The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka Dunin[edit]

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

Non notable wikipedian, COI interests but her lack of notability is what is compelling here . Thanks, SqueakBox 23:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• She's notable per WP:GNG. A sufficient number of sources cover her in connection with the two cryptanalysis efforts for Kryptos and Cyrillic Projector, so it's not WP:BIO1E either. Some coverage was trivial like the one-quote mention in a CNN article, which I removed (because it just said she ran a web forum dedicated to one of the problems), but there's enough non-trivial coverage in the mainstream press: NYT, wired.com and some lesser newspapers. You'd expect that two significant efforts in cryptanalysis would be covered by some more specialized press, which would allow a higher quality article (on the two projects and her contribution), but the sources, although somewhat sensationalist, and perhaps not sufficiently knowledgeable on the topic, are sufficient by Wikipedia standards. Her crypto exercises book (2 editions with slightly different titles) appears be held at some libraries, but not at academic ones, so it's fair to say that it targets amateur cryptographers. She's no Bruce Schneier, (compare with his applied crypto book), but it does add something to her notability. I don't have an opinion on her executive career in the game industry; it seems sourced mainly from primary sources, and frankly I think detracts from the readability of the article by cluttering it with various dry lists. YMMV. VG ☎ 22:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC) This is a copy & paste of what I've previously posted on the article talk page on this issue.[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unquestionably meets GNG. I do not understand why this is being nominated for deletion rather than cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for deletion after I cleaned it up today (thoroughly familiarizing myself with the content while doing so). Thanks, SqueakBox 00:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if it weren't the fact that the person in question wasn't a high editcount admin, this would be a clear cut case of failure due to WP:BIO. However I can see that it's just going to be a personality vote unfortunately :-( Shot info (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual error - article was last concluded as "keep" in a well-attended July 2006 AFD. Elonka was a non-admin and neither her non-existant adminship nor her edit count played any part in that AFD. Rather than bad-faith assumption that any keep would be due to people taking a stance based on adminship of the user, it would be better to discuss the actual evidence as it relates to notability (or otherwise) and WP:BIO. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to amateur cryptography. While there is definitely some good content in this article, I'm simply not convinced that this article should exist as a stand-alone piece. Unquestionably, there is a place for Wikipedia to cover amateur cryptography and the subject of this article is probably notable enough to warrant detailed mention at an amateur cryptography article. However, there are other amateur cryptographers who probably deserve mention as well and we can do so in one area so as to not run into problems with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. The context of this person's notability is in connection to amateur cryptography and nothing more. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like a possibility. I suggest that the clean-up of this article continues and the other article is created, and then we can see where we are. Verbal chat 09:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per VasileGaburici, meets WP:GNG in my book. JBsupreme (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Keep and clean-up for now, but it needs a massive overhaul - especially in regards to sources establishing notability. Judicious pruning and tightening-up are also in order. After this is done the article should be reassessed. Verbal chat 09:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While I haven't done any research on the subject and therefore cannot vote delete or keep, maybe userfy per the above vote? DARTH PANDA^duel 12:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to merge per SA, Willy, Guy, etc. Reasoning the same. Verbal chat 20:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Kryptos or a similar article on amateur cryprography, where Dunin's main claim to fame rests. I'm not sure if this is relevant, but a possibly comparable case is that of Alex Selby, who shared the million pound prize with Oliver Riordan for cracking the "insoluble" Eternity puzzle. He subsequently became a developer of Eternity II and is mentioned only in those articles; he has a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Cambridge. I think press coverage for Selby and Riordan was quite extensive at the time (neither Selby nor Riordan are publicity seekers, unlike the creator of Eternity). Mathsci (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - references in article establish notability straightforwardly per WP:N. No reason to make a naval-gasing exception to the usual rule here. WilyD 14:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:GNG. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No convincing rationale provided for deletion - notability satisfied on its face, as has been addressed in prior deletion discussions. Avruch ^T 15:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge To me the Kryptos / Cyrillic projector are close enough to a single event. Otherwise a couple of puzzle books and working at a game company are far from notable. If not merge, examine James_Sanborn for a more suitable weight. In its current state the article is a vanity piece by someone with lots of friends on Wikipedia who will knee-jerk keep it.Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the article on James Sanborn is lacking in depth or detail is not an argument to cut another article down or merge or eliminate it. see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you're making a variant of that argument in that part of your statement. (By the way I know binary by heart too :) ) No comment at this time on whether keep, merge, or delete is the right outcome. ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on the "merge to article on XYZ because she's only famous in connection with that". Wikipedia ≠ Britannica. Britannica would probably cover Dunin in an article on those puzzles, and would likely combine them in a single article since they're both designed by the artist James Sanborn, which ironically has stub-level article in Wikipedia. This is a hypothetical discussion, since Britannica doesn't have an article on any of this stuff. It's unfortunate that people with Ph.D.'s that won million pound prizes are less covered in Wikipedia that Elonka Dunin is, but on the other hand people like Ashley Todd have an article in Wikipedia, and it's hard to imagine a less meritorious individual. Wikipedia doesn't judge the merits of most individuals for the purpose of including them; it only judges the amount of "paper trail" if you like. There are some exceptions like WP:PROF, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:MUSICBIO, but sufficient press coverage guarantees inclusion via WP:GNG. Like it or not, Dunin is involved in some endeavors that captured the public imagination, which in turn generated press coverage, which suffices for WP:GNG. Frankly for cryptography-related discussions none of the mainstream newspapers, or NPR, or even PBS NOVA are reliable sources. Some of the comments made local newspapers were downright hilarious, e.g. "She knew binary - the language of computers - by heart." But that's probably why those articles focused on the human aspect of these endeavors, e.g. the NYT article reads more like a movies script than math/science reporting; call it a dramatization if you will. But the bottom line is that she is covered in some detail, so WP:GNG is satisfied. VG ☎ 16:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sorry, disagree completely with nominator. Dunin is notable; her status on Wikipedia, or her edit count there have no relevance whatsoever in any discussion about her article. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep disagree with nominator. Subject is definitely notable enough for inclusion per WP:N. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - probably not the most encyclopaedic subject, but there is some coverage in secondary sources, hence we should keep the article. Novidmarana (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficiently notable as an author by our normal standards. that subject is also active at Wikipedia should be irrelevant. DGG (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, even though I !voted keep, she's not notable as an author: her book has practically no reviews (only two by customers on Amazon), and it is held two dozen U.S. public libraries, but not by academic ones. The white papers chapters she co-authored with other IGDA SIG memebers don't seem to have any notoriety (citations etc.) VG ☎ 21:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject is not notable because they edit Wikipedia, clearly, but VasileGaburici and the two dozen sources cited within the article do show why she is, per WP:N. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep, in a few WP:RS, though it's slightly sad to have this article. I've not looked at the details of them but I don't think we need the articles on several of her relations, if they're still on wiki.:) Sticky Parkin 02:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She is notable enough independently of her work at Wikipedia. -- Fyslee / talk 03:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject of the article has plenty of reliable third-party coverage as a result of her work decrypting those sculptures. I suppose it has little to do with the discussion, but this nomination seems to be riding dangerously close to violating WP:POINT. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:BIO; share concerns with editor above about the motivations of this nomination but will WP:AGF for now. Coldmachine^Talk 08:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I and Elonka do not have issues I suggest you do indeed assume good faith. It appears our standards are deteriorating if so many people honestly believe this unnotable amateur cryptographer passes WP:N, shameful given that so many much more notable individuals (esp in the non-English speaking 3rd world, which is most of us) are not covered. The alleged sources are no proof whatsoever that this person is notable, and this indicates slipping standards. IMO the fact that she is a wikipeedia editor is clearly relevant and this afd is the proof of this, and I am not the first to pointy this out. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only evidence I see of our standards deteriorating is our continued addition of pop culture references where they do not belong. This one is just fine. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well she has about as much notability as an amateur pop star. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the disconnect here is that (speaking for myself) the quantity and quality of RS's cited make up for any perceived lack of depth in coverage. I reviewed the cited sources and simply don't see a GNG issue. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination says nothing that was not said in the previous discussion a few weeks ago and so is a disruptive repeat nomination per WP:DEL. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify I believe the last time this was nominated for deletion was approximately 2 years ago. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Beg pardon - I misread 2006 as 2008. I have amended my comment accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As I noted at Talk:Elonka Dunin#Tagged the article and Talk:Elonka Dunin#Proposed merge to Kryptos, I disagree with a merge and subsequently disagree with a deletion of the article. seicer | talk | contribs 20:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject is notable and satisfies WP:BIO and WP:GNG. X MarX the Spot (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sufficient notability is indicated by the sources. Everyking (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Kryptos per Mathsci. -- Nevard 04:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject is clearly notable for activities outside WP, per cited sources. --Gene_poole (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable for more than one event which is born out by strong sources, not that you'd know that now due to the systematic source removal, misinformation and general hatchet job currently being labeled as "improvements" to the article. Shell ^babelfish 19:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are welcome to improve the article instead of just bitchin'. The only sources I've removed ([1] [2]) contained trivial, one sentence references to her, but were used to "support" statements in the Wikipedia article that were not unambiguously made in the references. VG ☎ 20:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also can you point out some misinformation added to the article? Misinformation was definitely removed, like books in which she was merely acknoledged beeing passed as books to which she contributed. Based on your user page you seem to AGF and dislike vanity articles. Perhaps not in this case? VG ☎ 20:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- although I had never heard of Elonka before, the references cited in the article are sufficient to convince me she meets notability requirements. If she doesn't, I can think of a few hundred articles that deserve deletion on the same grounds. The fact that this has been up to AfD before, survived, then got nominated again also doesn't sit well with me -- if a community consensus has been reached, why beat a dead horse? And to the people trying to accuse every editor here of favoritism because the subject happens to be a Wikipedia editor/admin/whatever...what happened to assuming good faith? -Stian (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - agree with many of the editors posting above - the article complies with the General Notability Guideline. Also, recent editing by VG and SA has largely resolved the problems relating to neutrality. PhilKnight (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew "Squirrel" Roberts[edit]

Andrew "Squirrel" Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A musician of very dubious notability. No sources provided, and I can't find any beyond his own website and a few Myspace hits. Appears to fail WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Borders on being an A7 speedy candidate but as it kind of claims notability I've brought it here. ~ mazca ^t|c 23:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nomination fails WP:MUSIC neatly. JBsupreme (talk) 07:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails all 12 criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Note, I've also fixed the link to the AfD from the article page. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 10:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails all relevant criteria. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NOTE. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced BLP. RMHED (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Media Group[edit]

Dennis Media Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

See rationale provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Phoenix (producer). Cirt (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete fails WP:ORG, almost no secondary coverage Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Evans[edit]

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

I declined to speedy this because this stub is one big claim to notability: multiple leading roles in a notable theathre company. I cleaned up the formatting, but none of my searches turned up anything about this person. Delete unless someone can find sources I can't. Mgm|^(talk) 22:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unverifiable claims. So far, fails to meet notability under WP:ENTERTAINER. -- Loukinho (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A Google search for "Liam Evans"+"National Youth Theatre" finds absolutely nothing. For any notable person in his era, location and field I would expect to find loads on the web. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there are no reliables sources covering this individual, and no evidence of significant awards for his work -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone except the nom. ;-) coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced BLP, seems to be non-notable also. RMHED (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mijail Lamas[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic NN subject as per WP:CREATIVE. Major contributor removed tags from article. Possible COI as its main contributions on Wikipedia are solely based on the subject even on the Spanish Wikipedia. Loukinho (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would consider someone who repeatedly translates work from major artists notable, provided they are given the assignment by the publisher who has the right to the books (not self-publishing unauthorized translations). Problem is, I know too little Spanish to figure out which is the case here. Anyone? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although translations are not one of the criteria for notability, it is also important to notice that many of the works he translated are already public domain whose copyright expired and no publisher can claim the rights of the books. Considering also that this is not one of the criteria, subject fails to distinguish itself from other poets and thus, fails to achieve notability. -- Loukinho (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. My Spanish is also not good enough to be able to evaluate sources properly, but this would appear to be a reliable source. It is, however, the only one I could find. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm sorry but there's no indication of notability here. Intro says he's a poet. Does that in and of itself qualify for an encyclopedia entry? If someone wants to save the article it should be rewritten from its present state as a resume and establish notability. Has his work been reviewed? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Mark[edit]

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

Non notable musician fails WP:BAND no reliable sources and using notable acts that he is supposed to have appeared on stage with to confer notability BigDunc^Talk 22:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Added sources Hi, I've added sources. Sorry if I'm doing some things wrong, it is my first article. Trueadat(talk) 09:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lacks reliable sources and also fails to meet notability. -- Loukinho (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article's tone screams copyvio and sure enough, it is. It's a copy-and-paste from his MySpace page. Notability is claimed, but it is not backed up by WP:RS. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of reliable sources. JBsupreme (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Susco[edit]

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

Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Definitely needs reliable sources and expansion but the article can possibly meet the notability criteria for WP:CREATIVE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loukinho (talk • contribs)
• Keep. Article is stubby, but he's the screenwriter for two major blockbusters and sources will be easy to find to confirm that. Meets criteria easily. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - his films have made hundreds of millions of dollars. The second one made a considerable profit, even if it was a bit of a flop compared to the first one. What else does he need to do to achieve notability? - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. To quote WP:CREATIVE: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:CREATIVE as other editors have already pointed out, and there is coverage about him including this Variety interview. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle football league[edit]

Bottle football league (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Annoyingly this claims coverage on Fox News so it possibly asserts notability (although google fails to substantiate this). WP:OR per WP:MADEUP. Ros0709 (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'reference' for the Fox news coverage is just a link to the Fox mainpage (I could do that and claim Fox coverage for invaders from Mars). I've already speedy deleted this once and I would do it again. speedy delete. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google "bottle football" and the school name turns up only this article [3]. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per WP:NFT. I won't argue that the topic itself is a hoax, but the sources definitely look like they are. MuZemike (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not going to enter this discussion, but I feel I need to point out I see this in a lot of good-faith contributions. People who think they need links provide links to the main page of some related publication's website without actually providing necessary details. In this case it could have happened that they saw it on TV and ended up citing the website. Just sayin'. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see nothing to prove the bizarre assertion that Fox News, for some reason, would have featured a story on kids throwing a half-filled (and thus fair and balanced) water bottle back and forth. The school's website certainly doesn't mention either a visit from Fox News or the game itself [4]. Even if it turns out that it was mentioned on Fox, it's still not notable. Mandsford (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As much as ILIKEIT... it doesn't make the cut. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  16:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fraline[edit]

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

Second nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fraline for the old AFD discussion. Not notable as there does not seem to be any signifant coverage in secondary sources. Google news returns 30 hits for Fraline, all of them neither related to the project or press releases by the project. Searching local newspapers, i.e. Frankfurter Rundschau, Frankfurter Neue Presse and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung returns zero hits at the Frankfurter Allgemeine, Frankfurter Neue Presse and one hit at the Rundschau. But even the Rundschau mentions Fraline only in passing as the article is about the institutions in general and only mentions that Fraline is one of their projects, effectively one sentence only ("Besondere Unterstützung an der Hochschule erhalten zudem das Computer-Projekt Fraline, an dem auch die Frankfurter Schulen beteiligt sind, und eine Studie über Materialwissenschaften."). Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - nothing has changed in the three days since the first AfD was closed - this is an innovative initiative between a local authority and a university. TerriersFan (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Голубое сало doesn't claim that is not the case. He's saying no reliable sources exist to sustain the article that don't mention the project in more than just passing. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Close. I totally agree with the nomination, but AFDs aren't supposed to be repeated less than a week after they last closed. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. I completely agree with the nomination, and have still to see significant coverage in a reliable source, but we aren't discussing articles until there is consensus for deletion. Give it a couple of months. --Amalthea^Talk 01:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• BlueSalo, if you are really that unhappy with the article, start a deletion review and argue that rough consensus was, in absence of a clear show of notability, to delete. --Amalthea^Talk 01:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Close as DISRUPTIVE The last AFD closed THREE DAYS prior to this. SashaNein (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DISRUPTIVE, really? Is there anything frivolous about my argument that there is no coverage in reliable sources? It is not that I am relisting an AfD that ended with a clear keep. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, disruptive. Please go edit some other aritcle and at least attempt to let this article. After the 1st AFD discussion that was closed as no consensus, you turned the article into a redirect anyway, deliberately and directly ignoring the AFD discussion's result. You fit the very definition of disruption on Wikipedia. SashaNein (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, civility is apparently not your strength, but at least you seem to be successful in driving out "disruptive" editors from the project. Novidmarana (talk) User:Novidmarana is a sockpuppet of User:BlueSalo. For further details, please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BlueSalo
    • Not to mention typing in all caps and boldface and hurling personal insults are also considered disruptive. Please AGF and be more civil next time. MuZemike (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will try to be 'nicer' in the future, but with the clear series of events - 1) User nominates article for deletion, deletion fails, 2) Immediately afterwards, user defies the AFD result and turns the article into a redirect, 3) After being reverted, user immediately renominates the article for deletion, three days after the previous AFD close - AGF has ended for ths content dispute. The user 'retired' only because he/she was called out on it. AGF does not ask anyone to play ignorant after two huge red flags. I apologize for allegedly making this user 'retire'. SashaNein (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no secondary sources that establish notability, and I couldn't care less whether the last afd was a day or a year ago. Articles about non-notable subjects (and that sound more like an advertisement) should have no place in an encyclopaedia, and building an encyclopaedia is what we should be here for. Novidmarana (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC) User:Novidmarana is a sockpuppet of User:BlueSalo. For further details, please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BlueSalo[reply]
• Comment Let's remember the earlier close was no-consensus. If it had been a keep, then this nomination would indeed be disruptive. But it wasn't, and it isn't. It was merely ill-judged. After a nonconsensus, unless something additional should be discovered, it is usually wise to wait a month or so before the next one, as this increases the likelihood of actually settling the matter one way or another. DGG (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 02:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reign Supreme[edit]

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

Non-notable unreleased album. Well-referenced but not nothing shows notability—online CD stores, ASCAP, one of the group members' website. There is one review from a college newspaper, as far as that goes. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Disputed prod back in April. Sources show it exists, but do not demonstrate that it is notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/ Speedy Delete Clearly the album information can go on the group's existing page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 by MacGyverMagic. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CityLink Telecommunications Limited[edit]

CityLink Telecommunications Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Significant copy of :- http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=52697

Paste (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already tagged for speedy deletion. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 21:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete (G12) — Copy and paste of copyrighted material from the abovementioned web page. That is blatant copyright infringement. MuZemike (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. There seems to be a fairly substantial consensus to keep this article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google platform[edit]

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

This article attempts to describe non-public information about the inner workings of a technology company. Although Google is obviously notable, internal information about the company's workings is not encyclopedic. Relevant information can be merged into the main Google article or a History of Google article, but as it stands this article does not meet WP:V or WP:NPOV.

• The main problems can be summed up by the article's own introduction: This article describes the technological infrastructure behind Google's websites, as presented in the company's public announcements. As such, it has inherent WP:NPOV problems.
• Because the article purports to describe internal knowledge about Google's operation, it cannot satisfy WP:V because that information cannot be verified by external sources. Many of the references are from Google's own public information, either first hand or second hand.
• Those references which aren't directly or indirectly from Google are press reports describing Google building new facilities. While that can be verified, the lion's share of the information in these article cannot be. (Except, perhaps to say that large datacenters take a lot of power, which isn't unusual.)

While I love Google as much as the next guy, I don't believe that this article merits inclusion as it stands.JRP (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this article describes the operation of possibly the most important website in history. We have articles describing the internal operation of cars, microprocessors, chemical engineering plants, and so on. I think the article should be renamed to something like Google service delivery and rewritten a bit. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cars, microprocessors, and engineering plants can (to a greater or lesser extent) be independently confirmed. A mechanic can look under the hood. Processors have been reimplemented by multiple, independent companies. Engineering plants similarly exist in many places from many companies and the process of designing one is well-known. However, this article is not on a cloned microprocessor or a common chemical engineering plant design but ONE specific platform for ONE specific company which has not been reimplemented, re-engineered, or independently evaluated. Without that, we can't possibly satisfy WP:V and we are at best left with trusting that their public communication is accurate or at worst dealing with press speculation. I'm not saying that there can't be an article, only that this article as it stands doesn't meet the bar for inclusion. JRP (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So far as notability is concerned, I stand my ground. As to verifiability, I want the article to be sourced, as all articles should be. I like the example given below of North Korea's nuclear program. It is entirely acceptable for wikipedia to piece together information from what is publicly known, even though the subject is kept secret by the authority that owns that secret, and even though the information that is publicly known might be incomplete or just plain wrong. Google's shareholder reports should be accurate, since Google is bound morally and legally to report truthfully to its shareholders. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The inner workings of the most notable website is quite notable. The contents of this article definitely warrant inclusion in WP. The discussion of a possible rename should not be done here. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are mis-using "notable" for a subjective evaluation of how important you consider something. Notability is not fame nor importance.

    And you haven't addressed at all the central challenge in the nomination, which is that Wikipedia editors piecing together the internal workings of a company by extrapolating what the company says in its public announcements, is a novel synthesis of sources, prohibited by our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Please counter that. (Hint: A brief search for books reveals that countering it will be relatively easy.) Uncle G (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Even if we define notability by the existence of reliable secondary independent sources, Google could still be reasonably claimed to the most notable website.

      But you're right about the rationale - I haven't dealt with the central argument posed by the nominator. I'll just counter by saying that any OR should be removed (and the rest of the article shouldn't be punished). We don't delete articles about notable subjects simply because they're currently full of OR. Looking at the reflist and a quick search reveal several sources (I haven't checked for reliability, though) explaining Google's technology. If there isn't enough public information then that's another issue. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • My argument is that there is insufficient verifiable public information to make this article currently and what public information there is is tainted because it only comes from the source itself. That's not a solid foundation for a Google article. Imagine if we had an article about the internals of Microsoft Windows that only sourced Microsoft technotes and press reports? That wouldn't be good. In the MS case, we can crack open the hood (and many have) with tools and see how things actually do work. In the Google case, their datacenters are literally under lock and key. They don't allow the press inside almost any of them. There is no way to independently verify any of the information presented. JRP (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I find it hard to believe that any information about google's infrastructure can only be found in their own publications. Also, for simple facts, there's nothing wrong with using primary sources (we can report on a company's balance sheet using its financial statements without violating WP:NOR). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Different reporters have visited Google and talked to them. Usually these reporters' findings are published in reliable sources. In some cases, Google would not tell them everything they wished to know, but if that happens, we can note it in our summary. I'd change the second sentence of the article to This article describes what is publicly known about the technological infrastructure behind Google's websites. Large companies don't tend to be 100% transparent, so there is no reason to single out Google for special skepticism. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Findings published in reliable sources are only as good as their primary sources. (As folks following, for example, war reporting know.) In this case, as you acknowledge, all primary sources are the company itself. That's putting a lot of trust in them and makes those sources not be verifiable. There are verifiable sources in this article-- I cite the several press reports about their datacenters which can be independently confirmed-- but the largest portion of this is speculation and based on Google press information. Not a good basis for an article. JRP (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I question whether a statement like Findings published in reliable sources are only as good as their primary sources can be found among our policies. Do you mean that Wikipedia should not have articles about secretive companies or organizations? We *do* have an article on the North Korean nuclear program. I have added a mention of Randall Stross's 2008 book, Planet Google, to the article. If you find that the article still contains undue speculation, you should say more about that on the article's Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Here's another quote from the article: In a 2008 book, the reporter Randall Stross wrote: "..Google's executives have gone to extraordinary lengths to keep the company's hardware hidden from view. The facilities are not open to tours, not even to members of the press." He wrote this based on his own experience of visiting the company and interviewing staff members. If this is true, then this article cannot pass WP:V. JRP (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the quote I just added. I'm still waiting for you to nominate our article on North Korea's nuclear program for deletion :-). EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! No, North Korea and weapons of mass destruction is a well-researched article which deals in large part with the speculation itself, rather than being the result of the speculation. (And the speculation is sourced, so at least that the source said blah is verifiable.) That and the spies in N. Korea leak to the press. :) JRP (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding WP:NPOV. You are confusing two things - one is that there is only one point of view in the article (Google's), and the other if each point of view is sourced. Having only one significant point of view doesn't contradict WP:NPOV in any way, and this point of view is sourced, so it's verifiable (for example, it's verifiable that Google says it uses BigTable, not that they really do). Samohyl Jan (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination is proposing a merger and so AFD is inappropriate. In any case, the content seems good and has adequate sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just came to the page looking for the list of software in Google's technology stack, so it's definitely useful, although the list I was looking for is missing from the article for now. It may be about internal workings of a company, but they are doing things so differently than others (they rely on their own technologies) that it definitely warrants an article. Samohyl Jan (talk) 22:06, 2 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, treelo _radda 20:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Synthesized essay on the inner working of Google? Unencylcopedic, inappropriate and not a concise "topic" - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you be more specific about what information would you delete from the article? And if you wouldn't delete anything from it, into what article would you add it? Samohyl Jan (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You failed to justify your claims that Google's infrastructure is unencyclopedic, inappropriate and "not concise as a topic" (whatever that might mean). This is not a vote, this is a debate. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thoughts exactly. Going over my copy Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach and the IEEE Micro article, much of the "synthesized essay" can be verified. Rilak (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - If this is "non-public information" then why is this subject extensively and comprehensively discussed in John L. Hennessy and David A. Patterson's Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach, Third Edition? Am I one of the elite few who have access to this book? I find this AfD to be ridiculous. We should be going after Pokemon, not notable academic subjects such as this. Rilak (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notability well established, nom is otherwise outright wrong. WilyD 14:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously my hint above wasn't strong enough. I've cited some of the books for you. The References and Further reading sections of the article speak for themselves. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Corker[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable solicitor. "Major claim to fame" is some mistake in his "on-line bio". So what. Camillus 20:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, A7. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- NN. Notability is not inherited, nor does a lawyer inherit notability form his client. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subject doesn't meet the GNG. RMHED (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Street kingz[edit]

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

Rap group that appears to have only gotten press due to its members' drug-dealing arrests. Notable neither as musicians nor as drug dealers. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MUSIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs) 20:53, November 4, 2008
• Keep Delete One of the articles discusses the role in promotion of the group's music using mix tapes. It also discusses a related controversy over releasing the same tracks after slightly altering them. I'm not a fan. But I don't know why there can't be a brief article on the group and the media coverage they've received. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I accept the consensus. Let's push the button. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per WP:MUSICBIO - no multiple, non trivial WP:RS relating to the band, charted once at #88, not certified gold, no tour, albums not released on major label, musicians not notable individually, not prominent representative of a notable style, no music awards, haven't won a music competition, no performed music for notable film, not on a major radio network, not been the subject of a national TV or radio broadcast. Ergo, not notable as #88 is insignificant and all other criteria fail. IMO. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feng Xiao-Min[edit]

Feng Xiao-Min (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was clearly created by the non-notable subject themselves. (COI and CSD:A7) The COI Is obvious. It has lacked, at any time in it's life, any assertions to the notability of the subject. ~Pip 11:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• SEE BELOW Speedy Delete as A7, and I tagged it for such. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 12:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as above. And the article is basically just junk that doesn't even rise to the level of advertisement: "...fusing serenity, contemplation and beauty with the yearning of the human heart" Come on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subject appears notable, and more information is available in the French interwiki link (and presumably the Chinese link, which I can't read). It's clear that the artist himself created the article, that he has the idée fixe that Wikipedia is an appropriate place to puff his talent, and that his behavior is discourteous (repeatedly reverting other editors). But these factors shouldn't determine how we regard the article itself. — Rob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 19:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the English article is obviously inadequate, but the frWP has the necessary list of exhibitions and publications that might well show notability and support the claims. So I copied them in. The language needs a little adjustment, but not much. And, more important, there seem to be two reviews. The reviews are quite enough to totally prevent speedy, and in my opinion enough for notability. I wonder in the nom. & the per noms actually looked at the other language articles. Even if one can read neither, its enough to indicate there's material for an article here. DGG (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inadequately sourced BLP. RMHED (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Change from SD to weak keep DGG has done a WP:HEY job on the article, although I would feel much warmer and fuzzier if there were some inline citations. It is at the point now that notability IS established (barely), and it still needs most of the tags it has. At least part of my vote should be tax deductable as charity. I am taking John Z's word (see article history) that the French version of the article is somewhat better, and we can't be snobs and insist on sources in English only. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 17:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. Dlohcierekim 07:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notability now well established. WilyD 13:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETEin all versions. For lack of independent sources. SYSS Mouse (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Problems with WP:V and WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Autobio/cv. Adding a list of awards would help to establish notability. --Vsion (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article doesn't establish any notability (says he's an artist and has had shows) and includes no references. It also needs to be fundamentally rewritten to be encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne nightclubs of the 80s and 90s[edit]

Melbourne nightclubs of the 80s and 90s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unmanageable list, no sources, probably listcruft. Delete Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Most of these seem to link to articles which have nothing to do with the subject. It could be salvaged I suppose with proper links and refs. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per comment above, the reason that the links are erroneous is because none of the listed entities are in themselves notable. The list may bring back misty-eyed memories for Melburnians of a certain vintage, but is simply an artificial construction. Nightclubs of the 60s and 70s anyone? Murtoa (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't know about misty eyed memories, more vague and suspiciously patchy ones! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unreferenced, non-notable, poorly linked listcruft. WWGB (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 23:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Profit Point, Inc.[edit]

Profit Point, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability, persistently unreferenced, CoI, and reads like an ad. —SlamDiego_←T 20:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable company, far too advert like.Paste (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a Google News archive search turns up insufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet our notability requirements. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Explanation from the Contributor -- I am not an expert in Wikipedia standards -- I contribute on matters that I am familiar with... So, forgive me if the group determines that this is not-notable, however IMO this company is notable. In the last two months alone, the company's analysts have authored cover stories for two notable industry magazines: Supply Chain Quarterly and Outsourced Logistics. The company is also at the forefront of developing supply chain software in the emerging area of environmental sustainability - a nascent, but important aspect of dealing with the climate change challenge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtaus (talk • contribs)
  • “Notability” doesn't possess the sort of transitivity presumed here. Writing for a notable periodical, occasional, or anthology doesn't make one notable; working to respond to a notable problem doesn't make one notable. —SlamDiego_←T 19:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Snow[edit]

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

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly seems below notability standards. There are no extensive sources which discuss (rather than merely name) the subject... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet neithe WP:PORNBIO nor WP:BIO because "database sources are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight." Tosqueira (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inadequately sourced BLP, also fails the GNG. RMHED (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 14:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect rhyme[edit]

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

This article is the perfect example of a violation of WP:DICTDEF. The article does not go beyond defining what a "perfect rhyme" is, and the only references for the article are dictionary entries. I see no possibility for expanding the article past the dictionary definition that it is. It has already been transwikied to Wiktionary, but a proposed deletion attempt was previously overturned. -- Atama^chat 19:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Atama^chat 19:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as the nominator said, it's just a dictionary definition without any potential for being expanded beyond that. Reyk _YO! 19:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep only because I think it can be expanded to show examples of usage, including poets who use it exclusively, or to contrast against other types of poetry and methods. You can get into usage in nursery rhymes, etc. It isn't just a single line def even now, and gives examples. When was it first used? How often is it used now? etc. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 20:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If that is the case then I'd be all for keeping the article. However, "showing examples of usage" isn't any more than a dictionary does. Showing poets who use it exclusively seems trivial, unless there's some notable reason why they do so (if it was a controversial thing to do, or spawned a genre of poetry, although an article on that genre might be more appropriate). As far as "other types of poetry and methods", my understanding is that this isn't a "type of poetry" at all, but rather just a type of rhyme. If we wanted to have an article comparing kinds of rhymes, there already is one. And yes, it isn't just a single line definition now, but neither are dictionary definitions. It's not that I'm opposed to the article if it can be expanded, I just don't think this subject can. -- Atama^chat 22:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I would say move to Wiktionary, but it already has an article there... notably, the page's only sources are dictionaries themselves! Until there's significantly more to add on the subject (I can't claim that I'm an expert on the matter) I say delete, since I can't really find anything else of note to add. I don't really think that more examples is sufficient. However, if something else to add to the page came up, I'd be more than willing to switch. Firebat08 (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has two sources that are not dictionaries. Uncle G (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm sensing that what Pharmboy meant in describing being able to "show examples of usage" is to show why perfect rhyme is used by writers; the article already shows examples of how perfect rhyme works. As to why it is used, it's a rather frequent requirement for popular music, where an unlikely rhyme can be the lyrical equivalent of a sour note. There are plenty of sources that can be used to expand beyond a dictionary definition, including such usages as in songwriting [5]. The concept requires some more explanation, and I think that can be easily done from verifiable sources. Mandsford (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for wording it better. I am better at visualisation than expression, obviously. There are other applications that can be explained here, and in the end I can see a very nice article. Early rap/hip hop used perfect rhyme more than modern, advertising jingles use it because it is easy to remember, etc. There are a lot of different directions you can go with this and be informative. But that is a matter of discussion within the article talk. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 00:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Like I said before, if there's SOMETHING of real substance that can expand this beyond a dictionary definition I'd be all for it. Is there a chance any of you can expand the article a bit to show any of this stuff, not that I'm doubting you but it's one thing to say an article that's been a dicdef for a year and a half can be expanded, and another to do it. I'd even be willing to help with the expansion if I knew what material there was to add. -- Atama^chat 19:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can start by finding literary critics discussing why modern poets and popular song writers don't use perfect rhymes. Begin by reading chapter 4 of ISBN 9780793511815, and then go to look for some more sources yourself. Uncle G (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep more a stub than a dicdef; patently absurd to suggest there's no possibility for expansion. WilyD 13:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Have you looked at the Wiktionary article for "perfect rhyme"?[6] It's almost indistinguishable from this article, or at least the way the article looked at the posting of this AfD. As it stands now, it is a dictionary definition, and it's absurd to suggest otherwise. -- Atama^chat 19:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, this is long, but I have been doing some homework on the applicable policies, and would rather just spell it out one time. I think you may be reading the guidelines too narrowly, and misinterpreting the intent. Lets look at the actual policies at hand. At least two of us are confident that it can be expanded (even if we aren't the experts to do so). My reading of wp:AFD (ie: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.) says this isn't a good candidate for AFD, as we have explained how to fix it. I don't question the faith of the nom in the least, it is just that others here may have more imagination when it comes to the potential for the article here. That it hasn't been expanded really isn't a strong argument to delete, via WP:NOEFFORT. If the consensus thinks there is no hope to ever expand, that still doesn't mean it fails WP:DICDEF automatically. DICDEF says a couple of important things that apply, including All stubs should have the potential to develop into full articles. A stub that has no possibility whatsoever for expansion beyond stub status is presenting the verifiable information in the wrong way. Wikipedia should not have single-fact articles. which I take to mean that if the article COULDN'T be expanded, then it should be merged into something else, and yes, single fact articles shouldn't be kept if they can't be expanded. I am arguing it can. Even so, DICDEF almost contradicts itself later when it says This does not mean that stubs that have no possibility for expansion should be copied to Wiktionary. They are still encyclopedia articles, not dictionary articles. so even if it WAS a single use, that doesn't automatically qualify it as a WP:DICDEF to be deleted or transwiki'ed (already there), and there may be circumstances where a short article with a single use is valid. It seems to boil down to two basic issue, and a YES to either one says we have to keep:
      1. Is there any possibility of expanding? (note, the standard is possibility, not probability)
      2. Is Wikipedia a better encyclopedia with the information, or without? (DICDEF exception and IAR)
      • With this in mind, I can't help but to think a keep is the only logical conclusion for both instances. It can be expanded and plenty of examples have been given. Even if it couldn't, it improves Wikipedia (WP:DICDEF and IAR exceptions). Even if there weren't examples, DICDEF doesn't say it *must* be deleted anyway, and allows for single use articles. No other issues were raised in this AFD. It is notable, it can be sourced, it is just a stub at this time, we have no deadline to fix it. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - You stated, "My reading of wp:AFD (ie: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.) says this isn't a good candidate for AFD, as we have explained how to fix it." If you read AfD again, notice that it is for discussion of whether an article should be deleted or not. Among the valid deletion criteria are articles not suitable for an encyclopedia, and it links the WP:NOT policy. On WP:NOT, you will see among the various examples WP:NOTDICDEF (it's almost the first example). This article appears to me (and others as you can see) to be a violation of the WP:NOT policy, and so it's very appropriate to bring to AfD to discuss whether it should be deleted or not. -- Atama^chat 01:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Avoiding a circular argument I never doubted your sincerity or the good faith in nominating the article. My point is that now it has been made clear that there are several valid justifications to expand the article that you might not have thought of when you first brought it to AFD. I completely understand how this might not be obvious at first glance. It isn't about being wrong or right, it is about understanding that sometimes, a whole group of people come up good ideas and reasons that we might not have though of by ourselves. The purpose of the guidelines isn't to make it easy to delete articles, it is to offer guidance on what and how to keep them. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment - That's good, and I'm convinced based on the arguments given that the article is justified in being kept. That's what the purpose of an AfD is, to come to a consensus and I believe now that the article can be expanded. I'm a bit surprised and dismayed about editors (not yourself) who have used this AfD as an opportunity to attack the DICDEF guideline and question my nomination of this article. -- Atama^chat 01:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article cannot ever expand beyond its currect dictdef state. This article is unencyclopedic and already exists on wiktionary. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An immense amount of literature is available dealing with this and with other details of literary writing. There is more to say than the mere definition: there is the possibilities of not just examples of the use in different languages and different periods and of discussion of these examples; there is the discussion of it in the thousands of handbooks and didactic and critical works; there is the varying use of it in different periods and literatures and individual authors. I find it amazing that people should say of any subject at all that it cannot be expanded DGG (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Then why do we even have a WP:DICDEF guideline, or at least why does the guideline discuss unexpandable subjects? Saying that it's "amazing" that someone thinks a subject can't be expanded is a lack of imagination. I'll give you an example, "pinky fingernail". It's definitely a notable subject, almost everyone has one. Yet does it deserve its own article, is there enough to say about a "pinky fingernail" that's encyclopedic? Of course not. In any case, I don't think an AfD page is a place to debate the merits of a guideline, we're here to discuss the merits of this article. -- Atama^chat 00:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a policy, not a guideline. And there are plenty of words and phrases in dictionaries that do not denote concrete subjects for encyclopaedia articles. This is, after all, why we have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs). The policy discusses the expansion of stubs to make it clear that (a) we only delete stubs if there is no possibility for them ever to be expanded — and in many cases we rename and refactor (per the aforementioned naming conventions, and per our our Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for? and Wikipedia:Notability#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines guidelines) or merge (again, per the conventions and guidelines) them instead — and (b) a short encyclopaedia article is not the same as a dictionary article. "short" is not synonymous with "dictionary". Uncle G (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please review the subject before commenting on it. It's patently absurd to suggest that this couldn't be expanded to a substantial article (or realistically, even a substantial article with many substantial daughter articles). WilyD 13:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It appears to be a traditional literary topic for which lots of sources could be found in academic literature. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and probably merge to Rhyme where most of the information already seems to be covered. If there is significant scope to expand the article (which from this discussion I think is debatable) then a separate article can be split off. Whilst I think the current article is not just a dictionary definition until there is additional information to present there is no need to send readers off to a separate article. Guest9999 (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Uncle G as a copy-and-paste of copyrighted material from a web page. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Health impact fund[edit]

Health impact fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable topic. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 19:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humanity Manifest Destiny[edit]

Humanity Manifest Destiny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:OR and WP:V, among others. PROD removed (quite properly) by author, saying "Using my rights as Author I remove the PROD because this is a genuine proposal to make part of universal knowledge, I invite the comunity to keep developing this topic". Sorry, but developing original ideas is not what Wikipedia is for. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although I may regret it, the topic itself is actually notable. The idea that we can make treaties about how to colonize Mars (like we freaking "own" outerspace) is worthy of an article. The existing stub isn't it, and I am not sure if the title is the exact title it should have, but as it is, as a stub, the topic and current content is ok, just not sourced yet. I am hoping it doesn't turn into a big original research project, like some other articles (cough cough) but as it is today, I can't see why to delete. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • Please note: the talk page for the article shows the desire for a different direction. At this time, the article doesn't have that direction, hense why I have to keep. If this changes, then my !vote would. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 19:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Before nominating, I did have a look for possible sources, but I could only find a few blogs in which the idea of Manifest Destiny was taken beyond the purely terrestrial. JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The concept of space colonization, along with the pros and cons of it, is treated in (mirabile dictu) Space colonization. Any non-POV-pushing material that might be used to develop this article could be used just as readily to develop that one, and we'd be rid of a title that is grammatically dubious and arguably POV-pushing itself. Deor (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Essentially a dictionary entry for a neologism. —SlamDiego_←T 20:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NEO and WP:FRINGE. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. In any case it's only a single sentence with no clear context and no references and it's verging on nonsensical. It could easily have been speedied. andy (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What a great idea; finally someone that mentions the reality of our destiny. Keep & Wiki Project--Tonymynd (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Tonymynd is the creator of the article under discussion; he appears to be praising himself here. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I caught that earlier. I think he may be misunderestimating Wikipedians. Almost funny in a pitiful way. Or slightly insulting. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 15:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. I reinstated the redirect and protected the page to stop recreation until the album exists. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emeritus (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable unreleased album with little substantial media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prior AFD was aborted just an hour after take-off. Attempts to redirect to the artist's page have been reverted without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, why not just protect that redirect until the album is very close to release (like, say, one week)? Tom Danson (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or a month? When it's already been pushed back at least once? —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Close. I've reinstated the redirect and protected indefinitely. Anyone can ask me or another administrator to unlock the page as soon as the album is released. I would also like to suggest that redirects that are undone without comments are simply reinstated and protected if needed. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hayden Panettiere. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Panettiere filmography[edit]

Hayden Panettiere filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure why this page was created to begin with. The main Hayden Panettiere article has a filmography, which has now been updated with tabling and any omitted major appearances. After this page was created, with a tabled filmography, someone came in, tagged it for merger, and then removed the tabled filmography and pasted in the IMDB filmography, nearly as is. This page is redundant to material in the main article and its existence really is unnecessary. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The main article is sufficient. Same information in both articles anyway. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 19:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There's not nearly enough credits to warrant a separate article. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 19:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Redundant with main article. Ward3001 (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wonderful actor, but please... a separate page just for this?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above, this is excessive and unnecessary. - eo (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As noted above, the filmography at her main page suffices. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Since it seems the original author of this page provided some of the missing entries in the main article, I've been bold and redirected to credit him per GFDL. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think I see the intent here as I have noted a move towards making bibliographies for notable authors and I think some filmographies for notable actors into separate lists, but Hayden's resume and notability don't warrant such a separate list at this time. Come back when she's in the same league as Katherine Hepburn and we'll talk. 23skidoo (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There have been separate filmographies for those actors whose work is exceedingly prolific for some time, but yes, this doesn't approach the size, nor the detail, that would support separation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Deanna[edit]

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

unsourced, although there is an assertion of notability, I am unable to verify it, as I cannot find coverage in reliable sources. —Snigbrook 19:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google has nearly 2 million hits but as you say none of them seem to be from any reliable sources. Someone needs to re-write the article citing some independent sources otherwise it will have to be deleted. However i would argue against deletion straight away because of the abundense of material avaliable (although i can't be bothered to read through it all and pick out the important ones. ----Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 19:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Actually, that's not an accurate assessment of Google hits. If you limit your search to the precise name "Kim Deanna" and then omit all the pages that are basically self-promotion portals (-myspace -youtube -friendster -facebook -forum -blogspot -wikipedia -video -blog) and Deanna Durbin (-durbin), you get 370 hits, almost all of which have nothing to do with Kim Deanna at all. At present, this person's notability can't be established. Wildhartlivie (talk)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. She's apparently a "popular Eurasian" [7] and her Korean name gets 85 google news hits [8] Juzhong (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced BLP of someone of marginal notability. RMHED (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Cruise[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Only reasons for notability seem to be inherited or an upcoming film which may or may not be successful. Let's wait for some documented notability please, and FWIW, this is an article about a minor. Rodhullandemu 18:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per above, this characterizes it as "very minor role" which doesn't define it as a notable appearance. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and relations don't confer notability. All WP:RS coverage falls back on the People Magazine story about a bit part in a movie. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relations don't necessarily confer notability, but let's not forget that if he played a major role and the film was succesful, he would be considered notable, not for being related but for the work he did. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Then WP:CRYSTAL applies. --Rodhullandemu 00:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsourced BLP, also fails the GNG. RMHED (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Baldwin[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Unreferenced. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 17:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this article was already tagged for speedy. AFD is not necessary under these circumstances unless the speedy tag is disputed or the article is subsequently recreated after being speedied. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11 by Dlohcierekim. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haywards london[edit]

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

Written like an advertisement. Non-notable company. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 17:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, think it also fits under speedy deletion... Yowuza Talk 2 me! 18:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" arguments, which center on notability and general interest, mostly fail to address the WP:SYNTH issues that are raised in the nomination.  Sandstein  16:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election[edit]

Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article and it's two sub articles are a synthesis of hand picked poll results from across the nation with various methods used to "prove" someone the winner. The concept of straw polls is notable, and the the effects that straw polls have had on the election is probably notable, but there doesn't seem to be any reliable source that groups a bunch of straw polls together like this. There is also some obvious WP:COATRACKing going on from supporters of various political candidates as evidenced from the references linked directly to campaign-related websites. Burzmali (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable, intesting, historically noteworthy. Comparison to article shows nomination simply doesn't cut the mustard. WilyD 17:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N isn't the problem WP:V is. While there are lots of references, none of them are to a reliable source that discusses the straw polls as a whole, like this article does. Burzmali (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - obvious WP:SYNTH and WP:OR problems from its inception. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — textbook coatrack filled with original research. MuZemike (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It's wikisource material. Transwiki if they want it. Otherwise delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- This was always a wp:coatrack. There were no standards over what was included and straw polls are completely worthless anyway. If you look at the results and look at the reality, you'll see they are extremely dissimilar. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as SYNTH. McWomble (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Straw polls are notable, and all are in the context of the presidential election. Adding them into one page is no more SYNTH than adding together all the polls from say Iowa (yes, I know places like realclear do this as well, but I'm sure we have grouped info together in such ways that they have not). If there are OR problems they should be swiftly deleted, so as to keep only the info that has actually made it into the newspapers. Joshdboz (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:IINFO - "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". It's a shame that someone put so much work into the page. Fishal (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable, interesting, and workable within our standards for avoiding coatracks. MBisanz ^talk 10:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative Earth Time[edit]

Cooperative Earth Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a lot of original research to me. 8 GHits. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 17:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — lack of verifiable sources establishing notability; that is, I could not find any. MuZemike (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obviously searching on CET is going to give a lot of false hits because of central eastern time. This search gives a handful of pointers to YouTube. Seems like a promotional effort for some zany idea to me - Mgm|^(talk) 00:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a G[edit]

I'm a G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, non-charting single with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-charting single, no sources, likely to be undone repeatedly if redirected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be happy to protect a redirect if the entry suffers repeated recreation without any improvement to the references. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable song. (Previously deleted via prod.) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House of the Spirits (2011 film)[edit]

House of the Spirits (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a movie that MIGHT be released in 2010 or 2011 and MIGHT involve some notable actors (or might not). Violates WP:NOT#CRYSTAL WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I removed the one invalid domain "source". Obvious crystal balling, and the "cast" isn't even "signed". PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 17:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (side note, I keep getting a blank page half the time I try to hit it or the history, like it was deleted, even though it wasn't. Not sure if that is just me or if the database is borked) PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 17:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The domain that was listed as source, "KREIGEN.COM" is unregistered, via whois. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 17:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article creator is an SPA. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 17:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I call shenanigans Maybe a hoax in poor taste. I just noticed that Bette Davis is "signed" to play "the ghost". She died in October of 1989. Maybe a speedy might be in order as vandalism, if the admin concurs with my conclusion. I tagged as such. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 17:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• G3 per pharmboy, clear cut vandalism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDA^duel 13:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Wu[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist, seems to have been created to back up Flying Rainbow Fan, contested WP:PROD the 'Offers private instruction' reads like an advert Nate1481 16:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nomination with souceslooks notable and just need of a clean-up --Nate1481 11:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481 16:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Service on national boards for her sport/discipline and coverage in a trade journal seem to denote notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep verified one book [9] but not others; wrote a lead-in for a book [10]; if the other journal/book claims can be verified, some level of notability. JJL (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: multiple publications^[1][2] and instructional videos^[3], strong lineage^[4], amateur authored article and it has since been improved. User:Dtcraig 17:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment those are martial arts magazines and not 'journals' as claimed in the article. This is weak evidence of notability but is certainly worth including. JJL (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: weak but existing references. Claims to notability established. The article could be improved with a reference other than Kung Fu Magazine. I think the article Helen Wu has more potential than the article Flying Rainbow Fan. jmcw (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 FutureSex/LoveSounds. MBisanz ^talk 10:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chop Me Up[edit]

Chop Me Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced, no chart positions, no music video, no commentary. — Realist² 14:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Still a notable song. Reliable resources can still be found. Does not fail WP:MUSIC. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 15:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it notable? There are no sources given to prove that, very week argument. — Realist² 15:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. If you are going to claim it is notable, you have to back it up. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No chart history, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--there's no notability, and I can't find anything but downloads and lyrics. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (and merge if needed). There is not enough information to warrant a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Les Légions Noires. There is no sourced content to merge but anyone can use the history as they like. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Murder[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC; band released two demos in the mid-90s and nothing else; no significant third party sources, which is unsurprising as members of the LLN refused to give interviews and the like. Basically unsalvageable. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I agree with you on this one. No remotely official releases, it looks like this project never went beyond the demo-status. Could be mentioned as a side-project on the page of Vlad Tepes (band) if the latter survives the AfD. Irina666 (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If it is possible, it would serve well to club the AfD nominations of all the LLN bands floating right now. They have the same reason for being marked for deletion. As far as this AfD is concerned, my vote would be for Delete and Merge with the LLN article. Welt^anschaunng 12:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge To LLN: No need for this article, it's a non notable band, only 2 demos, does not meet notability criteria. – Jerry^teps 22:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redskin rule[edit]

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

This is pure original research about something not notable Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is very notable. I have posted links to several articles in mainstream media about it. A lot of football fans and/or political junkies know about this, and take an extra interest in the last Redskin game each presidential election to see if the rule will keep going. What is your reason for wanting to delete it? This is a solid contribution. Heinz it up 57, 16:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup — No one could not ignore the numerous references by the media of the supposed impact of the Steelers/Redskins game on today's 2008 United States presidential election the last few days. MuZemike (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO and WP:OR. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SCJessey -- Can you please clarify your reason? I just think this is quite interesting. Take a look at this article http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/03/redskins-rule-ideal-for-monday-night/. The article specifically calls it the Redskin Rule. I didn't just make this up. Google something like "Redskin rule" or "Redskins Obama McCain" and you'll find a lot. Heinz it up 57 (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This has been around for some time, and is the subject of coverage by multiple, non-trivial sources. Acroterion _(talk) 16:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability well established. Nomination refers to policies/guidelines implying they say things they don't. WilyD 17:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability asserted with references. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Needs some serious re-writing and cleanup to be a decent article, but notability is established, and I see nothing that can't be fixed. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Definitely not entirely ready for a wiki article but it's not OR. --Banime (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 22:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's coming along, has some good material, interesting topic and clearly not OR. Sibitysam (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has extensive media coverage, so it's definitely not OR. matt91486 (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 23:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Young (producer)[edit]

Christopher Young (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Please don't confuse this with Christopher Young, who *is* notable when you are searching to verify. Young Films, his company was deleted via AFD two weeks ago, and is up for speedy now. was speedy deleted. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 16:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Credited as the producer in several articles already in Wikipedia. Perhaps if both the creator and nominator use this search, good sources for proper references can be found. Notable enough to have been discussed in the Scottish Parliament! They seem to know who he is, and they probably have never heard of that movie music guy. I have never heard of either one before. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I see is a lot of incidental mentions and lot of sites that fail wp:rs. You may very well be right that he is notable, I just don't see anything more than "blah movie was produced by Christopher Young" which is only a mention in passing. More than that is needed to establish notability. It is a borderline case at best (His production company article has been deleted. And salted for recreation.) so this isn't the slam dunk you are making it out to be. this was about the best I found. The rest were passing mentions, google ad forms, blogs, forums or just not wp:rs material. If you have a couple of better citations that clearly pass wp:rs, please show them, I will be happy to put them in the article and withdraw. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side note, every single wikilink you are talking about in the article, for movies or people, are unsourced as well. We just have a ring of unsourced movies and people, none of which have demonstrated they are notable, so they certainly cant' "inherit" it from each other. I get the feeling that even more will end up getting trimmed down. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 00:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Even if he is a producer of several films notability is not inherited. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is notability secured? Through an IMBD external reference? Through BBC news pages? (seenews.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7025599.stm) User:Rhianna84 —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Reply That is too complicated to put in one or two sentences. Here are the guidelines for notability and reliable sources and verification. The notability guideline has several sub guidelines, and one should apply. IMDB, blogs, user input sites, encyclopedias can not be use to verify. They can often be added as "informative" but they prove nothing because they are not authoritive and vetted. These are the same guidelines we are saying the article should be deleted under, so it would be helpful if you read and understand them, as they are the backbone of most AFD discussions. If you don't take the time to actually *read* the policies, you will never understand what the actual nomination is about. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inadequately sourced BLP of someone of marginal notability. RMHED (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Want to buy some land in Bulgaria? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian properties[edit]

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

Vague title reflects vague nature of the article, which seems mostly for promotion. If there is precedent for this sort of article existing, that's fine with me, but it looks promotional and against policies, especially WP:NOT (as not directory, not advertising/promotion).  Frank  |  talk  14:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as blatant advertising.--Boffob (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (G11) — Spamalicious! MuZemike (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Punke[edit]

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

Non-notable biography of a lobbyist who works for a non-notable lobbying group that I had previously brought to AfD. I could not find any reliable source that more than trivially cover the subject. I also have an active AfD nomination of one of Punke's partners, Andrew Howell. Millbrooky (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no evidence of notability or sources. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 17:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work on WTO and China and war room efforts merit inclusion. Notable Democratic trade lobbyist

• Delete fails the GNG. RMHED (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mosk'va[edit]

Mosk'va (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Searches of Tver Oblast municipal structures at http://region.tver.ru/municipal-struct/p1.html can find no reference to this "town". Of course, Tver Oblast borders Moskva, so it is likely misinterpretation by editor. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per this. It's a real place.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I have re-written this stub. Hopefully it is now a keeper.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn Well what do you know, the Russian locality geek god has found something. Good one mate. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human values[edit]

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

The article's main author reverted attempts by myself and another editor to redirect to a much better and more comprehensive article at Value (personal and cultural). I'm seeking a consensus for delete & redirect. Reasons: this article is biased and the references are almost useless. It fails WP:POV, WP:SOAP, WP:VER andy (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems like soapboxing and WP:OR. Un-encyclopaedic mini-essay. Moondyne 14:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - wash it with SOAP. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NOT CENSORED. - Guys the page has just started, you have to give it a chance to refine, it seems to me that something in the article offends you, what is it? Where are your Human Values —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonymynd (talk • contribs) 15:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The page is more than a year old, not "just started", and it hasn't improved in that time. andy (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:NOTCENSORED has nothing to do with it. This isn't about obscenity, privacy, or any other such concern. It's simply that this article is a violation of the policies WP:OR, WP:SOAP, WP:V and WP:SPAM, and possibly others. In short, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. (Or, for that matter, unoriginal but unpublished thought.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this seems to be soapboxing as well as possible spamming (seems to be promoting various entities). MuZemike (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the universal concept that preserves and enhances Homo Sapiens. Damn it, my enemies are everywhere these days. But this is classic original research as it stands now. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nom is 100% correct in calling it a soapbox full of original research and POV, no matter how well intended it is. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 16:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Protect WP:NOTDEMOCRACY Human values meant to be kept becasue that is what we are, and this values is what maintains peace within us. (Please use respecful vocabulary), Thank you for you all support in expanding and refining the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonymynd (talk • contribs) — Tonymynd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I know you mean well, but the wording of your input reinforces the argument against it. That "human values" is what maintains peace is not a neutral point and not a proven fact. The Cold War demonstrated that Mutually assured destruction and fear works pretty well too, so the premise is very debateable. And WP:NOTDEMOCRACY wouldn't apply here. We are discussing, not voting. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 17:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Going Rogue Please note that Tonymynd has twice changed the AFD headers, and the next stunt like that will likely result in a block. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 18:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you have the athurity to block me?
  • If you do, Why are you inderectly assuming that I'm an expert on editing pages in Wikipedia?
  • Thank you for giving me recomendations in how to improve my skills contributions. I really apreciate the positive aproach towards my flaws. --Tonymynd (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You were warned twice, which is usually one time too many. If I though you were an expert, I would have just dropped your name on the vandal desk and watched you get blocked, so I did assume good faith but a stern warning is still reasonable for this type of infraction. You already are getting the benefit of the doubt, and 5 days to fix the article during this AFD. Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to help you make your arguments more pursuasive. I would also suggest reading the links above, like WP:SOAPBOX, WP:POV, WP:VER since they are the actual reasons the article is nominated. WP:OR and WP:SPAM are also good reads and used in this discussion. I would additionally recommend the two guidelines you used as a keep rationale. While they don't apply here, a better understanding of them is beneficial. I hope this helps. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 19:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Value (personal and cultural), per above (WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:NPOV, etc). The article is unreferenced, and a POV stub. I was suprised to see that it has survived unchanged on Wikipedia for over a year. I would like to see an article on this, using referenced research from religion and the social sciences. Right now I think a redirect to Value (personal and cultural) is a good idea, since that page already has some coverage and can be expanded. Danski14^(talk) 18:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Friend, if you think deeper and check the link i posted below you will realize that redirecting [Human Values] doesn't make any sense, because [Human Values] overrides any individual value or other cultures values, because the conservation of the species is avove anything else becasue with this value broken we simply would not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonymynd (talk • contribs) 19:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely a Keep!: Working on sources to comply: One good source I found, and I'm having people from this university to support me:

University Center for Human Values from Princeton University 304 Louis Marx Hall Princeton, NJ 08544 (609) 258-4798 --Tonymynd (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Great, work on it. Until then, this is the second time I have stated that you can not put "KEEP" on an intro line more than one time in a discussion. Please read WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD if you have any questions about this guideline that makes this clear. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 19:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for assuming good faith first, becasue that exacly my intention. Now starting to get it, ok, Yes I'm doing my home work to support the existance of this article. I just need time to gather all information. And know I have a better perspective on how to structure the article and pay atention to the WP guidelines.

• Comment This needs a lot of clean-up and sure feels like a blog or soapbox of some sort. I suggest the newby editor be given the article as a userpage and encouraged to get more familiar with editing here. Creating articles is WP:bold; but messy and unneeded articles waste your time which seems a shame. If this, or a similar article, is to survive it needs to be clear about what it is, show a compatability with policies and other articles and also needs to be reader-friendly. This article I'm not quite sure what it's about or what I learned in the process - as the nom pointed out does it really add anything not in already existing articles? If so, what? -- Banjeboi 03:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt if userfying it will help and it may make things worse by encouraging this editor to think he's basically on the right track. He's not. He posts OR articles "in the name of Jesus" - he sees WP as a platform for his views. It's worth noting that of the three articles he's posted so far, two are in AfD and the other one is prodded.

• Keep, otherwise redirect; this article may be able to improve, however, if it doesn't, just redirect it to Value (personal and cultural). -- IRP ☎ 16:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you I don't support redirection, perhaps a Merge

• You can't WP:Merge and delete. It violates the GFDL. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question How long the AfD should last? who has the authority to Keep or Delete?
  • Please read WP:AFD. It explains the whole AFD process. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

UBank[edit]

The result was Merge and redirect to National Australia Bank. Article may be split when the subject itself attains notability as accepted by the community. JodyB _talk 14:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Blatant advertising, web refs are mostly self-references and paid ads. Nothing particularly encyclopaedic here. At most, it should redirect to National Australia Bank. Moondyne 14:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as blatant advertising.--Boffob (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — not blatant advertising. A couple of verifiable sources seem to indicate notability. MuZemike (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag for sounding like an advert, but they appear to be notable and at least somewhat sourced. This can be fixed on the talk page of the article itself, or by being WP:bold. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 17:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Hey, in the time when banks drop like flies, opening a new one seems like a miracle... or maybe anticipation of another bankruptcy. As for the self-refs, it's quite normal for a new establishment. Remember, it's new so there's no public audited statements, no analyst reviews, or class lawsuites :)). When (if) it falls, you'll get more third-party calls. NVO (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its a bank in name only. In reality this is a marketing strategy by NAB to take term deposits, nothing more. There's no branches, no atm's. NAB just calls it a "division", not even a subsidiary. There's no street address, just a North Sydney PO box number. I'll bet its accommodated in NAB's offices somewhere. I just rang them and they confirmed they are physically within NAB offices. Its a WP:PRODUCT and should be treated as such. Moondyne 02:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: article has several independent sources for content. Google search shows many hits. It's a genuine bank just like ING Direct is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.141.154 (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC) — 124.170.141.154 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Remember that something (like a bank) may exist but may not necessarily assert notability. MuZemike (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Found a number of good sources on google, if any POV is in the article it can be removed so it doens't read like an advertisement. --Banime (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can you please share those sources Gnangarra 00:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to National Australia Bank, with no prejudice against a later split should one be necessary and better sources are available. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - needs better sourcing but seems a new player in the industry competing with INGDirect etc Merge and redirect to National Australia Bank per Mattinbgn and per this source [11] which shows it is just a NAB channel and this news item which seems to confirm that [12] - probably worth adding to the NAB article if it blows up noting that Wikipedia is not news against being too hasty on something potentially rather trivial in the scheme of things. --Matilda ^talk 21:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The second article is interesting as it makes reference to a "Frank Booth". perhaps Fbooth (talk · contribs), the creator of this article. Is this article a (rather poor) attempt at Viral marketing? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge - astonished that anyone might consider keep in view of Matilda/Mat's leads to what it relates to - as always google is the last place i would look in considering this - hits=genuine seems like it can fool a lot of people a lot of the time - keep suggests limited understanding of contextSatuSuro 22:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I hadn't joined the dots though thought viral marketing might be at play. For those who don't want to click through: The article states

    Gledhill's blog post received strong criticism from 'Frank Booth' -- who she found to be posting from the network name 'NABAUS' with the DNS details 'DNSAU00.NATIONAL.COM.AU'. iTnews has seen screenshots which appear to support this allegation.
    However, according to the NAB switchboard, no one called 'Frank Booth' works at either NAB or UBank.

    At least here he declares it is a pseudonym. I hadn't made the connection before Mattinbgn drew it to my attention! Though I thought it seemed likely that something might be up because of the internet manipulation.--Matilda ^talk 22:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. This is a banking product. Per WP:PRODUCT, "information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself". WWGB (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete totally non-notable, take the information about NAB out of the lead your left with UBank is a division of National Australia Bank (NAB). Gnangarra 00:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. deserves only a paragraph in National Australia Bank. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:ORG and some serious questions about WP:COI. I would not oppose a merge and redirect. Orderinchaos 01:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. WP:COI issues, per "UBank team members regularly check and update the UBank Wikipedia content. For any queries regarding this, please contact UBank by email - hello@ubank.com.au". Moondyne 03:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. A division of NAB born out of a marketing initiative, it clearly belongs in the NAB article and with much less content than currently appears. Murtoa (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• whatever the decision, RaboPlus, ING Direct and similar bank subsidiaries should be treated the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.141.154 (talk • contribs)

  Please read WP:OSE and sign your posts--Boffob (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Each article needs to be assessed on its merits. ING Direct is probably notable in view of its size, having 85 million clients and a direct presence in 50 countries. It is also a wholly owned subsidiary of a parent rather than a simple marketing division and has been in operation for more than 10 years. RaboPlus however, is worthy of a separate discussion. Moondyne 12:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not quite: "ING DIRECT is a division of ING Bank (Australia) Limited ABN 24 000 893 292" from their website & "UBank is a division of National Australia Bank". Your label of "simple marketing division" seems to be unverified and sounds like your personal view.

  Not quite again: ING Direct is in 10 countries (not 50) and has 20mill clients (not 85) - the figures quoted above seem to relate to the ING Group (ING's owner). Source: ING Groups Annual Report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.141.154 (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC) — 124.170.141.154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  I stand corrected, my apologies. By the way, I don't have any personal view in this except improving the encyclopaedia. Moondyne 23:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notwithstanding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument ... - as an Australian, UBank is obviously tied to closely to its parent, identification for example can be achieved simply if you are already a NAB client. ING Direct is a leader in branchless banking as innovating significantly in that area in Australia at least. The parent company, ING Group, already has a substantial article that deals with much more than branchless banking so I can't see a merger as being useful. Rabobank similarly seems and article that, apart from lacking references, is a substantial article but mainly covering its history. There is a discussion about deletion of RaboPlus. However, I note the article about the parent seems to contain nothing about this product line. As per comments at that AfD though I think merge and redirect appropriate in that case too.--Matilda ^talk 00:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are countless examples of 'brands' or 'divisions' with wikipedia listings. McCafé is to McDonalds, Sprite (soft drink) is to The Coca-Cola Company, Centurion Card to American Express and finally Thinkpad to Lenovo. 6 November 2008 (AEDT)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.57.241.67 (talk • contribs)

Comment - the products you have listed are notable - you have not established how this product is notable. Please review the relevant guideline. --Matilda ^talk 00:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how is the Centurion card "notable" ? it's a product name of AMEX, nothing else. Wizzzzman (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, spam without redeaming features.--Grahame (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's a new bank in Australia- yes a subsidiary of NAB, but so are the other ones mentioned here. This makes it notable. Size is not the only criteria of notability by the way. Wizzzzman (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)— Wizzzzman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: PS: I understand that notability is hard to assess by users from outside Australia, so I'd ask those to be more specific in their judgments. Eg, how come it's "spam" if all facts are properly referenced ?? not possible in my opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizzzzman (talk • contribs) 10:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to National Australia Bank as it's just a product of the NAB but not notable for it's own article. Bidgee (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to National Australia Bank, as it's not a bank, but rather just a branding, and not a particularly notable one at that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Merge and redirect -- to National Australia Bank, not forgetting also the rest of what Mattinbgn sensibly said above. - Longhair\^talk 06:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it passes the relevant notability guideline, then it should be kept. If there are style issues, they can be fixed without deleting the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. May not fail WP:CRYSTAL but no evidence it passes WP:MUSIC. Salted also StarM 02:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

iSouljaboytellem[edit]

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

Previously deleted via AFD and other means under a variety of alternate spellings (e.g. ISouljaBoyTellEm (album)). Album has enough sources for confirmation (so speedy deletion was declined) but still does not pass WP:MUSIC#Albums due to a lack of substantial media coverage. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (G4) and salt — blatant recreation of deleted material which still does not address the WP:CRYSTAL problems. Also request creation protection and let the article be created again with admin approval. MuZemike (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes but WP:Music and established practice suggests that albums by notable artists are worth their own article. As this release is cited to impeccable sources - Billboard, Interscope Records/A&M, and the official artist site - what is the point in deleting it until it is created again? Genuine question. Is this not make-work? 86.44.28.182 (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MUSIC says that albums by notable artists may be notable, not that they are notable. That an album is planned for release is not enough. There is very little actual content in the article; re-creating it when and if the album becomes notable will be easy. Anything verifiable can be added to the Soulja Boy article for the time being (if it's not there already). —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 10:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not inherent and also this is recreation of a previous deleted article. Also WP:CRYSTAL. BigDunc^Talk 16:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Album has a title and release date verified by reliable sources, which is enough for inclusion. Thus, it does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say it violated WP:CRYSTAL; I said it didn't meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone else did. You're still in the wrong though. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then refute me, don't create a straw man to attack. You say I'm wrong but don't specify how the article meets WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Strawman? Attack? Where? I already said how it meets WP:MUSIC#Albums in my "keep" comment. No need to be redundant. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion- The album has a single recently released but has not charted or been reference and the article of this album still has the same amount of references it had 10 months ago so it should be deleted until at least its single charts or when a music video is made.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Which policies support your reasoning? As of right now, I'm not aware of any. In deletion discussions we either vote "Keep", "Delete", "Merge" or "Redirect". Please do not use DRV terminology here. Thank you. --Pwnage8 (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian British[edit]

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