< November 28	November 30 >

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hora (Musician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hora (musician)

Articles for deletion/Hora (Musician)

(Note this AfD was added on November 29 (dif) and for some reason it was removed.) "in a nutshell" this article is about a musician who has release several "limited to 500 copies" albums, and one "limited to 1000 copies". Also released some singles and demos. As a solo artists fails WP:Music. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence that this performer satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria. --DAJF (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barring the production of reliable sources to verify notability per WP:MUSIC. At this point, the primary claim to notability is as a part of Schwarz Stein, and there's no reliable sources verifying that the duo meets MUSIC, either. If that duo is notable, then it may be appropriate to merge or redirect this to that article until such a time as this individual meets the guidelines on his own. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:27, 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 redirect to Medicine. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Healing arts[edit]

No notability independent of Nambassa which the article admits is where it was practised, what it was named for. The 'owner' won't let me redirect it to Nambassa, that's where it should be or more notably a synonym for alternative medicine but not one anyone would ever put in the search bar as it's a vague phrase that could apply in many contexts, as any searcher would know. Sticky Parkin 23:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Medicine, the most basic article that could be described by "healing arts". Rklear (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rklear's suggestion. Mangoe (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to disagree on the basis that Healings arts is a term used prolifically by the New Age movement. Given that a Google search on it gives up some 2.5 million hits I think this provides sufficient support for it to stand on its own independent merit. Mombas (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Mombas is the article's creator) It gets so many hits because it's such a vague phrase, it's just two words together which can be used in numerous contexts. And Rklear is right, I hadn't thought of it due to alt med being the current focus of my editing but medicine would be the most obvious suggestion. The phrase often involves the licensing of people to practice as physicians. [1] Sticky Parkin 18:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Healing arts is clearly a terminology which relates to alternative healing or alternative medicine, (over 2 millions hits). However, for argument sake, there are an abundance of other Wikipedia articles under this category which stand on their own, but to which one could also merge with any one of the mentioned healing categories. While Healing arts does have a relationship to alternative healing categories it is sufficiently independent and used publicly as such, to warrant its own category to which other editors can contribute to. I am at pains to understand why you are picking on Healing arts and I don't feel that you have provided sufficient support to warrant your initial proposal. cheers Mombas (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Medicine, very general term that might describe primitive rather than new-age - SimonLyall (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simon, while I would accept your right to choose specific meanings for words, in this instance your reason for redirecting Healing arts on the basis that it sounds primitive, tend to demonstrate your lack of understanding of the meaning of New Age and Healing arts. In case you are confused, in this context New Age does not mean the modern age as apposed to the primitive age. New Age is a belief system much of which is based upon ancient spiritual tradition. If you took the time to Google “Healing arts” you would have found some 2.4 million hits, many of which the word Healing arts is used prolifically by the New Age movement to describe an array of techniques used for alternative healing. My initial article, to which is based upon these factors, if you care to take a look, looks to build upon the term which is far greater than the present Nambassa use of it. Cheers mate.Mombas (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - In that case the problems seems to be that the term is too general to have it's own article. It's just seems to be another term for Medicine, Holistic health, Alternative medicine, Traditional medicine etc and should be redirect to one of them - SimonLyall (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental Rewrite - the article as it stands is too narrow in focus and I have tagged it as such. The "healing arts" have been practised (and practiced) for many centuries in many different cultures. It is a concept that was current throughout European history (c.f. The Healing Arts: Health, Disease and Society in Europe 1500-1800 by Peter Elmer). The narrow focus on the "new age" movement is exmplified by doing the google search that Mombas suggests (2.1 million) and then removing the "new age" hits. The resulting list is 1.7 million. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation This term has multiple meanings. Looking through Google Books results, I see a fairly equal number of books using this term in relation to medicine, alternative medicine, and traditional medicine. Healing arts should be a disambiguation page with links to these three subjects. Nambassa could be linked to as well, if the use of the term in that context meets inclusion criterion for a disambiguation page. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to medicine, as that article should cover all types of medicine. Or disambiguate if editors cannot agree on target of redirect.Yobmod (talk) 10:29, 4 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 14:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mallow (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars)[edit]

Article is almost a carbon copy of content in the Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars section Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars#Mallow. Luke4545 (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — there is nothing to merge here, as this is a cut-and-paste from the parent article (except the game guide material at the bottom). Redirect wouldn't make sense as the title is not a plausible search term. MuZemike (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Character is already summarized in the main article, and this AfDed article just adds GAMEGUIDEish information. Redirect unnecessary per MuZemike.– sgeureka ^t•c 12:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A copy n paste article. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect per MuZemike. JuJube (talk) 07:28, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Lawson[edit]

Not particularly notable martial arts fighter. Oscarthecat (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What guidelines does he not meet? Why do you think the term non-notable applies? Did you try to find sources before nominating? Your nomination answers none of these questions even though it should.- Mgm|^(talk) 23:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Most likely fails WP:ATHLETE, unless anyone can provide a source to back up his "professional" level. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this is deleted, the title should probably be turned into a redirect to Geoff Lawson as a viable search term. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment' It was not difficult to find references and only a few minutes to wikify the article. jmcw (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep listed as pro on sherdog, so will pass WP:ATHLETE could do with expansion --Nate 14 81 12:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on claim that he is fighting at a professional level. JJL (talk) 15:11, 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 00:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petar Brzica[edit]

AfDs for this article:

NN concentration camp guard. He has an article as it is alleged that he won a throat-cutting competition one Saturday night at Jasenovac concentration camp. No sources have been provided to support this in the time since this article was last AfD'd. The first question is whether winning such a competition makes you noteworthy or not. The general lack of reliable sources (about whether the competition took place, or whether Bržica won it) makes the article, in my view, deleteworthy. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This version of article is a bit better that the previous one. Also, there is a great number of reliable resources/verifiable references - testimonies of the concentration camp survivors finding mentioning this person worthwhile - in the context of WWII events.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Per last time, the article is well sourced (have you looked at the reference section? It's awesome for a stub class article). What about the sources provided at the last AfD? If you want more sources, you could implement those suggested then. Deletion isn't really the best option in this case. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but good question is about category and editorial style. We are having person called Speedy Peter (english translation of his name) about which nobody is knowing year or birth or death. Organization of unknown name has put him on the list of 59 Nazis in USA. In the end Speedy Peter is winner of killing competion and has killed between 670 and 1360 person in unknown time period. Last problem is in only english language source (The Glass Half Full) which is speaking about this killing because it is false. This source is clearly saying that Speedy Peter has "boasted that during one night alone he killed 1,360 prisoners". Source is not saying that he has killed (why all others sources are having quotations and this not ? editor POV pushing ?). Sources 3 and 7 are not wiki OK because of wikipedia reliable source rules. They are controled by Serbian genocide (Srebrenica genocide) denier Milan Bulajić--Rjecina (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to handily pass significant coverage and therefore WP:N. Horrorshowj (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:44, 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. per the deletion of Panphilia Mgm|^(talk) 23:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panphiliac[edit]

This is a dictionary definition, suitable for wiktionary. Wiktionary does not currently have an article on the English-language word 'Panphiliac', and it may be that the author added this word to wikipedia accidentally. I suggest that it be transwikied. Richard Cavell (talk) 22:28, 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 keep. John254 00:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka Commerce College[edit]

Non-notable college, no substantive content. Oscarthecat (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - institutions that educate to Masters degree level are notable. The lack of substantive content is because an editor kept removing it! I will clean the page up. There are sufficient web sources to meet WP:V. However, it should be remembered that Bangladesh bodies have a poor Internet presence and we should give time for local sources to be found to avoid systemic bias. TerriersFan (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Degree level institutions are notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This is indeed a notable college, and has enrollment larger than many US or British educational institutions. This used to be the only place to study commerce in Dhaka. The College is also among the top 10 colleges in Dhaka Education Board, according to 2007 Higher secondary exam results [2]. In 2008, this was the 4th ranked college in Dhaka Board. [3]. Also, this college is among the top 10 most competitive and sought-after colleges in Dhaka [4]. --Ragib (talk) 10:15, 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 00:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bohol Chronicle[edit]

Non-notable newspaper. Suggest delete and merge with Bohol town article. Oscarthecat (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge per nom — Fails WP:NOTABILITY. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google Books search shows clear notability, with this book having a sixteen-page chapter about the subject. I'd also point out a couple of flaws with the nomination: firstly it suggests merging, not deletion, so shouldn't really be at AfD at all, and secondly Bohol is not a town, but a province with a population of over a million. Would anyone suggest that articles on every institution or business in Montana, which has a smaller population, should be merged with the article on the state? Of course not, and this proposal is equivalent to that. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil bridger's investigation and explanation. Well established newspapers and magazines are quite notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why is it non-notable? The article itself asserts notability and Phil above established notability. --seav (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I must add that this one needs improvements. To extend Phil Bridger's analogy, it would be like AfD'ing the leading newspaper of Alaska or Vermont just because it isn't as widely circulated as the New York Times or the Washington Post. --- Tito Pao (talk) 08:19, 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glass House Films[edit]

Non-notable company, unable to locate any reliable sources citing company's notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found this while looking through new pages and was unsure about notability, so I fixed the title and moved to my watchlist for investigation. I haven't been able to locate anything concrete either. Wexcan Talk 02:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with the nom. Various searches in combination with company and asserted films finds nothing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:40, 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Griggs[edit]

I believe that this person may not be notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia. He is a high school student who has some high school-level athletic achievements. Richard Cavell (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tried a speedy delete earlier myself, recreated, remains non-notable. --Oscarthecat (talk) 22:35, 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 Already speedy deleted by User:TenOfAllTrades as a hoax. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Mitchell[edit]

This appears to be a hoax. I can find no record of this person having been on Saturday Night Live, despite the claim that he was a member for 8 years. The imdb's extensive cast list from Bad Boys has no mention of him. Richard Cavell (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. IMDB link is to Martin Lawrence. McWomble (talk) 02:08, 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 14:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mischief Makers characters[edit]

This is a none-notable gameguide. I don;t think any of the information in here can be merged in the main article. Magioladitis (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Magioladitis (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Clearly not worth its own article, but why not merge? Please clarify. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What can be merged from there? I would be interested to know. Do we need to include a characters' profile to an article fo a single video game? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should an article not be allowed to have a characters section, simply because it's only about a single game? I'd disagree with that. However, I tried to salvage from that list what was possible. And it seems, I overestimated the value of that list's contents (I had expected around 5% to be useful). This is by far the most obsolete character list I've ever seen. It should be deleted. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not written within WP:WAF guidelines; no interesting out-of-universe material to merge. Great game though. Shake shake! Marasmusine (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. Even with the game guide content removed: it's simply cruft at best. Relevant character information should be in a main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a game guide. MuZemike (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Wikipedia is not a game guide. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Missed my chance to get in a "shake shake". :( JuJube (talk) 07:29, 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 14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Culver's menu[edit]

Delete menu for fast-food restaurant chain. Mind matrix 21:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Delete: A menu for a restuarant. I don't think that it should be redirected to the restaurant article because it isn't a likely search term. Schuym1 (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Who on earth would want to look at a restaurant menu on Wikipedia? Plus, in what way is this particular menu notable? It is only the restaurant that is notable, not the menu. gm_matthew (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And plus, for all we know the menu could change tomorrow, making this article out-of-date. gm_matthew (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I love Culver's as much as most Wisconsinites, but this is too much. You can look up their menu on their website and it's probably better organized. Nate • (chatter) 05:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — Last time I checked when I went to a Culver's (best food ever! IMO), they did not serve spam. MuZemike (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should have been speedied, this article is a menu (product brochure), it is pure unverified spam that does nothing more than promote an entity, delete as per G11. - DustyRain (talk) 05:45, 3 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. The nomination was withdrawn and there were no outstanding delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northglade Montessori Magnet School[edit]

This article for an elementary school makes no claims that meet criteria for notability for organizations. The proposed deletion was contested, so I'm bringing it here. Raven1977 (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, as a result of the sources found by TerriersFan. Raven1977 (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of only two approved public Montessori in the USA. Coverage, direct and in detail here. Plenty of other sources available - search for 'Northglade Elementary School' as well as its new name. A remarkable turnaround story. TerriersFan (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan, although I wouldn't oppose merging and redirecting to Kalamazoo Public Schools. older ≠ wiser 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:38, 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 G10. Deleted by Tone (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) So Why 21:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Abend[edit]

Self-written bio, non-notable porn actor. Oscarthecat (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you doing an AfD when this is clearly a Speedy? --David Shankbone 21:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's already tagged for speedy deletion. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As db-bio. JNW (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it for CSD G10, which also seems to work, based on the article content. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:13, 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 merge/redirect to East Lansing Public Schools. TerriersFan (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marble Elementary School[edit]

This article for an elementary school makes no claims that meet criteria for notability for organizations. The proposed deletion was contested, so I'm bringing it here. Raven1977 (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Nomination withdrawn. A merge/redirect is a fine solution; my apologies for not thinking of it in the first place. Raven1977 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to East Lansing Public Schools per normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to East Lansing Public Schools. older ≠ wiser 12:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:36, 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. Unfortunately article cites only one source, which appears to be more about online blogs, than about premature babies. The result of the debate is clear: it is a neologism, which has its place in a dictionary, but not in the encyclopedia. Ruslik (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NICU Rollercoaster[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Oscarthecat (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The book of the same name might be notable but as an expression on its own, it isn't Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 20:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsuitable for inclusion. The book might be notable, but this is not really about the book. I believe that this term is unlikely to be used by nurses and doctors; it's more likely a neologism. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Although the phrase does appear to have been used by parent support organisations prior to the publication of the book (eg [5]), it has no added meaning beyond the usual metaphorical application of 'roller coaster' with 'NICU', and so there is little potential for the development of an article. It might be suitable for Wiktionary, I'm not sure of their inclusion criteria. The book of this title was published in 2008, and I've found no evidence to suggest it is notable, as yet. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually doctors and nurses do use the term "NICU Rollercoaster" when talking to parents in the NICU. It helps explain why one day the baby seems to be doing well and the next day takes a huge turn for the worse. It tends to happen in a pattern and tends to happen repeatedly in the first few weeks or months or life. With the huge increase in preemie births in this country, the term seems to come up more and more. I think this entry should remain in Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancyy (talk • contribs) — Nancyy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete If the term is really used (and such use can be sourced) it should have a definition in wiktionary. But is not encylopedic to define a term.Yobmod (talk) 10:43, 4 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 merge/redirect to Lapeer, Michigan#Private schools. TerriersFan (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Kelley Catholic School[edit]

This article for an elementary school makes no claims that meet criteria for notability for organizations. The proposed deletion was contested, so I'm bringing it here. Raven1977 (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. I didn't even think about merging; that's a good solution. Raven1977 (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. To Lapeer, Michigan, where the school is currently just a bullet point. Yes, I know "merge" isn't really an option at an AfD, so if pushed I would say Weak Keep as borderline notable, like most middle and primary schools. There isn't really enough information to make a standalone article so it would be better merged into the town article and deleted, but I wouldn't want the content lost. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 21:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Lapeer, Michigan#Private schools per normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BEFORE and ample precedent. To QuiteUnusual -- no, Merge is not an option, because merge should be done without clogging up AFD as it is presumed that before nominating an article, the AFD page (Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.) has been read and understood. But, given the frequency which obvious search term redirects are brought here, that is not always the case. Neier (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Lapeer, Michigan#Private schools. older ≠ wiser 13:00, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tootsie (dog)[edit]

Non-notable dog, possibly hoax, unable to find reliable sources referring to the mutt. Oscarthecat (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?searchPhrase=dog+saves —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdvgef (talk • contribs) 20:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not sure how this link is relevant. No mention of Tootsie on said page.) --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there was an exclusive in the Daily Mail, I can't find it here. Nor does google return anything. Even if it did, would it make the mutt notable? No, because it would be a one time event. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 21:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indeed; QuiteUnusual is right. Even if it were there (and I'm baffled--why couldn't the author supply the specific article??), this still wouldn't satisfy WP:N. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow! "Best Dog of the Year", the Daily Mail bought the exclusive rights to the story, recognised by Prime Minister Tony Blair, the town erected a statue on Bramdean Common in its memory... the only way this story could get any better would be if you said that Tootsie was a shaggy dog. Good luck on making any future contributions. Mandsford (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nice story if true, but as it is there don't seem to be any sources to support it, and either way it would be a one time event and not warrant an article on the subject. --skew-t (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think its downright preposterous that you consider this article to be a fabrication. I may have an imaginative mind, but even this is too far beyond the realms of my ability. I find it outrageous that individuals (not including QuiteUnusual) who clearly do not reside in the United Kingdom, can have an opinion on the validity of article. Perhaps before disregarding the story as a ‘one off’ you should take into account the way in which this dog captured the hearts of the nation. Indeed I have to presume that QuiteUnusual has lived in a bubble during 2003, or indeed refused to acknowledge any news stories that are associated with the Daily Mail. I freely admit I posted that link (above) without actually looking to see if it covered the story, but that’s just further evidence to suggest that much of the UK public would EXPECT online coverage. I have actually done some research and found that some ‘older stories’ were cut from the website in June 2006 due to storage issues (I will be asking for there rendition). This is an important article to uphold, this dog captured the nation and to say that the article should be taken down is outrageous and shows absolute disrespect to the remembrance of this dog and her owners. Even if personally you are not 100% certain of this articles credibility, the notion to refer to Tootsie as a ‘Mutt’ is shameful and probably indicates some personality failings. --80.42.210.46 (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC) — 80.42.210.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

(Note that the article remains completely uncited). --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:HOAX. The so-called statue is a lawn ornament. There is no coverage about this dog and its heroic act, so the article fails verifiability. And the claim that the Daily Mail had an exclusive and also conveniently purged its old articles is a far-fetched. Old news articles are offered up behind pay walls, and would be turned up in a google news search. Furthermore, a paper can get an exclusive from the family, but they cannot prevent other papers from reporting a a news event. So even if this did happen (which I seriously doubt), no other newspapers thought that the event was notable enough to provide coverage. Therefore, it fails notability. But really, it's a contravention of WP:HOAX. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 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 redirect to Freemasonry in Belgium#Other Masonic Rites. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 00:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Rite of 1962[edit]

Article does not meet notability requirements set out at WP:ORG. The article has no sources (and certainly no independant third party sources, which are called for in the guideline) to verify that this organization even exists (much less that it is notable). Please note that this organization seems to be a very small, local verson of the far more notable Scottish Rite. Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a splinter group, Merge to Scottish Rite. Powers ^T 00:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is not really a good option... Undue Weight becomes an issue if we merge. The splinter group is obscure enough that it would not rate more than a passing reference, if that, in the main article. And we still have the issue of lack of sources to deal with. We can not even verify that the organization even exists. For all we know this could be a hoax. I don't think it is, but my point is that we can't know without sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources verifying it's existence and notability can be found, consider merge once sourced. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is one of the branches of Belgian freemasonry - modeled on but never part of the "Scottish Rite" properly so-called. It's real name is "Souverain Collège du Rite Ecossais pour la Belgique". I wouldn't want to venture a guess as to notability - despite the lack of international (and especially Anglo-American) recognition, Belgian freemasonry is improbably important in the country's internal affairs (it provides the social nexus of "freethinking" politics and academia). This particular branch I'd guess is less notable, but I don't have much to do with masons. (Editing to add:) There is a book about it, published in 2002 and on sale here. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Freemasonry in Belgium. As Bb says there does not appear to be enough to establish notability yet, but they do exist and Freemasonry in Belgium was originally written to deal specifically with Belgian masonic groups where there were disputes about verifiability and notability. This glove seems to fit that particular hand quite well. JASpencer (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It also has articles in the French and Dutch Wikipedias. If there is an article in more than one foreign language Wikipedia I usually wonder why we can't have one. If there is an article in a foreign language Wikipedia it is usually a strong argument for at least having a redirect. I still think that due to the sources not being present then it should be a merge. JASpencer (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Nominator: The fact that other wikis have an article is not a good argument, these have different standards of notability than we do. That said, given that we seem to have at least the possibility of sourcing, it is looking like a merger may be the best way to deal with this. I can agree to a merger (and JASpencer's proposal to merge it to Freemasonry in Belgium has some merit)... provided that the end result is properly sourced, and does not give undue weight to what seems to be a fairly small splinter group. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources == no merge. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 29 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, Protonk (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on relisting I'm relisting this to get some more debate on the disposition of this article. I'm inclined to close this as no consensus, but that would clearly not respect the spirit of the comments left here--that this not remain a standalone article. Remember, a merger doesn't mean that all of the content is moved into the target article. It may be anything from a redirect to a one line mention to a section in the target article. Let's get some consensus on whether or not a merger is appropriate, what the target would be, or if it should just be deleted. Protonk (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask someone who reads Dutch to see if the references listed here meet the English Wikipedia standards? Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 21:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking? I'll tell you--the bibliography seems to be OK, though I don't recognize any of the presses (they're mainly Belgian, obviously). A note on Dutch Wikipedia: their standards do seem to be lower on the whole, or they scan less rigorously for lack of sources than we do here. Also, since there are generally fewer sources available online, they rely more on real books (those heavy, paper things) than we do, which makes it more difficult to gauge online what the quality of the sources is. Having said all that, I don't think it's a very good article--it lacks inline citations, or any kind of page reference, for instance. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was asking (or rather suggesting that if anyone knew a Dutch reader they might be able to help), although it seemed a long shot. Thanks. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 12:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! ;) Drmies (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say our best bet would be to merge this into Freemasonry in Belgium. While that article currently only discusses groups that give the basic core degrees of the fraternity (what in the US is called "blue lodge" Freemasonry, or in England "Craft" Freemasonry), it could probably be expanded to include a short paragraph on the various appendant bodies such as the Scottish Rite. That this is a marginally notable splinter group (at best) actually fits with the rest of the article. The one thing that the article makes abundantly clear is that Belgian Freemasonry is prone to fragmentation and schism. This appears to be simply another instance. Blueboar (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that; I don't care to where it's merged. Powers ^T 14:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a mid sized (about 14 groups) nationwide organisation this probably deserves its own entry, but frankly I'm not going to do anything about it. However as a redirect to Freemasonry in Belgium that would be fine, and I'd prefer to see the history kept. As it exists and it's an important, if small, part of Belgian Freemasonry if we could get a sourced mention of it in the Freemasonry in Belgium article then this would be great. But again, I'm not really bothered. As long as the history is not deleted and the redirect is put in place then I'm fine. JASpencer (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I have started a section at the Freemasonry in Belgium article on Other Masonic Rites as a possible merger. While short (only two sentences), the section could probably be expanded with additional sourcing. Does anyone object to redirecting the Scottish Rite of 1962 article to that section? Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good option to me. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE HAS BEEN REDIRECTED to Freemasonry in Belgium#Other Masonic Rites as per consensus. Blueboar (talk) 04:09, 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. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Cockrell[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability and she has only had one major role. Schuym1 (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Schuym1 (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yanksox (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no reliable sources to establish notability. IMDB lists only one role. A search for reliable sources turns up her name being mentioned, but that's it. -- Whpq (talk) 19:01, 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. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kellie Cockrell[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability and she has has had three major roles, but she still doesn't pass WP:ENTERTAINER because only two of those films are notable. Schuym1 (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Schuym1 (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yanksox (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although faring a little better than her sister Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Cockrell, she still fails to meet notability. IMDB lists 3 movie roles. And she is quoted in this campus newspaper article. But that is a far cry from substantial coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:05, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of cakes[edit]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR, this is a directory listing which provides no data that cannot otherwise be produced through category navigation. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure all entries are categorized and Delete. This offers nothing more than a category and is unlikely to do so in the future. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article seems to be discriminate in that it contains only cakes. The cake category includes many desserts that may or may not be cakes. So I think this encyclopedia is better with an article that lists just cakes. It probably needs to include an explanataion and some encyclopedic material about the terminology, criteria for inclusion and just what a cake is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With due respect, if the Category is inaccurate, that can be improved while still keeping it a category. The other things you mention -- explanations, terminology, etc. -- belong in the main article Cake. Powers ^T 00:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories do this better. Powers ^T 00:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A category is not the same as a list. The category contains Linzer torte, tiramisu, swiss roll etc. etc. This article is a list of cakes. It makes the encyclopedia better, it's notable, and it is discriminate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those folks who describe every list as an "indiscriminate list", I will say that THIS is an indiscriminate list. Lists that aren't indiscriminate have more information so that one can distinguish (in other words, "discriminate") between the entries and have information that isn't obvious (such as that these are all articles about cakes). Not a delete, because it would be fairly simple to tell the reader what the difference is between one confectionery and another. Will it be fixed? I don't know. But could it be fixed? Yeah, piece of cake. Mandsford (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is about as pointless, generic and indiscriminate as a "List of appetizers". JBsupreme (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and deal with properly by expanding the information fro browsing purposes, which makes it more than what a category can do. A table by cusisine and possibly by type would do this nicely. If there's more to say than names alone, we usually should have a list as well as category. DGG (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list has a lot of potential. It could include information about the country of origin, ingredients, characteristics of the cake, which categories can't have. Eklipse (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has massive expansion potential for somebody so inclined. I'd like to a see a categorizationist correctly categorize a Jaffa Cake. MickMacNee (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's essentially a miniature filled sponge cake. What's the problem? Powers ^T 15:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eat it because then you cannot have it. There is nothing inherently notable about a list of cakes. This is indiscriminate information. While not a great fan of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as a deletion rationale, if we have lists such as this, which are potentially so wide as to be unmaintainable, then we may as well have List of red haired dwarves who live in Clapham here too. Even the crumbs fail notability. Get rid of this. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lists derive notability from the subject of the list. If the subject of "cake" is notable (it is, unlike "red haired swarves who live in Clapham"), then the list is fine. You're not going to find secondary sources for any of our "list of" articles. They serve a navigational and organizational purpose. Now, it's possible that this particular list is redundant to a category, but to delete it on notability reasons is misguided. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I look forward to seeing the citations for Red haired swarves who live in Clapham. Sounds like an interesting article and I hope it proves to be notable enough for inclusion.ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He and his sister do not stay in one place long enough to allow us to be sure they exist. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand how you feel because I've seen many others who have felt that before. What they found when studying a list such as this in detail was that the list topic per se is rendered notable or not by the character of the list itself. Were this rewritten as a meta-list, listing cakes by nationality, by with/without gluten, by unusual ingredients (for example), then the list would lose its deletability. As it stands this list is a manual duplicate of a category and thus impossible to maintain. I am not arguing that a list and a category are mutually exclusive, they overlap and serve different purposes. I am arguing that this list as it stands today is redundant because a category does the job far better. And I am arguing that this list is not inherently notable precisely because of its poor content and organisation. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the way you're using the term "notable" in this context. Notability has a specific definition on Wikipedia - see WP:N. It has nothing to do with organization or how the content is laid out. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A duplicate of Category:Cakes. This does nothing more than a category can. Tavix (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It has potential for expansion with addition of info/structure that you simply cannot do with a category. Read WP:CLN. The fact that it is currently a duplicate awaiting improvement is not a bad thing, and is certainly not a reason to delete it. In fact, if this list is deleted while a category remains, I will put it up for DRV on basic principle. MickMacNee (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds like pre-meditated disruption to me. JBsupreme (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or a threat! If it has potential, go right ahead and expand it to meet it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I, or anybody else, is free to expand any valid article at their leisure. It's easier to do that when the only things that get deleted on the pedia are proper candidates as mandated by the deletion policy. As regards the original nomination, if you actually read Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:CLN, then it's quite clear this is not a deletion grounded in policy at all. MickMacNee (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NOT #3 reads black and white to me. JBsupreme (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see anything black and white in WP:NOT #3 as it relates to this article's AfD. I do see a list of cakes and editors disagreeing over whether it's useful, encyclopedic and notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        A database/directory requires at a minimum, 2 columns. If the list was accompanied by another arbitrary non categorising column such as sugar content, you could claim #3. As it is, I think Oracle's market share is safe, Yellow pages can sleep at night, and Jimbo Wales need not apply for membership to the confederation of cookbook publishers. MickMacNee (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another indiscriminate list. This is what categories are for. Themfromspace (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:CLN and/or cite an accepted valid deletion reason per the deletion policy. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies to ALL of the Wikipedia main namespace, lists are not exempted. Categories are not in the main namespace. Citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE at an AfD is a perfectly valid argument. Themfromspace (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please prove evidence that this list is indiscriminate, and/or explain why a category is worth retaining but a list is not, bearing in mind you obviously have a preference.MickMacNee (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - LOL. I wonder how you handle conversations in real life. No one needs to answer a loaded question like this, ever. JBsupreme (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Loaded or not, here's my rebuttal. From Wiktionary: Indiscriminate: "Without care or making distinctions, thoughtless." A list of cakes is far too broad of a term for an article in an encyclopedia. The subject has to be narrowed down further (distinctions have to be made). I can't prove that anything is indiscriminate, that's a judgement call. Just as it's a judgement call whether an article of borderline notability should stay or go. In my opinion a list of cakes is clearly not discriminate enough to belong in an encyclopedia, as opposed to a (fictional) list of notable cakes from Baker X. This article's too broad even to ask questions about notability. Is a list of cakes covered in reliable sources? Yea... but not this list of cakes. Just as a list of American citizens is a futile task but we can easily find articles talking about American citizens as a group. About categories. Categories are broader than individual entities (for example, a Bavarian Chocolate Cake is a subset of 'cakes' in general. All the cakes in this list fit neatly into the category 'cakes'. Wikipedia gains from the category (as it is a suitable category for articles) and unlike articles in the main namespace, notability and discrimination aren't issues. Themfromspace (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Categories and lists are not redundant. Why can't you accept this basic fact? The idea that you want a list of cakes to be compared to a list of people is just ridiculous. Stop clutching at straws and actually make an argument based on policy that is even relevant to this list. Notability? For crying out loud, could you misunderstand a policy any more? MickMacNee (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't respond to uncivil comments directed at myself. Themfromspace (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Whatever. This response is in my experience a handy get out clause for those who realise they have no clue how to extricate themselves from a bad argument, but still want to appear to have saved face/ MickMacNee (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment It is perfectly OK for lists and categories to (apparently) duplicate. The lists add the feature of being able to add characteristics that facilitate identification and browsing, the categories provide an automatic way to make sure things don't get omitted, and to build a hierarchy. DGG (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said they were (MickMacNee was misreading my point). The point was that in this particular case the article fails the criteria as a list but passes as a category. Lists are subject to a stricter criteria of notability as they are main namespace articles, while categories are not. Many cases can be imagined where both a list and a category are preferable to either or none. Themfromspace (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notabilty for basic lists is a total misnomer. If the title is not something like List of gophers who have swam the Channel, then notability can just be assumed per common sense. And as for categories, I recently had a category of mine deleted on, you guessed it, notability grounds. I am to this day none the wiser as to how I was suposed to prove notability for what as basically a navigation tool. Go figure. MickMacNee (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists). "Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles, and as such are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." WP:N is one of these content policies and it does have to be proven outside of the title. Sorry. Themfromspace (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well there we go. Maybe the world is divided into those people who do realise that books about cakes have existed since the year dot, and those who honestly don't. I wonder if it would be possible to actually find a list of cakes on the internets. It surely sounds like mission impossible to me. Maybe a cake has to have been baked by Einstein to be notable, and then be listed with multiple other famous cakes. What utter ButterScotch if you ask me. MickMacNee (talk)
Delete as redundant to a category. (Before you point me at WP:CLN, that explains that categories, lists, and navboxes may all exist, not that they must.) Stifle (talk) 19:23, 29 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, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 20:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Everyone's talking about expansion potential but nobody is actually expanding. This will probably get deleted on the next run through unless someone has proven it can be more than a simple list. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 20:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, if they're in the USA, everybody is actually expanding, partly due to a list of cakes.John Z (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMO a wholly useless list that conveys no more information than a category. How exactly do you define what is or isn't a cake? Is a cake only sweet or does it include savoury cakes? What is the difference between a cake and a biscuit (cookie)? It took a UK court ruling to define that a Jaffa cake was indeed a cake and not a biscuit. RMHED (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Is a tart a cake? What about pancakes? RMHED (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could be useful, even if it is useless now. I've made a start at expanding it to make it more useful and will continue to do so assuming it isn't deleted. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 21:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Okay, I've tried to make this into a useful list. Those considering a delete might like to take another look. Thanks. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I see a lot of hard work, for which I congratulate you, but still essentially the same list. Nothing has changed for me except the format and volume of data in it. I stand by my original !vote. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I'm afraid I still don't find it useful, though the effort is to be commended. A pineapple upside-down cake has pineapple in it? And the contents of a wedding cake "vary"? Sorry, I still think the category is sufficient. Powers ^T 14:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of a list,I presumed, was to provide an overview allowing the reader to focus on something they might wish to explore in more detail, which a category doesn't. The distinctive ingredients was the best I could come up with but that doesn't mean additional columns couldn't be added to provide a better or additional reason to use the list. Agreed the pineapple point is fair, but some of the others are more useful! Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 16:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the change in the format and the volume of data in it. The addition of distinugishing information takes this out fo the category of an indiscriminate list. I can't see other changes would be satisfactory, unless one were to change each item to the name of an American president and then to rename this "List of American presidents". Mandsford (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't slice that cake list! I say Keep the article and work to expand it -- there is a good foundation here, so why not build on it? Ecoleetage (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious scope issues mean that while this can be made to work as a category, it is unsuitable as article content. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:53, 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 14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“magic box”[edit]

No evidence of significance or notability. Unsourced; primary purpose appears to be to link to other article by same author: ProjectEmily. JNW (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is almost nonsense. Tavix (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tavix is being too nice--this makes no sense at all. The two sentences about Wittgenstein are correct, and that's the nicest thing that can be said for this unreferenced piece of work. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and opinions stated above. Yanksox (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CB. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 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 14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectEmily[edit]

No sign of significance or notability. Article contains no sources, is written first-person, and chronicles a college project. JNW (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never once asserts notability for the project itself. Only references go to the unrelated artist Gabriel Orozco. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Yanksox (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage through reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:09, 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. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian Veterinary Training Program[edit]

The program exists, but there's no evidence it's notable. StarM 04:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google isn't god. Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment no it isn't, but it's a damn good possibility that if google doesn't show any discussion of an international partnership, including non reliable sources, that it isn't notable. Hell the org's own website barely mentions it. StarM 13:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree that Google isn't god, but for a nomination for deletion, it does indicate that the nominator did some research before nominating the article for deletion. Additionally, Google news, books, and scholar turn up nothing either. In other words, this program has no reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 10:36, 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, Stifle (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Somehow I managed to overlook the US mentioned here and figured that we should try to look in some Indonesian language. Obviously that line of thought is no longer relevant. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:02, 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 14:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stargate works[edit]

Essentially duplicates the content of Stargate, Stargate (disambiguation) and/or Category:Stargate in list form. The green timeline was once created by me for the article Stargate (if you worry about GFDL), but I now think it's not only ugly but also incomplete, and definately not the reason to keep this list. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think Stargate contains everything. Sgeureka great work for cleaning up Stargate articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Magioladitis. Xihr 23:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to existing articles. McWomble (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:31, 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. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shinobi Women[edit]

Delete - "Not much has been said about this film." Creator/director does not appear to be notable either - see "Tass Smith". Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL I think. The reason that the editor says "Not much has been said about this film" is because the film hasn't been released yet. Cf. tentative date "2008-2009" in the article. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as even its rumour cannot be verified. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Waywell[edit]

never played for or managed a professional club, therefore fails WP:ATHLETE requirement ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's been a little quickly judged here. If those websites like BBC and others are used, citations are collected from those news sites. Well I see enough information on the web for Waywell to actually pass on the WP:BIO side of things. Govvy (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of mentions to pass WP:BIO rather than WP:ATHLETE. - fchd (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He certainly fails WP:ATHLETE, no doubt about that. And whilst there may be a bit of news coverage, what I've found so far only seems to be of the bog standard someone-commenting-on-something variety. He hasn't really done anything of note in the world of football (or any other world for that matter) for him to pass WP:N. Bettia (rawr!) 11:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per fhcd. WikiGull (talk)
Comment Waywell's sole notability according to the article is as a football manager. The article must therefore stand or fall according to sports-related criteria. If one deleted all the football material, ther would be virtually nothign left, so that judging him according to general bio-criteria will not do. Apart from football he is clearly NN, I do not know enough of football to comment on that, so No vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable manager coaching a non-notable club. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:30, 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, MBisanz ^talk 19:02, 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 speedy delete. (G12) Fullstop is fully right in his assessment. Material is copyrighted unless stated otherwise. This is a clear copyright violation. Mgm|^(talk) 22:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Case against spelling reforms[edit]

I just declined a speedy on this one but it is so riddled with problems that I am sending it straight to WP:AFD. The article is unencyclopaedic original research, fails to maintain any semblance of a neutral point of view and appears to be designed to further a particular cause. Nancy ^talk 18:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G12. Its a copyvio of this, and I had ((db-copyvio))'d it as such. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Shame we don't have a speedy criterion for this type of essay. RayAYang (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, and biased. It's not a copyvio because the blog its copied from is not copyrighted. It would be nice to have a csd criteria for these things, but I imagine it would be more trouble than its worth--Jac16888 (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem! The lack of a copyright statement is not a copyright waiver. The contents must have been explicitly released under the terms of the GFDL (or compatible) for them to be re-released under the GFDL. Wikipedia can't give away the rights to something that it hasn't explicitly received the rights for. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an essay, and not a very good one at that - the way it's written, it almost seems to flipflop between being an argument for the evolution of language, an argument against thereof, and seeming confusion as to why people don't just deal with it - along with the generally confused overtones. On top of this, it notes something called "See Beyond Words", whatever that is. It's certainly soapy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:13, 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. Secret ^account 18:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Choo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete - re-created page that does not appear to differ substantially from the deleted page. Was speedied and then undeleted. Subject still does not meet notability guidelines for lack of reliable sources that are substantially about him. One 2:17 story on CNN does not make him notable. Otto4711 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was rightly deleted last time, and since there is still no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, should be deleted again.--Michig (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. RayAYang (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Danny Choo is one of the most successful bloggers in the world, and his website is consistently in the top 10,000 most visited sites in the world (sites, not blogs), not bad for a non-commercial site. Though huge in Japan and east Asia, visitors from the United States now double visitors from Japan. His Tokyo Dance Trooper videos have made him an internet celebrity. After briefly appearing in two CNN reports about the Japanese iPhone launch, he appeared on G4's Attack of the Show!. CNN then did a report about him, which was the most popular video on CNN.com that day. I can't help but be concerned when far less notable people have articles about them on Wikipedia. If someone as well known as Danny Choo doesn't deserve an article, how many thousands of other notable people need to lose their articles as well? How high do we really want to set the bar here? If being famous isn't a criteria for notability, should we limit ourselves to heads of state? Maybe call it Diplomapedia?

Edit: Actually the site's popularity in some countries is downright amazing. Singapore: 761st, Denmark: 1,567th, Malaysia: 2,390th, Philippines: 2,715th, Canada: 3,837th, Japan: 5,080th, Indonesia: 5,347th, Australia: 5,374th, Netherlands: 5,631th, Austria: 7,166th, United States: 7,403th. Enough to make most webmasters drool. DOSGuy (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What we should limit ourselves to is articles on people who pass our notability guidelines which specifically state that "notability" is not the same thing as "popularity" or "fame." The reports on the iPhone launch are not about Danny Choo and are not reliable sources that attest to his notability. The AotS report includes him as one of several "wacky people and things in Japan" topics. The CNN video is 2 minutes and 17 seconds long and is the only independent source that is about Danny Choo. Otto4711 (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability, which requires sources, not popularity. The cites are formatted in a deceitful way at the moment (and include copyvios at youtube etc), but none were a reliable source that discusses this person in a non-trivial way.Yobmod (talk) 10:51, 4 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. Spam. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invest In Physical Gold[edit]

This article is advertising and uncyclopedic in the worst of ways. Also it is extremely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. See WP:NOT. Jonathan321 (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a form of advertising since I didn't include any link within the article and it shouldn't be classified as uncyclopedic in the worst of ways. I hope you could accept my submission. Would you change the Title to Physical Gold vs Dollars that would help. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill.chiam (talk • contribs) 18:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is an essay, and a classic example of using Wikipedia as a soapbox. RayAYang (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --John (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an essay that seems to say why one should buy bullion gold at this time. It hedges on being promotional - but per Bill, since there was no blatant advertisement within the article, it's not really spam. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I never said that this article was spam, I just said that it was advertising; not for a specific thing, but for investing in gold in general. Jonathan321 (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator, most everyone else. Edward321 (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of course the article was written as a blatant promotion for a specific website; look at the links in the original article and the previous edits made by the original author. Regardless, there is nothing in the article that makes it worthy of its own article. Flowanda | Talk 06:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advert. We already have an article on this topic anyway, see Gold as an investment. --Phirazo (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — this is blatant advertisement as shown by the consistent external-link spamming already done by Bill.chiam (talk · contribs) for a website http://www.goldtraderasia.com — which is the company he owns ([6])! MuZemike (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further justification — the first paragraph is copy-and-pasted from his website right here. MuZemike (talk) 23:42, 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 keep. Trying to delete High School articles is the wikipedia version of pissing in the wind. There is long standing consensus (truce) that primary schools get redirected to the education authority and the high schools get their own page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seton Keough High School[edit]

Not a remarkable place John Collier (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable school, I was unable to find any reference to it anywhere on the internet, and it hasn't been mention in the washington post or any other newspaper with online archives for that matter. I was able to find this which is a reference to the sports activites that take place at the school, but that alone is not enough to establish notability.--Patton123 17:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The school's name garners 8,710 Google hits [7], and while many of them may not have anything to do with establishing notability, that certainly indicates that it has been referenced on the Internet. Furthermore, not only has the school been mentioned in the Washington Post [8], but the school is in Baltimore, not Washington, which means that one should not expect it to be extensively covered in the Washington Post. (The Washington Post search conducted by Patton above, which garnered no hits, only covers the last 60 days.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't found a single thing using regular google search that helps establish the notability of the school. The articles on google news[9] appear to be nothing more than trivial mentions of the school. The school is thus non notable.--Patton 123 18:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long-established secondary schools tend to be a sufficiently important part of their communities to be quite notable; in this case, we have 737 Gnews hits. RayAYang (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - searching on the component schools, as well as the new name, produces many sources that, together meet WP:ORG. In addition, the sources show that the school has produced several academic All-American athletes and the school has been involved in an important legal case. TerriersFan (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan and apply available sources. This school gets non-trivial RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Those news stories seem to be mainly routine sports schedules or results. This isn't anything like the in-depth coverage required to meet WP:ORG. Nick-D (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools are generally considered notable. Edward321 (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these sources I've seen two keeps above talking about reliable non-trivial sources, but where are they? The ones mentioned in the discussion of my delete are all trivial.--Patton 123 15:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My thoughts exactly. There is no policy or guideline which states that high schools are automatically notable, despite what some editors claim, and WP:ORG needs to be satisfied. The results of the Google search don't show that this is the case. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course, for those prepared to look for sources there are plenty. See: [10], [11], [12], [13], ", [14], [15], [16], [17]. As I said earlier this school has been involveD in a major legal case and has several All_American athletes - plenty to meet policy. TerriersFan (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are actual references they're just google searches. Please provide me with actual references and I will reconsider my current position, otherwise I say delete.--Patton 123 22:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As usual it has turned out that a high school has enough references to show notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've not looked at the sources here, but have done the work on finding sources for other school articles: they always end up having enough sources when people make the effort. There is no established school in the developed world that doesn't have newspaper articles and government reports on itYobmod (talk) 10:56, 4 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. No consensus to delete and none likely to emerge by keeping this open for another few days. Whether it should be merged can be discussed on the talk page. Let's move on folks. StarM 21:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Beamer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

That Todd beamer was heroic is not in dispute. That he deserves to be remembered is not in dispute. That people will see this nomination as in some way demeaning to his memory is inevitable. It remains that Todd, however brave, is notable for this one, heroic event (see WP:BIO1E), and for nothing else. A memorial on Wikipedia is against our guidelines. (see WP:NOTMEMORIAL). Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's still notable, and notability isn't temporary.SPNic (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think that "one event" is a fair description. If I recall correctly, President Bush invited his widow to the 2002 State of the Union speech and singled out Mr. Beamer for special mention. In the last few years, he's been the lead in movies about Flight 93. Perhaps it's not fair that he has been made more notable by the media, but saying that he's notable for one event is like saying that J.D. Tippit is notable for only one event. Mandsford (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you know, it is this one event that caused all the subsequent attention. He was a brave man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. And if consensus says again that the article should be kept, so be it. We do need to make sure we discuss it based upon guidelines, not upon any feelings of patriotism, or a need to honour the gentleman. After all, that is what we do here, reach consensus. It was only nominating this for deletion that found the first nomination, btw, since that has been lost in the article's deleted history. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that consensus would control. AfD can be defined as the place where a bunch of us nobodies decide whether someone else is notable. The guideline simply says that "consideration" needs to be given to various factors, and suggests that we look at what the "one event" was: "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." The "one event" rule is not a strict code, and it certainly does not mean that everyone has to attain fame through two or more unrelated acts. For the most part, history is filled with people who did only one important thing in their lives. Mandsford (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"He was a brave man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." Scared men are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Brave men are in the right place at the right time. Big difference. --Tombstone (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Beamer and his actions received an incredible amount of press coverage after the attacks and his story has become an integral part of the United Airlines Flight 93 timeline. Clearly encyclopedic, notable, and with plenty of refs. Joshdboz (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You say "After the attacks", and that is, surely, the point. He became famous posthumously because of one notable event. Isn't that what WP:BIO1E is all about? It says "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.". I see nothing wrong with altering the policy of that is what consensus desires, but that is a different discussion. Again, if consensus keeps the article, that is an important outcome. But, in that case, let us make our policies and guidelines crystal clear with no scope for a nomination such as this one. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to be misinterpreting BIO1E. That is to prevent an article from being created because, say, someone robbed a bank and they were on the local news one night. Or someone had a very minor role in a larger event, and where all that person's info could be reasonably included in the main article. It is not to prevent the inclusion of people who are clearly notable because of the amount, duration, and depth of press coverage they received. Joshdboz (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Beamer is clearly one of those heroes who will be remembered, along with various aspects of his life, for a good long time, and the sheer volume of coverage amply demonstrates enduring historical notability. WP:BIO1E is meant to screen out people who won't be remembered as being of note due to marginal involvement in news events, as opposed to figures of immense symbolic importance. RayAYang (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While he has been mentioned many times in the press, this fellow isn't inherently notable beyond BLP1E. Perhaps a subsection in another article would be more appropriate, but as it stands, policy is pretty clear here, and policy overides concensus. Hardly immensely important, this chap just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and made the best of a bad situation. Out of interest, do we have an article on the Glaswegian chap who decked a terrorist who drove a car bomb into Glasgow airport? Just a thought. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we do. See John Smeaton (baggage handler). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RayAYang. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BIO1E says "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime..." Please don't tell me 9-11 is a relatively important crime. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since the "one event" with which Beamer is associated is an extremely historic one. Compare Franklin Sousley, Harlon Block, Michael Strank, etc., who would be non-noteworthy soldiers except for their participation in Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Heck, someone could argue that Nathan Hale is associated with only one event. This strikes me as a misapplication of WP:BIO1E. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RayAYang, Josiah Rowe and SYSS Mouse. I agree that the particular BIO criterion being cited was meant to screen out people who got mention in the press for one event and forgotten afterwards. However, this guy was awarded a significant award, he was a significant part of a historic event (it was even put to film) and it is unlikely he'll fade in obscurity as the people this guideline is supposed to be applied to. Also, the cited criterion says "then a separate biography may be unwarranted." The guideline is purposely vague to allow for personal interpretation. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is the start, of a discussion on WP:BIO1E on the relevant talk page, and any interested parties might wish to determine whether any redrafting is required. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a Sirhan Sirhan bullet. Precedent has shown that editor consensus is that individuals who have received notice above and beyond the single event are notable. The question is coverage in reliable and verifiable sources beyond that single evnet, and Beamer fits that bill. As described above, I fully support redrawing the line on what is included in BLP1E. Alansohn (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Per Alan. The example I general give in this context is John Hinkley or Lee Harvey Oswald who are "BLP1E" but are so notable that we would keep them. This is such a situation. Furthermore, this individual is dead so surrounding BLP issues do not apply. Also, BLP1E is meant to try to protect privacy of individuals. This may be more relevant when someone is notable only for a negative thing. However, Beamer is a hero so that does not apply. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have a policy against memorials because their would-be sources, obituaries, are neither neutral nor verifiable. Media portraits of Beamer such as this one, [18], may be more reliable and fact-checked than your average obituary, but they are far from the serious inquiry that a real biography consists of. This isn't surprising. Beamer is a hero and deserves to be memorialized, not studied.
If indeed there are no genuine biographies of Beamer outside of Wikipedia, there is no way we can write one here that passes Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The References currently in the article are primarily descriptions of his actions on 9/11 that made him a hero. The article should be redirected to United_Airlines_Flight_93 unless and until neutral sources can be found that are actually about him. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, come again? Are you claiming that if sources aren't perfectly neutral then they aren't good enough? That's not the way Wikipedia policy works at all. We care about the sources reliability not neutrality. Almost nothing in this universe is neutral, and I'd question whether neutrality is something that can possibly exist as anything more than an ideal to be strived for. The bottom line is that we have multiple, independent reliable sources about him. Indeed, we have many such sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JoshuaZ. Salih (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course - seems to be snowing. There are 495 gbooks hits, including a biography co-authored by his wife [19]. Tons of reliable sources, passing GNG by a mile. As futile a nomination as one of Lee Harvey Oswald would be. BLP1E and other guidelines were not intended for, and are not written to exclude such obvious keep articles. John Z (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's clear that the AfD for Sandeep Unnikrishnan is what has triggered this one. Major Unnikrishnan's defenders are quite correct that Todd Beamer is no more notable than Maj. Unnikrishnan, both owing their fame to WP:BLP1E. Either both articles should be deleted or both kept. It would be hypocritical of Wikipedia to come to different decisions simply because one subject is American and has more online defenders than the Indian subject. -- Arwel Parry _(talk) 10:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JoshZ nailed it. Yanksox (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO1E and per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Dekisugi (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as being notable for one heroic event sounds like notability indeed, not a simple victim. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this ready for a WP:SNOW closing yet?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - his notability is lasting,[20] he is still well known today for the event, and most people would consider him "worth noting", so the logic of the "1 event" rule does not apply here. Wikidemon (talk) 19:25, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Itch[edit]

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable band/musician. No reliable sources provided, none found outside of various social networking sites and self-promotional material. I could not find evidence of a charted hit. TN‑X-Man 15:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Non-notable musician, a quick Google-search did not return any result with real content. JdeJ (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. Tatarian (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of the reasons for deletion stated above are true. Any minimal amount of searching would (and does) produce easy to find results of the notable contribution of this artist to the electronic music scene, particularly Drum n Bass. Examples include availability of works from Beatport.com, iTunes, references andguest spots on Drum n Bass Arena, discogs.com, Pitchfork http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/38672/The_Month_In_The_Month_In_Grime_Dubstep, eMusic, for example). TI is one of the most prolific artists and producers in the genre today. Also, the 'Fails WP:MUSIC' above does not stand up from the very first criteria: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable."

Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are trivial coverage, or only verify existance, not notability.Yobmod (talk) 10:58, 4 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. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 00:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primanti Brothers[edit]

I'm sure that Primanti Brothers is a Pittsburgh favourite, but it doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. Most of the references are self-sourced. The best reference seems to be a couple of paragraphs in a National Geographic article about the Pittsburgh Strip District. A Google news search finds plenty of passing mentions, but no substantial coverage. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that Primanti Brothers qualifies as a reasonably notable cultural institution. Aside from the articles you've referenced there are others ([21], [22], [23], [24], Washington Post). Lazulilasher (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primanti Brothers lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources" as WP:NOTE puts it. Lots of trivial coverage and a lots of Google hits but I'm not finding the (reliable) sources to justify inclusion here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Featured in national geographic. Historic restaurant and cultural institution. Notability established and I'm sure there are many more stories from their 75 year history. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been featured on the Food Network, as well as the Travel Channel. Patken4 (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is Pittsburgh's most famous restaurant and is perennially covered landmark in most television programs covering the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.37.92 (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't live anywhere near there, in another country in fact, and even I have heard of it. I believe I watched a documentary that included it on the Food Network or PBS. -Djsasso (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the usual problem with restaurants it that the coverage is simply local restauarant reviews. Coverage in the National Geogrpahic, and the travel section of the Washington Post certainly surpass a local review and demonstrate notability.n And for good measure, they are in published book about Pittsburgh such as this photo book. -- Whpq (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of references above local level. NVO (talk) 21:20, 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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 20:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wold (band)[edit]

Not a speedy candidate as it does try to assert some notability. Fails WP:N, WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. No reviews. No tours. No notable label. No notable albums. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 17:14, 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. Secret ^account 18:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Graysons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Page clearly fails the general notability guideline for starters. It's a show that will not be created, and should not have had a page until it was created. This is why films don't get pages until they actually enter production and/or are released. The information might be more suitable for Dick Grayson, but even then, all of the info was mere "talk" about a show, that was killed by the studio after a couple of weeks. Yes, I'm aware of Bruce Wayne (TV series), which I'm not convinced needs an article either, but another article existing is not a reason to keep this one. I say, it should be deleted. If anyone thinks the information is actually useful, then maybe we should paste it over into Dick Grayson's article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete needs a line on the dick grayson article but that's about it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I count two sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two sources don't constitute keeping an article. None of the sources have significant coverage (there's a paragraph of information here), and both basically say "hey, we're doing a show" and then "Actually, no we aren't". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both seem to me a significant level of coverage. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a crystal hammer. The CW has confirmed this show isn't going to happen, so what's the point?SPNic (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am struggling with the idea that what is basically a rejected idea for a TV show could possibly have any notability. Nancy^talk 15:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet the article passes the basic threshold of WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but add a sentence about the proposed premiere date to the Dick Grayson article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be clear, there are three sources for the articles. Two are Variety articles that are primarily on the Graysons. Both are significant-length articles. The third (footnote 2) is wrongly cited - it should point to the Mediaweek article that the fansite linked to itself references. That article, [25], is 1/3 on The Graysons. By any remotely normal application of WP:N, this article meets the basic threshold of the GNG. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I read the entire article on both Variety sources, there wasn't a lot of viable content in there anyway. Having a whole article in Variety doesn't mean it's significant, when the "whole" article isn't long to begin with and a good portion of it isn't directly about the show itself. Barely meeting the general notability guideline, and that's a questionable barely in my opinion, does not mean that the subject needs its own article. The GNG also says, "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage." Given that the topic of said show went from "we're going to make a show" to "no we aren't" in about a month, and had limited coverage in the media, I think it's clear that this was merely a "short burst of news reports". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are not particularly short. I tend to think that the "news source" clause was more a function of avoiding BLP issues than for something like this. I mean, I think there's a good amount of info across the three sources. There's a good amount of detail to inject. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have two primary sources. The first, when the show was first announced, detailing who was behind it and what they would like to do with it. Then the second was announcing that the show wasn't going to get made. That's not a lot of information, or coverage to even begin to suggest that this show was notable enough for its own article. They never even made any progress with writing, casting, getting a director for a pilot. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Variety is not a primary source. What are you talking about? Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to the primarily used source, not "primary" source. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge: incomplete or cancelled media does not harm notability. In fact, StarCraft: Ghost reveals that they can even reach featured article status. It looks like there was some notable excitement and details about the development of this series before it was canceled. Is there enough to support a standalone article? Not sure at this point. But if there isn't, a merger might be appropriate for coverage elsewhere. Randomran (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't cancelled media - it's an idea that was floated and went nowhere - it's entirely different from starcraft that was a work in progress and had 5 years worth of material to pull from to construct an article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. If the article can't be expanded, I'd support a merge to a suitable topic. Randomran (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unrealized possible television series. At best, should have a one sentence mention in Dick Grayson, but otherwise its not notable, has no likely future notability, and the three little sources are not "significant coverage." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Delete and) Redirect to Dick Grayson#The Graysons. Likely search-term. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per Sgeurka; as I said in the last AfD this was all speculation, and it turned out to be all for naught for a show which never reached the pilot state, much less casting. Keep it as a redirect and mention it within an appropriate place in the Grayson article as an idea which never got off the ground. Nate • (chatter) 20:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dick Grayson or possibly Bruce Wayne (TV series), since the two seem vaguely related. Also, wherever it ends up, you might want to use this source, a lengthy article from IGN on why the show shouldn't be made. Paul 730 21:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge & redirect This is an instance where a specialized notability guideline, WP:NFF and the general notability guideline contradict each other. There are enough sources apparently to satisfy the GNG, but NFF says that if principal photography hasn't commenced, we should not have a separate article - (this part seems to be more of a style guideline than a notability guideline). In any case, the existence of reliable sources demonstrate notability for the content, which appears to have been partially merged into Dick Grayson. This and GFDL rule out deletion rather than merge/redirection, as usual.John Z (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, they don't. First, it isn't clear that 3 sources (one of which is from a fansite) actually satisfies GNG. GNG does not give a source count. Two sources, one saying they are going to make a show and another saying that they aren't, do not constitute "satifying the GNG". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel like you're being disingenuous here, given that I already pointed out above that the fansite source should be changed to the Mediaweek article the fansite is linking to. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I was largely arguing against delete & redirect rather than merge & redirect ( a kind of keep), because the first is usually not a good idea because of attribution problems.John Z (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What attribution problems? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N with its lack of significant coverage. Multiple sources doesn't mean significant coverage. Jay32183 (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability seems to be established. Does it really matter if the show didn't come to exist if there is sufficient coverage of a show to establish notability?Redirect and Merge not notable enough for its own article, but having it somewhere in a list would be better than deletion since the article does provide two reliable secondary sources. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does significant coverage come from a single news outlet reporting on the event? How is it significant coverage when the only thing said is "we're going to make a show" and then a month later (no new news actually occurring in this month) the studio saying "no, we aren't making this show". You're basically saying that every idea for a show that gets mentioned in a published source needs its own page? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dick Grayons's page already appears to have all of this information, it's just missing the sources themselves. There really isn't anything to merge. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis that there's just enough notability to make this a necessary topic to cover, but the most likely merge topic, Dick Grayson, seems to inappropriate (forcing a comic page to cover a failed TV show). I cannot think of any other article where a merge would be appropriate: The CW Television Network or its list of broadcast shows seems to be a poor choice too. --MASEM 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a show that was going to be about Dick Grayson, the fact that it was called "The Graysons" doesn't change that. Smallville isn't called "Clark Kent", yet the show is about him. I'm not seeing how a failed TV show idea (idea, not even an actual show) even warrants mentioning on Wikipedia to begin with. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The show was covered extensively in media. That's more than enough to warrant mentioning here; question is where. 23skidoo (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most of those sources were reporting information from the original source, which was Variety. Ten people repeating what one person said doesn't mean that ten people were covering the story, it just means that ten people copied the statement from another source. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dick Grayson. Discussion of media portrayals of a character is completely relevant to an article on that character, whether the productions got off the ground or not. And there are multiple media sources reporting on this cancelled project. I agree there's no reason for it to have its own article but I see no reason why it can't be mentioned in the Dick Grayson article (or a "Portrayals of Dick Grayson" article if one is made). 23skidoo (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If ten people repeat what one person said, that would be x. We seem to have y, where ten people comment on something one person drew to their attention. That's called news coverage. It's like how one person declares the result of an election but a lot of people comment on it. We don't just make a decision on what one person or ten people say, we have to weigh it all up too and evaluate in a neutral manner and maintain balance. The balance of this article's worth includes its intersection from a number of articles, including Smallville, Robin, Warner Brothers and more. Presentationally and for the utility of editors, readers and the encyclopedia it makes more sense to have an article convey all the information concisely that send readers through a series of links on an Eater Egg hunt to discern all the information. Hiding T 22:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except, I don't see 10 reliable news organizations actually covering this television show idea. When you say "according to Variety", you aren't reporting anything new you're just restating the same info. If there is a redirect of "The Grayons" to Dick Grayson, the most obvious location, (which is a different discussion that would take place on the talk page), then you don't have an easter egg hunt. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've flicked through the google news results and there's a link [26] which uses the Variety report to comment on the fan reaction. That's doing far more than the Variety report, which never mentioned fan reaction. Now okay, that's just one more article, not ten, but for me that takes the article far past the needs of policies. And if you redirect to Dick Grayson, then you naturally have an Easter Egg hunt because you have to trawl through an entire article to find the relevant facts, some of which may not even be included. Hiding T 13:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is an easter egg hunt? It's called a pipped link, and the section already contains basically all of the same information. It's a bit more terse in its writing, and doesn't have the sourcing, but it's pretty much all already there. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - In my day they were not "pipped links" but piped links. :) From memory they used to be guided against because if the section was removed or renamed the redirect became useless. I see that times have changed on that score. However, given that the section was created after the article, and given the edit histories of the section and the article, I believe per the terms of the GFDL the article cannot be deleted for copyright reasons. Hiding T 14:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If a section is renamed, then you typically just rename the redirect. As for removing, if it's removed then clearly someone felt the information wasn't worth reporting and we're back to the idea of deleting this article. There are not "copyright" issues within Wikipedia. No one can claim that Article X on Wikipedia violates the copyright of Article B on Wikipedia. That's like saying you're going to sue yourself. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You have a serious misunderstanding of copyright issues on Wikipedia. Everything I add to Wikipedia, Wikpedia uses under the GFDL, but I still retain copyright on it. If Wikipedia breaches the terms of the GFDL, then they are open to a suit from me. The authors of The Graysons article can sue if the article is deleted, since their contributions have not been acknowledged through reference to the article history per the terms of the GFDL and Wikipedia's compliance with it. Please see Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License. Hiding T 14:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry, but that theory does not apply to an open editing encyclopedia. Secondly, articles are deleted all the time, I don't believe anyone has every attempted to "sue" Wikipedia because their article was deleted. Given that no editor, or team of editors, owns any article on Wikipedia, the theory that they "own the copyright" to something they wrote on Wikipedia is flawed and misplaced. Because Wiki has an open editing policy, you would have an extremely difficult time proving that you "authored" an article beyond a few words, given that once you add something to the page I can easily go in and reword the entire statement. I think it is you that has a misunderstanding of the GDFL policy. Lastly, even when a page is deleted, the history itself isn't fully deleted. Just because you cannot see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, as Administrators can re-instate a page (with its history returned) if need be. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You did read the GFDL, didn't you? You have read Wikipedia:Copyrights, specifically (my emphasis) you retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract the GFDL license for the copies of materials that you place here; these copies will remain under GFDL until they enter the public domain. You are aware that we have to maintain contribution history per the terms of the GFDL, yes? This is explained at Help:Merging and moving pages:The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires. How this applies in this instance is that we have text from The Graysons influencing and being introduced into Dick Grayson. That to me falls into copyrightable expression as opposed to copyrightable facts, as per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. This is the main reason we ask that when an afd is in progress no-one merge the page anywhere, since, in order to respect the GFDL we have to point to the page history to credit them. We do this because every variation of a text means, under the terms of the GFDL, that the author of the text which has been varied must be credited, otherwise the GFDL is null and void and you have breached copyright. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete, Wikipedia:What the GFDL is not and Wikipedia:Revocation of GFDL is not permitted for more expansion of the points. You are aware that one reason we cannot delete redirects is if they have been so merged, yes, per ((tl:R from merge))? Are you an administrator, because if you are I believe it is shocking that you do not have the correct grasp of the GFDL, since this is a serious legal issue. This may warrant discussion at WP:AN. Hiding T 16:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't repeat this again. YOU DO NOT OWN what you add to Wikipedia. You are adding information that other people own, YOU do not own anything on here. Now, let me explain your misunderstanding. You are applying the merge guideline to the deletion guideline. When we delete something, we are not bound by any contract to "keep the history to preserve the GDFL". Who the hell was talking about merging before the AfD was closed? No one. That information was already on the Dick Grayson article before this AfD took place. If a full merge takes place, it will happen AFTER this AfD is closed, as I told you this before. Please note the difference between loosing your GDFL license, and being sued by an editor of Wikipedia because you "deleted their article". They only thing that is "theirs" is their particular choice in words. If the article is deleted outright, then it should denote that we don't believe that content is relevant period - in such case it would be removed from Dick Grayson as well. If we determine that it shouldn't have a page, but it should be noted, then it will be redirected (thus preserving your edit history). You're twisting what the GDFL says and what this AfD is trying to do into some time of violation of someone's copyright. It isn't. Stop wasting this AfD's space with your useless dribble about the GDFL. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping this civil. I won't repeat this again either. You are wrong. Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights. Now, you can apologise for your emotional out of character outburst, or you can walk away, because this isn't a battleground and I won't trade insults. Your choice. Hiding T 14:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - <edit conflict>I just want to reflect on the fact that I don't think anyone calling for deletion necessarily endorses deletion so much as merging, and looking at the first afd I think the road to tread in taking this forwards is working out how best to present this information in our encyclopedia. No-one appears to be arguing it has no relevance to our coverage of Dick Grayson, no-one appears to state the article has an issue with WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:NOR. All we're arguing over is how it fits in with a guideline, and I dispute the nominator's assertion that it clearly fails the guidance at WP:NOT, guidance, I hasten to add which is not empirical but subjective in nature. I really do not think deletion is the answer here. I'm failing to see any merge discussion on the article talk page. What did I miss? Hiding T 13:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - - My first thought is, "why is Wikipedia reporting on a failed TV idea", something that didn't even make it past the "hey, we got an idea" phase. Just because something meets the barest of criteria for notability does not mean that Wikipedia needs an article on it, let alone to mention it. After that, the best option is to leave it on the Dick Grayson article. P.S. I never said anything about WP:NOT. I'm sure that a merge discussion will be taking place if/when this AfD is closed as no-consensus or keep. :D BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This has to be closed as keep, per the terms of the GFDL, as I have stated above. Apologies on WP:NOT, I meant WP:NOTE. As to why we have an article "reporting on a failed TV idea", it's because there are reliable sources to summarise. It really is that simple. What Wikipedia merits an article on is somewhere in between nothing and everything. I guess the one thing we can all agree on is that we're here because we don't know where the line is between those two extremes. I think, though, that it is somewhat dishonourable, disingenuous and counter-productive to on the one hand insist on reliable sources, and then on the other hand say, ah, you may have found them but they are still not good enough. When I play football, we keep the goalposts still. ;| Hiding T 14:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no issue with the GFDL, because there is no indication that content was copied from one article to the other. They appear to be written independently using the same sources. We don't have to retain this history if we don't keep any of its content, even if those contents are similar to those of another article. Jay32183 (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In my opinion I think the two articles shared authors and that one article informed the other, which for me means we should respect the GFDL and merge and redirect rather than delete. I'm not sure I agree they were written independent of each other. I will confess at being cautious, but I fail to see the harm that such actions will cause when everyone seems to agree a redirect can be left behind. It seems morally we should simply merge and redirect to cover all bases rather than simply delete. Hiding T 14:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything worth merging per above, or delete if there is none. Having an article in a magazine does not mean we must have a perma-stub article, when the subject is better treated as a section in a wider article. GDFL is a none-issue - if content is copied in merge, just have to say where it was copied from, and the original writer will be found in the history of the redirect. If page is deleted and one sentence written in Dick Grayson, then is no copyright infringedYobmod (talk) 11:03, 4 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. Secret ^account 18:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Different Breed of Killer[edit]

Non notable band that fails WP:MUSIC Nuttah (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, Leaning Towards Neutral. I suppose this should be kept, just for the band's few fans, but the links aren't the best. TopGearFreak ^Talk 12:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reasoning that is not based on policy. The band's fans can visit the myspace or create their own fansite without the aid of Wikipedia.

Link farming is not the purpose of wikipedia. JamesBurns (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I have no idea whether the record label is notable or if the band members have been in other notable acts. I can therefore not establish whether the band is notable, but I felt I needed to mention this so other people can focus on finding out if this should be kept based on the right reasons. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to be notable... just barely. Jonathan321 (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hmmm... This site offered up a review of one of the band's albums, but only because the site is selling the album. Most of their Ghits are from lyrics databases. Nothing helpful from google news. There seems to be no unbiased commentary from notable sources. Nothing I can find about them meets WP:N or WP:BAND. Themfromspace (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1, [27], [28], [29] and [30]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? The comment above clearly demonstrates that it does. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:12, 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, So Why 13:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google brings up plenty. Sam ^Blab 01:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:59, 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. Since I can read Russian I can confirm that the sources cited relate to Literturnaya Rossia which is a highly respected literary publication in Russia. Sources do not need to be in English but it needs a much better Russian speaker then I am to do the necessary to properly source and improve the article Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wind Andrey[edit]

Contested prod. Russian author of questionable notability. No relevant third-party sources can be found. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are these? Juzhong (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Быть нарушителем
- ~~Говорит профессор Ващенко~~ looks like a webhost
- Взгляд изнутри
- Был приятно удивлён
- Литературные коридоры
- Дыхание живых слов
- "Тропа". Андрей Ветер. FictionBook
- ~~Сайт книги "Тропа"~~ looks like a webhost
- ~~Персональный сайт Андрея Ветра~~ looks like a webhost
  - Of the ones that have not been tagged "looks like a webhost" as of this writing, all but one of them look to me like Mr. Veter is the author, not the subject. The remaining one looks very much like a page from a competitor of amazon.ru, which does not qualify as a reliable source attesting to the author's notability, while it does attest to his existence. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As Juzhong shows, there are sources out there. I can imagine that if the nominator searched for "Wind Andrey", not much would have been found. On the other hand, a search under "Андрей Ветер" turns up quite a bit more [31]. I definitely think that the article should be renamed "Andrey Veter", which is the author's name. Weak keep, however, because I can't tell that Andrey or Andrei Veter is actually notable according to Cyrillic-writing sources. Mandsford (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Juzhong (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established.ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with you people? You don't speak Russian, YOU DON'T FUCKING KNOW. Juzhong (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that's exactly why notability is in question, I guess. Since we don't speak Russian, we "don't (f-word) know" whether the books have been reviewed in the Russian news or are in Russian bookstores or whether Detective Press is an established publisher, and can't be sure. We would apply the same standards to a book from a publisher that we weren't familiar with (to his credit, Andrei Veter seems to have published a lot of books). Here's the ru.wikipedia.org article [32] and a translation [33] and here's a separate translated page [34]. If anyone can show to me that the publisher is notable, that would be persuasive. Mandsford (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like promotion. The article says nothing about why this author is more notable than the average, run-of-the-mill author. --Cbdorsett (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag. Having so many books for sale through book chain is in itself an indication of notability. Tag is so an editor with some Russian knows it needs improving. If we don'T accept RS reviews of his books as sources for his notability, then we could make articles for each of the seperate books but not the author? Which is a ridiculous situation. I see no requests at Wikipedia:Translation/*/Lang/ru for the sources.Yobmod (talk) 11:10, 4 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 2 and 5, keep 3. I know about hip hop, those sources are hardly reliable for 2 Secret ^account 18:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mixtape Messiah 2[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)).

Mixtape Messiah 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Also nomination

Mixtape Messiah 3
Mixtape Messiah 5

Fails WP:NM, non-notable mixtapes with hardly-reliable sources.Diverse Mentality 20:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete- recreation of previously deleted content. (I think). IF its not, then a simple delete for all will be my answer. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS FINE. WHY IS IT BEING DELETED????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.50.106 (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — 65.94.50.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note — the article was up for deletion two weeks ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixtape Messiah 2 & 3 with a result of keep. I do not see where either article was deleted. Hence, this is in fact a 2nd nomination of the 2 & 3 articles with 5 lumped in. MuZemike (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to that AfD, only Mixtape Messiah 3 is notable (but has yet to assert notability). The rest still seem to be non-notable. DiverseMentality 03:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no reason for this to be deleted. It IS notable and the artists official website IS a reliable source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.101.144 (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — 68.217.101.144 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Why is this up for deletion these nerds already deleted Mixtape Messiah 4 for no reason, this is blasphemy. Wikipedia is going downhill with these mods or whatever they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc 0808 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Dc 0808 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Why is the Mixtape Messiah series getting deleted? It's been released and it's relevant. It's one of most known mixtape series and it's one of the reasons Chamillionaire is known. The series is note-able and should all be restored. SE KinG (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say keep. His tapes are more known than his albums so why would you delete the mixtapes and not the albums? Non-notable mixtapes? Thats merely an opinion, these mixtapes are a symbol in most of the southern states of the USA and even well known in Europe. Hardly reliable resources? I think the fact the mixtapes have been released in the past is reliable enough. Clueless, all I have to add to whoever nominated this.Carlols 88 (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think we all need to go read WP:NM. His mixtapes are more known than his album? Please lead me to a reliable source that says his mixtapes are more known than his commercial albums. Also, please read WP:NALBUMS; it states: Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. If someone can expand these articles with significant independent coverage from reliable sources, then the articles can be kept. At this time, they are not notable. DiverseMentality 18:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. How can you even define notable with "independent coverage from reliable sources", I mean come on..just cause they're not notable to you, doesn't mean they're not notable for anyone. There are plenty of people that agree with me if you say these mixtapes are one of the most well known series in the industry right now. I remain stated that the fact these mixtapes have been released is a source reliable enough to know all you need to know about the mixtapes. I might as well open a blogsite with all the previous release dates, tracks, producers and names of his mixtape series and say that is a third party source, not everything can be proven by third party sources, because most of these tapes are based on opinions of people. Its a shame people start these nominations simply because they can't relate to the music. Carlols 88 (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The release of a mixtape doesn't justify its notability; our notability guideline clearly states this. If a mixtape it not covered by third-party reliable source, it's not notable enough, again, by our notability guideline. I didn't start the nominations because I can't "relate to the music", that has nothing to do with the nomination. I nominated these articles because lack notability. DiverseMentality 22:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] Will that do? Im not quite sure what you consider to be a reliable source and what not, so I just googled it and this is what came up, for you to decide whether or not its reliable. Im probably not doing this according to your guidelines, but Im not into your rules and everything, my sincere apoligies for that. Carlols 88 (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The two links to Amazon only confirm the release, and as I said before, release of a mixtape alone doesn't justify notability. Sixshot, RapReviews and Rap Basement are not reliable sources, (and to add, Rap Basement only offers the track listing and a download link to the mixtape). If you're unsure if a website is reliable, ask at the reliable source noticeboard should help you. DiverseMentality 23:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is insane. every Mixtape here is up for deletion?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakershow87 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Lakershow87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Why are you people deleting these mixtapes? Of course they are notable, and how are those websites not reliable? They're normal websites like 90% of all other sources for other articles. I should stop donating to wikimedia if more articles on wikipedia are going to be deleted like these. El0i (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most notable mixtape out of all of them, this mixtape won best mixtape of 2007 at the O-zone.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep #3, delete #2 & #5. #3 was reviewed by the New York Times, for crying out loud. #2 was reviewed on a number of hip hop websites (and King, a men's magazine that includes some music content—not a music mag) but that alone does not indicate notability to me. To my eyes #2 & #5 fail WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how one review by the New York Times establishes notability. DiverseMentality 23:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with nominator, notability not established. JamesBurns (talk) 01:19, 28 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 13:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2 and 3, Delete 5: I think that one New York Times review for 3 shows notability and I also think that multiple reviews for 2 show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they are legitimate, notable mixtapes. I see no reason for any of these pages to be deleted. Andreandre (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Suprised it has not been suggested. If 2 out of 3 are notabile enough to have perma-stub, would be far better to merge all and redirect to the larger article. Only a merged article would ever have a chance at GA or FA, and all notable subjects should have a chance of that.Yobmod (talk) 11:17, 4 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. obvious hoax, nominator provided airtight evidence. Mgm|^(talk) 14:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millard Brunton[edit]

This is a HOAX. The author Vendergood1 (talk · contribs), who has no other edits, has copied and modified the existing article about the real lyricist Lew Brown, born Louis Brownstein, and invented the name "Millard Brunton" said to have been born "Lew Brownstein" or (under the picture) "Louis Bruntonstein". The blurred but youthful-looking picture, uploaded by the same author, claims to show the subject in 1958, when he would have been aged 65. "External links", at the bottom, has the nerve to give Lew Brown's Internet Broadway Database entry as "Millard Brunton AKA Lew Brown", although that quotes Brown's real date of death, 1958, and "Brunton" is supposed to have lived till 1993. There is absolutely no evidence that the name "Millard Brunton" has anything to do with Lew Brown. The author redirected Lew Brown to this article: I have undone that redirect. Delete as hoax. JohnCD (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as blatant hoax. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 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 keep. John254 00:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's Josef Fritzl[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Britain's Josef Fritzl

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Boshinoi (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Improvements to the article seem to indicate a further impact than a "standard" child abuse/rape case. keep. Ironholds (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ see below - per nom. This is an encyclopedia, not Wikinews, and these crimes are not "verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact." JohnCD (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy is only 'known' because of Joseph Fritzl's notability. Since there's not even a partial name or any details about the case, there's not enough material to build an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and rename to The Gaffer). It's now been shown that this case has an immediate effect. Several organizations will be under investigation for failing to notice the abuse. Crimes/criminals that cause such changes are notable. -= Mgm|^(talk) 22:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, I've actually not heard of him being called Britain's JF, but the case has been at the head of all the news broadcasts in the UK- I know wikipedia is not news but the coverage means he meets WP:RS. Not heard of the "BJF" name, but he is known for the dozens of children he fathered, some aborted due to severe genetic abnormalities, something these daughters had to go through. He's not known for the same things quite as JF, there's been more emphasis on the pregnancies, so the comparison isn't really accurate, it's a case of its own.Sticky Parkin 19:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The subject may become notable, but doesn't appear to be so at this stage. If nothing is added in the next days, I'd support deleting it. JdeJ (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The events are notable but the identity the individual has not been made public for legal reasons. Write about the events, not the person. McWomble (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that this AFD was started by a banned user (Jarlaxle/Grawp or an imitator). NawlinWiki (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD was speedy closed at this point because of the nominator being a banned user. Closing rationale was:

The result was speedy keep . Article nominated by a banned user. Those still wishing for deletion should either PROD the article or re-nominate for AFD. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:ANI led to overturning of the closure and re-opening [40]. Further comments can go below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep There are some sources [41], [42], [43] which indicate a larger picture, most about how much other people knew and the government's response. Suggest changing title to "The Gaffer" (his nickname which the press is going with). There may be an article about the Gaffer's abuse. Or better yet, just a redirect to Fritzl with a mention. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An article on this incest case is not wholly inappropriate, but only when more is known. This is the second incest case in 4 years in the UK, first in Swindon in 2003 [44] and now in Sheffield (in the Times, the subject is referred to as "Sheffield Mr X"). The Sheffield case is considered particularly disturbing because it took place over a period of 25 years, clinched by a DNA test, despite multiple warnings over the years. In the fullness of time (the 25 life sentences were just imposed last week), an article on the "Sheffield incest case" might be more appropriate, when proper independent reviews have been conducted (as demanded by many, including Gordon Brown). Comparison with Fritzl does not seem helpful. There can never be a partial name for "Mr X", because the anonymity of the daughters and their children is protected by a court order. Other details that came out in court can also not be reported for the same reason. Mathsci (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insanly premature, at the very least. rootology (C)(T) 14:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update to Keep Per the crazy rescue performed by Parkin. Sourcing is much better now. rootology (C)(T) 22:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<str>weak</str> strong keep (see below) The title is appalling, it should be renamed or made at a later date when we can use the proper name, in which case it would become a strong keep and this AfD shouldn't prejudice its recreation. I would find it hard to work on this article due to its level of ewww. Unless you are in the UK you can't imagine the coverage it is receiving at the moment and the level of feeling this and other grim cases are getting. The news is full of doom and gloom. It's probably difficult to search for due to not usually being mentioned by the BJF handle and difficulty in pinpointing the specific case in searches without the correct name. Sticky Parkin 19:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked again I agree with the current name, which has been used in several WP:RS, as no other name is used, to protect the victims. Sticky Parkin 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is almost no information at all available and what is available, belongs to Wikinews not Wikipedia. There is nothing yet to indicate that this person will be notable beyond such comparisions. It can be recreated if information exists to satisfy WP:BIO.Regards So Why 19:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Changed !vote due to new sources added by Sticky Parkin, nice job, I think your rationale is correct now. So Why 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the case that there's no info and I've already added several more references in WP:RS- more to come. For the time being, it is notable and referenced- and can be further improved. Notability does not pass and the level of coverage this has received, including a statement by the prime minister saying he is outraged, moves it beyond wikinews. The PM rarely comments on individual cases. Sticky Parkin 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of my !vote, they were not in the article. I agree that it might be slightly notable now, though I really think we either should rename the article or better yet, change it into one about the case not the person. Regards So Why 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment could everyone please take another look as the article now has 31 references, all from WP:RS. The name exists in numerous sources including the Guardian so I personally think its valid, but feel free to change it. The article has references from the Guardian, Telegraph and the BBC amongst others. I personally think with 31 refs it is now a strong keep and far beyond "slightly more notable".:) So I have modestly changed my vote.:) I could add plenty more and probably will some other time. The name is sort of about the case, it is how the case is being referred to. Do you have a better suggestion?:) Sticky Parkin 21:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually it has less than that. Several references are used ~~2-3~~4-5 times each. Read WP:CITE and the related pages on how to use a citation more than once. Claiming 31 references when there clearly isn't is very misleading. Still a significant number of references, but not quite as overwhelming as indicated.--Crossmr (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned that up, in actuality there were only 11 references.--Crossmr (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends if you mean references, which there were 31 numbered inline citations before you shrunk them, or sources, which obviously I am only human and have only spent six hours or more on it tonight covering all the details (which are the point of refs IMHO) and added one or two different sources even as you were shrinking them. Most articles aren't set out like that in my experience, but it's up to you, it does look tidy but it's not because there are a lack of sources- there are no doubt plenty more to cover I've only done about page one of google, I'm only human, but feel free to add more rather than making it seem like there are less.:) Sticky Parkin 03:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Sticky, who has considerably improved the article, that this is an important case, which should be kept under its own name. The present name is not good. A better name, related to the British media reports, can surely be found. Mathsci (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is a repository of information. The name of the article doesn't really matter at the moment, as it can be linked to regardless. ðarkun coll 00:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment on the name I have changed it to British Fritzl as it is actually more commonly used [45] but I don't know if most of those cases are unrelated and just contemplation of that and other crimes. But we can always rename.:) Sticky Parkin 03:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure article. In spirit with my comment above and WP:BLP1E, I think we need to restructure the article to cover the event rather than the person. I agree that the current state of the article is much better and I commend Sticky for his tremendous work expanding it, but as with Josef Fritzl which redirects to Fritzl case, we should do the same with this article. Regards So Why 08:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article not mainly cover the event rather than the person? This also isn't his real name anyway, but how about British Fritzl case as 'british fritzl' does seem to be the name most commonly used in the media? Anyway, this is a matter for the articles talk page IMHO. I don't think all that much restructuring would be needed, mainly just a change to the article's name, which we can discuss, and altering the article to reflect that. Sticky Parkin 15:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree completely. With some rejigging of the lede to summarise the content, the article could be moved to Sheffield incest case (or some variant) with a number of redirects added for the various names used in the media. Mathsci (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable case. However, for privacy reasons it would be better to merge all notable British incest cases into a single article. (Obviously, the same holds for other countries or regions, too.) --Hans Adler (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was concerned about that but in this case they seem to have done quite well at not revealing the family's name etc. A blend of all the cases would be difficult to make, I think this one is notable on its own. Sticky Parkin 15:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Blend" sounds complicated. I was thinking of a time line of prominent cases, together with background information about the political/legal situation at the time etc. Each case would be reported in about the same detail (one paragraph) as this case currently is. I think that would be a lot more useful. If you are interested, I remember seeing something similar a while ago for a different type of crime. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. This is a hard one to decide. It has been much improved, and no-one can complain of lack of references. I don't, myself, feel that once there are four or five reliable sources, much is gained by going on to find 10, 20, 30... especially when, as will be the case with a notable crime, they are just different newspaper takes on the same event. Balanced against the improved sourcing, I set a lot of store by the WP:NOTNEWS criterion of verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact; I know that is only an essay, but I think it is an important criterion to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic. Any flap about a footballer's girlfriend's new hairdo will get into a lot of newspapers and so can be argued to be notable, but will be forgotten as soon as the next celebrity sensation occurs and is not really encyclopedic material. This is more significant than that, but for all the deep significance people are trying to read into it, it's really only a horrible crime and will be largely forgotten in a few years.

Given that it looks likely to be kept, I would like strongly to support SoWhy and MathSci - per BLP1E the article should be restructured to be more about the event and less about the person (about whom we will never know much, not even his name) and renamed something like Sheffield incest case; and it could do without the more routine comments of "appalled" politicians. JohnCD (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:05, 3 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. Per WP:HEY turnaround. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 00:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Roecker[edit]

Non-notable bio stub and not much else. Laval (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Notability not established per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources found by Cirt establishing notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. News coverage, book sources, a couple scholarly book hits, additional web sources. A Good Article Quality-level article could certainly be made out of these sources. Cirt (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATD and sources found by Cirt. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:35, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CTWUG[edit]

Article about local hobbyist club with about 60 members, founded two years ago. Fails the general notability criterion (no independent reliable sources). This cannot be considered a newbie's mistake, as I had already explained to the article creator that even if a project has laudable goals (and its philosophy maybe aligns somehow with that of Wikipedia), that doesn't justify a promotional article about it on Wikipedia.[46] Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Notability not established per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete More evidence of notability is needed.ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage found in Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Should Ptawug be included in this AfD or listed separately? Though better written and organised it is essentially the same entry for a different city, with the same lack of secondary sources. 9Nak (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does this article http://mybroadband.co.za/news/Telecoms/6180.html not constitute an independent reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.231.139 (talk • contribs)
Comment Why not mark ALL the wireless networks across the world for deletion ? Why is it only the South African networks that are picked on by wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wireless_network_organizations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protzkrog (talk • contribs) — Protzkrog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
RE: Point 2 Google news search Proper | Maybe next time try not use Australia news
Delete - one of a whole cluster of articles about tiny non-notable SouthAfrican usergroups, all of which should really be included in this discussion. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as usual, is irrelevant and ineffectual as an argument for retention. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and the tiny ones in Australia, USA, Indonesia, France, Greece, UK, India ? will they be deleted too ? why is it that only the African wireless users groups are targeted ? please answer the question ? User:Protzkrog
- If they have no substantial coverage by impartial third-party sources, certainly; that goes without saying. One of the ones you mentioned by name had multiple articles in local newspapers and magazines; all you're offering with these articles is local userforums and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please have a look at www.myadsl.co.za it is a local technology NEWS site, it contains a forum as well (as do many US news sites), we are sorry that dont have articles in international or US papers yet. Please fact check all the other wireless users groups accross the world and treat them the same as the African ones.User:Protzkrog 4 December 2008.
    - MyADSL is a non-notable source, and just about the only one for this and its sister articles. I agree with you about the equitable treatment issue, of course: not just for wireless usergroups, but for Mac User Groups, etc. Alas, "noble goals" do not equal "notable group"; this would not be the first article I've deleted or argued to delete, even though I considered it to have admirable goals and purposes. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe we should start a afriwiki, just like the real world we'll be excluded, and left to our own Wynand Karsten (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am honestly surprised that anyone would want too delete this page. Reading the comments and guidelines (notability guidelines) it is clear that you can argue any side of the argument. But by reading the article and understanding the significance of community projects like these, I would not want my name next to a comment motivating deletion. Just this morning I watched SKY news where they emphasized the importance of small community projects and the impact of these projects. If this group grows to a size of 20 000 users would you still so mightily advocate deletion? LouisZA This comment applies to the deletion notice on PTAWUG aswell User:LouisZA 15:31 3 December 2008
Comment I suggest the entities be combined into a single article (with redirects). The have some notability and I think they're worth including, but not as stand alone articles. Services such as these can be a very big deal to areas of the world with limited, no, or expensive services, and there does appear to be some media coverage in the articles and I believe more could be found on the issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, without RSs. If there are more of these, and all have limited notability, then a merged article would be better (notability is for existance of articles, a lower threshold for section in wider topic is usually used). But as this isn't a group AfD, is no way to enforce merge of others, so delete this.Yobmod (talk) 11:22, 4 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 a7, no actual assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fahd Rehman[edit]

I believe that this 'self proclaimed' socialite cannot be demonstrated to have sufficient notability for inclusion in this encyclopedia. The article claims that he has had 'minor' roles in the performing arts, which is not enough. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:30, 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 speedy delete. Gone StarM 12:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVLA Number Plates[edit]

I believe that this article exists partly to promote a website. The article does not provide much context for what it is attempting to describe. It also appears to function partly as a guide. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Spam is great in a Korean barbecue, nasty in Wikipedia. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It certainly isn't G11, but this article exists as an information "pamphlet" to advise of some changes within the DVLA. Fails WP:NOTGUIDE. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even if this was put in context, etc., it's still in the category of a how-to. --Lockley (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per lack of verifiability and that this is not a hot-to guide. MuZemike (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - looks like a copyvio from ezinearticles.com/?Personal-Number-Plate-Retention-Scheme---Important-Changes-Coming&id=1689354 (not linked because site is spam blacklisted) to me. JulesH (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - advertising/how-to guide, both of which are unsuitable for an article. In fact, I can't actually tell what this article is trying to say. gm_matthew (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:16, 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 Speedy delete, WP:SNOW, Wikipedia is not a game guide. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon saphire guide[edit]

I am unable to decipher exactly what this is. It appears to be a Pokemon video game walkthrough ('game guide'). In any case, it is patently unsuitable for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Patently un-encyclopedic... not to mention ultra-cruft. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Richard; this appears to be a walkthrough guide, which isn't appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NOTGUIDE. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:48, 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 Speedy Keep, per WP:SNOW, consensus is pretty clear. Yanksox (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deccan Mujahideen[edit]

Existence of group not established by any reliable sources and has not been verified; this article is also quite possibly an original research fork from November 2008 Mumbai attacks. Cerejota (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This is certainly a notable and encyclopedic topic, and has many reliable sources in the reference section. Plenty more can be found elsewhere. This is a notable and verified, and is not original research. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if events should prove that the Deccan Mujahideen name is only a smokescreen, there is enough verifiable, useful information here to warrant the existence of an article. Wikipedia has many other articles about (as opposed to disseminating) disinformation, pseudo-science, hoaxes and so on. And it is by no means established yet that the Deccan Mujahideen do not exist. Q·L·1968 ☿ 12:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of references, and the name has been mentioned extensively by reliable news sources in relation to the attacks. 86.44.30.119 Bucklesman (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of the reliable sources mention this group is probably a hoax. There is not a single source that says this group exists and has been verified as existing, and there are no hits to a group o. In fact, as of the 29th, one of the terrorists captured has spilled the beans on the operation, and it appears to be from Pakistan - which puts to lie all of the earlier reports. In fact, according to the AP, in an article just published as I write this, the Indian authorities are saying this group doesn't exist [47]. Do you guys actually read the sources, or just googled for hits? Do we really want a stand-alone article about a hoax? That is completely un-encyclopedic! We should not be as gullible as the blogosphere. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It's too early to make judgements here. The name has been used by Reuters and the BBC, I see no original research in the article. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep whether the group eventually turns out to have existed or not, the article will have notability for their mention in the events of this week and news coverage alone —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 15:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of November 2008 Mumbai attacks but too unwieldy to be included in original article. Clearly notable with plenty of refs. Joshdboz (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Vanderdecken; they have been named as the perpetrators in several good, reliable sources. It's not "un-encyclopedic", we do have several strong articles about hoaxes and even if it does, in the coming weeks, turn out to be a smokescreen there is enough information at the moment to prove otherwise and support this subject's inclusion. It perhaps needs refining a little, but that can be done as more info comes to light, and certainly isn't a reason to knee-jerk delete this. one brave monkey 16:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Please ignore original edit summary, got distracted. one brave monkey 17:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Though the group might not exist but,so far Deccan Mujaheddin has been the only group which has claimed the responsibility ... The name might be made up to confuse the indian investigation agencies but the page should be kept to tell who is this group (if any) or which group carried out the Mumbai attacks with this name. 96.52.193.72 (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep + comment: Since this group is the only one that has claimed responsibility for the Mumbai attacks, it is certainly a valid subject for an article. It is important, however, that the article reflects the doubts about the groups existence (a very quick scan suggests it does). – Clockwork Soul 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no prejudice against future redirect and merge once the identities of the perpetrators become clear. RayAYang (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep + comment When people see something in the news that they don't understand they turn to encyclopedias such as Wikipedia. Whether or not it's a smokescreen the name will come up, and thus there has to be information about it. There can be a section that states that it may be a smokescreen and hasn't been verified but either way it needs to remain. I would argue that it should remain even if it is proved the group doesn't exist. Encyclopedias must keep a record of events, ideas, groups. Basically it's a storehouse of information, and this is information regardless of whether or not the group is a smokescreen. When I first heard of the group I went to Wikipedia. When the article didn't exist I createde it and watched as people filled in more and more information about it.Bearon (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even if this group is a smokescreeen they have claimed responsibility and are a matter of public interest that people have the right to find out about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.208.120 (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This is no WP:OR. —Guy Peters ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 18:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A few problems with the article notwithstanding, it is generally well sourced and appropriate. JodyB_talk 18:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This nomination is unnecessary. The story is currently unfolding. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Agreed that this is not OR. It can, however, be put in as a front name, if the "Deccan Mujahideen" turns out to be another known organization, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba. This article can point to others. However, it is mentioned in the news and has become, de facto, a topic worthy of entry into Wikipedia. --71.131.176.216 (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to November 2008 Mumbai attacks. Although the so called group claimed responsibility for the attack, its existence has not been substantiated by any realiable source till now. Shovon (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Whether or not the group exists, whether or not the group is the group that actually carried out the attacks we have a wealth of reliable sources dicussing the group. Moreover, AfDing during an ongoing event where further information is still coming through is really not a good idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Speedy close this AfD, its not making the article look nice. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and comment. To all those !voting to keep, this group has not been proven to exist. The article itself says "the existence of the Deccan Mujahideen has not been verified". The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. There could not be a more blatant failure of WP:V and this article does not meet the threshold for inclusion. The "keep" !votes are entirely along the lines of WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. Closing admin please take this into account. McWomble (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment That's a complete misunderstanding of basic policy. WP:V doesn't require that a subject exists. It requires that we have data on it. Thus God and Higgs boson both have articles even though neither's existence is verified. And we even have articles on James Bond and Batman and no one even thinks they exist. What matters is that we have verifiable material about the subjects. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply Sorry Joshua man, methinks you be missing the point by a few thousand leagues. Of course the fact that this organization as a hoax claim is a verifiable fact that should be part of the article of the events! This is obvious significant encyclopedic value. Search "Verifiability not truth" and my nick on The Google, its my anthem! However, verifiability is an inclusion criteria for content, not an encyclopedic criteria.

For me, for something to have an article of its own, a number of verifiable, reliable sources must say that the topic is notable enough to warrant the attention of a single article *or* the original article is too long and specifics sections are spun off. This topic plainly doesn't deserve an article on its own. The hundreds of reliable verifiable source all say the same: there was an emailed claim using this name, and the authorities discredit this claim, and then each reliable and verifiable source got their own experts and "intelligence sources" to pretty much say the same. This is the *only* verifiable information we have.

This information is not enough to warrant a separate article, and unless anything else comes up, its ridiculous that we would have an article that would never amount to any significant information. It would be a stub that can never be expanded! This is precisely what makes the whole sorry affair seem like a good olde OR fork, which is about the most common policy clusterfuck in current event topics. Be part of the solution not the problem! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

close apart from the nominator, I don't see anyone recommending deletion. There are one or two recommendations for merging, but the vast majority recommend keeping for now. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. Of course, this will probably be closed as keep. Which is a disgrace, as there is not a single source that verifies that this group even exists. This should be a one sentence mention on November 2008 Mumbai attacks as the hoax it is described as being by pretty much every source. Quality, not quantity, of sources is what matters. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:32, 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 under Speedy G3 (Vandalism) - Peripitus (Talk) 11:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eight-week rule[edit]

I live in Australia and I have never heard of this dating 'rule'. This article contains no sources and my attempts to verify this rule have not confirmed its existence. There are many other eight-week rules, in obstetrics, retailing and government/law, that could occupy this article's namespace. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under the 8 week rule of lack of commitment. I tried it but didn't like it. Now why can't I find a Speedy category for it? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, admits its own unverifiability. WillOakland (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this does exist, it is unlikely to be notable because it cannot be backed up by reliable, independent and verifiable sources. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. For what's supposedly a "widely used" term, it doesn't seem to show up much even on blogs or talk pages [48]. The question of "How long should we be dating before we ______" is discussed a lot, of course. Maybe someone can create a "dating wiki" with articles like this, and even a "Relationships for deletion forum" where people can !vote "stay together", "break up", or "merge, tonight". Mandsford (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a dating wiki, Mandsford. You can request all sorts of privileges here. For example, you can make a 'request for rollback'. Go to 'my preferences' and select what you want - I've ticked 'hotcat' (if ya know what I mean) and 'friendly'. I don't understand people who tick 'Twinkle' but that's available too. If your popups are disabled, get that fixed first. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that made me laugh out loud. Thanks. Mandsford (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I put a hoax template on the article, just to let you know. Jonathan321 (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM#Articles on neologisms. Flowanda | Talk 06:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this blog post pretty much confirms that this term is an invention of the author of the article --Xorkl000 (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should have been speedied (WP:G3) under the "eight-minute rule". WWGB (talk) 10:55, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Baynes[edit]

This character appears to a single episode (check [49]). The only (and very few) google links are referring to this episode and make no special reference to the character. The name of character (plus the actor's name which I added) is located in the list of characters. Plus. the article lacks any real world information nor references. No reason to have a redirect for a character which appears in a single episode. As a conclusion, it fails notability and has to be deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Already has an entry on the "list of" page. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor character with little non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:41, 3 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, WP:SNOW, unpublished and unwritten book that the author thought up yesterday. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winter ghost[edit]

This manga (Japanese-style comic book) has not been written yet, and was 'created' yesterday. I believe that there is a strong chance that this book may never exist, or that if it is ever finished it will not be published to a wide audience, and that it is otherwise not notable. The article also contains plans that constitute speculation or are otherwise liable to change. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:01, 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. Secret ^account 18:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DarkThrone (video game)[edit]

No notability established. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 10:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Alexa link shows the traffic to this site, and the game itself has over 40,000 players on the newest version. One previous version had 200,000 players. Granted, the article needs a large rewrite, but it is certainly notable enough to have its own article. Terlob (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Traffic ranking is not enough to establish notability. Also, I don't see any numbers on their webpage mentioning how large their playerbase is. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 11:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We here at Dark Throne are working to rewrite this article and figure out what to place into it. At the moment our game administrators are busy with maintaining the game and putting fixes into it. As Terlob said we are getting great traffic. Please give us some more time to discuss this inside the Dark Throne Forums and come up with something.Cloud_007 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- — Cloud_007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. I quote from Wikipedia's homepage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page):

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

What does this mean? What sort of things are in this encyclopedia?

As defined by Google web definitions (http://www.google.fm/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Encyclopedia&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title), an encyclopedia is "A book or set of books of informative articles usually arranged in alphabetical order." - Source: www.lib.iup.edu/instruction/glossary.html

Now obviously, Wikipedia is not a book. However, it is an online encyclopedia, which we can assume is therefore a cyberspace version of its written counterpart. Why are encyclopedias written though? Is it because someone bored decided that this would be the perfect way to waste his time? I have my doubts about that.

An encyclopedia is meant to include information that may be helpful/is of interest to its reader. This article in question, DarkThrone the MMORPG (Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game) deserves its own wikipedia article because it does precisely that. There are literally thousands of articles on Wikipedia with less notability then DarkThrone does. Why then are they here?

Notability should not be a deterrent for displaying valid and correct information about an item of interest on an encyclopedia.

"Traffic ranking is not enough to establish notability. Also, I don't see any numbers on their webpage mentioning how large their playerbase is. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 11:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)"

Why then, does a game like Travian have its own wikipedia article? Their conditions are greatly similar to ours. How have they established notability? Do they have many comments? Do they have outside sources that have commented on their game? How does one distinguish and outside source from a cheating player of the game, considering the limits of the internet? My question is, what then does establish notability? I could easily get a large group of the playerbase to come and post here. Is that enough? I could also get the Administrators of DarkThrone to provide statistics regarding the playerbase. If that is not enough, then what is?

I see no reason why DarkThrone should not have its own wikipedia article. If one bothered to search, they would come up with literally thousands of hits regarding DarkThrone the MMORPG. It's probably more famous on the internet then the Norwegian heavy metal band (which has its own wikipedia article) which carries the same name. Elfsky774 (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Other crap exists and tirelessly ranting about Wikipedia will not get anywhere in this discussion. Unless you can produce significant coverage via reliable sources, not much can be done. Please read what Wikipedia is by looking at our Tutorial, which you can access by clicking "help" on the left-hand navigation bar. MuZemike (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "There are literally thousands of articles on Wikipedia with less notability then DarkThrone does. Why then are they here?" - I would say tens of thousands, with hundreds arriving every day. Please consider nominating some them for deletion. Marasmusine (talk) 12:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Please note the conflict of interest in the above two comments. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 13:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. "... the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia..."

And in an encyclopedia such as wikipedia, why should they decide to omit an article which is relevant towards the theme (which is basically everything and anything)?

So do Wikipedia deny that DarkThrone the MMORPG exists?

By removing the article, Wikipedia sends a sign towards me that they deny the existence of DarkThrone.

I am of the opinion that there is no conflict of interest; I do not plan to edit the article, nor do I care about the information contained within it. It can be negative for all I care, as wikipedia clearly strives for unbiased articles.

I am fighting for DarkThrone's right, as an existing item of interest, to be given rights to have its own article.

Also, I request an answer regarding what DarkThrone can do to gain the notability which you claim we lack.

Thank you for your time. Elfsky774 (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- — Elfsky774 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Mere existence does not indicate inclusion. MuZemike (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that you can't make something notable. Attempts to procure the coverage required for WP:GNG just so you can have an encyclopedia entry here would represent a serious conflict of interest. Marasmusine (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being new to this game, and a frequent user of wikipedia, i was surprised to see there was even a debate about whether there should be a page focused on Dark throne. Even my most obscure searches have turned up results that have eased my effort while expanding my knowledge. Without reading the tenants of this site, I would believe those are two things that the creators and tireless contributors would be proud of. Granted the dark throne page wasn't exactly what I would consider helpful to a new recruit. But with some effort from people far better then me, the existence of this page will undoubtly serve the purposes I laid out previously. I apologize that this is my first post to this site, so if I mess up the code, please correct my error. User:frankspapa (talk) 10:48 am , 29 November 2008 (CST) — frankspapa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Found in third position of top sites in browser based category of Alexa, but your global rank is 20,000. I don't know if that is a signal of (or lack of) notability in Wikipedia's policies. Zero Kitsune (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not demonstrated through significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, IE no good quality independent reviews presented. Alexa rank and user numbers have nothing to do with the notability standard on Wikipedia, we aren't discussing Travian, Travian's article being here is not a cast-iron thumbs-up from the community. Those seeking to keep the article should focus on finding reliable sources (if they exist), because the lack of them is what started this process and will likely end it if they're not found. Someone another 18:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under criteria A7 - web content with no indication of importance. Marasmusine (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is an impressive claim to notability (through traffic and users). However, in an effort to retain quality and neturality wikipedia requires this to be backed up with reliable sources. I trawled through twenty pages deep into google searches and I couldn't find any coverage beyond obscure blogs and forum posts. I will gladly change my stance, and I sure others (including the original nominator) if such reliable sources can be provided.Icemotoboy (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Checked google news on "DarkThrone MMO" (as there's a band by that name) and found nothing; normal web search reveals no RS hits. Non-notable though if there's a list of MMO's it probably should be listed there. --MASEM 14:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability needs RSs, not popularity. No sources exist, hence this fails notability.Yobmod (talk) 11:26, 4 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 14:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amaranth (ball)[edit]

Non-notable social event. No evident claims of awareness outside a very small circle nor any sources attesting to such. Prod tag added, but removed without addressing the issues. CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non-notable event. Schuym1 (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notabilityChildofMidnight (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sign of notability. -- Goodraise (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GROUP. WWGB (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would suggest merging into Manifest (convention). However, it too has notability problems and probably wouldn't survive an AfD review. --Farix (Talk) 22:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Manifest (convention) 208.245.87.2 (talk) 20:18, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syren (book)[edit]

Non-notable, not yet published. Fails WP:N, no significant sources. Was prodded, prod removed by author who disagreed with the insignificance of Amazon as a source. Has previously been deleted, but is more than just a repost because this time around, Amazon actually gives the title. Delete now, recreate once significant coverage exist. Huon (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. That Amazon reference, to amazon.de actually, I removed it. The book's existence doesn't make it notable anyway--when it does get to be notable, we'll get a bigger and better article. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Captain-tucker (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:BK, recreate in 2009 after its published and significant coverage exists. Since this is book 5 in an established series one would imagine that this will not be difficult but it's a little early for this article.--Captain-tucker (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I also feel that it is too early for a separate page for the article, but we can merge it with the main Septimus Heap article for the time being including the book cover.--"Legolas" (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too early. Mr. Absurd (talk) 22:36, 3 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. Cirt (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Divinepark[edit]

article with unclear notability. If it is possible to establish notability, it needs to be rewritten. Beagel (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Misspelled, and you would think that something that's been around for 22 years would attract more than three google hits (once I got rid of Wikipedia and the horse). Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--per nom. And per Mangoe. I get a headache just looking at this kind of writing. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From a quick look, the article appears to be copyvio from the organization's home page. • Gene93k (talk) 09:08, 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. Secret ^account 18:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese-planned Republic of the Far East[edit]

Unsourced article about non-existent "proposed republic". Article includes description of Japanese intervention of 1918-1920, various unsourced and unrelated to each other military directives, Japanese estimates of Soviet forces in the Far East, alleged Japanese interests in Siberia. No reliable sources supporting existence of such general plan for a puppet republic. No Japanese or Russian interwikies. This article is example of WP:Original research and WP:Coatrack and should be deleted. DonaldDuck (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless Reliable Sources (or for that matter, any sources) can be found.--Unscented (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nom, when you said: "No reliable sources supporting existence of such general plan for a puppet republic." Did you mean, non can be found in the article, or I found none. Deletion is only a last resort when all reasonable attempts at finding sources have failed. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried searching google books - no good results.DonaldDuck (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not very good coverage of a notable topic. This would work much better as an article about Japan's plans for an invasion of the Soviet Union during World War II, which, of necessity, would include information about the planned post-war administration. The Kantokuen plan, mentioned in the article, is noted in histories of the war a matter of record [50] and is also mentioned in Japanese strategic planning for mainland Asia (1905–1940). Perhaps these two similar articles could be merged. Mandsford (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge per Mandsford Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and dubious. I strongly recommend against merging uncited material like this - back when Wikipedia was young quite a few articles like this were created, in many cases by machine-translating Japanese websites, and they've proven to be highly unreliable. The distinguishing feature of these articles that they have an awkward title, lots of small sections, make bold claims and are unreferenced. This article was started in 2005 by an IP and I wouldn't trust a word of it based on the unreliability of similar articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 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 recreation of deleted material per first AFD Nancy ^talk 08:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far Eastern University Boosters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No basis given for notability; no a priori reason to expect this particular school's boosters to be worthy of special note. —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I discovered that this article was already deleted pursuant to an AfD two months ago. The issues raised in that discussion haven't gone away. I just requested speedy deletion on that basis. —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:45, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blethen, Brainerd, and the Rise of the Seattle Times[edit]

Interesting but unencyclopedic essay. McWomble (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for personal essays and/or homework. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe use some of the information on the Seattle Times article. Mangoe (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we use any information in the Seattle Times article, we cannot delete, we need the history of the original article to properly retain attribution. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge part with The Seattle Times#History and redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, split and merge - While somewhat synthesis, it is well sourced and would be a pity to throw it away as it has material about two persons and two newspapers, the other being The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Actually the first part and one of the secondary sources is about Alden J. Blethe who does not yet have an article, but would merit one, so we could move it there with its history and then eidt and merge other parts elsewhere.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the author is following this discussion, they can take some of the info and stick it in the appropriate place (Seattle Times, Post). But the essay as we have it is an essay, OR, and even a cursory look at the "Secondary Sources" reveals that this was a high school assignment. BTW, Hi878, an annotated bibliography should NEVER include statements on how some article was helpful to you. The reader isn't interested in your thought processes, only in results. Sorry, that's the English teacher coming out. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. I never thought that this would stay. I thought I'd just try. Hi878 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, the English teacher in you is wrong. Hi878 (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:00, 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 speedy delete. G10, attack page. Places undue weight on the conviction. Mgm|^(talk) 14:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Jourdain[edit]

Ridiculously unnecessary article regarding the son of a tribe chairman who was convicted of plotting an attack and apparently had some sort of contact with Jeff Weise, who committed a school shooting that killed 7 before killing himself. Absolutely no notability. Cyanidethistles (talk) {Tim C} 23:59, 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 no consensus. If the sourcing and organisation does not improve I can easily see another nomination in say 3-6 months resulting in deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of mythological objects[edit]

Delete. Even if every link were blue or sourced this list would still be far too vague and indiscriminate. JBsupreme (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it with Thunderbolts of Zeus. McWomble (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split and rebuild - split into lists from each mythology, and rebuild as a list of lists. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it needs to be split, so be it, but that's no reason to bring it to AfD, and I see no other reason for deletion.--Michig (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can split the list either by mythology or object type to make it less vague. I see no reason for deletion. It's not beyond salvation just yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a split is performed I support the "by mythology" one. Having a collection of all the "mythological shields" i think makes the list indiscriminate. They are thousands and not all are notable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes much more sense as Category:Mythological objects, which already exists. Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not because the subject isn't notable, but because this seems to be ripoff of someone else's scholarly work, with no interest in sourcing. What I gather is that this is drawn from the listed external link, Lost & Found Chest from the Fantastical World, someone else's site that is very well sourced. What I see here is someone doing a Maria Von Trapp list of a few of their favorite things from that site. On further review, that wasn't a fair comment, and I'm withdrawing it. I suppose that this could be looked at as a list of other articles on Wikipedia about mythological objects, with more information added from those articles in order to keep it from being a completely indiscriminate list. This could easily have been assembled by going to categories like mythological objects, mythological weapons, etc., with the "source" being the different blue-links. Linking to other locations on Wikipedia is not sourcing. Mandsford (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More suitable as a category (with many subcategories), likely to be an immense and indiscriminate list. Just take a look at how many magical items there are in the D&D manuals -- most of them have a mythological ancestor. RayAYang (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A complete and sourced list would be very unwieldy, and it does look like a rip-off. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list. Xihr 23:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A bit unwieldy but could develop or disambiguate into something very useful, ntoable and encyclopedic. Deletion is not a good solution for an article needing work or reconstruction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Or rearrange in a proper order. --Infinauta (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think rename to "List of notable mythological objects", split to separate by mythology and rebuild this is the best solution for now. I think a list of notable mythological objects in Greek of Celtic mythology would be interesting. We can leave this article as a disambiguation article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that this makes it no different from the category already mentioned, and thus completely redundant. Plus, it doesn't address the arguments about the indiscriminateness of the list -- the problem with that isn't notability, it's encyclopedicness. Xihr 08:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A rename to "List of notable mythological objects" would be pointless. When making a list on Wikipedia, it is implied that list members are notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too indiscriminate for Wikipedia. The only thing tying them together is "mythology" which a very broad concept. This article seems to be a dumping ground for anything related to mythology. The topic needs to be much narrower. Notable armor in Greek mythology would be a more acceptable scope. Themfromspace (talk) 14:24, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance[edit]

Once the hype related to self-promotion or character assassination is removed, there seems to be little notability about this organisation. It says it's a non-profit watchdog organization for consumers, but it makes its money from certifying physicians; the bulk of its citations from Wikipedia are to unsourced articles that refer readers to directories of member physicians. Wikipedia notability requires significant coverage by reliable sources; search results for this organization provide only passing quotes in news articles or unrelated articles about personal privacy issues. I could find no direct links to the mainstream articles (O Magazine, etc.) promoted by the org's press releases. Flowanda | Talk 05:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article at present lacks reliable sources that comment on the importance of this organization. Some time back, it had more references, but they appeared to be self-promotional and they got removed by people who were doing cleanup. Having looked at the history I don't see anything that I would care to restore as a reference at this moment. In the Google results, this WP article is at the top of the rankings next only to CRSQA's own website, which is a suggestion that the organization is not too well known on the web. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, and in agreement with EdJohnston's astute summary. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain Please consider the obvious potential for conflict of interest as I am the Executive Director of USAEyes. That potential conflict does not, however, make the facts less valid.

I find that the logic for deletion of this article is circular and self-fulfilling. It seems that a major consideration is how the Wikipedia policy on verifiability is interpreted. Specifically "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

The fact is, this organization is the reliable source for much information about Lasik and similar refractive surgery procedures, the organization is referenced by other reliable sources, and that information should not be disregarded. Furthermore, when other reliable sources point to this organization as a reliable source of information, those references within the USAEyes Wiki article have been removed as "self promotion".

Please review the 03:32, 29 November 2008 edit. USAEyes is completing the long-term multi-site retrospective laser vision correction patient satisfaction Competence Opinion Relative to Expectation (CORE) survey. The preliminary results of the USAEyes CORE survey were presented to the FDA as part of an April 2008 hearing on patient satisfaction issues. The logic for removal of this information from Wikipedia was; "Removed content sourced only to group's presentation and own findings". Yes, it is a presentation to the FDA by USAEyes, but it is a presentation that the FDA found appropriate to publish. Yes it is the group's own findings, and that is because USAEyes is the entity conducting the survey.

The preliminary information has not been promoted by our organization via press release or submitted for medical journal publication because we feel it is most appropriate to promote and publish the full study. The preliminary information is valid and was presented to the FDA because of the importance of the data to that specific hearing. The FDA decided it was valid and important enough to publish. The FDA seems to me to be a reliable source that has referenced the USAEyes CORE survey. It did not need to publish the CORE presentation, but elected to do so. When this Wiki edit was completed, the reference to the FDA's docket replaced the USAEyes CORE outcome data, rather than the reference to the actual survey presentation with the data. It seems that the outcome information would be more valuable to a reader than the fact the data was presented to the FDA. It seems that the outcome data should be included in the Wiki for USAEyes as this is important and notable consumer information unique to the organization.

Please review the 21:13, 24 March 2008 removal of links to external government testimony, news articles, and ophthalmic trade articles. The justification for removal was; "Removing Gov't testimony and News subsections -- those external links aren't needed (and seem to be there for promotional purposes).". These are articles from US News & World Report, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and others who directly reference USAEyes as a reliable source of Lasik information. The article *Ways & Means testimony to the Subcommittee on Health by Ha T. Tu, Senior Health Researcher, Center for Studying Health System Change, is a study by an independent professor about Lasik medical information on the Internet that specifically cites USAEyes as a reliable source of information.

The O! (Oprah Magazine) article not being on the Internet was cited as somehow making the article less valid for inclusion. Surprisingly, only a very few articles in the printed O! are included on the magazine's website. The article, where USAEyes is cited three times as a source of reliable information, does exist even if it is not on the Internet. I'd gladly provide a copy to those who are interested.

Funding for USAEyes comes exclusively from fees charged to Lasik surgeons who seek to have their patient outcomes evaluated and certified by the organization. The organization does not receive remuneration for patient referrals. This model was determined by the State of California where the organization is incorporated and IRS as an appropriate funding source for a nonprofit organization. Any suggestion of impropriety or inappropriate influence is without substantiation.

What I find most surprising is the suggestion that if a Wikipedia article is high on the Google search engine results page (SERP), then "the organization is not too well known on the web". Google "cancer", "US government", "NASA", "Einstein", "Red Cross", "Microsoft", "Obama", "IRS", “Cisco”, “Apple”, “AOL”, and just about any other subject of importance. I doubt it would be would suggested that these are not too well known because the Wikipedia article on each is in the top 5 SERP.

Rather than deleting the article, let’s replace the edits that removed the items referencing the organization, the organization’s breakthrough CORE patient study, and other valid points of interest past and future. I’ve undone the outside citation edit referenced above as a start. You may, of course, revert it if you find it necessary. Or, perhaps, replace the CORE study and other relevant information that has already been submitted but edited away. Ghagele | Talk

Comments. The FDA links document only that your powerpoint presentation was entered into the minutes of a meeting; the government is not "publishing" or "referencing" your study or your statements. Verifying notability of your association's study would be provided from links to your study's final results published in recognized authoritative medical journals.

It's not the availability of the Oprah magazine article online that makes the information suspect; it's that your links go nowhere but to your website's press release with information and quotes that may or may not be part of the published article...but there seems to be no way to verify the information in the article or any offers to provide actual copies to interested readers. Flowanda | Talk 07:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Discussion. The FDA is not required to publish the preliminary results of the USAEyes CORE patient survey as presented at the April hearing on Lasik quality of life and safety issues. The FDA only needed to reference it in the minutes of the meeting. The FDA elected to do both. However you choose to characterize this publication, it is outside verification as described in the Wikipedia rules cited above.

It appears that your interpretation of Wikipedia rules are that if an organization authors a copyrighted study and limits publication (at least for the time being) to its own website (completely ignoring the fact that the information was presented at a government hearing and published by that agency), then it is not a valid citation or "verifiable". You also suggest that a study is not verifiable until it is published in "recognized authoritative medical journals". I do not think this is an accurate interpretation of Wikipedia rules. Many studies are never published in medical journals, yet are cited. Agencies and organizations often strictly limit publication and distribution of their studies.

It also appears that you believe if a news article is not on the Internet, its existence is so suspect that it should not be referenced or cited. Anyone who wants to verify the O! Magazine article simply needs to request a copy of it from the O! Magazine archives. It is completely verifiable. I have offered to provide you, or any interested party, a copy of the article directly. Provide an email and I'll send the entire article to you. There is no reason to delete the entire Wiki article on the organization.Ghagele | Talk

Proposal Responses to the concerns cited have been presented. Changes to the article have been made to accommodate those concerns. The O! Magazine article is verifiable so it remains, however the link to the relevant article at the USAEyes website has been removed. Multiple references were added or edited to cite independent sources for outside verifiability on several statements. The CORE study is published on the FDA website, so that reference remains, however language that may appear to place significant authority to that publication has been removed. A statement that publication of the preliminary results of the CORE study is limited and verifiability is thereby limited has been added.

The suggestion for the article's removal is respectfully asked to be withdrawn.Ghagele | Talk

Comment. Ghagele has greatly enlarged the article with the addition of news reports that say little or nothing about the Council itself. Hagele himself, or the Council, have presented testimony about Lasik in various forums. That is how the Council's name gets around. If any of these news mentions are of permanent value, they might add some bit of information to our article about Lasik. Though the CRSQA has an announced mission regarding monitoring and improvement of eye surgery, there is almost no way of telling how well it is doing that, and whether any third parties have drawn any conclusions about the Council's importance. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 4 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 14:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Einstein[edit]

Listcruft/unencyclopedic article. Move to wikitionary if anything. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. McWomble (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. abf /talk to me/ 09:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--though I have to say, this is quite funny. It could be fitted into an article on cliches, on media frenzy, etc. But there is no relevance here for Wikipedia, and this has no place in Wiktionary either, IMHO. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's either a neologism or a dictionary definition. Either way, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Wronkiew (talk) 04:10, 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. Close one as one notable mention but the notability guidelkine is clear about the need for multiple sources. Blogs don't cut it. Sorry Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apps for Democracy[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)).

Declined A7 speedy. Appears to fail WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as speedy tagger. Plus, the hangon rationale states quite clearly that, while the article is not written in a promotional tone, the reason for its creation is promotional. The creator cited newspapers mentioning this event, but without mentioning dates or article titles. Google returns a gazillion blog hits, but little or no actual reliable sources. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources[edit]

Keep.Thanks for notes. The Apps for Democracy has been mentioned in the following reliable sources:

Why the heck would you ever want to delete an article about a contest that uses open source software, is open to everyone, works toward a goal of citizen participation, and saves the government money. Some of this years winning entries used Wikipedia Content.

Whoisjohngalt (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The good intentions of the contest have nothing to do with notability. I can't find substantial coverage of this "annual event" thats seems to have happened once. If needs to be important enough for substantial coverage by media otherwise it's not notable enough to be included here. Sorry. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Vivek Kundra, the District of Columbia's CTO, is working with President-elect Barack Obama's transition team develop new ways to use technology and he is pointing to this contest to show how open source applications can be applied at the federal level. Mr. Kundra of his his APPS for Democracy contest as a success story. The District sponsored the contest with $50,000 in prize money. Contestants were asked to creative applications that put to use the District's 200 + real time databases. The result was 47 applications that District employees and residents can use everyday. The applications (that can be downloaded and used by anyone) include everything from a link for your iPhone that tells you the crime reports for where you are standing, as well as where the nearest Metro Station is located. Another gives historic tours of the city, including tons of information about the inaugural parade route (this is notable). The District now owns the full rights to these 47 applications, all for $50,000. If these applications went out to bid, it would have cost the taxpayers of the district of Columbia approximately $2.7 Million dollars.

Whoisjohngalt (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds fabulous. Can it be added to the article with citations to the media accounts verifying this information?ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Notable" is an adjective meaning important and deserving attention, because very good or interesting. Cambridge Dictionaries Online Apps for Democracy has been discussed in over 3700 blogs. Google Search Results That, in itself, is substantial coverage by media and makes it notable. More relevant is that it provides important information and deserves attention by both DC residents and visitors. It presents useful information, not elsewhere found in one place, by having contributors manipulate and present the same data from different viewpoints and agendas. The users can then extrapolate the information relevant and important to them.

Papalew (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC) — Papalew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This comment was the user's first edit. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not Cambridge Dictionaries Online; we are Wikipedia. MuZemike (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should not be deleted as it focuses on an important innovation in how governments are sourcing technology through crowd sourcing and open data sharing. Deletion would be a disservice to other citizens and governments who seek to use the Apps for Democracy model for innovation morning forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.133.73 (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apps for Democracy is an awesome example of Web 2.0 innovation in Goverment.--Resing (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC) — Resing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Apps for Democracy has been written about in thousands of blog posts (i.e. it's Notable) and has been on Federal News Radio 1500 AM and WTOP Radio. A 100+ 'most notable' post are here in delicious. Apps for Democracy is being viewed by the media as a possible reason (among many others) for Vivek Kundra's relevancy for CTO of the federal government.

corbett3000 ([[User Talk:corbett3000|talk) corbett3000 (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.220.26 (talk) — 98.218.220.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I've received emails about this organization and never actually knew what they were before seeing the Wikipedia page. I think the page helps to clarify what the competition is, and the range and scope of the competition are wide enough that there is a significant user base who could be assisted by a Wikipedia entry, assuming the entry is not exclusively promotional in tone.

lhooq (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:27, 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, MBisanz ^talk 05:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I'm seeing no notability in the links provided. Somebody want to change my mind with some reliable sources? If not, my !vote stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my !vote, going to weak keep. Add on rewrite, because it really needs it. Badly. Good find, RayAYang. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep 14 Gnews hits, appears to pass WP:N. I agree that the article as it currently exists is promotional and should be cut down, however. RayAYang (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep--some of those sources provided on the talk page do indicate some notability. But boy, this is a poorly written article. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:35, 3 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Colaert[edit]

Unsourced content and I'm not sure that it passes being notable, plus it hasn't been touched since the creation of the article. [51] Linked to evidence. Hairy Perry 18:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like he's done some spiffy stuff, but I see nothing that would fulfill WP:Notability (people). -Verdatum (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above comment by Verdatum. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:16, 25 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 05:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Let us find a consensus on this! (And delete!!!) JBsupreme (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--JB, here's my consent. There is no notability here, just a sort of a resume. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 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 Deleted by Blueboy96 , NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see talk page for deletion rationale. Blueboy 96 19:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Budd Management[edit]

Non notable company, article created by subject and includes autobiography. Paste (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not asserting notability. The quite blatant conflict of interest does not help and could (possibly) influence a veer towards speedying this... but unfortunately I think the way it's worded avoids that. one brave monkey 14:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:notability and WP:advertising. Hairy Perry 15:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — Spam-a-riffic!! MuZemike (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author has now removed AfD template. Paste (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:advertising. JamesBurns (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would somebody kindly please explain what we need to do to not get this page deleted. We are very happy to follow the Wikipedia rules but are not sure what we are doing wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenbudd (talk • contribs) 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you but what in particular have we done wrong, which part do we need to change? I have removed all opinions and added lots of references. However, there are not too many external quotes to use. But we are Europe's biggest record producer management company so I do believe we deserve to be on here. But please tell us what we need to change. I would be very grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenbudd (talk • contribs) 15:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, despite the above protests there is no evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources. Nuttah (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

27th November 2009[edit]

Ok, I have made a number of additions to the references section, in fact I have added 8 taking the total of third party references to 10. That's 10 external references from sites not involved with SBM. What else do I need to do please to keep this page? Stephen Budd Management (talk) 16:49, 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, MBisanz ^talk 05:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability from reliable sources. Obvious COI issues too. McWomble (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "References" consist largely of advertorials, self-published sources and insider industry journals. The article reeks of COI and self-promotion. WWGB (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adverts and self-published sources obviously aren't indepdent, but what's wrong with industry journals? Please remember, COI itself is not a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:18, 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 keep. Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Lie[edit]

May not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Selbstbildung, the user who created this, has created no other articles, and from my limited knowledge of German, "Selbstbildung" means "self-image". Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is entirely clear that this is notable. Suggests the reading of notability guideline to further clarify this article's necessary inclusion for its subject. But this is as far from delete as James Wales himself. IanWermingtyne (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems important. A better translation of "Selbstbildung" is something like "self cultivation." In any case, links work to legitimate academic outlets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartemisia (talk • contribs) 06:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't feel qualified to judge the importance of his books but I don't think I need to: with the named chair at Berkeley, he has a clear pass of WP:PROF #5. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Could use better sources, but is clearly notable without indication of conflict of interest. Huon (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted by David Eppstein, his appointment as “Class of 1959 Professor” at the University of California, Berkeley qualifies him as notable under WP:PROF.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Named chairs at major research institutions evidence that this colleagues find him to be notable; satisfies WP:PROF. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--the man is plenty notable. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, named chair at UC Berkeley, also significant newscoverage[52]. Passes WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:54, 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 02:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Lawrence[edit]

I have nominated this article based on my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Devine. Not a notable enough person for a Wikipedia article, and at worst, self-promotional. MartinShadow (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 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 05:29, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 14:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mu Sigma Phi (medical fraternity)[edit]

Self-sourced article on a fraternity. No evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The article says it was founded in 1933 and "is the first medical fraternity in the Philippines and in Asia". It also notes awards and honors recieved. And it also provides the indication of a source in the November 1933 Philippine Collegian. So notability is well established and efforts should be made to obtain this source and others for further information and better citations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFraternity at a single college. By precedent from ones in the US, they are never notable unless there is something unsually important, and eveythingreported here is routine. Trivial awards, essentially for being the best local fraternity in a particular year--but none of them are notable. It is not in any sense at all a national fraternity.DGG (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several references in the article and I think recognition by the Presidential Commission for Urban Poor: "Most Active NGO Partner in Luzon", an award conferred by then President Fidel V. Ramos. And recognition as "Best Community Oriented Student Organization" in 2002. And "2007 Most Outstanding Student Organization in the University of the Philippines-Manila after also being bestowed the same honor the previous year" counts for something. The oldest medical fraternity in Asia? This absolutely belongs in the encyclopedia although the article could be improved.ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 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 05:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not entirely self-sourced, secondary sources exist. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 06:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, referenced presidential award clearly shows notability. Huon (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the best known Medical Fraternities in the Philippines.Naraht (talk) 19:06, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Tau Omega (Philippines)[edit]

Self-sourced article on a subsidiary organisation of a fraternity. No evidence of independent significance. Guy (Help!) 00:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs referencing and substantial clean-up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently a true national fraternity, with 28 chapters. Totally inadequate article, since i had to find out that central fact from their web site [53]. The discussion of whether they have a right to the name seems in particular need of some objective editing. DGG (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll just provide some sources to prove ATO Philippines do exist and is a an official legal frat in the Philippines. User:TrueLicense909 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 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 05:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I consider pretty much all fraternities to be non-notable and haven't seen a compelling reason why this one is different. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. National Level Fraternity in the Philippines including chapters in all areas of the country.Naraht (talk) 14:37, 3 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. Secret ^account 18:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Sigma Phi in the Philippines[edit]

Self-sourced article on a subsidiary of a fraternity. No indication of independent significance. Guy (Help!) 00:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article should be a disambig page, with separate articles for each of the organizations, since the four different organizations described herein are not linked to each other. My own personal feeling is that fraternities of the North American variety are inherently notable and deserve their own pages. However, the medical school one sounds more like a student club and may not be notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think a "fraternaty of the North American variety is inherently notable"? From what I know, they're basically just like any other student club, and assuming those notable without making the reasoning for fraternaties worldwide is biased. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs referencing and improvement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:21, 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 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 05:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I think fraternities are inherently non-notable and have seen no reason why this one is an exception. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think fraternaties are as notable as any other club, in that without non-trivial coverage RSs they are not. No notability shown here.Yobmod (talk) 11:43, 4 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11:59 (album)[edit]

Unsourced article about a future album. The only Ghits are self published or blogs. Fails WP:NALBUMS. McWomble (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--not much need for discussion here. The article, in fact, is really nothing in terms of content anyway. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, CSD - A9, now tagged as such. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:38, 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 14:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gainer[edit]

Vanity article created by the subject and edited by sock or meat puppets. To wit, one anonymous editor claims the article was created by editors of "Crow Publications". But Crow Publications is registered to Grainer. Claimed publications aren't from notable publishers. Most sources are self-published by the subject of the article, and the remaining sources indicate only local notability (if any). This is a classic case of using Wikipedia for self-promotion. As always, "notability first, and then an article." Rklawton (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. Some claim to notability through the awards won, but would need to be substantially rewritten to become encyclopedic and remove the COI issues. McWomble (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm just not seeing the information necessary to pass WP:BIO. My google search failed to bring up the necessary non-trivial references. Honestly, the article reads like a vanity page. Trusilver 07:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- non-notable, vanity article. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet wp:creative --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the awards are unconvincing. For example, poet of the month isn't a substantial award. Without other coverage in reliable soruces, tis doesn't clear the bar for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:30, 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. No sourcing for a merge Secret ^account 18:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Places in Disney's Gargoyles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Places in Disney's Gargoyles

Lists of plot summary and trivia, totally unsourced. Not much verifiable info worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge, if the material was split from the main page, I would advocate merging it back into the Main Gargoyle page.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep notable series, consistent with treatment of other series--split off for reasons of length and presentation. A merge would also be reasonable. JJL (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Although each individual does not need notability, the topic of the list as a whole does. Jay32183 (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge reduced version with main article. It is acceptable to make spinoff articles for space or presentation reason (and I'm sure a lot of people appreciate there not being articles for each and every entry on this list), but there's no reason to split off. We can cut unreferenced plot details and merge the names back into the main article until such a time plot details and other relevant stuff can be referenced. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone forgot to link the list of objects to this AFD, so I completed the nomination process there. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Twinkle doesn't have a simple way of doing bundles, so sometimes I forget a step. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't need its own article. Listing the places in the show would not even better a viable section in the parent page. The places are not notable by themselves. Since the average reader isn't going to go searching for the phrase "Places in Disney's Gargoyles", there is no need to even keep the title as a redirect. Also, it, as a whole, fails WP:NOTE. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 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 no consensus. Even after discounting all these new users and IPs, can't read consensus here. Secret ^account 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brenden Foster[edit]

I am sorry for the sadness of this story, but: Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_social_networking.2C_or_memorial_site, WP:BIO-Meritruge23 (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial site, as per nom. RayAYang (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence. I can't get a good grip on this one. Most sources appear to copy each other (so it's a bit weak on refs for a standalone article), but he was the cause for a charity organization to be brought into existence. I'd suggest redirecting to the radio station that started the charity and rewrite the story in a section there. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant enough coverage to merit a listing of this posthumously. Gilgamesh007 (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per one-event person and a memorial article. MuZemike (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not a memorial article, as he was notable before he passed away. Note that most coverage on CNN and many other sources focussed on his actions which spurred a spike in charitable donations, not his death. WP:BLP1E is shaky as well, as multiple independent events (food drives in many different states) happened after coverage of him. Neier (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm surprised this page has been nominated for deletion. I don't believe the article qualifies for one-event person, as the article clearly states he inspired multiple events. And I understand that Wikipedia is not a memorial site/blog/website provider/what have you. I have seen more and more sources, charities and organizations recognize the name of Brenden Foster as the story has developed (and I knew about it very early because I live in the area the story comes from), and I sincerely believe that his story, its coverage and its impact meets Wikipedia's standards for an article. In the meantime, Charlie Gibson has also covered this story.
- BLP doesn't apply at all. He's not a living person. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Wiki appropriate. I can see the emotion behind the story and why people would be determined to save it, but until an organization forms in his name, there shouldn't be any mention on Wikipedia of this boy any more than any other day-to-day headline. This story belongs in newspapers.Kingdomcarts (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. -Djsasso (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it - This page doesn't qualify for deletion as it was a news story covered internationally and his story resulted in a social impact that began prior to his death and continues on today. While there is not currently a foundation that bears his name (although I expect there will likely eventually be a local event or foundation named in his honor)his name is being recognized by charitable organizations nationally. Although the information could and should be included and the story expanded, it does represent a biography of a notable individual and events. If this article is unworthy of Wikipedia then someone please explain the validity of articles on American Idol reject William Hung and runaway bride Jennifer Wilbanks. On that basis I submit Wikipedia has sufficient space for this one.Luceo*Non*Uro 01:34, 1 December 2008
Delete - People die a lot. Get over it.. --07:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep it I don't understand, people die a lot and to get over it is not a a justified answer to delete an article about a person making a difference. As said by the other usher before me, Foster has made a huge impact internationally and locally. It demostrates a individual who contributed to society.

Keep A person that has made a positive impact on a local and national level deserves an article on here. The fact that he died isn't the issue in question here, it's the fact that his death brought a community to action and has set records of charitable giving in the Seattle area over past years. His story is an inspiration and, having earned his spot in history, deserves an article more than most.

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Martin[edit]

With (perhaps) one exception this entire article is self-sourced. Notability is claimed but not substantiated via reliable independent sources. The article is authored primarily by the artist and one of his friends. This article has been speedied twice, but this was protested by an author with a conflict of interest, so I bring it here for the community to review. Rklawton (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Rklawton. Promotional. I nominated the article once for speedy deletion, with rationale here [54]. No reliable sources, conflict of interest. JNW (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I agree entirely with nominator. These COIs, especially when those folks refuse to address issues and simply delete tags, that really rubs me the wrong way. But even if it didn't, I don't see notability in the article, and didn't find any outside of it either. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, No reliable, verifiable notability, and speedy deletion was probably the correct decision..Modernist (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the subject article and have been invited by administrator Rklawton to participate on this discussion page.

Below are three references which were not appended to my original article on Dom Martin. They verify the permanent exhibition of the artwork of Dom Martin in the art gallery of the Bom Jesus Basilica (a World Heritage Monument in Old Goa, India):

http://christianartmuseum.goa-india.org/index.php?page=of-museums-and-more

http://www.dommartin.cc/Boise%20Vision%20article.htm

The first reference is to a page on the website for the Archdiocese of Goa, which contains a copy of the official brochure for the 2004 exposition of the body of St. Francis Xavier at the Bom Jesus Basilica, and states: “Art Gallery in the Basilica, featuring: a) paintings and crayons on Christian motifs by Dom Martin, well-known exponent of Surrealism, of Goan origin, now settled in the United States of America; . . .”

The second reference is to the website of the Christian Art Museum, Goa, India, which indicates: “The Bom Jesus Basilica art gallery. http://www.dommartin.cc/Basilica%20ptgs/Basilica%20ptgs%20index.htm This gallery was established in 1976 and quite easily, is the first and largest one of its kind in the eyes of onlookers. With the exception of the Archaeological Museum in Old Goa, the Basilica art gallery predates most -- if not all the galleries and museums mentioned above.” [Note the direct link on the Christian Art Museum website to the artwork of Dom Martin in the Bom Jesus Basilica Art Gallery.]

The third reference given above is to a photocopy of an article that appeared in a 1980 Boise Vision magazine [appended to Dom Martin’s website]. Boise Vision states: “In 1970, the Jesuit Rector of the Basilica, commissioned a relatively unknown painter, Dom Martin, to decorate the Basilica’s art gallery with paintings depicting the Saint’s [Francis Xavier] life as well as works illustrating other religious themes . . .”

Referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people), Wikipedia lists “Additional Criteria” for notability. Of particular applicability, under “Creative Professionals” is the criterion: “the person’s work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition . . .” [emhasis added] And under “Any Biography”: “The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.”

As the Basilica Art Gallery is part of a World Heritage Monument, is principally devoted to the works of Dom Martin, and has been visited by millions of people from all over the world for more than several decades, it would certainly seem that the above criteria have been met.

--Patriciamaier2 (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Every man is given the key to the gates of Heaven. The same key opens the gates of hell" (Bhuddist Proverb - from the movie: Beyond the Gates, 2005)--Dommartin99 (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 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 14:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Missionary Society[edit]

Not sure if this is encyclopedic ? Also the article's author seems to have a conflict of interest, as his username is the same as one of the websites listed at the bottom ♪Tempo Di Valse♪ 04:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Ruthlessly Rewrite Fails WP:ADVERT and WP:COI. Needs considerable improvement, possibly start from scratch.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article is horrendous and needs to be rewritten using proper third-party sources, the organization itself is clearly notable as demonstrated by a quick Google or Google book search. I'm not sure if this qualifies as a denomination, but if it does, denominations are generally considered notable. —BradV 04:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A missionary society from a major denomination should merit an article, especially one that's been around for almost a hundred years. Obviously, this article needs improvement, but it hasn't even been around fror two days. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as notable topic - but it does need rescue - or to be stubbified at the very least. Springnuts (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Certainly a significnat topic. It appears to be a dissenting Seventh Day Adventist denomination, rather than strictly a missionary society, but it has existed for nearly a century, and in a number of countries. Certainly notable; despite any COI or other issues, it should be retained. Note: I have just wikified it (a little). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 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. delete per author request at talkpage El on ka 04:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Garza Rivera[edit]

Mexican actress with no notable roles. It's possible her "Detective Privado" role is, but I couldn't find sources supporting notability, even in Spanish. As far as I can tell, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. gnfnrf (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her roles are notable, being the the lead on 13 episodes and having over 16 credits at IMDB.com is more than notable enough, please unflag this article she is a well established actress.

She is also the lead in Hoochie Mama drama, on sale here, http://www.amazon.com/Hoochie-Mama-Drama-Deadlee/dp/B001D11A4U, that is her in the picture pulling the girls hair, also here, http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Hoochie_Mamma_Drama/70108310 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Churroboy (talk • contribs) 04:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC) — Churroboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Advertisement, or pages to buy products, do not establish notability ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, so does having numerous credits on IMDB not establish notability either? Must one win an award or be special in their case, as to not be a typical actor? I assume not everyone on IMDB can be on Wikipedia correct? As they must have established some sort of significant difference from the others correct? Can you list a few clear examples of which actors are Wikipedia worthy and some that arent? Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perla_Haney-Jardine and explain why she is Wikipedia worthy and Leslie Garza is not. I just want to have a clear understanding so forgive me if it seems Im trying to be pushy which I am not, I am just not as experienced on Wikipedia yet, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Churroboy (talk • contribs) 01:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are clear guidelines for what qualifies an actor as notable at WP:ENTERTAINER. The usual way of demonstrating notability is "significant roles in multiple notable films, television..." Number of IMDB credits doesn't help demonstrate this, because the films may not be notable, and the roles may not be notable. What is important is how significant the roles were (would a reviewer take note of the particular actor?) and how notable the productions were (which has its own guidelines, at WP:MOVIE). Of course, WP:BIO covers all people with the standard "substantive coverage in multiple third party reliable sources," regardless of film or TV credits.

As for Perla Haney-Jardine, be aware of the fallacies of the "other stuff exists" argument, which isn't generally accepted at AfD. If you find another article that should be deleted, that means the other article should be deleted, not that this article should be kept. However, the fact that Ms. Haney-Jardine costarred in Anywhere, U.S.A., which won an award at a major film festival, and had a significant supporting role in Dark Water (2005 film), which had a major international release and was reviewed by multiple nationally published critics, tends to lead me to think she satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER. gnfnrf (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a background issue, it is worth noting that there is probably some conflict of interest here. I'm assuming User:Churroboy is, in real life, Clint Nitkiewicz Hernández and has been creating a number of pages related to his company [55]. Churroboy has created a couple pages recently that have been speedily deleted due to lack of notability: one for the aforementioned company, one for a movie related to the company, and one for this actress who is linked on the company's web site. —Noah 05:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification Gnfnrf, I looked up Wikipedia:MOVIE for the first time and the other notability links you included and thus you proved your point. Feel free to delete Leslie Garza Rivera immediately. Although she was the lead on her show "Detective Privado", the awards and other facts mentioned on the notability pages do indeed conclude she is not yet notable to be included on Wikipedia. I was the original author and accept that she be taken down immediately, perhaps put up at a later time when she is notable or part of a notable film. As for Noah's claim that churroboy is Clint Nitkiewicz Hernandez, which is an absurd and false claim. just because churroboy created a page on a film by Clint Nitkiewicz Hernandez which he felt was notable, and attempted to institute a non notable actress, Leslie, aside from the already notable actors Kid Frost, Deadlee, and attempted to create a wiki article on the production company of Clint Nitkiewicz Hernandez to give more background to One Story (film) . To sum up, please delete Leslie Garza Rivera, and sorry for trying to create a page on New Element Productions, I hope to learn from this and participate more in the editing and contributing to Wikipedia in many other knowledgeable topics which I feel are important to the community, thank you. Please do not flag me or ban me as these few entries I intended on sharing with the world were not of notable characteristics and it will not happen again. As for One Story (film), I felt it notable due to many facts not mentioned in the article, but there are no 3rd party articles on this, so I will hold off on this article, I requested that One Story (film) be deleted immediately since the guidelines are clear, I will in the meantime gather notable articles and wait to repost it at a later time, perhaps after it's release or winning of an award, thank you.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and relist. I'm not uninvolved in this debate, but I believe this consensus is so clear there's no point in stretching it out. Mgm|^(talk) 22:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan Australian[edit]

Another slew of "People from country X living in country Y" articles. These articles consist of nothing but census information poured into a standard mould. They do not assert any sort of notability, they are in violation of Wikipedia not being a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information and consensus is overwhelmingly to delete this kind of article. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Georgian_British and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/British_Dominicans.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, if it were like this, we would have thousands of pointless, census data, that would be extremely difficult to verify. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTDIR as unencyclopedic cross-categorizations. Any Xian-Yian article should pass the general notability guidelines, these do not.--Boffob (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These articles add nothing of value, and everything of value is already found in the census date for the specific country. Oh, and in that enormous list, Yamama forgot to list my specific heritage and citizenship! (And Reyk, you missed Welsh Australian, no?) Drmies (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and relist separately. Some of the articles such as Afghan Australian, Iraqi Australian, Japanese Australian, Kosovar Australian and Sudanese Australian are supported by reliable sources and go way beyond a dicdef to include the significance of the subject. However some such as Laotian Australian and Swiss Australian are little more than a dicdef. The nomination rationale does not apply equally to all articles, i.e. not all articles "consist of nothing but census information poured into a standard mould". This is simply incorrect. McWomble (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination, ugh. JBsupreme (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and relist per User:McWomble, some of these articles are actually articles with potential (such as Afghan Australian), and others are dicdefs that are unlikely to ever be extended further (like Swiss Australian). Picking out the obvious deletes from the possibly contentious ones would probably be a better way to approach this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy close and relist per discussion. Groups like Afghan Australian, Japanese Australian and Malaysian Australian have had a significant presence and contribution to Australia over many decades, even centuries. WWGB (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as above, I cannot support the deletion of all these pages. Recurring dreams (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh- this is the trouble with nominating a great many similar articles. If you mass-nom then the presence of even one article that differs slightly from the mould is enough to get it chucked out on procedural grounds. If you list them separately people ask why you didn't mass-nom and you don't get any decent discussion. Here's an idea: how about I strikethrough the ones people have objected to and relist them, and leave the massnom for the others open. Reyk _YO! 07:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It does not take more than a cursory reading to see that the rationale for nomination ("consist of nothing but census information" and "do not assert any sort of notability") was simply untrue for many of the articles. The differences are more than "slight" and far from indiscriminate. Assyrians/Syriacs in Australia, Egyptian Australian, Iranian Australian, Korean Australian and Portuguese Australian do not fit the nomination rationale either. McWomble (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Im'm placing a hold on tag on the Latino Australian Article, it does have reliable sources. (Yamama3000) 7:29, 29 November (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I were you'd I'd split the nomination into smaller groups of articles that are in similar states. I can see a few that are fairly obvious candidates for deletion and then some borderline cases. These should be kept apart because there are different rationales involved. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close nom and relist. Not all articles in this nom are in the same state, so it's not right to apply the same reasoning to all of them. Please split in smaller groups. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close and relist In all fairness to the nominator, I would point out that listing the objectionable articles in one group would spare all of us having to defend each one in a separate edit. In fairness to all of us, however, maybe the nomination could list the reasons why each individual article should be deleted, such as "Argentine Australian" has nothing but census data; "Ethiopian Australian" is completely unsourced; etc. However, the nomination was incorrect in describing all of these as "nothing but census information poured into a standard mould". I will agree that there are a lot of such "x intersects with y" type articles that aren't much more than census information, like Argentine Australian. On the other hand, there are other articles like Albanian Australian that examine the reasons for such immigration and details of where settlements have been established. These have to be judged on their own merits. Mandsford (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and block proposing editor for disruption of our project through constant listing of ethnic group articles rather than improving (or, at least) merging data in articles about small ethnic groups. Badagnani (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and relist per McWomble. From past experience, mass nominations of ethnicity articles such as these tend to fail, while selective nominations have been successful because they are judged on the individual merits (or lack thereof) of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:02, 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. as hoax. Several commenters revealed falsehoods in the article and all attempts at finding sources have failed. All we can assume now, is that it's not truthful. Mgm|^(talk) 13:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bupane[edit]

Either a hoax, or a really messed up article. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boiling point is the same as Butane, which cannot be right for a combination. Also, SMILES as a identification number?! Bottom says Molecular Formula, C4H10, which is Butane. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Most of this is copied from Butane (the health effects, some of the infobox) and hydrocarbon (the lead and first section from that article).--chaser - t 03:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, A chemical structure is not a reaction formula (one that doesn't even use the equilibrium sign) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as WP:BALLS. Google search turns up what appears to be surnames, and specifically asked me if I meant to search for Butane. That, and I may not be a chemistry major, but last I recall, butane and propane were on different rings of the distillation process. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is some attempt at an article for "Butane?" Regardless, I too search out the term, and did not find anything; therefore, recommend deletion of an article "...for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" as per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. kilbad (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete bollocks. Reyk _YO! 04:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nonsense quickly; we're wasting electrons. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is taking too long already, what a pane. JBsupreme (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW, anyone?ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not opposed, but an uninvolved admin should do it if anyone does.--chaser - t 07:36, 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 keep. John254 01:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Hamzy[edit]

Single-source, non-notable biography. Mikeblas (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I google searched "Connie Hamzy" and found several articles pertaining to her biography (see [56] for example), and feel she does meet at least 4/5 of the general notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilbad (talk • contribs) 04:07, November 29, 2008
Strong Delete Gossip, Unverifiable Material, wording like alleged, fails WP:BLP. Nvm, original article didn't mention notability which is now established.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kilbad. Plenty of sources are available, although the article could use a few more. —BradV 04:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google Books search shows that she is mentioned in numerous books about Bill Clinton due to the fact that she claimed, during his first presidential campaign, that Clinton had once propositioned her. I will try to improve the sourcing of the article, given that Clinton currently isn't even mentioned in it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have edited the article to add some sources, including discussion of the Clinton allegations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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, well the article didn't say it charted for crying out loud. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devoted to You (song)[edit]

No sources for the song. Several artists recorded it but nobody ever released it as a single, so a redirect is out of the question. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Everly Brothers article, this song was released as the B-side to Bird Dog, which normally doesn't matter, but it charted in it's own right, at #10 in the US, #25 in Australia, and #1 in Canada. (Also, #7 on the US country chart and #2(!) on the R&B chart. Also, I hate arguments like the one I'm about to make, but WP:NSONGS says songs "that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable.", so with this song being covered by the Everlys, The Beach Boys, James Taylor and Carly Simon, Sandy Posey... I think that it qualifies as a keep. (Also, the Taylor/Simon version charted, too, at #36 on the charts. And on the country and A/C charts too.) Giant, hopefully speedy keep. MookieZ (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody ever released it as a single??? The song was released by the Everly Brothers, as Cadence 1350. The song charted, as stated by Mookie above, in THREE different countries, two of them in the top 10. All of Mookie's comments are relevant here and the request for deletion is a big mistake. I concur with Mookie's "Giant, hopefully speedy keep." -- BRG (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This information probably should have been put into the article; perhaps its absence may have prompted the original failure to recognize the song's notability. I have added it. -- BRG (talk) 14:32, 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 14:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Robert Lewis[edit]

This is a completely unsourced article about a South African writer/artist. I have looked for sources about the subject, but all I have found would tend to show him as a person notable for only one event, and that would portray him in a negative light quite different from the current content of the article. The current content also portrays him as an anti-apartheid activist, but I am concerned that the article may be exaggerating his importance in that movement. I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person seems to be below our threshold of notability. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to fail basic notability criteria. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Metropolitan90 beat me to it, but only because I stopped off at User talk:Charles Matthews along the way to ask for sources for the content. Like Metropolitan90, I also went looking for sources, after this article came up on the BLP noticeboard. I found only the following:
- Karen Breytenbach (2006-11-28). "Journalist takes Media24 to CCMA". Independent Online. Independent News & Media.
- Sapa (2007-10-02). "Music journalist in court for intimidation". Independent Online. Independent News & Media.
- Sapa (2007-11-09). "Court hears of threats to radio journalist". Independent Online. Independent News & Media.
- Sapa (2007-11-09). "Cape journalist freed after outburst". Independent Online. Independent News & Media.
All of the other sources were either republications of the above articles (by News24 and others) or written by the subject xyrself. There is no way to build a biographical article from either. The former give almost zero substantial biographical information, and the latter are self-promotional and flagrantly biased. There are no independent reliable sources that document this person in depth anywhere. This person has only been documented by xyrself, not by the world at large. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He managed to make the news twice (though, apparently, not for lack of trying in other instances) – once with what sounds like a frivolous court action and once by making a bomb threat. That's not notable, just sad. 9Nak (talk) 10:12, 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 redirect to Jon & Kate Plus 8. Duplicate information. Mgm|^(talk) 13:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gosselins[edit]

The information in this article is already included in Jon & Kate Plus 8. Psbsub (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Jon & Kate Plus 8. Nsk92 (talk) 03:19, 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 Keep. Withdrawn by nominator. NAC. Reyk _YO! 04:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerously irrelevant[edit]

Sounds very hoax-y to me. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on the accuracy, but it isn't made up. WillOakland (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has a decent history, never been AFD'd till now. Somebody involved with the physics project want to offer an expert opinion on this to gain consensus? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Will0akland. I guess it's not a hoax after all.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:59, 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 speedy delete. A1 lack of context, A3 lack of content without chance of expansion. Mgm|^(talk) 13:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erosentuous[edit]

neologism, unencyclopedic, etc. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No such word; not even erosensuous, the spelling they were probably aiming for, appears to be credible. JNW (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, there's a couple of hits for erosensual. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. FreplySpang 02:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This material belongs on Urban Dictionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not even, I should have stated protologism. (not a word) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked google, and my two unabridged dictionaries, and could not find the word in question; therefore, recommend deletion of article "...for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed," as per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. kilbad (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not pass Wiktionary, do not collect 200 Wikimoney. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:32, 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 14:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One on one value debate[edit]

most likely exist in better form (see:Debate), does not establish notability. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as essentially a dictionary definition, per WP:DICTDEF. Nsk92 (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources. I got a kick out of the last bit though. WillOakland (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources (in that none have been provided) is not a reason for deletion. "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" may be considered for deletion. kilbad (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a stub that cannot be expanded without substantially copying existing material. (I don't think a redirect to Debate is useful in this case) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:42, 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 deleted (A1) by Fuhghettaboutit —BradV 04:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures Of Lego Indiana Jones[edit]

Not really notable. ♪Tempo Di Valse♪ 02:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't even tell if this is about the video game character or some Lego playset character. However, neither needs an article. gnfnrf (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I call no context. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:43, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crack the Shutters[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL violation; unsourced and speculative. Orange Mike | Talk 02:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Confirmed by the band's official website as the second single, which is for me to confirm its existence. I have added that link as reference on the page. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A Hundred Million Suns until release of the single. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A single has to chart to be considered notable, and this hasn't even been released yet. —BradV 05:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's almost certain to be a hit single in a few weeks time. Deletion now seems rather pointless.--Michig (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is a hit single in a few weeks time, the article can be recreated. Schuym1 (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Their last ten singles have all been top 40 hits - there seems little doubt that this one will be a hit. If it is deleted at least move it into the creator's userspace so that they can move it back 2 weeks later rather than having to rewrite it.--Michig (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the notability guidelines for singles says it does not violate WP:CRYSTAL if there are reliable sources to confirm the single's release date and track listing, which is why I refer you to exhibits A, which happens to be their label's website, B, C, D, and E, the band's website. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those sources show WP:NOTABILITY and it still also doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Also, two of those links aren't reliable. All you did was show that it will be released, not the single's notability.Schuym1 (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSIC says: "Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release." I do not consider a name and track listing alone sufficient information. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, redirecting this to A Hundred Million Suns would be reasonable until (and if) the song charts. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL & WP:MUSIC#Songs. Does it exist: yes. Is it notable: no. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure how exactly does this violate WP:MUSIC or more specifically WP:NSONGS. The guideline simply requires "sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release" of a single. There are multiple sources confirming the release of the single (here's one more from MTV if sources provided by Y2kcrazyjoker4 aren't enough); the video has already been released. Nor is there significant period until the release such that it would grossly violate WP:CRYSTAL. Nor is this some stray single of some obscure band that won't receive any media or chart coverage. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, per WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 05:25, 3 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 14:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Boys (Amy Studt song)[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL violation; unsourced and speculative. Orange Mike | Talk 02:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL & WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, per WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 05:23, 3 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 results were keep and no consensus. This is a pretty messy discussion that to my mind illustrates the problems of bundling AfD discussions for articles of widely disparate quality and with wildly different potential for expansion. Increasing the complexity was the existence of a number of smaller satellite AfD discussions, that were all created by accident at the same time as this one. See Grutness's comment of December 1 below for details. One article was also substantially rewritten and improved during the discussion, further complicating matters.

With that said, it can be established with a fair degree of certainty that there seems to be a consensus to keep Gene Hunt and Sam Tyler. There also appears to be a weaker consensus to keep Alex Drake. It is much harder to determine a consensus for the other characters, so I have opted to close them as no consensus, defaulting to keep. Some editors made good arguments to merge these articles into "List of characters" articles, I strongly encourage all involved editors to continue discussing this possibility at another page.

As this has been a complex case, I am open to further reasoned argument if I have missed something in closing this AfD. At the same time, I would not object to more specific nominations being made for individual articles if there are any issues that have flown "under the radar" on this more generalised discussion.

Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Tyler[edit]

Establishes no claim to notability for this character, and does not provide substantial third-party references to establish notability. This character isn't widely documented or studied in the arts, and therefore is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Mikeblas (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also listing these for deletion for similar reasons. All are less important characters than "Sam Tyler", who is the lead; but the articles all have the same problems. Some are completely unreferenced.

-- Mikeblas (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. With the exception of a lack of sources on two or three of the articles, all of them satisfy the three-pronged test at WP:FICTION#Characters. —BradV 05:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moderately strong keep for Sam Tyler, weaker keep for Gene Hunt, ambivalent about the others. These two are the two central characters in the show, and - at least in the case of Tyler, there is some evidence that his name is being used in common parlance to refer to someone stuck in the past. As such, I'd say that article does qualify to some extent. Grutness...wha? 05:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Life on Mars (TV series). No evidence of notability independent of the series, especially since like-named characters are in the US remake of the series. Once the original research and plot summary is removed, there is little left that could not be served by the main article. McWomble (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. These are articles about principle characters in an internationally broadcast television drama; it is absurd to suggest that they aren't notable because they "aren't studied in the arts". As the drama series has its own project notability isn't in question. Numerous other Wikipedia articles link to these articles. Articles are generally well referenced, and should not have been nominated in the first place, this is just tying up AFD time.andi064 ^{T . C} 09:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep - All the characters are well known, and appear in several media publications outside of the Wiki, so are notable. Also, a new series starts of Ashes to Ashes soon, so it would be a waste to delete them when editors will want to insert new content because of what may come to light in the new series. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per Andi064 (Quentin X (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sam Tyler and especially Gene Hunt, I've never even watched Life on Mars, but I know both these characters. I believe the Gene Hunt character has been the subject of much debate in Britain, leading into the argument of "Do policeman have enough power?/Is there too much bureaucracy in the modern police force?" etc. In fact I even remember him being the subject of discussion on Question Time with Brian Paddick! The rest you can Merge. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Keep - certainly very notable. I'd keep them all, personally, some shops even have T-shirts with Gene Hunt quotes on them here and here and here for just three examples of Gene Hunt T-shirts from different shops. Gene Hunt is a legend in the UK, and has been discussed even in the Houses of Parliament! Theresa Villiers in Parliament refers to a draft paper using a Gene Hunt-type approach, Hazel Blears compares herself here to Gene Hunt during another Parliament session, and Tom Brake mentioned Gene in Parliament only a month ago. I don't believe the original nominator for deletion has any idea of the cultural importance of these characters in British everyday life. With another series of Ashes to Ashes about to come out, the characters will become more and more relevant. As though they could become even more relevant than they already are. Tris2000 (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Can you help me find the wording in WP:N where tee shirts being available from a single vendor demonstrates notability? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(add) lol "convenient" how you forgot to comment on his 3 parliamentary sources and just his t-shirt ones! Ryan4314 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about the T-shirts, that was just an example. It is obviously notable, that is obvious to anyone. It is notable because I cant see Hazel Blears talking about it if she knows that people who look confused and say "Who's Gene Hunt"? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to pick up on the Hazel Blears remark. all she is saying is that in her comments on the Bill (not the programme but the parliamentary Bill) she has only got up to the 1970s. It is a passing remark, not an indication of cultural significance. It is a trivial reference. Springnuts (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sam Tyler, Gene Hunt per demonstrated notability; articles should be improved rather than removed. Neutral on the others. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN - consideration should also be taken of comments at the following AfDs, all of which were inadvertently opened during this debate (I "procedural close"d them, but there was too much cross-reference in them to merge any of the comments in here): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Cartwright, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Hunt, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Carling, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Skelton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyllis Dobbs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Drake, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Granger. Grutness...wha? 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all except Gene Hunt. Only the Hunt article has any reliable third-party sources. The rest have zero. None. We don't keep non-stub articles without sources. Powers ^T 23:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Plenty of third party media coverage about this series and its characters. I also have to echo a colleague's comment decrying "isn't studied in the arts" being used as a rationale for nomination. If that were the case 99% of pop culture articles would have to go. WP:N is nowhere near that discriminatory. 23skidoo (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although Gene Hunt is now borderline, the others do not establish the real world notability of the characters independent of the series. They consist almost entirely of plot summary, trivia and original research. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. McWomble (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gene Hunt; Redirect all the rest Redirect all to List of Life on Mars characters. Certainly worth a redirect, however there are two issues. First, the lack of any reliable sources - the odd blog does not cut the mustard. Second, and more important, there is no real world perspective. - Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#.233:_Availability_of_real_world_perspective The proposed guidelines on notability for fictional topics say that "individual character articles ... should only be created when the alternatives are not feasible". - Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Characters The same article suggests a helpful question: "How does the reader's understanding of this topic suffer if this fictional element is ... only summarized in the main article?" Not at all, imo. Springnuts (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with you as regards most of the nominated articles, the Gene Hunt article does contain real-world perspective, in the final section at the bottom. I think if the plot summary is reduced that a valid article could emerge. Powers ^T 15:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My 'vote' was originally on the Annie Cartwright AfD ... hmmmm - you may be right on Gene Hunt, though I don't see very strong real world perspective - perhaps it is just overwhelmed by the plot summary and would show up well in a much shorter article. Springnuts (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All- There is absolutely nothing wrong with these articles. A lot of effort and detail has gone into them. This nomination smacks of deletionism and US centralism. The characters in The Sopranos all have articles, how is this series different, British made maybe? Wikipedia dosent belong just to elitists or Americans. Archivey (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ... It is tough when a great deal of effort has gone into an article - especially if there are other articles that appear to be similar and are not up for deletion. As far as possible though we just have to stick to the policy. Springnuts (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is absolutely everything wrong with these articles - they do not meet the general notability guideline. Although Gene Hunt is now borderline, the others do not establish the real world notability of the characters independent of the series. They consist almost entirely of plot summary, trivia and original research. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. McWomble (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have largely re-written the Gene Hunt article, to the point that I believe it satisfies requirements for inclusion [57]. Plot details have been condensed, original research has been replaced with sourced, verifiable information, and the article now includes a vast array of critical commentary from broadsheet newspapers, establishing the character's notability. For this reason, I vote strong keep of both the Gene Hunt and Sam Tyler articles. The latter could easily be improved to the standard of the former (which clearly still needs work, but took only a single evening to improve to the point it's at now.) I would contend that notability and reference templates ought to have been added to these two articles before deletion was sought, as both characters clearly are notable - household names in the UK and iconic television figures. I would also suggest keep of the Alex Drake article, as I believe there is vast room for improvement there also, albeit perhaps not to the same extent as with Tyler and Hunt. As for the rest, merge to List of Life on Mars characters and List of Ashes to Ashes characters as applicable. They may be notable within the context of the relevant series, but they do not have the same level of real-world notability as the show's primary protagonists. Frickative 02:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It relies too heavily on primary sources. McWomble (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I said the article still needed work. Yes, 10 of the 26 sources are primary ones. However, if the addition of sixteen secondary sources, and from broadsheets rather than tabloids at that, isn't enough to establish that a subject is clearly notable and needs improvement rather than deletion, then I would suggest that your interpretation of the notability guideline is erring on the side of far too stringent. Frickative 14:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for the Gene Hunt article as it now stands, Keep for Sam Tyler and Alex Drake while acknowledging that there is room for improvement in both, and Merge to List of Life on Mars characters and/or List of Ashes to Ashes characters as appropriate given that some sourcing exists on these articles and those articles that discuss all of the characters but no one character in depth make so-so sources for individual articles make solid references for a list of all the characters. - Dravecky (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all to strongly consider merger Some characters may have stand-alone notability, others don't, but the problem is that no real notability has been established for either article. What gets merged and what doesn't should be discussed outside of AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:21, 4 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 redirect to Naked News. MBisanz ^talk 14:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Stevens[edit]

Non-notable. No reliable sources to establish notability independent of Naked News. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable biography. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, she isn't notable. Tatarian (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of passing WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of passing anything really. JBsupreme (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect But it's likely she can be verified to be an anchor on the show making her notable within the context of Naked News. Her name is a likely search term and anything verified later can be merged. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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 delete, copyright violation (see Uncle G's comment below). chaser - t 17:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random scheduling[edit]

This article as written is incomprehensible to the non-programmer. I tagged it for no-context, and it was curtly removed by another editor. Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can understand most of it and linked some terms. I agree that it still needs to be re-written a bit to be decipherable to the reasonably intelligent non-technical reader, but deletion is not a good solution.--chaser - t 04:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not for cleanup. If the problem is that the article is fundamentally not encyclopedic or notable, I'd say delete, but it's clearly a notable concept in some respect that just needs to be cleaned up by an expert. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a type of computer benchmark, however there is no mention of it at Benchmark (computing), so I suspect that this is not a notable technique. —BradV 05:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and verifiable; see 522 Google Books hits. I found it perfectly clear, but maybe I'm too geek. If it can be expanded and clarified, great, but AfD is not cleanup. --Itub (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can source this content to William Stallings' book Operating Systems (ISBN 9780136006329). In fact, the content is taken, word for word, from page 510 of that book (3rd paragraph). So speedy delete as a copyright violation.
This isn't the best title to discuss the concept of scheduling policy and disk scheduling/I/O scheduling at. In context, a discussion such as this would even make sense to the layman. Indeed, Stalling's book uses "Disk Scheduling Policies" as the title of the section from which the paragraph was copied. Quite why people take discussions in sources like this, abstract a single paragraph from the middle of the discussion, and then use one item from that paragraph as the article title, is beyond me. It happened at Asynchronous error reporting (AfD discussion), too. Uncle G (talk) 15:42, 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 14:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Pantos[edit]

No reliable sources to establish notability independent from Naked News. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability, as there is no evidence of being subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,and independent of the subject. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:N. Tatarian (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PORNBIO if not reached. abf /talk to me/ 09:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 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 (G12) by Metropolitan90. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lorrieann Russell[edit]

I think this fails WP:BIO. Has independently published books and one upcoming book. Clubmarx (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to meet wp:creative
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G12 - copyvio from Goodreads. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 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 14:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Hooters[edit]

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Unsourced bio. Fails WP:PORNBIO. —BradV 05:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - unflattering fake breasts do not do anything to establish notability.-Boshinoi (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. She's not notable enough to warrant her own article. Xihr 23:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject fails WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 12:39, 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 14:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jcink[edit]

Made up out of whole cloth. Aille (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Que? Could you be a little more specific as to why you listed this article for ~~discussion~~? -- saberwyn 05:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not discussion: deletion. Drmies (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. -- saberwyn 09:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the nominator means is that this is something made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources available. —BradV 05:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no proof given, there is no proof on the internet that I can see that such a tradition a. exists and b. is important, the article seems to be little more than a link to a manual on a personal website, there is no suggestion why a specific region does not "believe in materialistic views" (whatever that may mean), etc. I could go on. Drmies (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only source is a page on ripway.com, a free hosting site. Looks very like something made up one day. Can't find any confirmation - this History of the Piñata doesn't mention it. JohnCD (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 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 Speedily deleted as a vandalism, per CSD G3. (Non admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Aggleton[edit]

Not a word of truth in it. Aille (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment It does seem awfully hoaxy, I'd like to get my hands in some of those books and see if this person is actually mentioned in them. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definite hoax. Google has not heard of her[58]. I did a search of two books, via googlebooks, referenced in the article and they returned no hits for her last name[59][60] (you have to type her last name in the searchbar on the right). Outrageous style of the article seals the deal: a hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reference 6 is on amazon [61], but neither her name nor the poem "Broken Glass is a Broken Heart" is in the index or turns up in a word search.--chaser - t 04:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did some digging of my own and came up with same goose egg as everyone else. Must be a hoax. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - hoax, vandalism, sockpuppet of banned user.-Boshinoi (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 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. Mgm|^(talk) 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panphilia[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please delete, ~~or move to wikitionary.~~ Edit:Possible neologism, so retracting move request for now. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary and delete (unless the article is expanded). (EhJJ)^TALK 01:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I tried dictionary.com and define:Panphilia in google, word did not show up in either. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Delete per WP:Neologism. (EhJJ)^TALK 01:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Neologism. See: http://sites.google.com/site/panphiliawiki/. Does not belong in wiktionary imo.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism, you can stick this on Urban Dictionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does WP:CSD#A1 qualify here? —BradV 05:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per authority of the dictionary. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A3) lack of content. This has no chance of expanding beyond a dicdef status. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:29, 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 14:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nasrul Eam[edit]

A photographer who has published a single e-book (PDF, $9.99) that has got a review and has got him an interview at a single website that's arguably of note. He does seem promising, and I do realize that prospects for publication of actual dead-trees photo books, the staging of one-man exhibitions, etc., are likely to be tough for the Bangladesh-based photographer; still, if he's said to be "uprising" [a new variant on "emerging", I suppose] then let's wait till he has uprisen a little further before giving him an article so rich with links to purchasing options. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating

-- an article on the Ebook -- for deletion. Hoary (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I agree it's hard for someone like him to achieve notability, he just isn't there yet. He doesn't appear in enough reviews and isn't in any news sources or books. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - completely fails any test of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If anyone present more third party sources (a notable award), I change my opinion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Different opinion- I read that book; I prefer the book should stay in Wikipedia. The book changed my understanding about that country Bangladesh, and I will visit Bangladesh and Sidr effected area next year. Elezabet
- — Elezabet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete--whatever the book may have done for this or that person, the subject is not notable enough, and good god almighty, this article is the most blatant advertising I've seen on WP in weeks. In fact, I removed a few sentences from the lead, because it was just too much. Drmies (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Different opinion - I do agree, about that person it was too much before, but it is a fact that the book is completely different type, I knew south Asia differently before. As Hoary said -he is still emerging or uprising, so we need to wait and see. I am still waiting to hear lot more from its readers, because I reckon, reader will mark it in a different way, as I am one of them. Elezabet 06:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Elezabet, please sign your messages with four consecutive taps on the "~" key: this adds your signature and date. Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no soruces to establish notability. A single interview isn't sufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:V. --Ragib (talk) 05:41, 3 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 after good faith request by original authors. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Story the movie[edit]

Non-notable movie starring and created by non-notable people. None listed at imdb. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. You can ignore what I said earlier, irrelevant. Basically: I moved the page to conform with WP naming norms, and someone recreated the page on the old article space, so there was two copies, and the copy was nominated.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you said that, "Non-notable movie starring and created by non-notable people. None listed at imdb", that is not true, please check the following names at imdb, some may just not be listed on wikipedia;

Leslie Garza Rivera Kid Frost Karina Michel Deadlee Neferteri Shepherd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Churroboy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC) — Churroboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as WP:SPECULATION. If the movie hasn't been released yet we have no way of knowing whether it will be important or significant. —BradV 05:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The people working on the film may or may not be notable, but since there's no independent references yet, it still has to go per WP:CRYSTAL. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kid Frost is certainly notable, but notability is not inherited, and IMDB is not really the most reliable source. Since there are no other sources, it is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:OR. Can be re-created as release time gets closer and there are actual sources.Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice if deleting, please also delete the redirect page this section is named after, thank you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is at best too premature. Production may have begun, but the film does not have enough independent coverage to show notability enough to merit an article. Yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It's now been moved to One Story (film). Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, it is still too premature and has had no 3rd party articles on it yet, and has not been entered in festivals yet, and may be a great film and very notable, but not yet, I will go ahead and delete it since I am the original author, and well after it meets the guidelines outlined by Wikipedia I will repost it. Thank you very much everyone for your input and time.

Actually I never deleted an article yet on Wikipedia, can I go ahead and delete my own, if so how? Will I be deducted anything, or where is there a writeup on deleting articles, I read about deleting other's articles but not one's own, thank you once again.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as attack page - serves only to demonize someone at author's school.

Demon kirk[edit]

Non notable, fails WP:FICTION, upcoming ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. If there was a page to the series, it should be merged. but nothing exists, so delete. Clubmarx (talk) 01:13, 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 speedy keep. nominator did not request deletion (faulty nom) Mgm|^(talk) 13:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drizella Tremaine[edit]

Character in a movie. I recommend redirecting it to one of the movies however. Just plot summary... Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteDoes it pass WP:Fiction? Not notable imo either way. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close nom and redirect. AFD is for pages for which you recommend deletion, not for redirection. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 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 no consensus. I can't seem to find a consensus on this. I discounted many of the keeps as obvious recentism keeps, but the delete side is worried about the list in the article, which can be removed fairly easily. Most of the information doesn't seem to meet WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, which is a rationale for most of the people who wants to delete this article. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, was created for if the page is obviously a memorial, which this isn't. The list of victims I'll remove though as that seems to be the concern here. Discuss a merge in the talk page. Secret ^account 18:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks[edit]

With some trepidation I am nominating this article for deletion because Wikipedia is not a memorial. I appreciate the strong sentiment that the atrocities have caused and the grief of the families, friends and others affected, but we are writing an encyclopaedia. Such a list fails to meet our established criteria, and, understanding the strong feelings that this will generate, I am asking editors to leave emotion aside and concentrate on what is and is not encyclopaedic. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for ease of editing 0[edit]

Strong keep This article is important as it lists the names of the victims of a brutal terrorist attack. It's true Wikipedia is not a memorial, but the names and nationalities of those who died in the attack are as notable as the attack itself. Articles throughout wikipedia provide the names of the victims of other terrorist attacks and crimes (for example, the Brooklyn Bridge shooting and the Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting. Why should this article be any different. Yes, the number of victims was much lower in the other articles, but the number of victims shouldn't make any difference.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete or Merge to the main page for notable people per wikipedia policy. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This kind of list are not at per with Wikipedia standards, name of impt personalities can be added in da main article. Moreover this kind of list should not be encouraged takin in consideration of the sentiments of the relatives of the deceased. To take a precendent, the list of victims of Virginia Tech massacare was deleted. 220.227.133.250 (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rework - If we list every dead, injured AND safe person this article will become very cluttered very very quickly. If the article is edited/reworked to make it more like Casualties of the 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings then I would say this article could be kept. --Kuzwa (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree wholeheartedly with Kuzwa here. Reworking in that manner would be encyclopaedic. That would cause me to withdraw my nomination. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With different sources quoting different numbers for casualties, it is nearly impossible to determine what is accurate or not. This page serves as a (perhaps temporary) accounting of what actually happened; or at least what has been reported and confirmed. I agree that once accurate numbers are determined for casualties and their nationalities are determined there is no longer any needed for this article, but until then it is possibly the only place on the internet where this information is available. As for the argument that this is not "encyclopaedic", not being tied to annual releases of hard bound books perhaps allows for or even demands that the definition be expanded where it is inline with the spirit of an encyclopaedia. Aepryus (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep for now. This is a rapidly changing situation and there is no point in getting rid of the page now. Wait for awhile until this settles out, then we will have a better idea of how to rework the page, but in the meantime it is a useful and I would say has at least as much encyclopedic value as other articles, e.g., List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm. Remember (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree - No reason to rush to get rid of this. Let things settle down for a while and we can re-evaluate if appropriate. KConWiki (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kindly no. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep by current standards. Casualty lists for events of this nature have some merit and they are not necessarily memorials if dealt with in the correct way. The death toll is rising continually, with more and more nations becoming involved. I've heard news reports of this being described as both 2008's and India's 9/11. 9/11 has a similar page (which I do not object to as I believe it has historical relevance). I wonder had this occurred in, say, Chicago or Los Angeles would this be disputed (with Washington and New York already covered)? We cannot possibly give in to continental bias... whether an incident of this scale occurs in New York, London, Mumbai, Sydney, Paris, Istanbul, Tokyo, Lagos, Sao Paolo, Cairo, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Beijing, Moscow or Jakarta to cover quite a broad area, there cannot be discrimination based upon geographical location or the amount of editors located within the boundaries of those cities. The notability of the event must be taken into question, not where it happened. Anyone who has been following this, I would imagine, ought to see it for it is - unusual and perhaps unique. And, to end, I can think of no specifically personal, emotional or sentimental reason for my view of it - I am neither Indian nor British nor any of the other nations involved thus far - I just see it as it is. --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 03:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And, with all due respect to an above user and the case which they refer to, one day at a university (even an American one) is not the equivalent of even one day, never mind the current three, in a supercity. --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 03:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excuse my persistence. I suggest a title change from "List of victims of" to "Casualties of", which sounds more encyclopedic and was the consensus reached on the 9/11 article. --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 03:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is the events that are notable, not the individual victims who are mainly non-notable per WP:ONEEVENT. Also, listing casualties, some with no more than a graze, among the dead is disrepectful. WWGB (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Merge to the main article, per above. This incident has just occurred, therefore, the number of fatalities may change from time to time. After all, some of the people who died during the attacks were notable. As a result of that, this information is encyclopedic. Of course, we have to make sure that this list does not turn into a memorial. The best solution now would be to remove the names of all the non-notable victims. Acs4b ^{T C U} 05:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, per nom. I am also not happy with the way the "Casualties of Madrid" article has been dealt with. If we were to go by that article's standards, the amount of info left could easily be merged into the main article, which is what I suggest be done in both cases. The 911 article handles the information in a much different way, eschewing lists of names (for obvious reasons) but it both has the encyclopedic qualities that "Madrid" embodies while having enough info to justify a separate article, instead of a merge. Also, don't even start with the continental bias BS. Americans aren't stuck so far up their asses. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (4th nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre (2nd nomination). Mourning the dead is not something that Wikipedia should make a spectacle of. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a summary to November 2008 Mumbai attacks. McWomble (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per user Remember's comments.Megatron85 (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Other than a C&P of some other user's page to his page, the above user's only edits have been to this discussion. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Axem Titanium's views say the reasons well.
Delete; most of the individuals listed are not notable. It is the event which is notable, and that already has an article. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Casualities of November 2008 Mumbai attacks. Such lists are not encouraged but there is significance of noting particular casualties in the event. These include some personnel from security forces who have been significantly covered and other such victims. And considering that the main article size is 70kb after just three days, I'm not sure if it is efficient in future perspective to merge two articles. I'm, however, against every trivial person being mentioned. I also feel that it was rather improper to list this article for deletion at such an early stage. This is clearly a very much live event which is still unfolding. If the article remains truly trivial in the future and can be accommodated in the article then such merge may be undertaken. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 11:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Give it few weeks, it's not a reality show here. Freearmy (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Casualities of November 2008 Mumbai attacks, this article is not a memorial, but an article with more information on the Mumbai attacks. Delete the long list of names though. Epson291 (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for ease of editing 1[edit]

Merge and redirect. Some of the notable names on the list are not yet mentioned in the article, but should be and the casualty count seems more up to date in the table for this list as well. Instead of deletion, the section and the list should be combined. -= Mgm|^(talk) 12:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or improve. This article is grossly outdated and incomplete. If we can edit it to include all the victims and verify all the information, then the list could be kept. Otherwise, it would have to be merged per WP:MEMORIAL, and also we don't have an article on the victims of 9/11. ~A H1^(TCU) 15:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated? I'm not sure I understand your concern. The event is barely more than 72 hrs old. The article itself was created 36 hrs ago. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy... until the death toll is final. Jonathan321 (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly merge without the names. WP is not a memorial, nor will it ever be. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as of now - it can always be broken out again later if it's considered necessary. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, and make mention of the notable victims and the nationalities of all victims in the main article (we already do both). -- Biruitorul ^Talk 19:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons stated above. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 21:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it might be better to state with precision which of the reasons "stated above" you base your argument on, in order to give the closing admin an idea of your actual argument. I'm sure you are aware that this is not a ballot, but depends upon a consensus of reasoned argument within the policies and guidelines. At present we understand that you wish the article to be kept, but not why Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to "Casualties of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks" as per Candlewicke's comments above. Jagged 85 (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep in the next few days it will become clear about the number and names of victims of the attacks. Several of the individuals listed are quite prominent and they have separate wiki entries of their own. —Roman888 (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename as Casualties of November 2008 Mumbai attacks, and must have a structure something like Casualties of the September 11 attacks, not all individuals should be mentioned, only "notable" ones.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - maybe rework to make it more of a summary. There were initial claims that no Britons or US citizens had been killed, which isn't true. The numbers are significant, including the fact that most of them were Indian and some came from countries not concerned with Indian affairs.--GwydionM (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to November 2008 Mumbai attacks#Casualties. As other have said, Wiki is not a memorial and most victims do not pass the notability guidelines. Thus it's better to keep it to the summarized section of the main article.--Boffob (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename Casualties of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks as stated above. There's no problem with creating a breakout article, it just has to keep an encyclopedic format. Joshdboz (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep by current standards. With different sources quoting different numbers for casualties, it has been nearly impossible to determine what is accurate or not. This page serves as a (perhaps temporary) accounting of what actually happened. And, rename to Casualties of November 2008 Mumbai attacks. Fconaway (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note to all those suggesting the rename: "the" should be included for it to make sense in English. Joshdboz (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Casualties of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks - an expanded that will include information about other casualties as well. Lists of non-notable people dead in a particular incident are non-notable. 220.227.179.4 (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep by current standards. The attacks and its victims are notable. Dabackgammonator (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? All of them? Why? -- Biruitorul ^Talk 05:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Keep or rename per above with additional context. This is not an article about an individual victim. This is an article about the total of people who lost their lives in this tragic and historic event, and each entry in the list shows something about what unfolded during these attacks. This is a subarticle of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks which is in its own space for length reasons. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Casualties of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks per Candlewicke and refocus for significance per LeaveSleaves. A list of every individual may be inappropriate, but the nature of the attack and the high number of notable casualties makes this subtopic important. I don't see deletion as the answer here. • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Wikipedia is not a memorial. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for ease of editing 2[edit]

Delete or Rework - Casualties of the September 11 attacks is an appropriate treatment, this exhaustive list is not. Fails because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of lists WP:INDISCRIMINATE and Wikipedia is not a memorial WP:NOTMEMORIAL Josh Parris 13:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rework - most of the information given (e.g. names and ages) is not in itself notable. A summary of notable information (total casualties from each location, by nationality, etc.) could go in the main article or a reworked version of this article. Barnabypage (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the article as it stands is not a memorial (with salutory information about the victims), but rather gives important information about who was killed, and the mix of nationalities.
Comment. Many of the votes for delete seem to be misunderstanding policy. The WP:NOTMEMORIAL rule is as follows: Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. This is not a page about somebody's departed friend or relative. This is a page about a historical mass murder. And the notability rules says "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. Notability, in the sense used to determine article inclusion, does not directly affect article content.". That means each member of the list doesn't need to pass WP:N, no more than every noun in a prose article does. Only the totality of the article needs to pass WP:N. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Improve and Merge - It would be wrong to ask for deletion of the information calling it a "Memorial" because its not a memorial in strict sense of the word. I believe that article content should be kept, improved upon and merged into the original incident article. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 01:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic. This has no place on Wikipedia. Besides, isn't there already a memorial wiki of some sort? bob rulz (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many of the casualties are notable, quite encyclopedic CS2020 (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, only around a dozen of the casualties are notable (ie, have articles here), something like 3% of the total. They, along with the casualty table, can easily be integrated into the main article, which indeed they are, quite nicely. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 15:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename including the detailed casualty lists for the time being, per Aepryus above. Jheald (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I second the comment above. The policy regards "friends and relatives". There are no policy grounds for deletion. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge this article in November 2008 Mumbai attacks but please do not delete it. The contents are important in world history and these should be part of the actual article, i.e. November 2008 Mumbai attacks only. --Singh6 (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Merge into "November 2008 Mumbai attacks" in the form of a table stating the nationalities of all victims. Mention by name only those victims that have their own Wikipedia articles. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - The repeatedly quoted policy WP:NOTMEMORIAL certainly applies, as does the closely-related WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Notable people can be handled in their separate articles, but I simply do not see the permissible (by which I mean not violating one of the policies I just listed) encyclopedic value of the names of each person to suffer injury or death in this tragedy. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per others. Doesn't seem to have encylopedic value, and any that it might have can be fit into the main article, which has more than enough room to spare. why create a sub article if the parent is not at splitting size? Any reason other than tragedy competition?Yobmod (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no value of listing the names and other personal data of the victims. There's no interest in the names of most of the victims. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:34, 4 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 01:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashmole School[edit]

This school is not notable since it has not been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the school itself. This article is full of information regarding what subject available in the school and the buildings inside the school. This should be in the school's prospectus, not Wikipedia. No viable third-party references, except Ofsted. Fangfufu (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - High school, foundation school, science college, music college, Ofsted Grade 1 'Outstanding' school. [62]. UK schools don't get much more notable. Oh, and sources available to meet WP:ORG. Did I mention at least five notable alumni? TerriersFan (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very hard to find anything on Google regarding the school's facilities. The information on buildings in the article seems to be purely original research. The courses being taught in the school should be deleted. There is no need to do a table. People should be able to find those in school's prospectus. I feel it is not quite encylopedic to include those. If you delete the information about the courses and the unverified information about buildings, you can almost get a blank page. Fangfufu (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page needs cleaning; sure. But there is plenty of sourced content from which it can be expanded. We don't delete highly notable schools because the page needs work. TerriersFan (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. School has the best Ofsted mark you can get (only very few manage that), the school has multiple sourced notable alumni and the school has a significant history. All reasons to keep it (see WP:BEEFSTEW and WP:SCHOOLS) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The consensus is that all secondary schools are notable. A lack of sources implies tagging the article for verifcation. It is no reason for deleting it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree that all secondary schools are inherently notable. Opera hat (talk) 02:00, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imag091307[edit]

Contrary to a talk-page claim, there's no evidence this is a notable worm/virus. Ghits are limited to discussion of it, without any RS coverage to determine notability. StarM 03:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:46, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - again, wikipedia doesn't exist for the purpose of documenting every virus. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if this exists, it's not prolific enough to be WP:N. DARTH PANDA ^duel 00:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable virus. Schuym1 (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I call hoax. This may be jsut an arbitrary filename, and the link in the article points out an IRC worm that doesn't appear to be relevant. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment. It does appear to be real but mainly restricted to China [63][64][65]. This makes it difficult to verify notability but we need to avoid systematic bias. McWomble (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Wikipedia is not an anti-virus guide. JohnCD (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one said it was. Please focus your comment on the merits, or lack thereof in the article at hand. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:51, 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 redirect to Audible.com#Digital Rights Management. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audible DRM[edit]

Thsi article appears to be an unintentional content fork from Audible.com. I redirected it, but the orginator has declared that redirect "spurious". Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect to Audible.com#Digital Rights Management. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've initiated a discussion on the author's talk page to attempt to find out why he reverted the redirect in the first place. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect/delete no reason to separate this facet of the website off into its own article. Icewedge (talk) 06:42, 28 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) 00:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 30 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, NW's Public Sock (talk) 22:19, 3 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 merge to The Young and the Restless. As there is no article on locations of this show already, I decided to give the show as merge target. I think a new article about such and similar locations may be a good idea though. So Why 14:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fenmore's Department Stores[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fenmore's Department Stores

No real world information, references, media coverage, no notability outside the show. If we delete the employees sections, nothing important stays to be merged somewhere. Magioladitis (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant fictional location for very major series's. The importance importance of these things does have some relation to the importance of the series. The list of employees serves to associate the characters--and such series do need such explanations to keep things moderately coherent. So that at least would need to be merged. DGG (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A google search gives almost nothing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nothing, or alost nothing. If it gics only 2 usable refs, thats enough. DGG (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real world significance. Where is the independent coverage from reliable third party publications? We're not a host for original research, nor are we supposed to be a primary source of information. JBsupreme (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established through real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 06:23, 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) 00:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Y&Rcruft. Nate • (chatter) 07:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If notability isn't established independently, it means the article shouldn't stand on its own. But that doesn't mean it can't be merged somewhere like a list of Y&R locations. I don't see why the character list would need to be removed, it's a crucial part of the article (It's a way to group the people together). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the damn thing: Not independently notable. Schuym1 (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:CORP for a fictional TV show store? I guess it would meet it in real life. Nate • (chatter) 20:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I made a mistake. Schuym1 (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If no sources, may as well delete & create redirect. Merge to a section in the series (or better target) if there is anything sourced to merge. No proof of independant notability.Yobmod (talk) 11:32, 4 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perimeter (EU Project)[edit]

No indication of notability for this project. The author noted in his edit summary while removing my PROD nomination, "This article is about a FP7 project" (Category:FP7_Projects), but I don't know that being undertaken by FP7 is deemed to confer automatic notability on a project, so I felt that my concern hadn't been addressed, and I decided to list the article here for discussion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have checked the guidelines stated on the Category:FP7_Projects page and I looked at some of the project descriptions. After that I came to the conclusion that this project is relevant to be shown at Wikipedia. I agree that it is probably not a main criteria that the project is an FP7 project. But the project itself surly is relevant, as mobility is getting more important every day (just think about the current trend about Netbooks and iPhones). I personally believe that this article should stay in Wikipedia. I'm happy to work on the text, please give me hints about what you would like to see improved in the article. Haemmerlech (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't an article on mobility, so the notability of the topic of mobility isn't under discussion here. From "X is notable" it doesn't follow that every topic related to X is notable. CAD is a notable topic. It doesn't follow that a CAD app I create and make available for download is notable; it won't be unless and until it achieves such notability. WP:Notability is the source of guidelines for assessing or establishing the notability of a topic. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. No independent reliable sources have been provided and none are obvious on a search. Nuttah (talk) 14:25, 28 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) 00:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is precedent that EU FP5/6/7 projects are notable. Since these are mainly research projects they get very little media coverage but are cited in peer-reviewed papers. See Google Scholar. McWomble (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just looked at the Google Scholar search and found nothing. The word "perimeter" in each case was the generic word. As for precedent, it seems to me that the existence of such a precedent of that sort would be inconsistent with the guidelines, which make it quite clear that each topic's notability is independent established. Every item in a notable list isn't inherently notable; every item belonging to a notable category isn't inherently notable; every episode of a notable television series isn't inherently notable; etc. —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of projects receive EU funding, but it doesn't make them EU projects or exempt them from notability criteria. Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Blue-Haired Lawyer. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 07:46, 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. Secret ^account 18:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SoundGate[edit]

This article is about a company that fails both the general notability guidelines and the business notability guidelines. All hits seem to be either unrelated companies or advertisements. The only relevant google news hit is a passing mention in an article about a technology conference. Notability is not established by references in the article, nor is any real claim of notability made in the article. May deserve a tag for speedy delete, but thought I would bring it here as it has existed for over a month. In that month, however, no significant edits have been made to improve the article, so the article has certainly been given a chance. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For the above reasons stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BritishWatcher (talk • contribs) 17:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I believe the company has generated enough coverage in such publications as PC Magazine - Twice and Techtree, as shown here [66], to establish Notability. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note in searching that there is a company in Sheridan, WY that has the same name, SoundGate, and that not all hits are for the Stillwater, OK company the article describes. I have been unable to find significant coverage of the Stillwater company to justify inclusion. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, I saw that. In fact, that looks like a great lawsuit brewing. I based my opinion on just what I read about concerning SoundGate. I’ll see if I can improve as this Afd wines its way through. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hello Theseeker4 I did some more checking with regards to the two companies and found out that in fact they are one in the same, as shown here. [67]. With this in mind, in that all the source listed are in fact for the same company, I believe they should be able to be used inter-changeably, though I agree by the bare minimum, enough coverage to satisfy Notability. Also - A merge/redirect to Kicker (audio) maybe more in order at this time. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 14:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator said it best -- this article does not meet WP:CORP requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is unencyclopedic and non-notable; it comes off more as advertising. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 00:21, 29 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) 00:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect - Kicker (audio) See comments above. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change nomination to Merge/Redirect Considering the information shoessss found regarding the aquisition of Soundgate by Kicker (audio) and the fact that the two Soundgates appear to be the same company, I support Shoessss's suggestion to merge/redirect and withdraw my nomination for deletion. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:34, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gapless album[edit]

Non-notable and unencyclopedic; I'd call it a neologism but it's not really even that. In any case, fails WP:NOTE and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure on this one. It seems as if it might be a valid category, at least, or as a list (which would be at List of gapless albums) if annotation is necessary. However, the category (and perhaps a list) should only include those albums that are primarily gapless, not any album with no gap between two tracks. All that said, an article could be written at this title, discussing the history of gapless albums and discussing some notable examples in-depth, but this article is not that. Powers ^T 00:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as valid stub after Chaser's modifications. Powers ^T 15:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial list, unencyclopaedic WP:V. JamesBurns (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I've put some meat on the bones and removed that unmaintainable list.--chaser - t 05:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--OK, so the bones have meat, that is, it exists. It's still not notable, though Chaser, I appreciate your efforts. Drmies (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I hadn't considered notability, but you're right. The first reference is the only one that covers this in any real depth. Unless more sources turn up, a brief mention at gapless playback and a redirect to there is probably the best option. The two are quite similar.--chaser - t 04:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely unverifiable, no hope of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is an article-worthy topic (3000+ Google hits for the exact phrase), although this may not be the right title for it. -- The Anome (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added some more relevant information. This concept exists, hopefully the adding of information I have added will help support the argument to keep.--kamojamo - t 14:11, 30 November 2008 (EST)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I-Jet Caribbean[edit]

Another business plan that apparently never got off the ground. One source, a directory / trade magazine based on their press releases. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An airline that operated for 6 months in 2004 is surely NN. We cannot have an article on every company registered at Companies House and its equivalents in every other jurisdiction. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:37, 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) 00:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN and cannot advance beyond stub. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything that would allow the article to expand further. Wexcan Talk 03:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, this is useless dead content. - DustyRain (talk) 06:58, 3 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 14:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ex Box Boys[edit]

I've held off on this article to give the originator the chance to assert notability. I feel that sufficient time has elapsed without that notability being asserted, nor evident from my own researches, to hold the article up to community scrutiny. While individual members may play in bands that may be notable, and while the "XBox/Ex Box" link appears at first sight to be notable I believe that this band does not currently make the notable bands list. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is unsourced nonsense about a non-notable subject. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 00:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity, some guys mucking around, rambling content... - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through all the guidelines,and some how i just dont seem to see the problem. They have recieved a platinum record, which you can look up on google and various other sites that I have listed as reference and sources but that somehow seem to get deleted everytime. Within these sources/links were news reports including one from King 5 Seatlle News, Videos, their personal website, fan forums, their own comic strip, the studio they recorded at etc etc. When I read through the guidelines this is what i understand is wanted. Phil Fischer has achieved quite a good name in the world of music as has Joseph ChildresI have sited the links to Vendetta Red. If you look onto their website you will see just how popular they are.

Now I can understand that some people may think this is yet another boy band, one hit wonder, but apparently and if you look into all the sites I kept adding as sources, they are very popular in the gaming world, and look like they will be sticking around for a while to come.

If you are worried they do not deserve their page in this encyclopedia that is an opinion everyone deserves to have for their personal reasons, but there are plenty that will disagree, an opinion which should be respected just as much.

As to "orphan", "Cite", "Category", "Wikify", I have read through all the steps, tried each and every single suggestion, and somehow it still get deleted as do links, cites and "wikifications". So if this is the problem, is there anyone who would like to brush it up to Wikipedia standards and let the XBox geeks have their page?--Jenny Blaze (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The challenge is that the citations must come form reliable sources. Get those and you have solved the main problem. Other stuff can be weeded out and added at any time. Fail to get those that there is a strong probability that the article will not survive at the moment. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete, sorry I'm a fan of the Ex Box Boys but by my own admission, they're not really at the level of Wikipedia-brand notability. As hard as it is to say, they just don't have the external references to support an article... yet? Maybe in the future, but not now. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've been researching this quite strongly. Phil Fischer, the band leader, doesn't even mention the band on his own site. Apple records is Fischer's own label ezinearticles.com/?Internet-Artist-Outsells-Labels-Best&id=357440 (deep in here) (not linked. This is trapped by WP's Spam filter). One day they may be notable, and at that point the article, if deleted, can be recovered from the history and reworked on, but today it just is not its time. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability in reliable sources is provided. Terraxos (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sixtynine, Richard Cavell. tomasz. 13:53, 3 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 merge to Great Lakes Storm of 1913. MBisanz ^talk 14:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm[edit]

Mourning the dead is not something that Wikipedia should make a spectacle of. This list has little to no value in an encyclopedia and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (4th nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre (2nd nomination), people tend to agree. Let the dead rest in peace. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a slightly POINTy feel to this nomination as this list was mentioned in another AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge links and sources and redirect (for attribution) to Great Lakes Storm of 1913. While the names themselves belong to non-notable people and the list is basically OR (there's not even any certainty all the people listed are dead. Having the information available is useful in the article on the storm. I therefore support merging the references, external links and further readings provided in this article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though preserve any overall summary information. WP:NOTMEMORIAL Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we preserve anything, we can't delete the history. We need the history to give proper attribution as required by the GFDL. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Great Lakes Storm of 1913 per Wikipedia:WikiProject Non-tropical storms standards. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Great Lakes Storm of 1913 per above. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 07:36, 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. Wizardman 20:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Babylonian Twins[edit]

Notability concerns - unreleased computer game that doesn't appear to have much coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non-notable unreleased game. Schuym1 (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:01, 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.