released in 03/22/96. How much it's notable? As much as Fire Emblem: Thracia 776. Sure, the article is barely refer to the game, but this is pretty much ignorant of authors. Note that heading suggest that the article coverage only mecha, yet there is pretty large section for characters. It just need to change direction to be article about game instead of plot. L-Zwei (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a suitable list of characters--preserving most of the content. This deals with the problem of notability, since we have no greed upon notability standard for fictional characters. As for the rest, the dame is a sufficient source for the description, this is nowhere near the detail of a gameguide, recording the obvious is not OR, and there is very little plot summary, just enough for background -- and Ring Mao contains none at all. This answers every reason proposed here for deletion. Additionally, the group nomination is incorrect, as not all the reasons apply to all the articles. Besides that not all of them have and plot at all, Masō Kishin is already a combination article, not one ofn a single character. DGG (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the whole thing (or create a redirect and protect...). How many such articles have been brought or still remain to be brought to AfDs? None of the in-universe stuff is particularly notable or sourced. Isn't there a Super Robot Wars wikiproject to take care of the merging/restructuring cleanup of all this to follow the guidelines?--Boffob (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all exactly for the same reason all the other Super robots elements were deleted.I hope this is the last bunch of them. -- nips (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as WP:GAMECRUFT. Just be thankful that we're not going through all the Pokemon articles instead. Marasmusine (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: we have an agreed upon standard for inclusion, and it's WP:N. Articles like this, which are not covered by reliable third-party sources, can't meet this guideline no matter how much they are improved. Merging non-notable articles together does not create a notable article, at least not in this case. Randomran (talk) 18:01, 30 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. inclement weather (non-admin closure) _David ^WS _(contribs) 20:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon_Pulsifer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

the person is not notable. just an active contributor. But his name can't be included in an encyclopedia Karthika.kerala (talk)

Keep, surprisingly. It does not matter if we think he deserves the fame, but he did receive significant in-depth and detailed coverage in conventional newsmedia. Passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:N and WP:BIO - it's a little bit creepy, but he has been the subject of in-depth coverage in reliable, third party sources, notably Time Magazine and smaller mentions in USA Today and... urm... the Ottawa Citizen. – Toon ^(talk) 02:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I'm not sure if "notability isn't voluntary" is in the guidelines, but it probably should be. And he's notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passed WP:RS and WP:BIO. Yeah, he is notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Barely notable, but meets criteria. Majoreditor (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No new reason has been presented for why the subject is not notable, in spite of two previous AFDs. The sources on the person indicate that he does pass WP:BIO and WP:N. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - within wikipedia, he's just another one of us, but he has extensive media coverage. He easily passes the notability standard. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether or not he is famous or important has nothing to do with the fact that he has been noted in many RS, thus notable, and meet Core content policies DoubleBlue (talk) 16:53, 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 no consensus. This is an unusual debate, because at heart it is not about eliminating material from the encyclopedia, but about how to organize certain material. The weight of community opinion in this debate is substantially against this structure. Since this is fundamentally a question of how best to present the material, it is one that I feel is up to consensus to a degree. But this debate is flawed, because WP:AFD is not the place to have debates about content; it's the place to have debates about whether to force deletion of articles, typically over objections of the editors that work on them. Just as AfD is categorically the wrong place for discussions to delete sections or articles or to discuss rewrites of them, it is the wrong place for what I see as the debate that needs to happen.

I suggest that this be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Mango juice^talk 21:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 29 in rail transport[edit]

A random list of unconnected events: The only thing in common is that they both took place on July 29 on rails. See WP:TRIVIA. Tavix (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following lists for the same reason.

Page break for discussion[edit]

NOTE: Don't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to keep it. I am using this AfD to achieve a consensus on these lists only. Tavix (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be a better place to place this information. If not, delete. MuZemike (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yeah, and if someone insists that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a valid argument for keeping, I would strongly look to AFD the articles they mention, as well if they want to play that game. MuZemike (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you, if someone thinks they want to keep this article just because there are other (date) in rail transports, I'll just nominate the whole lot. Tavix (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It isn't even worth a category, let alone a list page.--Dacium (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is not only Category:July in rail transport, it groups up to Category:Anniversaries in rail transport with subcategories for the other eleven months. On top of that there's Portal:Trains/Anniversaries which was maintained by Slambo but nothing has happened to it since 2006. I agree with MuZemike that there has to a better place for some of this railway ephemera. Merge all relevant WP:RS items to Timeline of railway history, Timeline of rail transport, Timeline of railroads and Timeline of railways. However, I question the need for all four of these and suggest that they be rationalised to one. If the one Timeline that results is too large, then country-specific timelines could be done with a single "highlights" one that covers the significant events like Stephenson's Rocket and the completion of the Trans-American line.

I realise that I'm in danger of treading into WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but the remainder of the events, such as the birth of the chief mechanical engineer cited in the July 29 article, seem to be only remotely related to the purpose of the articles and are bordering on WP:fancruft. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorting such events by year makes historical sense, since that bundles together things which are chronologically close in time, and the year things happen is far more relevant to history than the exact date. But this article elevates the date to greater importance than the year, and as a consequence, the entries on the list are only loosely associated. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. Per Slambo's vote a few lines below, I have no objection to putting these at portal talk or similar. If these pages have a useful function for setting up the daily "this day in rail transport" on the portal page then that is a Good Thing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sjakkalle. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also per Sjakkale: Moving into a different namespace would work for me. Otherwise delete the whole lot. There is no July 29 in physics or July 29 in music either, and that's for the same reason that these articles need to be deleted. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, horrendously arbitrary and narrow topic. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am far from convinced of the merits of having this (and potentially 365 - including 29 February) similar articles. Their sole function is to enable people to determine what a given day is the anniversary of. However, is the nominator willing to bring forward AFDs on the whole tree, and CFDs on the monthly categories? If not, this must be a procedural keep, as ther is no point in deleting one article out of a series of this kind. I would guess there are 150 articles in the category tree already, and no doubt more arriving as I write. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yes, I am willing to nominatate all of them, I just picked out a random one to pick out a consensus first. I didn't do it all right away because I don't want to waste time nominating all of them only to have them kept. Tavix (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this, and similar list articles, for all days and major subjects where there are more than 1 or 2 things to say. They are very useful for browsing, which is one of the key functions of an encyclopedia, and for a list, usefulness is a key criterion. The events are all significant, though it would be helpful to have an explicit criterion for this. Fowler was an very significant designer, well worth including, but that;s a content question for the talk page. DGG (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Is this really major subject? Please note that this is the only category of anniversary articles. Another thing is how would you set up an exploit criteria? It's just a bunch of things related to rail transport on some random date, here it's July 29. Tavix (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The items listed on this page are basically an archive of events that can be included on Portal:Trains/Anniversaries/July 29. The rest of the DAY in rail transport articles are also used in a similar fashion. Just because I haven't gotten back to this specific page since 2006 is not a valid reason for deletion. If deletion is the result, I would ask for time to copy relevant information to the appropriate portal talk pages (Portal talk:Trains/Anniversaries/July 29 in this case) so events can be switched out of the portal content periodically. Slambo (Speak) 17:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- further comment as noted by others below; OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is sometimes used as an argument for deletion, so if we can't use it as an argument for retention, we can't use it as an argument for deletion. I repeat my request for time (perhaps a week) if deletion is chosen to copy relevant data to the appropriate portal talk pages. Slambo (Speak) 15:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Slambo. WP:USEFUL isn't an "argument to avoid", as some people claim; it's our primary purpose. If a page is sourced, verifiable, non-disruptive, has no BLP concerns and is potentially useful to someone there is no reason to delete it. – iride scent 17:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Then if WP:USEFUL isn't an argument to avoid, then why is it listed under the "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". Being useful is not a reason to keep it, as stated in WP:USEFUL. Tavix (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arguments to avoid (including WP:USEFUL) is not any kind of guideline, let alone a policy, but a personal essay by User:Daduzi representing his personal opinion (hence the large "this is only an essay" banner at the top). He is entitled to his opinion; I am entitled to mine. – iride scent 17:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Tavix (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR, as non-encyclopedic cross-categorization.--Boffob (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essentially useless. There's nothing relevant about the fact that two events happened on the same day but in different years. There's also an issue of events not having one specific day. For instance, the Buffalo and Erie Railroad was incorporated:

Under special act of New York and general laws of Pennsylvania through articles of consolidation; dated May 15, 1867; filed in New York June 27, 1867; Pennsylvania June 28, 1867. [ICC valuation]

It doesn't seem right to include it in all these dates (and two states is by no means a maximum), but if it's relevant that one of these actions happened on a specific day of the year, it's relevant to all. It should also be noted that most sources will only give one of these dates, sometimes not the same one. (In this case I'd say "June 1867" for the date of merger in an article, but that can't be done on these pages.)

These are also a maintenance headache. When I create a disambiguation page, sometimes I come across links from these pages. I have been ignoring them while fixing other links, but I technically shouldn't be doing that. --NE2 17:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTPAPER Agathoclea (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, just to let you know, it says this in WP:NOTPAPER. "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion." You are free to interpret this another way, but I think that means you are not allowed to use that as a keep argument. Tavix (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deleting sourced material that is as another user put it "On This Day type comparison is a common feature of historical and contemporary works, in any connected field of interest" encyclical is contrary to the idea that set up wikipedia in the first place. If not disruptive. Agathoclea (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Unlike summaries of what happened in a particular year (such as 1908 in rail transport) this is an odd article that, as it says, "lists anniversary events" that nobody is celebrating. If someone feels that strongly about organizing information this way, they can add a section to the existing article July 29. I agree that this format is essentially useless, and I think that it trivializes even important events. Mandsford (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It adds nothing to the encyclopedia. It contravenes WP:NOTDIR. Ludgate (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - we ought to have a better way of arguing about all these date articles than sending random date articles through AfD. Wikipedia is made stronger by these sorts of articles. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its called Articles for Deletion, and these are articles. What is wrong with this? It isn't random either. Please tell me how it is. Also, I don't see how this makes Wikipedia stronger as it breaks MOS code through WP:TRIVIA. You must explain yourself more thoroughly because I don't see what your saying. Tavix (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to their respective pages on their respective dates. I.e. moving the stuff under July 29 in rail transport to just July 29. The information is notable enough to be kept, but the articles are useless and a waste of time, bandwidth, space, and memory to have their own separate, specialised, articles for them. Kortaggio (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, should the rationale for deletion be applied to the years in rail transport? Like this article? Kortaggio (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Things that happen in the same year are more closely related. But this doesn't apply to births and deaths, so 1797 in rail transport shouldn't necessarily exist, but 1897 in rail transport seems fine (I'd still remove births and deaths though, and maybe impose a limit on how important something has to be, since including every minor incorporation and opening will produce hundreds if not thousands of items). --NE2 01:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed 100%. Hundreds upon thousands of lists of minor trivia don't work really well. Tavix (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you see my vote, (high up in the debate) you will see that I support keeping the articles sorting the events by year. A list of events by year are not loosely associated, because they are tied together by occurring at roughly the same time. The year lists can therefore aid a reader by keeping the various events which have happened in the history of rail transport in historical context and order. I feel that benefit is not present in the case of the date list. Timelines are often found in encyclopedias in some form or another, and if someone wanted to make a long treatise on the history of railways, then taking the events in chronological order, year by year, makes sense. Discussing things by date, and jumping from year to year, does not have the same appeal. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator makes a big fuss of people should not be using other stuff arguments, and then makes references to the fact this is the only day anniversary category, as if no other stuff is any more of a bad argument than other stuff. I had no clue why Slambo might have thought these were not trivia, so I'm glad he turned up at the Afd without being asked, because the nominator certainly didn't appear to ask him why they might exist before passing, and then doggedly defending, his personal judgment of what is and is not trivial in this world. As we see, this content is used in a portal. As we are also surely all aware, On This Day type comparison is a common feature of historical and contemporary works, in any connected field of interest. I would hate to see outside journalists and publishers deprived of such a brilliant source of information. Changing these into lists by year misses the whole point by a mile I would have thought, nobody looking at these articles is looking for things close together on the linear timeline. MickMacNee (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About other stuff exists, I don't like it at all. I don't see why you would get so upset at me specifically noting not to use it. Otherwise, I was afraid someone would try to keep the July 29 article because there is, for example, a July 31. (This was before I nominated all of them). About Slambo not being asked, since when does everyone have to be asked to come here? Everyone is automatically welcome to input their suggestions here, so I don't have to ask anyone to come here. If you have anything else to say to me specifically, please use my talk page. This is an AfD, it is not to be used to flame other users. Please remember to use good faith as I am trying to work on it myself. Tavix (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't get the analogy, no problem. Anyway, everybody knows that asking Slambo why he thought this was not trivia was not required by policy but would have been a sensible move anyway, just to be sure they weren't on a total ego trip. You were lazy enough to not bother nominating all articles at once 'just in case', so don't even pretend you had any interest in mind but your own. If you think this sleight on your character belongs on your talk page rather than here, tough. MickMacNee (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. These article are not useful for organizing or navigation, as lists of events in years or decades might be.Edison (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to some objections. In general, it does seem to me even easier to justify Events in Subject during Year, than Events in Subject on Day of the Month. There is a true connection between the items with Year--knowing the railways incorporated at a particular year indicates something. It is valuable both for study and browsing, while Day is valuable only for browsing on constructing "this day in..." tidbits, But people find such tidbits interesting, & we even put a list each day on the WP Main Page! That should settle the issue of the general view of whether browsing is enough justification for a list. In any case, there have to be items to include in a list . For Rail transport by Day of the Month there is (and considering the number of railroads, there should always be). As for what date of incorporation to use, what do we use generally in articles when there are multiple dates? I think it most logical to use the earliest one, for finding early ones is usually what people think more interesting, but if there's another standard, we can use whatever it is. We do need some guidelines here, and the people interested can work on them. It seems absurd to delete an article because some of the data that would go in it is imprecisely defined. And what's wrong with having 366 articles? objections based on the number of potential articles are NOT PAPER. As to whether its a sufficiently broad subject to be worth the trouble, considering the great number of rail-related articles here, this seems a good place to do. on that basis, I'd suggest football as the next field to get this full treatment. Browsing is a major valid use of an encyclopedia or other reference book. Our lists and categories should facilitate this every bit as much as purposeful navigatiotion DGG (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note WP:INTERESTING isn't generally a good reason for keeping an article. The reason that Wikipedia puts a this day in.. on the main page is different from keeping this day in rail transport because it contains material on a broad range of topics, not just narrowed down to rail transport which, in the least, is much narrower focus and harder to achieve noteworthy events on every day of the year. "And what's wrong with having 366 articles?" First of all, its not 366, more like 200. Whats wrong with have 4,000,000 articles on every event that happened this day in every topic you can think of. If we allow these kind of articles to stay, we open the door for possibly limitless trivia articles that would be impossible to maintain. Tavix (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, why are you excluding other stuff arguments, while simultaneously using other stuff arguments to back up your own argument? If x then y has always been a total nonsense of an argument. MickMacNee (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Procedural Keep Although nominator has included the entire set of articles, only the ~~July 29th article and those~~articles chronologically between January 1 and ~~February 22~~June 30 have been tagged with the notice that they are being considered for deletion. Mlaffs (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look again. Tavix (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have done so. All due respect, when it's appropriate to strike my comment, I'll do it myself. In the meantime, I'm happy to refactor it to reflect the newer state of affairs. Mlaffs (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons why I'm striking your comment. One is that it is factually inaccurate and second is that there are no policies stating that an article can be kept because a little template isn't in place. Tavix (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three reasons why it was completely inappropriate for you to strike my comment. First, it was completely and factually accurate when I made the comment. It only became inaccurate because you acted on the issue that it raised, almost two days after the initial listing, and a day-and-a-half after adding all the other articles to the listing. Second, the deletion guidelines specify that all portions of the process must be followed, and that's regardless of whether it's a single or a multiple nomination. There have certainly been other instances where deletion discussions were closed because the nomination process was not followed correctly - that's why I said Procedural keep. Now that you've addressed that issue, you should have no concern that this should happen in this instance - you're welcome.

Those two reasons make your comment above factually inaccurate and so, by your logic, I should be striking it. I'm not going to though because, third, and most important, the Guide to deletion states quite clearly "Do not remove or modify other people's comments even if you believe them to be in bad faith — unless the user has been banned from editing the relevant pages, is making a blatantly offensive personal attack or a defamatory commment about a living person." None of those three conditions exist in this situation. Once again, when it's appropriate to strike my comment, as it now would have been, I'll do it myself. Even if I didn't, I'd trust the closing administrator would have sufficient judgment to note that the problem has now been addressed and to weigh the comment accordingly. Either way, the last thing you should be doing is changing my, or any other user's, comments in any way - it's exceedingly poor form. Mlaffs (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, where was the policy for the keep comment? Tavix (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could point you to WP:BUNDLE, which outlines the steps that you're required to follow to list multiple related pages for deletion. Or I could point you to WP:DRV, which indicates that failing to tag a page for its deletion discussion could be considered a substantial procedural error that might justify overturning a completed deletion. Mlaffs (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ (see below) to History of rail transport This is very valuable information and I'm sure there is some place for it on Wikipedia, but this isn't the format for it. Listing notable rail events by day is extremely clumsy... some sort of a timeline would be a much better application of this material. I say delete due to the fact that none of the individual articles exhibits any notability. Putting the information into History of rail transport is an excellent idea, and I think several articles could be successfully spun-out regarding the history of rail transport during different periods of railroading. Themfromspace (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, all the events are already on articles like 1840 in rail transport, so there's no need to merge. --NE2 04:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm... that's better than this format but I was thinking more in the style of the History of rail transport article. If all this information is already included in the decade-format articles than these should be deleted. Themfromspace (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - History of rail transport would be really big if we put every incorporation, opening, etc. in it. User:NE2/valuations lists (more or less) all the common-carrier steam railroads that existed in 1918, and some of those have many predecessors. --NE2 07:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete A random list of anniversaries in rail transport events has no meaning. Unless the events were notable in some way or have a celebration of them or are observed by some group, lists like these just clogg up limited server space.Gilgamesh007 (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP This is nothing more than a case of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT, plain and simple. ----DanTD (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think that the keep arguments are more of a case of WP:ILIKEIT. I haven't seen any policy argument made in favor of a keep, and the decision has to be made based on policy. Unlike existing lists of what happened during a particular year in rail transport, where one looks at a development in the context of history, there is no point to arranging information by a day of the year. I can cite several policy grounds against it. Wikipedia is not a directory (in this case, it's not a directory of what rail transport events happened to take place on November 29 and which ones took place on November 30). Then there is trivia: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." Finally, there's "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and that what each of these articles is-- a list of unrelated events that happened to occur on "July 29" or "January 1". Using the July 29 article as an example, we have (1) a train station opens in Los Angeles (2) construction is finished on particular route (3) rail traffic is suspended (4) a directive is adopted. There are plenty of policies against this group of articles; on the other hand, the only policy I've seen mentioned in favor of keeping is "this is not a paper encyclopedia". Mandsford (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember to use good faith. This was a good faith nomination because I thought it didn't meet policy. You, on the other hand, bash me for this decision and use no policy of why this should be kept. Thanks for the backup, Mandsford. Tavix (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I think most of us are in agreement with the nomination and the policies cited. And I'm glad that this was brought up for a consensus discussion. Mandsford (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apolgize if I seem a little hostile towards this nomination, but this isn't an issue of my favorite Pokemon being better than yours, or vice versa. We're dealing with daily anniversaries on a specific subject. Slambo and NE2 already explained why deleting and merging them would be wrong. ----DanTD (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Deleting and merging would be wrong because of WP:delete and merge. Merging would be wrong because the content already exists. Deleting would be just fine. --NE2 07:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself already gave a good reason why articles like 1797 in rail transport shouldn't exist. All you have is the birth of two people who played a role in the growth of the railroad industry, one of which has an exact birthday, which is fine for July 29 in rail transport. And what is wrong with wanting to know the exact day the Golden spike was used to mark the completion of the First Transcontinental Railroad, and other railroad-related events that happened on the same day? ----DanTD (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to know what day the Golden spike was laid down, you can use the Golden spike article and it would give you way more information than the May 10th article, plus you wouldn't know what article to look for if you didn't already know the date. That is what is wrong with it. Tavix (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's all well and good, but it doesn't do much for other RR events on the same day. ----DanTD (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Tavix (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there were any on the same day, they should be listed in 1869 in rail transport. But there's only one entry for May 10 there, and only one for 1869 on May 10 in rail transport. There are others that happened on the same month and day of the month but a different year, but that's trivia and is not worth keeping given the need for maintenance. --NE2 21:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Apart from the original article listed, none of the other articles were listed originally. I was in a neutral mind about July 29, but see the listing of other articles days after the original AfD as an abuse of the AfD process. It does not allow the full timetable for discussion, but shortens it considerably.

The other articles are the exact same type as the original article. There is nothing different about the other articles policy wise than the other one. You come from no position to keep the articles as you list no policy, but just blame it on my slight tardiness to get the rest nominated. That, my friend, is not a good thing to do as this was a good faith nomination and you think that you can get it kept because I was in error of nominating? How rude. Tavix (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is rude about that? All I'm asking is that the full amount of time is allowed for discussion. Using your example, an editor could nominate an article, and come the end of the five days, add a load more articles just before closing as "delete". You're not going to tell me that that is a correct use of the AfD procedure, are you? Mjroots (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't 5 days, it was approx. 15 hours. You will still get the full 5 days to discuss. It is rude to suggest that an article can be kept for the reasons you suggest. Instead, aim to keep an article based on policies that has be set forth for articles. Yes, I will tell you it's correct, there is no reason to suggest otherwise. Tavix (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

01:50 to 22:07 is not 15 hours. I still say it is bad form to add in other articles after the discussion has been started. Editors who have commented on the basis of one article may be unaware that others are now included. All should be listed together at the start of the discussion, or a new discussion started for new articles. Mjroots (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles really are the same - you comment on one, you comment on them all. It's not like 1797 in rail transport vs. 1897 in rail transport. --NE2 22:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply for Mjroots That is why I said approx., I'm not in the mood to go back and get an exact time the other ones went up. I was busy that day (it was thanksgiving) and so I put the rest up when I had the time. 21 hours really doesn't make that big of a deal in the 5 days it takes for an AfD to go though. If you really think the editors who commented on this AfD will change their mind, why don't you BE BOLD and send them a little message. I'm sure none of them would change their minds. Tavix (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with Tavix here. Although I think they should all be kept, I can't imagine a decision to delete some of the pages but keep others, or that someone with an interest in one of the pages wouldn't be interested in the others. All a "procedural keep" would accomplish would be to mean having an identical debate in a couple of days time. Credit us admins with some sense occasionally; if the closing admin has any doubts, I'm sure they'll have enough sense to leave the debate open for an extra couple of days so every article has been listed for the full five days. – iride scent 02:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And although I don't understand how these articles are useful (not a policy btw), thank you for your agreement, it means a lot to me after trying to argue with so many people with their little antics. Tavix (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:TRIVIA clearly states that it is not a reason for removal or addition of information, just how to present it. If there is no other way to present valid and sourced information, lists are perfectly acceptable. Thus you cannot argue any nomination for deletion based on it. WP:NOTDIR does not apply to these articles, as none of it aims to forbid such lists as those proposed for deletion here. The arguments brought forth for deletion are mostly variations of "I don't like such lists", paired with vague-waving at some shortcuts that do not really apply to those articles but sound good to the casual observer. With no real policy-backed reasons to delete them, keeping is to be preferred. Regards So Why 09:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The information is already presented, for instance on 1897 in rail transport. --NE2 09:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that SoWhy quoted from the trivia policy. As NE2 notes, this is not a case of there being "no other way" to present the information, since each of these items is presented in the best possible form, as part of the year-by-year articles. Looking at the article for December 3, I would say that it is significant that the 20th Century Unlimited last ran in 1967, and hasn't run since. On the other hand, that the train's last run happened to be on the 3rd of December, rather than the 3rd of August, really is trivia. By now, you've seen all the reasons that we cite for having this type of article deleted, and you disagree on our take on policy, I get that. But I'll pose the question to you (SoWhy) -- what purpose do you see for having 366 articles on "this day in history" in any subject-- wars, politics, football, television, etc.? (I would add that the rail transport project stands alone in this type of specialized lists of anniversaries). We don't have anything against railroads, but the rest of us feel strongly enough about this type of presentation that the subject will likely come up again, whether for this or any similar new day-by-day projects. Mandsford (talk) 18:27, 2 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 keep. John254 04:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus Ministries[edit]

Non-notable church, only source is to the church itself. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted, this should redirect to Exodus International, since some sources I'm looking at call Exodus International by this name (Exodus Ministries). But in searching I am finding sources about this Exodus Ministries from the Dallas Morning News, Boston Globe and Charlotte Observer.[27] I haven't assessed if they're enough to meet WP:N/WP:ORG/common sense standard of what kind of sources is needed for an article, but it's a start. --Rividian (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I, too, will be looking for sources for this. Please don't close early if I haven't !voted. Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's basically two claims to notability here: First, the Harriet Miers appointment controversy generated a lot of national press back in 2005. I've linked Washington Post and Christian Science Monitor, but there's also CNN and USA today coverage if anyone wants to add it. I didn't, because it really doesn't deal with Exodus Ministries as anything more than "Not Exodus International." Second, there's local charitable notability, which I got from the local bar association supporting it, and coverage in the Dallas Morning News. Overall, I'd say these two together meet the GNG, but not by much. Jclemens (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per sources in the article now... it's not hefty coverage, but it might be enough. --Rividian (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- Contrary to nom, this is NOT a church, but a rehabiliation work. I would suggest that it is cannot be kept, it should be merged with Dallas (where it operates). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cezar Lungu[edit]

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he competes at the highest level of soccer in Romania, in a fully profession and highly successful team. Juzhong (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Lots of coverage in Google search. Delete no evidence he's played in the highest grade. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Google hits do not make someone notable. --Jimbo^[online] 02:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Juzhong (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence in article that he has played a match yet, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 01:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while the Romanian top division is a fully professional league, the club's website indicates that he has played no first team games for them (or anyone else for that matter) - so he doesn't compete at the highest level yet. Other sources back this up: http ://rfbursa (dot) xhost (dot) ro/cezar_lungu.html [28]. As such he fails WP:ATHLETE, and the ghits should be examined, rather than glanced at, as there is no significant coverage there - only listings of him as a youth player. – Toon ^(talk) 02:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is unsourced and no evidence that he has played at a fully professional level or had any other accomplishments that confer notability. Jogurney (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no first team appearances in a fully professional league --Angelo (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:52, 1 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ndriçim Shtubina[edit]

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 01:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's hard to find sources in English, but according to Albanian Superliga, KS Vllaznia Shkodër, the team in which he plays, is currently in "the highest level of association football in Albania". Even if this level is not professional (and I can't tell whether it is or not), being the highest level in Albania should be good enough for a WP:ATHLETE argument. He appears to have had non-trivial play time. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - he has played 26 matches in the Albanian Superliga per FSHF.org. I'm adding two sources, so I think the article probably passes WP:N even if the Superliga is not fully professional. Jogurney (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm chaning my vote to delete since Albanian Superliga is not fully professional and the only sources are trivial in nature. Jogurney (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jogurney and THEN. Nfitz (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, looks like I'm not the only one who thinks being at the top level should be enough for WP:ATHLETE. Juzhong (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Albanian League is not fully professional. As I said countless times, the "amateur" part of WP:ATHLETE refers to sports where there is no sort of professionalism (such as fencing, kayak and taekwondo) - and for which the top level can be considered, for instance, the Olympics, or the World Championships for that particular sport. But football, as far as we all know, is a professional game (probably the most professional one around), so that part just does not apply here. --Angelo (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However many times you say it, it doesn't make it any less weasly. Juzhong (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sajdi Guri[edit]

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 01:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article does not meet any speedy deletion criteria -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jogurney (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:53, 1 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 keep. John254 04:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Rose Gedris[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Last nom was closed no consensus. This person continues to not pass WP:N - the three blog and advert sites listed in her article are not reliable sources, and the only RS is the Curve (magazine) piece, which is only ~450 words. One fluff piece does not qualify for "significant coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources". SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:04, 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]
Keep the Curve magazine piece is actually non-trivial (ie, not a "passing-mention" or "directory listing"). Contrary to some editors statements WP:BIO does NOT define "non significant" coverage as "fluff pieces" which are in fact secondary reliable sources on a topic. --Oakshade (talk) 06:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, the 462 word Q&A in Curve – that is mostly about her webcomic I Was Kidnapped By Lesbian Pirates From Outer Space and not about her – is that "significant coverage" about Gedris? Also note that a Q&A is almost entirely 1st person, not 3rd person. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is that piece about her and her work, she is being interviewed by that source. The issue of 1st vs 3rd person pertains to verification of article content, not notability. An interview is in fact being the subject of a secondary source, which directly pertains to notability. 462 words is far beyond "passing mention" or "directory listing." --Oakshade (talk) 20:00, 26 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) 00:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is really nothing in that interview that one can write a biography from. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had a nose around and found an interview which could help with the bio. Also Everything2 have a better page [29] which includes other sources like [30]. I'll add what links look useful to the article and see what people think. I'll see what I can find but it look like a provisional keep. (Emperor (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep I did more digging and looked over the links in more detail - coverage in Southern Voice and Gay and Lesbian Times, winning the Queer Press Grant, becoming a finalist in the Comic Book Challenge and the last two points led to her webcomics going into print. That is not bad going for a webcomic creator where coverage can be difficult to find (she was also on the "Gays in comics" panel at the recent San Diego Comic Con which is quite significant - it all contributes to a picture of a relatively important figure in gay comicdom). There also looks to plenty of potential for writing a longer biography which would round the article off and leave it in a decent shape. (Emperor (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 21:52, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dmusic.com[edit]

Non-notable website. No reliable sources available (as far as I have been able to find). COI advertisement. Maybe worth a mention on the DeviantArt page. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont find any notability. Maybe Speedy per a7 web. The Rolling Camel (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would also hope that if this page is deleted, that the images Image:Dmusic.PNG and Image:Dmusic2.PNG be included. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 09:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability for an encyclopedia at all. If someone finds a good reference to establish notability, let me know and I will change my vote. ~Beano~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:17, 27 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) 00:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:WEB. Nsk92 (talk) 20:04, 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 Not delete.. Whether to merge or not can be worked out on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RPMforge[edit]

Not particularly notable Oscarthecat (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Trust me, these repositories are well-known to Fedora users, and Fedora is widely regarded as one of the leading Linux distributions. I'll go looking for references if I need to. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Having thought this over, I think it would make more sense to Merge this to Fedora (operating system) for now along with RPM Fusion, but make sure it is merged properly and all the information of substance is kept. (Best location seems to be in the same section as the Fedora derivatives.) Should these articles grow again (which is a possibility as the issue of nonfree software in Linux is a big one), we can split it off later. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fedora (operating system) and leave an external link. It might be a well-known repository, but there's not much to tell about it. A bare link to the place would serve Wikipedia visitors better. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Well-known if you're a Fedora user, but it could possibly be merged with Fedora. _David ^WS _(contribs) 22:42, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fedora (operating system). It makes sense to mention the most significant 3rd party repositories there. Pcap ping 09:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at minimum redirect to a page which explicitly explains the purpose and merits of each of the addon repositories for RedHat. I believe rpmforge is the most notable of them. A simple redirect to Fedora would leave the user little wiser. Also note the repository is important for Red Hat, CentOS and Scientific Linux, not merely the Fedora subset. It seems that rpmforge is being subsumed into something called rpmrepo, but the relations between the projects is badly explained. Wikipedia can provided a useful independant reference here.

Vicarage (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Alcondez[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I nominated this actor for deletion a while ago, and my reasons as before are the same today, in that he is a non-notable actor/director/producer, ect. The previous discussion reached "No consensus" but the majority of the 'keep' votes all pointed to his 'lengthy' career as seen on IMDB. However, the majority of these films are all dtv movies with miniscule information, none of which would pass the notability requirements for Wikipedia. As one person argued, "If I make a low-budget film off of a digital camera, which I write, produce, direct, and star in, and release it to a very limited audience, does that make me notable? Just because I did everything on it? Where in WP:BIO does having multiple non-notable roles make you notable?

A lot of the article is unsourced, and a lot of it's fluff, as seen as in this sentence: "As an adolescent his spare time was used for reading and watching movies. He remembers telling his friends “one day you will see me on the big screen” soon after he was know as the dreamer. One afternoon Alcondez went to see a movie starring Mexican actor Mario Almada, it was then that he knew acting was his dream and his passion." I wouldn't be surprised if there was a Conflict of Interest in this article, as there was in a previous version that was speedily deleted. CyberGhostface (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the unverified facts mentioned by CyberGhost were deleted, I'd say that this is a pretty good article. He's not non-notable, he's created and starred in lots of films and theatre productions. Good quality writing, too. TopGearFreak ^Talk 17:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said before, the majority of these films are all DTVs that wouldn't pass notability here if someone were to make an article for them. Three of the sources are links to the subject's youtube page, and one of them is a blog.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I suspected, I just ran a number of his films (in addition to his name) through Google and they all had a small number of results.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank all for your opinions and observations, on the issue of the article in question. First of all and according to you post, that the majority of these films are all "DTV (Distrubuted for TV??) movies with miniscule information", some of them I realize from what I found have been released in DVD format (like many other feature films from the past), and probably produced with that in mind but if you observe the quality of some of the films, they are pre-DVD era which may suggest that they were originally released for theatre in the 1990's and before for the Mexican market, along with other films of the same genre at that time period.

I did not state that all the films of this actor were made for the big screen and in the issue of notability, well there are hundreds of personalities that are famous and yet no one has bothered to post any information on them in the Net.

On the point of the "Low budget film with digital camera..." from what I’ve seen in the internet almost all of the actors on YouTube pages for this actor, are well know to the Latin Community including Alejandro Alcondez, which suggests a Budget of a lot more than the price of a digital camera and home editing equipment.

In reference to the "Fluff", I must apologize for the comment made, I know I read it in an article for a magazine some time ago, and because a can't make (find) a valid reference, thank you for removing that part in accordance to the rules of Wikipedia.

In the conflict of interest issue, I must again accept my inexperience of correct style of writing and I appreciate some pointers on how to avoid them but please and with all due respect this does not mean I have a conflict of interest issue. I will correct as needed.

On the DTV notability issue, this article is about this celebrated actor and not about his individual accomplishments or works. As I stated above some films apparently are (re)distributed in DVD format just as any other film from the past. The YouTube sources seem to have a wealth of information on this actor and his achievements, and the Blog referenced is from a well know artist/singer [31] that verifies the information of the article in question.

In reference to the small number of google results, I honestly ignore the volume necessary for notability to be acceptable in Wikipedia, I just concentrated my efforts on the quality of the information I could find.

I would like to post some references from 3rd parties that include information on this subject matter. In reference to the DTV issue there is a film according to IMDB called "Cielito Lindo" which is soon to be released according to some of these sources:

Sound Post production the company is called Juniper Post [32] In the IMDB

Backlotimaging partipated in the making of a Fanfare logo for Alejandro Alcondez Pictures which indicates the upcoming release of the film: [33] which states the following: "It has been really exciting to work with celebrated Mexican filmmaker Alejandro Alcondez to create a new animated fanfare for his film production company. This new 3D animation will be attached to his upcoming American releases on 35mm."

Here is a partial reference of actors that are in the cast of the film "Cielito Lindo" some are know more than others but the fact is that they participate in the film mentioned:

Nicole Paggi [34] Ilia Volok [35] Nestor Serrano [36] Adam Rodriguez [37] Bernardo Peña [38] David Castro [39] Mariela Santos [40] Alex Bovicelli [41] Antonio Costa [42]

Here's one more reference to the production and description of the film which some of the actors mentioned participate [43] which states a lot of information about the film "Cielito Lindo" in spanish

Some other information I found on the net was from a news type website: [44] in which there is a picture of Alejandro Alcondez with text that states the following (excerpt in english) “the kid on the right is a film and theatre actor Alejandro Alcondez in which some films have been reviewed in this website”

Here is one more that talks about one of his films [45] referencing other works done by this actor: (english translation) Alejandro Alcondez “2004 Los Mas Buscados” with Jorge Reynoso and Fernando Saenz (ref. to some soap opera). Alejandro Alcondez resides in Los Angeles, Ca. since 1980 started his career 23 years ago with the theatrical debut “Damelas sin compromise” which in “Blanquita” Theatre in East Los Angeles in 1981. His debut in Film Theatre with well know veteran actor Mario Almada in 1988 in a film called “Impacto de Muerte.”

I would like to thank all for your patience. Cgomez007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:55, 23 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) 00:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:CREATIVE. There's something that needs to be clear here. Starring in, writing or directing multiple films cannot be considered as notability. Notability would be defined particularly by the quality of work produced, its critical reception and its viewer reception (revenue et al.). Most (or perhaps neither) of his films have significant viewer following and/or critical reception in English speaking world. As for the following in the Latino community, even in that case Youtube and couple of mentions in the media can't really be termed as sufficient for establishing notability. There has to be more critical coverage and other such response to his works. Considering that he has started working in Hollywood and his recent work is getting some spotlight might make him notable in the future, but not at present. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find coverage in reliable sources to fulfill any of the notability criteria for actors. Raven1977 (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation-Based Priority Assessment[edit]

NN business term (0 Google hits apart from WP and scrapers), neologism. roux 16:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It makes 0 sense, and the one link makes -5 sense. It's so unclear and badly written it can't even be categorized! Even now, I only have a very faint idea of what it's trying to say. TopGearFreak ^Talk 17:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do stakeholders have to do with software? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, minor technique within SDLC. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 21:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Priority assessment of software process requirements from multiple perspective (already cited) is a WP:RS (Journal of Systems and Software), and another WP:RS by completely different authors, A methodology of determining aggregated importance of engineering characteristics in QF (in Computers & Industrial Engineering), cites the first paper. Both use the term "Correlation-Based Priority Assessment". That's quite enough to establish notability. Re Mgm's "What do stakeholders have to do with software?" see Stakeholder analysis or do some Googling. IMO this Afd is WP:SNOW. --Philcha (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a request for clarification:

Priority assessment of software process requirements from multiple perspective introduces Correlation-Based Priority Assessment as a method of dealing with the fact that differnet stakeholders have different requirments for the same proposed product, and may express them in different language.
A methodology of determining aggregated importance of engineering characteristics in QF, by a different authors from different institutions, proposes another method of prioritising requirements, and starts with a review of recent work that says, "Correlation-Based Priority Assessment (CBPA) framework was recently developed by Liu et al. (2006) which prioritizes software process requirements gathered from multiple stakeholders by incorporating inter-perspective relationships of requirements." In other words it recognises the notability of the problem ("requirements gathered from multiple stakeholders") and of the solution presented in Correlation-Based Priority Assessment.

BTW Xiaoqing Liu, lead author of the CBPA paper, appears to be one of the heavyweights in QFD, see Google Scholar for "QFD Liu Xiaoqing". E.g. Business-oriented software process improvement based on CMM using QFD is very similar to CBPA. --Philcha (talk) 17:32, 27 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) 00:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--and I really don't say that often. I am convinced, after some googling, that the concept exists and that it is real and meaningful (if incomprehensible to me). The article, of course, is really very poorly written, by someone who knows exactly what he is talking about and cannot convey that to an outside audience--and has not looked at or edited enough WP articles to know what such an article needs to look like. Sorry Ivo, maar ik zeg het zoals het is--zo doen we dat in Amsterdam! Still, AfD is about notability, and this is notable. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Article based on a single recent academic paper (primary source in wikispeak) that has one citation!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!! Promotional in nature. Show me that the concept/method is discussed in a secondary source (a book on software engineering), or at least covered in more than one sentence in a review paper, and I'll change my mind. Don't you love it when wikiexperts say keep reasoning "no idea what this is about, but it sounds impressive"?! You should also know that in computer science journal papers are generally less important than conference papers. Pcap ping 09:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your nicely sarcastic summary of my somewhat off-hand remark. I think that even in a computing-related discussion we could be well-mannered. As for 'promotional,' you are a long ways away from proving that the article author has anything to do with the research in question. But I'll bow down to your impressive array of exclamation points--how could I argue against such rhetorical force? Drmies (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pcap sums up my stand on the article. It is clearly a protologism that has been used in two publications (in which one cites the other) and there is a PhD thesis that once again cites the same publication. Definitely not-notable enough. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:39, 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 no consensus. Merge / redirect can be discussed on the article's talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Hitchcock Masterpiece Collection[edit]

Non-notable and trivial. While the individual titles are notable, the packaging and marketing of them as a DVD set is not. Prior precedent with Superman boxsets is towards non-notability. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is padded. Apart from the release date and the films included in the set, the info is unrelated. Star power is pointless trivia and the cameos, while well-known are not related. Info (included in collection) is better mentioned in each separate film article. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:35, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As suggested by nom, such box set of DVDs periodically released by production companies is non-notable. And we have other article that lists the works in a much better manner. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I notice that G News Archive lists 16 reviews [46] of this specific compilation, (OK, some of them duplicate. but here are still 5 or 6 separate RS reviews) and the selection of films for it aroused considerable published criticism . Does this make it an exception to the usual rule.? DGG (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The cameos and star power stuff needs trimmed out of the article as irrelevant to the subject, but the reviews found in pretty reliable sources seem to indicate notability. Raven1977 (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~STRONG Keep~~ ~~per WP:ATD as the article can be cleaned up and sourced. Have added several RS sources that might be used. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Merge and redirect to Alfred Hitchcock filmography#Masterpiece Collection where readers might better expect to find informations on Hitchcock and his works. I just took a long look at it and this is where the DVd article truly belongs. The merge will be to a much stronger and more comprehensive article. Erik has made a convert of me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alfred Hitchcock filmography#Masterpiece Collection, where I've added some reviews. A stand-alone article about a DVD set has little precedent, especially with nothing but reviews. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the sources I had just added were removed by another editor because to read a few of them one had to do a free registration with "Access My Library". I will assume he removed them in good faith. I strongly urge editors at this AfD top assume good faith that they were supportive of notablity of this collection per WP:GNG. Any who think not can easily access them themselves and make that determination for themselves. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason they were removed: Wikipedia:External links#Sites requiring registration. The content could actually be implemented into the article body here or at the redirect, where I've already implemented some reviews. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know I could implement the content without being able to then source it... in either this article of your own... as all ecyclopedic content must be verifiable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After looking through Access World News, many newspapers do indeed report about this DVD collection with some reviews about its quality. However, the majority of the coverage is about Hitchcock's films in general and touches on each different film in the collection. I did not see anything more than reviews, and I think that a stand-alone article based on nothing but reviews would be severely limited. I've included some reviews at Alfred Hitchcock filmography#Masterpiece Collection, but it is not going to get any more substantial than these kinds of comments found there. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you were able to read the removed sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1x1 music[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG. No assertion of notability. Sources I found are are few and very weak - [47], [48]. The company existed and recorded some low notability bands, but there seems little to say about them other than that. SilkTork *^YES! 19:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing about this article that makes worthy of keeping. TopGearFreak ^Talk 19:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established and unlikely to be established. SlubGlub (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:44, 23 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) 00:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:CORP. There is very little coverage, none of it substantial, and what little notability is asserted is inherited from the various bands. Reyk _YO! 04:39, 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dereck Faulkner[edit]

Football player who never played in the NFL, ergo fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:N. Wizardman 22:28, 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]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ He seems to meet the notability threshold, although the article needs clean up. Are you arguing that only professional football players can have entries? What about record breaking or otherwise notable college players or notable high school athletes? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He isn't one of those which you mentioned above though. His high school and college career appear to be pedestrian. Wizardman 14:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. 74 receptions in a IAA career might rank him in the top 15,000 all time...hardly record breaking...he wasn't even the leading receiver on his team--Smashville^talk 04:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You guys and a second look at the "references" none of which seemed to link to anything convinced me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:45, 27 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) 00:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article appears to be sourced quite well now, and plenty more sources are available from a simple Google search. Note that WP:ATHLETE is a guideline. Verifiability is the policy, which this appears to meet quite handily. BradV 00:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite blatantly fails WP:ATHLETE. He was a #2-3 receiver on a IAA football team. WP:V is irrelevant. He was a football player, the only thing he could be notable for is being a football player...and he is not a notable football player. --Smashville^talk 04:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With all due respect to the comment above. He has to meet both WP:N and WP:V and he does not meet WP:N. -Djsasso (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matchboxes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Cannot find any reliable sources that can establish any notability of this college drinking game. This was recommended by User:Kevin1078, who thinks either everything or nothing should be deleted. MuZemike (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: there seems to be decent number of Google results for "matchboxes" in combination with "drinking game," and, while none of the ones I looked at qualified as a reliable source, I'm not really sure how one determines notability for a drinking game. I also balk at the notion of Google as the sole determinant of notability, but I doubt anyone's going to write a book on this topic. --Fullobeans (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in this 2006 AFD someone claimed it was listed in the Best Drinking Games Book Ever as "The Matchbox Game" which would make it at least more than your average made up game. Unfortunately, no one has been able to check that yet. I agree with the assertion regarding the title made in that discussion. Matchboxes should redirect to matchbox and the game located elsewhere if kept. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it can't be proven, then it is just hearsay. Just because someone says its in a book, doesn't mean that it is. Tavix (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- OK. I was unaware that the game is called "Matchbox" in its singular form. MuZemike (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Matchbox (drinking game), Amazon allows a search inside and it appears on the contents page. Now I just need to buy a copy to make sure the rules match those here... --Nate 14 81 12:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it was a nomination to prove a WP:POINT. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrabbable for more info. Tavix (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matchbox, if it's not deleted, rename to something else, but still redirect this name to Matchbox 76.66.195.63 (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Matchbox", as evidenced by the matchbox DAB, has too many possible meanings; Nate's suggestion makes more sense per WP:PRECISION.--Fullobeans (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes, as I said, the name "Matchboxes" should be redirected to the dab page "Matchbox", because obviously, the drinking game is not the primary meaning. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I misinterpreted your original statement. --Fullobeans (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:41, 30 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.