< November 7 November 9 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-existent article. (Non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corpse pussy[edit]

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

Probably meets G3 or G1 :/ Imperat§ r(Talk) 21:43, 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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seatearth[edit]

Seatearth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonstopdrivel has nominated this article for deletion but does appear to have said why.

I cannot see any reason for doing so. It seems to be an extensive and informative article about a number of commonly used terms. Possibly the article on ganister may be merged providing it remains clear to readers of Totley Tunnel. It should perhaps also make clear that it is the loss of certain salts due to prehistoric plant growth that gives it its specific properties for use as fireclay (as opposed to ordinary brick clay) Chevin (talk) 14:18, 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. MBisanz talk 21:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ksysenka[edit]

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

Self-advertisement by a non-notable artist. Written in very poor English, plus very poor knowledge of wiki-markup (resulting lots of dead links). The original Russian version of the article is nominated for deletion in Russian WP. By the way, why is this article semi-protected?. Netrat (talk) 23:56, 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. while it may be useful, consensus is that it's not notable. StarM 04:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garmin eTrex[edit]

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

Article is merely a sales catalog style definition of a product, fails WP:CATALOG Oscarthecat (talk) 23:03, 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.  Sandstein  19:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Psychological Association of America[edit]

Iranian Psychological Association of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no reliable secondary sources Bali ultimate (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eligible for speedy? Obviously they think Wikipedia is just a promotional tool. Weirdly, there was an Iranian Library Association or some such also just put up for deletion. Fletcher (talk) 23:15, 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 merge to Saiyan. MBisanz talk 18:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oozaru[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Oozaru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply and in-universe repetition of the plot sections of various Dragon Ball articles. As such, it is duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:23, 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  17:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earth (Dragon Ball)[edit]

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

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the plot sections of Dragon Ball Z articles. As such, it is duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:12, 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 21:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Team Dubai[edit]

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

An outdated rumor for a team that has shown no signs of ever existing. There would be almost nothing factual that could be added to this stub of an article. The359 (talk) 21:52, 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 speedy delete. Copyvio.  Sandstein  23:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who Is Knowedge Management Available To?[edit]

Who Is Knowedge Management Available To? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is already a good article on Knowledge management, to which this adds nothing. This is the author Kazanovac (talk · contribs)'s second attempt at a fork - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What is Knowledge Management earlier today. A PROD would probably be removed, so I bring it straight here. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 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 redirect to House of Mihran. WP:V is not negotionable. But this redirect should allow editors to add any material that they are able to source to the target article and continue working from there.  Sandstein  19:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mihran[edit]

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

The references offered for this don't cut the mustard. The first one is very vague without enough information to know where to look for it. The other two are both searchable with Google Books, the Wilcox book not getting any hits when I search for "Mihran" within it, and the only possibly relevant information from the Farrokh book is that "the post of Savaran Sardar was held by a member of the Mihran-Pahlav family during Julian's invaasion in 362". That's not enough to support the existence of this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Could you please supply details of that source (author, publisher, year of publication, page numbers, ISBN if applicable) for verifiability purposes? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentStill no verifiable sources, the two sources added don't seem to actually deal with the subject. If editors want to claim that there should be an article on someone with this name, we really should have some reliable sources that back them up. dougweller (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can search The Cambridge History of Iran, which is one of the references added to the article. It mentions the family named Mihran but not any specific individual with that name. Ditto East Rome, Sasanian Persia and the End of Antiquity, no mention of the name when searched. More luck at The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars [1] - but none of them seem to be our Mihran. I would really like to know why none of the 5 references added don't seem to mention the subject of the article. It suggests a need to see if this situation is repeated it other articles created or edited by this editor. dougweller (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Mihran" is actually neither a personal nor a family name, but a title (at least, that's what Procopius says). Roman historians commonly confused Persian titles with proper names, which is why one can find several "Mihrans" during the Roman-Sassanid wars. For instance, there is a Mihran (Μιρράνης in Greek) also during the Anastasian War [2] and, of course, Firouz, the Persian commander at Battle of Dara, is mentioned as a Μιρράνης.[3] In light of this, I vote for keep, provided that its meaning is clarified. The article could then be used to list those commanders mentioned simply as "Mihran" (without other names that would distinguish them). Constantine ✍ 19:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Great opportunity for a content dispute maybe? This source [4] says it is "the name, not of an office, but a family." dougweller (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is indeed weird. Procopius is quite explicit: Πέρσης ἀνὴρ, μιρράνης μὲν τὸ ἀξίωμα (οὕτω γὰρ τὴν ἀρχὴν καλοῦσι Πέρσαι), Περόζης δὲ ὄνομα. "a Persian man, holding the office of mihran (thus the Persians call it), named Firouz." It is of course possible that Procopius is wrong (possibly the office was hereditary to the family), but Haldon, in The Byzantine Wars, follows Procopius. On the other hand, a more careful search brings up Persian sources as well as the Cambridge History, which do indeed indicate that the Mihrans were an important Parthian clan ([5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]). At any rate, since they were among the preeminent families of the Sassanid Empire, the article should be kept, and we can discuss content there. Constantine ✍ 12:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But this article is not about a family, it is about a particular person. This article should be deleted, but an article about the clan sounds possible under the title 'Mihran clan' or family or whatever. But this particular article which is about a specific person is what this AfD is about. dougweller (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that the current content is pretty much worthless doesn't mean that the article itself, or rather its title, doesn't refer to something important, namely the Mihran clan, and the several Persian generals of that clan who are known only as "Mihran". If one were to write an article on the clan, then "Mihran" would be a possible title. I have some similar articles in mind, e.g. Doukas or Palaiologos. As such, there is no need to delete the article, merely rewrite it with proper sources. I for one intend to do that over the next few days. It's a situation similar to the History of slavery in Iran article, i.e., falling under WP:RESCUE. With proper sources, it can become a worthwhile article. Constantine ✍ 14:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I feel stupid: an article on the House of Mihran already exists. So I guess it would make more sense to redirect Mihran to that article, and add whatever info there is in the House of Mihran article. Constantine ✍ 15:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as keep. No valid reason for deletion has been given (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washburn School[edit]

I attend this school and almost everything on it isn't true. And it is giving our school a bad name. So please delete this because nothing is true and yeah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlhensley32 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment - I am not saying that it is the case here but it is not uncommon for a well-meaning student to write a page on their school and for their head to take against it, often because of potential or actual vandalism, and then instruct the student to delete the page, being unaware of Wikipedia procedures. TerriersFan (talk) 02:10, 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. It's still unclear to me why a redirect to Lulu (company), a book-on-demand company whose article does not mention Sutton, would make any sense as a redirect, but feel free to create one.  Sandstein  19:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Sutton[edit]

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

Dom web-site operator. Claims to have published two books, but they're both from a vanity press. Much promotional detail, no reliable sources, and a quick spin through Google only pulls in a large number of very low-quality hits. CalendarWatcher (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Linux.com "A new venue for selling open source software" Nov 18, 2004 [10] Article about Lulu, says "Female Domination" was best-selling title at the time. Rationale for merging to Lulu article.
  • Think Magazine. Very brief book review in Czech entertainment magazine, both online and print.[11]
  • Who is Elise Sutton and why does it matter?[12] ( NSFW; some mature content ) Article in blog of sex therapist and BDSM author Gloria Brame. This won't establish notability, but should pass selfpub by expert and could be used in as one of the refs in an improved article. I'm not sure all the BLP sourcing requirements come into play because "Elise Sutton" appears to be a carefully guarded pseudonym.
  • Google Books shows something called "Worshipping Your Wife" that mentions her ideas, plus an Italian book on female domination, and a brief mention in a Spanish book called "Entretiempo" which I can't figure out but which seems more about literature and culture in general. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Lawless[edit]

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

Irish local council candidate for future election. No other notability claimed, no sources. CalendarWatcher (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Source here : James Lawless blog[reply]

James Lawless is notable in Co. Kildare, Leinster, Fianna Fáil and Irish politics. A source has been provided for the claim of candidate for upcoming elections. Further information will be added to the article and sources will be provided in due course. User:Nickleeson FF —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Being a candidate for the Kildare County Council is notable within Irish politics. Kildare County Council is responsible for approx. 180,000 citizens and is the 5th largest local authority in Ireland. See Kildare CoCo website User:Nickleeson FF —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:55, 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.

Note: This was at least the third time this article was up for deletion--and it was deleted at one point in the spring of 2008.--Canada1776 (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Alexnia (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lolo Soetoro[edit]

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

See immediately below   Justmeherenow (  ) 20:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A merge was previously discussed at Talk:Lolo Soetoro#merge redirect recommendation. Voters in this AfD may wish to read the comments made earlier in relation to that merge proposal.

Here's the history of AfD's concerning extended Obama family members:
  1. "Ann Dunham" was kept March 10
  2. "Barack Obama, Sr." was kept March 12
  3. "Madelyn Dunham" was kept March 17
  4. "Malik Obama" was deleted July 7, then was "merged to an article to be determined" July 12
  5. "Sarah Obama" was kept March 17, then merged to Obama Family July 17
  6. "Maya Soetoro-Ng" was no-consensus kept July 17
  7. The "Obama family" was deleted June 4, then no-consensus kept July 20
  8. "Zeituni Onyango" was (it appears) no-consensus kept(?) Novemeber 6
If some Wiki-editors would comment on what principles they believe apply to multiple family members across the board, I'd appreciate this too. Thanks.   Justmeherenow (  ) 20:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd thought there may have been a previous one for Lolo but upon researching it was surprised to discover that there has yet to be one.   Justmeherenow (  ) 20:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a merge discussion on Talk:Lolo Soetoro that was rejected. This AfD is really more like a merge request than an AfD proper. LotLE×talk 20:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the above mentioned discussion.   Justmeherenow (  ) 02:10, 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. MBisanz talk 21:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Turncake Project[edit]

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

There are enough claims of notability here to avoid an A7 speedy, but a gsearch isn't coming up with hits to verify any of them. Prod contested without comment. Given the talk page and post-prod edits to the article, a G3 speedy wouldn't be out of the question. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awk no, don't be going and deleting the Turncake Project's page! It's good clean fun and is spreading an image of hope and love that, I think, is more appropriate now than ever before. So I say keep the Turncake Project on Wikipedia, to stand as a constant reminder as to what we can achieve when we just believe in ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.253.45 (talk) 22:30, 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 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survis Technology[edit]

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

WP:COI article with no claim of meeting WP:Notability in article. Had been nominated for speedy deletion as an advert, but original editor removed the tag multiple times -- last removal by IP editor. Gsearch comes up with just 7 non-wiki ghits, none of which shows a whiff of notability. Gnews search comes up with 0 hits. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:45, 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 speedy delete. Copyvio.  Sandstein  23:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is Knowledge Management[edit]

What is Knowledge Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The main article of Knowledge Management is fine. The creator of this article has repeatedly removed redirects to Knowledge Management. There are no sources or unique content to warrant a separate article. Also, the "what is" title is not an appropriate article title. Clubmarx (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. No sources = no article.  Sandstein  17:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meida*[edit]

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

 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:04, 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 article G12d, rightly so, before this discussion was over. Non-admin closure. Ouro (blah blah) 21:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Labrador x golden retriever[edit]

Labrador x golden retriever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is not really a topic for an article. No sources or references. I would have done a speedy, but it isn't clear what speedy reason applies. Clubmarx (talk) 19:57, 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. Although I gave less weight to the SPAs, a rough consensus developed to keep the article, albeit in a drastically rewritten form. I will add a NPOV disputed tag to the bevy of others on the article, and add it to my watchlist. I suggest others might want to do the same. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object[edit]

Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a fringe theory of dubious notability. Almost all of the references are preprints or papers from the theory's four proponents (Mitra, Leiter, Robertson, Schild), as are most of the papers citing those works. I strongly suspect that most of the article was written by one or more of those proponents (most likely Mitra, whose name appears in the edit history) as a means to gain publicity for the theory.

Mitra's preprints attempt to disprove the well-established result that black holes are predicted by general relativity, but his "proofs" are rooted in a misunderstanding of basic calculus (for example, see Eq. 4.1 in arXiv:astro-ph/9910408 and the sentence following it) which has led him to confuse the superluminal motion of an abstract surface with superluminal motion of actual matter. For this reason his views are unlikely to gain a significant following in the wider physics community.

I realize that just because the idea is wrong doesn't mean it can't have an article in Wikipedia. But the article as it stands puts far too much emphasis on Mitra et al's viewpoint, misleading lay readers into overestimating its merit. (It was from a discussion with one such reader that I came across this article.) At the very least, the article needs a complete rewrite, something that is unlikely to happen due to the obscurity of the idea and the lack of good secondary sources. Jim E. Black (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. So the reasons that were given by nominator are not important. Ruslik (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article. In particular, if there is anything like ``personal reflection in a scientific article, the same may be removed. May be I will look into such angles. Otherwise, it looks to be balanced scientific article well supported by many published papers in standard peer reviewed journals. However, it is true that in this new concept may take its due time to become well trenched. But this happens with many new concepts. The present plea for deletion seems more to have do with intolerance with new ideas rather than genuine scientific reasons. As far aware, as far as published scientific literature is concerned, there is no critique of the MECO idea. Even if there would be critique of a certain idea or a paradigm, there is no reason that, wiki articles on that idea/paradigm should be deleted. For example, many particle physicists thing that String Theory is a complete failure which is ``Not even Wrong. But such disagreements would not justify deletion of any article on String Theory. -Dingle2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingle2008 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many physicists do think that String Theory may not be a true theory of nature. However nobody questions its mathematical foundation. MECO theory is based on mathematical errors—it basically claims that 2+2=5. Ruslik (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mathematical errors, or any factual errors in general != non notable. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 01:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in strong gravitational field, (ii) The existence of a critical luminosity called Eddington Luminosity, and (iii) attainment of strong magnetic fields due to magnetic flux freezing. I do not see how these aspects could be ``crackpot and cranky. Far from it such adjectives seem to be in a bad taste and emanating from intolerance. Neither do I see where is 2+2=5? And if it were so, how so many related papers got published in standard peer reviewed journals. I hope the original authors would improve the article, if need be. Overall, the comments smacks of personal attack and intolerance. This cannot be justified. (Dingle2008 (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

But maybe I'm overthinking this and a sensible article can be written; I'd much prefer that to no article at all. The best way to show that a sensible article can be written is to write it. I would be happier if at least one person who wants to keep the article would (a) rewrite it and (b) commit to policing it for a while. If that doesn't happen before the end of this discussion period then I'd prefer to delete what we have now rather than continue to serve it to our readers. Anyone interested in taking up this challenge in the future can always recreate the article. -- BenRG (talk) 20:49, 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 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The noc list[edit]

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

This new one-hour-a-week show on a student-run university online radio station is not notable. No references from independent reliable sources, and I don't find any (except this article) in Google. Contested PROD - author's reasons given on the talk page. JohnCD (talk) 18:33, 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 speedy delete as hoax. ... discospinster talk 20:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt whalley[edit]

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

Apparent hoax, no specific source to show verifiability/ RJaguar3 | u | t 18:30, 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. MBisanz talk 18:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaalbye Group[edit]

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

Company only notable for association with hijacked ship MV Faina, appeared in initial press reports though further reports are showing Tomex Team, not Kaalbye, as owner Switzpaw (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to operatorship, I think there is a possibility that the Western press initially got this wrong. Attempts to confirm that Kaalbye is the operating firm of the ship have been unsuccessful. The operating firm that has been in communication with the hijackers is Tomex Team, and the owning company is something different altogether (Waterlux AG). Given the lack of coverage of this company in reliable sources, it would be bad to keep possibly false information about this company on Wikipedia for all of eternity -- and it's unlikely this article will receive much maintenance since it was clearly created in response to a recent news event. Switzpaw (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt say anything about not following the usual notability standards. Misrepresenting other editors comments is incivil. In fact policy says it needs significant coverage in reliable sources and as yet we do not have such and there have been no evidence of such existing. --neon white talk 02:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC
It has significant coverage in reliable sources. Deletion based on notability grounds requires making an exception to the usual standards, since by the usual standards this would be kept. Discussing arguments is inherently the behaviour mandated by civil. I'm sorry if you're upset that this company is notable and that the arguments proposed for deleting it are so weak, but I can't (or won't?) help with that. WilyD 16:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then where are they? You cannot simply speculate that they may exist, you must show them here. Slef published sources are not relevant to notability and neither is the amount of ships a company owns. --neon white talk 02:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I've probably read far more about this issue than you, so please drop the pedantry. I've also read WP:CORP -- the fact that we can verify the company exists is not the threshold for inclusion. And as I've mentioned above, I think its mention in secondary sources regarding the MV Faina is scant and somewhat dubious. Switzpaw (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that can be handled easily enough by expanding the article. The company itself is notable, even if the incident had never happened at all. DGG (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think the only way to show that would be to cite reliable sources in the article which show coverage having nothing to do with the incident. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:52, 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 speedy delete. GbT/c 18:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrition Data[edit]

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

The only source that I could find is the official site. Schuym1 (talk) 18:27, 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 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cortes 24 Hour Racing[edit]

Cortes 24 Hour Racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Team only exists through a press release. Google search reveals nothing besides this article. D-Day (talk) 18:25, 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 redirect to Aerolínea Principal.  Sandstein  19:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Principal Airlines[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:ORG and I could not find evidence of its existance on either GNews or regular Google. A speedy was declined on this, so I didn't want to send it to prod. DARTH PANDAduel 12:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm pretty sure that no other wiki has an article on said Airline. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me with a link. DARTH PANDAduel 21:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aerolínea Principal since there is an existing article. Or in the alternative, simply redirect as it is not clear what informastion in the current article is properly sourced from the one reference given the confusion over how many places they even fly based on searching. -- Whpq (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:21, 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 Speedy deleted as clearly nonsense. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tubama[edit]

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

Unsourced, unverified. Looks like youthful mischief. Previously speedy deleted as nonsense, most recent speedy delete for same rationale was refused. Author's edit [25] history suggests vandalism as primary motive. JNW (talk) 18:15, 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 Kept. No strong editorial consensus about how to present this information, but "keep" and "merge" both argue keeping content. One might argue this should be closed "no consensus", but the outcome is unaffected either way. WilyD 16:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharn (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

Sharn (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tagged for notability, third-party sources, in-universe and context for a year. Really doesn't seem to be a notable character. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The discussed article is not about a video game character; it is about a monster in a pen-and-paper role-playing game and which is also the central focus in one of the game's novels. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I said keep I basically meant "keep for now"... I think that merge is the proper course of action for this article, but a concentrated effort will be nescessary to create an article to merge it into, so it could be kept for the time being and then merged as soon as a suitable article is created. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Falling Kingdom[edit]

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

I've seen this article speedied several times, and the author seems intent on re-introducing without much improvement. Though I haven't been able to find significant coverage in reliable sources online, previous versions of the article asserted references in photography magazines (if an admin could retrieve these from the falling kingdom, it could help us here). I think we need to either conclusively establish notability, or salt all permutations of the title to prevent this unconstructive cycle from continuing. the skomorokh 17:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No suggestion of notability. Every book does not deserve an encyclopedia entry. There's nothing in the article to suggest it's notable. I hope that's more helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much clearer, thank you. I would only object that the book may pass the general notability guideline, as previous versions of the article have alluded. the skomorokh 18:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sven NordgrenDon’t really see the issue here. The Civil war in Nepal has hardly been on the papers front row. There is hardly any text and very little Photographs made to document this time of history. The Book “ The falling Kingdom” is all that. Why I belief it’s more then notable for Wikipedia. The book is just out in the stores. Since I am been working about 40 years as doctor 10 years as a volunteer in Nepal. I belief I would be able to point out the need for this kind of book and it’s important. Since this my first article in Wikipedia I understand that I did some mistakes in the article. But would appreciate every comment and help to make this page better, which are my only concern. Sincerely Sven Nordgren

Read WP:BOOK. Schuym1 (talk) 14:54, 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 speedy delete. GbT/c 18:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DirectSong[edit]

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

Based on the three seaches that I did, this seems like it's non-notable. Schuym1 (talk) 17:47, 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 18:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Sohn[edit]

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

Non-notable person JakeZ (talk) 17:20, 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. (non-admin closure) Alexnia (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Plante[edit]

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

Article has been tagged since Aug 08 as not having established notability. Article has been tagged since Aug 08 as not having citations or reliable sources. Neither of these have been fixed, nor the work improved. This is a biography regarding a supposed but mostly unknown writer. I have been unable to find additional material to support inclusion. -t BMW c- 17:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Belay my last! Keep the sucker. I made a stub and someone came and added good content. I guess this is the way wiki is supposed to work. Deletionists foiled again...mwahahaha! But next time, I will just write an entire article in user space to FA status and then add it to wiki. Since the deletionists think that is how wiki should work. And really maybe they have a point. I'll take a dedicated smart researcher who writes an article the way one would for Brittinica (of same caliber) over the iterative method. Anyhow...Dravecky is THE MAN for saving Brian. TCO (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is supposed to be a discussion, not a "vote". - Dravecky (talk) 16:04, 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 speedy delete. GbT/c 18:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dukes[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax. References to films, books etc do not exist. Fails WP:V at the least Tassedethe (talk) 16:25, 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 18:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newport ACF[edit]

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

Newporte ACF is not only unencyclpedic, its also not notable for an article on WP Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 16:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not aware of a policy prohibiting the inclusion of youth programs and summer camps. If someone is searching for these youth programs I don't see anything wrong with providing encyclopedic information on their history and operations. If you contact them, I'd be shocked if there haven't been local news stories about their prgorams and the youngsters involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Newport AFC is a youth organization and is directly involved with the town, this group has been around for over 60 years and has been in the press numerous times. (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2008 (GMT)

I'm not the creator of the article and I hadn't seen it before today. I trust you'll correct your statement and thank me for doing a refimprove and other fixes to that article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 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  19:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shropshire Army cadet force[edit]

Shropshire Army cadet force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Shropshire ACF is not only unencyclpedic, its also not notable for an article on WP Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 15:56, 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 merge to Battle Royale (film). Spartaz Humbug! 20:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mai (Battle Royale)[edit]

Mai (Battle Royale) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor character that appears for a few seconds in each film. Has not been the subject of significant coverage. Little out-of-universe context. No third-party references. Propose deletion on the grounds of WP:N, WP:WAF and WP:V Marasmusine (talk) 09:06, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:48, 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 Speedy Delete per G3 by Zedla. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tau kau lizard[edit]

Tau kau lizard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I find nothing to verify this-- possible hoax. Dlohcierekim 15:31, 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 Speedy Delete under criteria WP:SPEEDY#G12; all text within the article's history was copied from the subpages of http://www.soshiantgame.com/en/ , which displays "© 2008 :: Fanafzar Co"

Soshiant (computer game)[edit]

Soshiant (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Notability. I have checked on search engine for this information. There is no press release or anything regarding the game. SkyWalker (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with deleting[edit]

Dear SkyWalker, As I mention in the article the game will be ready for release in the third quarter of 2009. So how would you expect to find any information about its release on press?! By the way, here some pages for the Soshiant game’s activities: http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=soshiant+game . Babakarj (talk) 15:36, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Librarians Association of America[edit]

Iranian Librarians Association of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was created 26 October 2008 and tagged for speedy deletion as advertising or promotional material. Tag removed by creator with no comment. Google search toady for "Iranian Librarians Association of America" returns 3 hits, all wiki, and a search for "Iranian Librarians Association" produces 4, again all wiki. Now, it may be that this is a new organisation that has yet to build up a Google score, but that in itself suggests this organisation is non-notable and should be deleted rather than using Wikipedia as an advertising medium. Emeraude (talk) 14:46, 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 17:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Zulli[edit]

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

I declined the speedy because I think some assertion of notability is made. However there are no reliable sources to verify the material. A Google search finds numerous hits but none are from what I consider to be non-trivial sites. Additional of solid sourcing would save the article but I found none. JodyB talk 14:02, 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 deleted at author request, and glad he thought better of it. FWIW, another user with Huggle restored his blanking as vandalism, but I assumed that was a mistake, not a statement it should be kept.. DGG (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Laighin[edit]

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

Possible hoax or at least made up at school one day. Only 5 Ghits, none reliable. McWomble (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following article for the same reason:[reply]

McWomble (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. McWomble (talk) 15:42, 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. Consensus is clear, although I suspect that this ultimately may prove to be notable. I am happy to userfy a copy of the article if desired. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LegalWikiPro[edit]

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

This article is about a fledgling wiki that violates the website notability requirements, as there aren't any reliable sources about the wiki. the article's creator was the founder of LegalWikiPro and added external links to his wiki from many articles, thus violating the conflict of interest guideline. If LegalWikiPro becomes notable, it could have an article here, but Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Graham87 13:28, 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. I agree the article in its final form was not a speedy candidate, but the lack of independent sources is fatal. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auditcube[edit]

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

This was tagged, correctly, as a G11 candidate by Ecoleetage (talk · contribs) but has since been cleaned up and reworded so it's vaguely encyclopedically phrased and just about claims notability. Nevertheless, I still have severe doubts about this product's actual notability - I cannot find any reliable-source coverage, so it would appear to fail WP:V and WP:N. It was also created by a user that shares a name with the product, suggesting a WP:COI. ~ mazca t|c 13:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - the article's author, User:Auditcube, was reported to WP:UAA and indefinitely blocked. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:13, 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, based on significant improvements to the original article. I would like to extend my thanks to those who took the time to bring the article up to a higher level. Be well! Ecoleetage (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spy vs Spy (Australian band)[edit]

Spy vs Spy (Australian band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Vanity article enhanced by one of the now-defunct band's founders, who also created an article about himself (that was subsequently redirected - the original text is here [28]. Fails WP:RS and WP:V -- the links are all MySpace and YouTube related. I have found no independent verification of the discography in any reliable source. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are plenty of 80s bands whose notability is easily confirmed. This is not one of them. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. More references if you care to check.[29][30][31][32][33][34][35] McWomble (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels".[36] This site seems to verify the discography. (To Lugnuts and The-Pope, that suggests they predate MySpace by 21 years.)
  2. "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart". At least two found.[37] Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop mentions two Top 20 singles.
  3. "Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country". I realise this isn't an independent source but it shows one of the band members standing in front of a V. Spy V. Spy gold record. Yes, a vinyl record which clearly predates MySpace. Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop says one of the singles went platinum.
  4. "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network" 13th Oct Australian Music featuring v Spy v Spy
  5. Also 111 items by the band are in Australia's National Film and Sound Archive.[38]
I think WP:LOCALFAME applies too. McWomble (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Links #2 and #3 don't appear to fall into WP:RS criteria. The archive site doesn't prove notability -- it just proves the archive collects everything that's out there. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It proves the that at least two albums on a major label exist, therefore meets the criteria. I thought that about the archive first, but their collection policy contradicts your assertion. They do not collect everything. McWomble (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Having established notability via WP:Music's recommended sources (and many others) I suggest this nom now be withdrawn. Issues of vanity and COI can be corrected through editing. Satisfying music notability guidelines (also recommended by WP:MUSIC) suggests it may be possible to create a non-COI article on Craig Bloxom. McWomble (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is inappropriate to request that an AfD nomination be withdrawn. This debate will run the standard ~5 days, at which point an admin will close it as he/she sees fit. Tan | 39 15:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it written in the AfD guidelines that suggesting the nominator withdraw the nomination is inappropriate? Nominations can be withdrawn at any time. McWomble (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)Sometimes noms overlook something, like the variant spelling of this name, and they demonstrate their respect for other contributors time by withdrawing. This is a good thing, it often precedes speedy closes, and avoids wasting the time of an admin who has to carefully go over the facts and references. Thanks for the AFSA link McWomble. cygnis insignis 16:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not written in the AfD guidelines that this suggestion is inappropriate. This is why I said it was inappropriate, not prohibited. Yes, nominations can be withdrawn at any time, but that is at the discretion of the nominator and your request is in poor faith here. If an uninvolved person suggested that this be done, perhaps it could be contemplated. As it is, you clearly want this article to be kept, as indicated in your many posts above. Asking the nominator to withdraw the nomination is simply another one of your "keep" arguments, and a poor one at that. Please don't do this in the future. Tan | 39 16:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That assertion and demand is nonsense. cygnis insignis 16:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: IMHO McWomble's suggestion that this AfD be closed appears reasonable - particularly given both the volume and impeccable quality of the sources he's produced. I'm more concerned by the nominator's apparent desire to argue for deletion - which to my mind has the distinct whiff of WP:IDONTLIKEIT about it. --Gene_poole (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to assume it was an error in overlooking the variant name. cygnis insignis 16:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can assume good faith on that part. Notability has since been established and I am editing out the vanity and COI issues. McWomble (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and shall give the demand the consideration it deserves. McWomble (talk) 16:33, 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. Withrawn by nominator - suggest an editor attempts to expand/improve the article (non-admin closure) Flewis(talk) 22:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baleshwar Rai[edit]

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

Former chairman of the New Delhi Municipal Committee - a non-notable organization and chief secretary of Goa - a non-notable position (incidentally with no article or significance). Context is vague:

The sole reference states that he lodged a semi-notable complaint to the Indian government - a WP:BLP1E violation, if the all his other accomplishments are found to be un-notable. -Flewis(talk) 12:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The New Delhi Municipal Committee is by no means non-notable: See Delhi#Geography and climate. It's the civic organization of New Delhi very much like the Bombay Municipal Corporation. An article needs to be written, but a red link does not imply non-notability.
  2. A chief secretary is the highest administrative position possible in a state for a career bureaucrat. See Indian order of precedence to determine the status of a chief secretary. He's two positions below a Member of Parliament.
  3. He was also the CEO of the Delhi Jal Board Ref, Presumably the first CEO from the reference July 1998.
  4. As an Additional Secretary Ref, he also finds a place in the Indian order of precedence
  5. Ample Third party independent sources on the subject available for more than one event.
  6. The above two positions and the WP:RS coverage of Rai automatically disqualify WP:IE criteria and as the chairman of the New Delhi Municipal corporation, he automatically qualifies under WP:POLITICIAN.
  7. ((articleissues)) is sufficient instead of deletion.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:18, 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. MBisanz talk 21:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing Dixie[edit]

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

Article deleted via WP:PROD but immediately recreated. New version did not address any of the concerns. Band does not demonstrate notability; no independent sources are provided. The band also has yet to release an album, so the article gazes a bit into the crystal ball. —C.Fred (talk) 12:16, 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 speedy keep. Withrawn by me (nominator) per subsequent improvements to the article. Request that the author take heed to the advice on his talk-page and rehash his knowledge of WP:V and WP:RS (non-admin closure) Flewis(talk) 14:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change water to oil[edit]

Change water to oil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Grave verifiability and original research concerns. This article also shows the subject in a negative light, which potentially violates WP:BLP - if that is the case, then the article may be placed for speedy deletion as a BLP violation. Notability here is also a big issue, with a Google search yielding no results whatsoever. I added 2 sources (in Chinese) to the article, however the article still fails WP:BLP1E. On a side note, editors may wish to review this discussion as well. Flewis(talk) 11:53, 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 Edmund F. Robertson and Redirect John J. O'Connor. I ended up disregarding the !votes of article creator as the account was a sock evading an indefinite block. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John J. O'Connor (mathematician) + Edmund F. Robertson[edit]

AfDs for this article:
John J. O'Connor (mathematician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable personality who owns a semi-notable website. No references, external sources or inline citations for WP:V. Otherwise fails WP:ONEVENT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (Please note, article creator has subsequently been indef-blocked by Rlevse) Flewis(talk) 11:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article creator has since been unblocked after username change. --Crusio (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Robertson has also written a number of reasonably widely used textbooks on algebra, linear algebra and group theory[48]. Nsk92 (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since 1997 Robertson is an elected fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh[49]. I have added a ref to the article. That seems sufficient to satisfy Criterion 3 of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is one of those cases where there is at least some room for debate, and of course I may be wrong. Nevertheless, my understanding of the WP:BLP1E is that it refers to a situation like that of “Joe the Plumber” – someone that is associated with a big event (in this case, US election), and who is never heard of again. (Of course I am assuming that Joe the Plumber will disappear from sight.) O’Connor is permanently associated, and not by playing a minor role, it appears, with the MacTutor History of Mathematics archive. What his article needs, in my view, is some additional material that would make it more useful for someone looking for information about the MacTutor co-creator.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to invoke WP:BLP1E directly here, but I did mean that this is like a BLP1E case in the sense that O'Connor's notability comes only in regard to his involvement in the MacTutor History of Mathematics archive and not on other grounds. It is also unlike BLP1E in that MacTutor History of Mathematics archive is actually an enterprise of sustained interest. If a person is only known for one achievement, then we have to decide if that achievement alone is sufficient to justify a biographical article about that person (e.g. if somebody wrote one successful book and nothing else). Basically we have to look at how significant that achievement is in deciding if it confers sufficient notability on the person. If we were talking about a significant invention or discovery, I would be inclined to say "yes". In this case, I am inclined to say "no". The MacTutor History of Mathematics archive is a very useful and commendable enterprise, but it does not produce new original research or new ideas. Rather, it is a compendium of biographical information about notable mathematicians. I do not believe that this is the sort of thing that WP:CREATIVE has in mind. Nsk92 (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I have just realized that there IS an article on Joe the Plumber, and a long one at that!--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you are however right that "one event" does not apply to cases like this. And if Joe had spoken up and never been heard of afterwards he'd have fit in one event like everyone else who asked Obama a question--it was the major political use that made him notable regardless. DGG (talk) 05:41, 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. MBisanz talk 21:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argylle empire[edit]

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

This is a hoax. A speedy has been declined - that was for A1, and while this might qualify for G3, per WP:HOAX maybe better bring it here. The names are not 12th-century names, and there was no such "empire." Metz to Antwerp is 150 miles, and to set up one that size would have taken more than 350 "English soldiers" from Caen (250 miles off and part of the Duchy of Normandy). I have spent more time than it deserves confirming (in COPAC, Google books and Amazon) that none of the books cited as sources exist. The best thing that can be said for the author Connorcraig1 (talk · contribs) is that this shows some imagination and is a step forward from his previous editing history, which consists of vandalising Paisley Grammar School where he is presumably a pupil. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:12, 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 (non-admin closure), as notability is confirmed via the consensus in this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mosby's Confederacy (video game)[edit]

Mosby's Confederacy (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not indicate notability, has 3 ELS but no reliable, published, third party sources. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-08t10:46z

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

The result was Delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insurmountable Risks: the Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change[edit]

Insurmountable Risks: the Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I was unable to locate any third-party published reviews of the subject book, or indeed even any material references to it in news articles or even blog entries. Neither link provided establishes third-party coverage. Bongomatic 10:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, of course I agree with the suggestion to delete. However, it seems reasonable to name an article after the name of its subject book, even if the phrase doesn't have NPOV when considered on its own. Bongomatic 06:38, 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. MBisanz talk 21:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Performance-Driven[edit]

Performance-Driven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possibly an attempt to coin a Neologism, the article lacks sources to establish WP:V. No incoming links from other wikipedia articles only further the possibility of WP:NFT Flewis(talk) 10:09, 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 21:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Бобок[edit]

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

I doubt the veracity of this article. There is no district in Chicago referred to in Cyrillic characters, and the lack of sources/references only further leads to the prospect of WP:NFT Flewis(talk) 09:49, 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speak of the Devil (book)[edit]

Speak of the Devil (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self-published book through Lulu.com which meets none of the notability criteria in WP:BK dougweller (talk) 09:08, 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. MBisanz talk 21:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Verano[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements. His name does get a mention in the BBC news article that is linked on the page: [53], but I don't think it's enough. Akamad (talk) 08:58, 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. Ignoring all the personal attacks, accusations of COI (which isn't even a content guideline; it's a conduct one), and incivility, and giving the arguments of SPAs and IPs their due weight, there is only one conclusion I can reach, and it is this one. kurykh 21:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shocker Toys[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Shocker Toys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-notable company. Article deleted before (April 2007), and nothing new has occurred to change the company's status. References are very weak. ShockerHelp (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "dispute" with Marvel Toys? Was this a court case? Were any sort of legal papers filed? If I write some angry emails to someone of note, then I am notable for being in a dispute with that person? ShockerHelp (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I probably responded to this below, but while you may disagree with the Washing Times' account, they describe it in terms that sound like a dispute to me. That aside, you've already mentioned that you disagree with their account, which is fair enough - but we need to stick to verifiable and reliable sources. - Bilby (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop with your personal attacks on me. ShockerHelp (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a personal attack when looking at the previous article you can see that you vandalized the article to look bad instead of properly adding info or refrences to back up what you added. Now that the article has been deleted and this article was made follwing the rules of wiki you have come here to do the same thing and no matter what anyone adds you state that it isn't good enough. Also deletion can be performed only by administrators. Administrators can also view deleted pages and reverse ("undelete") any deletion. All such actions are logged. If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it. Why after making changes to the article and then when someone steps in to make the article better you nominate it for deletion along with some unkown IP non wiki user? Explain here and now why you think it fair to remove this article about a well known smaller toys company and leave articles for NECA, Marvel Toys, Plan B toys?--JMST (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This user has COI as he wrote an article for another toy company for a competing product [54]. He also was founding memeber for the forums of the minimate product showing employment is some manner to the company he wrote it for. Also his mention of stick things in a condescending manner shows his COI intentions. Fact, the stick things he refers to are the product Shockinis which are still sold today and sold worlwide. He also has stated on various other sites his knowledge and distaste of the Shockini products by Shocker Toys so why now has he forgotten what they are called? To me this is a sock puppet attempt to sway deletion of this article especially with the heavy COI which can be seen.--JMST (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You also have a COI. Its been years since i've had anything to do with any of this, I logged into Wikipedia and was amused to find all this still on my watch list. Im not, nor have ever been employed by a toy company as discussed previously. If Ihave such an issue with Shocker Toys, why did I create, maintain and argue for the esxistence of the SHocker Toys article orignally. I was long ago lead to believe, and agreed with the fact that it is non noatable. Wikipedia is not a marketing site, the fact I wrote an article for what you deem to be a competing product surely is infact a plus, as Im familiar with toy companies on wiki, amusingly I dont even see how they're competing... 19:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment So if you fought that the article should exist, then why did you mark it for delete and why are you now nominating delete? Your motives seem very confusing and I do not see how having an article on a watch list that has improved greatly is warrented for deletion.--JMST (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI thought it should exist long ago, Editors pointed out it really should't. We argued (look through enough of my edit history and you'll see it). I realised they were right, I logged in now, saw it was still on my watch list and was again up for deletion so I added my opinion. Amusing as this is Im fed up of dealing with ShockPuppets of which you clearly are one. But which one? Geoff? Adi? who knows!/cares?. Icame here to vote in the deletion, which I have done. The article IS better than it was, but its still about as encylopedic and warranted as an article on my collection of uniquely crafted, limited edition snot stained tissues. Adycarter (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AdyCarter you have a right to your opinion. I only think that if you thought it was notable at one time and then were swayed by many false deletes then you never gave it a chance. This time this is being monitored and is getting a fair vote (sans a few socks) and you should see that it does have many noteable points. If you wanted to work on the article with me I would be honored to work with you as you did a great job on the minimated article on wiki.--JMST (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I encourage everyone to consider the proposed guidelines under WP:TOYS. "A toy or game is not notable simply on the basis of being produced, sold, or marketed." The cited references are all trivial and do not provide significant coverage. A proper reference should exclude "mere mention of the game, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." Trivial references include "personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable." I've posted online links to two of the cited print sources in the article's talk page under History and References, the article from the Record and the 2007 Playthings article. Please take the time to look at them. They do not include significant coverage, nor does the Washington Times article. ShockerHelp (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just a quick reply: first, WP:TOYS doesn't apply. You want WP:Corp or WP:Note. But even if it did, the refs concerned don't suffer from any of the problems you listed. Trivial is always a tad difficult to interpret, but in regard to the three you mentioned: the primary/lead topic discussed in the Washington Post Times article directly concerns the company, the company features in the title (Shocker standing tall after action-figure flap), and there are multiple paragraphs discussing the dispute. The Record's article is only about the company and quite long, and provides some history as to how they were formed, who was involved and their early unreleased products. Indeed, it was perfect for the first part of the history section. The Playthings article is three paragraphs in a much longer article, and describes what they were to show at the Toy Fair. I certainly wouldn't regard it as notable coverage for any of their products, but I'm less certain in regard to the company as a whole. - Bilby (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources do not provide a depth of coverage that is substantial. Trivial may be a tad difficult to interpret, but it clearly applies here. The Playthings article is the definition of trivial. The Washington Post article you keep referencing is actually a Washington Times article, making me wonder how closely you have read it. The "multiple paragraphs discussing the dispute" is really more like a couple of lines, and describe the entire situation as "hearsay at best." From WP:CORP, "attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." The Record article is clearly local coverage. ShockerHelp (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry - clearly you're right. It is the Washington Times - my brain must be fried. :) That aside, the line that you're misquoting is "A war of e-mails and emotional releases became a murky swamp of licensed-agreement reality versus "he said" hearsay at best" in which the "hearsay" isn't about the existence of the dispute, but a description of what those involved were throwing around. Anyway, anyone else is welcome to read it and form their own opinion. It certainly isn't enough to hang a whole article on (hence all the other refs), but does seem to speak to notability based on mu understanding of it. - Bilby (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But who was throwing what around? It seems clear in the article that the author did not contact Marvel Toys for a response to the accusations. The "licensed agreement reality" would seem to refer to Marvel Toys having put out their product without any sort of legal difficulties. The "'he said' hearsay" would seem to refer to the information the reporter got from the owner of Shocker Toys about the situation. There is no corroborating evidence that there was any sort of real dispute, at least not any reported in the Washington Times' article. I think this weakens the case for notability, as the company seems to have tried to gain press by manufacturing a controversy where none existed. And the article ends with, "Now, if Mr. Beckett's product actually makes it to shelves this summer, he really can celebrate." Well, he can't celebrate because the product didn't make it to shelves this summer, or even this fall. Shocker Toys wasn't the last man standing, and certainly isn't standing tall, as the title of the article suggests. ShockerHelp (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I'll step back and let other editors decide. But put simply, you see it as a manufactured controversy, the Washington Times saw it as real enough to warrant publishing and use as the lead for an article. Either way, it seems enough to warrant one or two lines in the WP article. - Bilby (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, I see it as the Washington Times seeing it as not a real dispute, but just a guy holding a grudge against a company for supposedly stealing his idea, despite a misleading headline (as if those are rare). If the article stays around, and if you keep the line in, I think it is important not to suggest that the end of Marvel Toys was in any way the result of any sort of dispute with Shocker Toys, at least not without a reference that discusses it in at least some depth. The Washington Times article itself gives reasons for Marvel Toys' troubles at the beginning of the piece, making me wonder why they chose to conflate their demise with the "dispute" with Shocker Toys. Just for a sensationalist headline? ShockerHelp (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm baffled as to why a single-purpose account like yours could exist to see that the article about your company (which isn't overly negative at all) be deleted from wikipedia. But all the same, please read over Wikipedia's guidelines for dealing with a conflict of interest. Themfromspace (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Didn't ShockerHelp or a sock puppet start the AFD process in the 1st place? That is what baffles me.--JMST (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm baffled, having read the COI guidelines, that you could suggest that I have a conflict of interest without pointing out any reason for making the suggestion. Instead of throwing around an accusation of COI, perhaps point out what I have actually done that is out of line. ShockerHelp (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, wait! You think it's my company?! That would be a no. ShockerHelp (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your name alone hints that you have a personal affiliation with the company, not to mention all the accusations you have made at other editors in this AfD and at the article itself. Themfromspace (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that accusation is a bit ridiculous. Does your name suggest you are an alien? Or perhaps an astronaut? It's just a name. Please stick to what I have actually done wrong. What accusations made at other editors are you speaking about? Please be specific. I believe JMST is strongly affiliated with Shocker Toys. That is the only accusation I've made. That JMST has written repeatedly that he/she is in contact with Shocker Toys on a regular basis seems to suggest I am right (for example, the next comment). Please read the previous AfD for this article, the AfD for the deleted Indie Spotlight article, and JMST's talk page. I think it is clear that JMST is the same user as Smeagal. Notice the exact same wording used in the discussions. Notice how this matches the writing style of the person(s) posting as representatives of Shocker Toys in so many of the references listed on this article's talk page. I think it is clear from just JMST's use of the plural pronouns early on, that JMST is affiliated with Shocker Toys. ShockerHelp (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I am affiliated with Obama's campaign as well? Maybe I am an alien? ShockerHelp your accusations are ridiculous and steadly come after COI is mentioned with you and AdyCarter. Please list more firm reasons why this article should be deleted instead of non-notable as we know there is plenty of notablitly to prove you and AdyCarter wrong. And again I have contributed to other articles other then Shocker Toys what have you done? Why with a name like ShockerHelp have you not helped with the article but only went against everything done to improve it? Are you affiliated with their company and they are just not telling the truth?--JMST (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I started this article and have verified that ShockerHelp is in no way affiliated with Shocker Toys. I have asked the company and they have said he is a former forum member who was banned as he was under a false name there to start problems. He is also under a false name here which he started during another article called Indie Spotlight to trick editors from questioning his vandalizing and skewing of the article.--JMST (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Non-Notable Company. All text presented by obvious company employee, for advertisement purposes. Unable to provide suitable primary sources. Company does not seem to have released any product advertised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.234.62 (talk) 08:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user is a sock Puppet and furthermore he voted delete based on ShockerHelp being a company employee which is untrue. Furthermore he states no advertised products were released which is also false as Shockinis were sold along with various other convention exclusives. I think that User:58.173.234.63's comment should be removed or not counted.--JMST (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-Notable Company. After reading the entry it talks mostly about products they either canceled, or have yet to produce. I think that fails WP:CYRSTAL? If only product information remained about what was actually produced, a substantial portion of the article should be deleted to satisfy Crystal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbedit (talk • contribs) 13:04, 10 November 2008

Comment This person says to delete some of article but marks all of it for delete. That should mean he should contribute his thoughts on how the article is to be fixed on the discussion page for the article not marked for delete. I don't mind people's opinion to delete but when it is by someone who hasn't contributed to wiki or seems confused about their Delete mark that bothers me.--JMST (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this is now a Speedy Keep WP:SK under the rules of Wiki can an admin close this down and remve the AFD from the article? It says users can but is recommended Admins do the deed.

Sock puppet? Huh? I've since received messages from this JMST person demanding my personal information. Is that considered normal? I have no affiliation with any toy company, or anybody on this site, so I really don't know what this JMST person is on about? I looked up more info on Shocker Toys, their CEO Geoff Beckett makes the same typing/syntax mistakes as JMST. Isn't that a direct Conflict Of Interest, and attempt to use Wikipedia as advertising? I am happy to prove my identity to any ACTUAL Wikipedia staff, but I do not appreciate being spammed by this JMST person in such a hostile manner, just for giving my opinion on something that I thought was open for discussion, in as neutral a manner as possible. Obviously their CEO, JMST, feels otherwise. I'm not happy with this treatment at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.234.62 (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Remember: This is not a vote. It is an attempt to reach consensus. Not to point fingers and say the article is a WP:SPAM. The AFD is to flesh out through consensus if the company is WP:NOTE. So if you can clearly argue and show why with all the refrences that this is a non-notable company then the that should be in your delete statement not attacking me.--JMST (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong vote to DELETE. Clear case of COI on this article and all arguments against deletion. JMST is obviously the same poster as Smeagol from the 1st Shocker page. He is also Geoff Beckett who is the CEO of Sucker Toys. No one else in the world uses the word 'bias' like he does. The speech patterns are the same. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is, most likely, a duck. Sucker Toys is non-notable because they have only produced 1 product - the Suckini - in a failed attempt to capitalize on the minifigure craze. They couldn't compete with better products, such as the Stikfa or Minimate, so Sucker Toys tried to bring Indie Spotlight to market. Marvel Toys had the same idea, brought their product out, produced 2 lines and quit in the span of time Beckett is still trying to produce anything from the Indie Spotlight line. One failed toy line produced in 8 years does not make a notable company - unless it is an article about how to fail in every aspect of running a successful toy company.Sybilmpd ( —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC). [reply]

Comment First off I am a woman and Wow and this user has no COI at all or bias against the company. And calling of names, libel and slander is uncalled for in this civilized discussion. I do not think that this Delete from User Sybilmpd should be counted.--JMST (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You aren't a woman Geoff. You're the only person I know who still doesn't know how to properly use the word 'biased'. You also haven't grasped the differences between libel and slander - despite years of trying to threaten people who have spoken out against your antics. Civilized discussion? You're the one calling everyone 'sock puppets' 'bias trolls' and generally accusing anyone voting for deletion of either having COI or being out to get Sucker Toys. All of which are trademarks of Geoff Beckett. Hmm...--Sybilmpd
I have learned to be civil maybe you should also, take a look at WP:CIV.--JMST (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can assume that the admin who closes this AfD debate will be smart enough to figure that out. That person can make allowance for contributions from IPs and from single-purpose accounts who have joined the AfD discussion but not edited anywhere else. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken EJ.--JMST (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So...if I post and edit other Wiki articles, that somehow makes my opinion more worthy of consideration?Sybilmpd

Comment I won't vote because I came here because of a post at RTM by JMST and I respect the message on the top of the page. Don't need to because when Indie Spotlight comes out everyone will know how great Shocker Toys is! People supporting Shocker here need to go tell those fools that Shocker is here to stay! ( http://www.toymania.com/toybuzz/messages/73151.shtml ) Worldwarhulk (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shocker Toys is a non-notable company. As seen in all of the references shown, the coverage the company gets is only obtained by press releases or stories created by the company themselves. In 8 years of existence, they've managed to get only a handful of articles covering them, which should indicate how insignificant they are. Few of the articles are specifically about Shocker Toys, just brief mentions amongst other things, of those focusing on the company, it is clear they're only based upon press releases and attempts by the company to gain attention, rather than the fact that they achieved anything noteworthy.

The company is known amongst the online toy collecting community more for the fact that they're habitual spammers of message boards (often as seen here, posting as an anonymous fan) and they try to gain attention by sending press releases to gain coverage to try to appear legitimate. As also shown in the articles, this toy line has been "coming soon" for close to three years. The company tries to entice people to give them money for "pre-orders" for items they haven't made.

I understand that more weight is going to be given to the judgement call of experience Wiki editors, as well it should. But I feel it is worth informing those of you who will make the decision of the kind of company being dealt with here. As others have pointed out, JMST is in fact Geoff Beckett from ShockerToys. A quick look at the language used on the ShockerToys forum where he posts as ShockerToys will satisfy anyone of the fact based on his distinctive language skills. Also, as posted by WorldWarHulk the discussion started on RTM (http://www.toymania.com/toybuzz/messages/73151.shtml) by JMST urging people to come here to help vote to keep the page is further proof. The user JMST on that forum has registered the email address admin@shockertoys.com. Clearly a COI exists.

Comment I do not post on that website nor have I ever heard of it. That is not my post and it looks like anyone can post under any made up name. So as far as I know all of these last votes are COI. Please read above "If you came to this page because someone asked you to, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors."--JMST (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including Shocker Toys on Wikipedia will be lending credibility and notability to a company which otherwise has none. It would not be in the spirit or best interests of Wikipedia to keep this article.SWH (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Notability covers two concepts on Wikipedia - are there sufficient reliable, third party sources to write an encyclopedic article about a topic, and is the topic significant enough to have an article? The answer to the first, in this case, I think is yes, because there are enough decent, third-party references to support an article. Everything in the article is currently referenced to reliable, non-trivial sources, so it meets WP:Note (I accept that some articles may be based on press releases, but even if some are, the main one isn't, and others aren't). The second one, though, seems to be where you and other people opposing the article are coming from. The problem is that it involves a value judgment, akin to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But even if we accept that judgment, I'm not convinced that only "good" companies should have articles, and a good Wikipedia article should be from a neutral point of view, which this one is. Thus the problems that people point out - such as the missed release dates - should be (and are) in the article when they can be verified. (Given that too far on the negative side may also violate NPOV, too). - Bilby (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentPerhaps some of the more experienced editors will be able to clarify, but I would have thought that in order to meet WP:Note the sources should discuss something worthy of notice. None of the articles cited seem to show the company has achieved anything notable, such as releasing notable product, or achieved any sort of notable acomplishment. The topics being discussed (signing licences, proposing potential product) are not notable, as it is something every toy company does. It would be akin to saying a footballer is notable because he merely played a game of football. I agree that whether a company is "good" or "bad" should not sway a decision for inclusion. However in this instance, the larger issues relate to WP:Spam and WP:COI, since the company CEO has proposed the topic. I believe this is where an inclusion would be damaging to Wiki.SWH (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, every footballer is notable, if they played a game at the top level of the sport. (At least that's where current consensus and the guideline tends to sit - although clearly not everyone agrees it should be that way). I can see where you're coming from, but my understanding (others may differ, of course), is that the coverage in third party sources means that both they can be written about, and that others have deemed them worth writing about, which covers WP:Note (as an aside, this isn't absolute proof that they should be written about here, though, hence this debate). As to COI, while I understand that many people believe JMST to be Geoff, I'm still inclined to assume good faith and accept JMST claims that she isn't - however, either way, I think the article itself is neutral, thanks in part to ShockerHelp. They may have proposed the deletion, which is fine, but their suggestions also kept the article from getting too positive as well. At this point it has been through a few editors, which tends to help with those problems. - Bilby (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite true regarding the football analogy, but I was picturing just a small time game rather than a game at the top of the sport. I guess in this case we could equate it to a toy company perhaps being notable if their product is sold worldwide in major retailers, as opposed to just making a few things to sell on your own website or stall. SWH (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes it a tad more complex. :) Mostly because we just went through a rather big debate to determine the relationship of special sub guidelines, like those governing footballers, to the general notability guidelines. The GNG doesn't talk about the value of the topic, but about whether it has been sufficiently covered in reliable sources. Specific guidelines may, depending on how you read them, talk about value. However, WP:Corp, which applies here, specifically speaks against being biased towards large organisations. As far as I can see, though, they exhibit at major toy fairs (whether or not the products are then always released), do sell in some stores (or so I gather with the Shockinis), and have been covered in trade and general sources. So while they are small, they seem to have attracted a degree of notice. If that is sufficient notice is the purpose of this debate. Mind you, if that means that we are lacking articles on more notable toy companies, then I'm all for more articles. :) This has been an interesting debate, though, whichever way it comes out. - Bilby (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SWH your opinion while it is yours has been all over the internet and I have read about it on the Shocker Toys forums in great detail. I thought ShockerHelp was you but it seems they were not. Why must you come here to throw rocks why can't you just contribute to make toy articles better. You are a toy collector are you not? I am here to have a good time and do something I enjoy which is contributing to a hobby I greatly enjoy.--JMST (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just on that topic before I run away and leave this for others, COI isn't typically an issue for deleting articles. It is, however, definitly a concern when it comes to editing. - Bilby (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but if COI does come into play, taking myself out due to me creating the article leaves only 3 non COI nominations and they are all keep.--JMST (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novak Dobrosavljević[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Novak Dobrosavljević (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article went up for deletion on October 12th. It was speedied before a full deletion discussion occurred. The original creator recreated the article on the 16th. I tried to give the user a chance to make the person notable but he really didn't. The show he appeared on doesn't even have it's own article. And it appears as though he hasn't really done much since 2004 anyway. Fails notability. And it could possibly be a hoax as I've found no evidence that this show existed. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX, and perhaps protect against recreation. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 08:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it should be G4 not G3. ApprenticeFan (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you may delete it but please don't put it under rewrite protection because i insure you that this person is notable,i mean almost everyone in that country that is not older than 50 knows about him so i assume if a person in any country has status like this then it is notable.Besides his show is not popular as he is,and yes he is not active in past 4 years but he left a huge mark behind him,there is not much information about him because during the late 90s in serbia internet and computers ware used only in business purposes,most common connections ware 56k modem or 64/128k ISDN.Nole is not just some TV person,hes popularity is equal to Milka Canic's and i see that you have her on en wikipedia. And why are some parts of the article missing?
Regards and respect,
Gulsrb (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided source: http://www.b92.net/info/emisije/ovo_vas_jos_nisam_pitala.php?yyyy=2005&mm=03&nav_id=164516 This is a interview with Nole on TV B92 from 11th march 2005,you can translate it with google. I think that this proves the existence of him and his show. Gulsrb (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator because of notability shown by Icewedge [ roux ] [x] 08:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Quarry at La Quinta[edit]

The Quarry at La Quinta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability; the first three pages of Google results show no news, only various listings of the course. [ roux ] [x] 07:34, 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 17:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwater (novel)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability; appears to be copyvio. [ roux ] [x] 07:09, 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 21:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revelstoke conjecture[edit]

Revelstoke conjecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Fire (EP)[edit]

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

Non-notable EP by non-notable band. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:31, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:36, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 21:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Molesky[edit]

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

I thought this was genuine at first, but subsequent edits by the author suggest this is a hoax (see talk). Googling "john molesky mayor" gets nothing relevant. Closedmouth (talk) 04:52, 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 21:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Raccoons locations[edit]

List of The Raccoons locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced in universe plot regurgitation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:44, 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 speedy delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomist[edit]

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

I think it fails WP:WEB. Only external links are website and competitor's website. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:32, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 21:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baclarayo[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:30, 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 redirect to Computer-supported collaborative learning.  Sandstein  19:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online Collaboration Tools in Elementary Education[edit]

Online Collaboration Tools in Elementary Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Essay, looks like original research, or at the very least a synthesis. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This entire section has been moved to CSCL. I have also worked to clean up the existing information in CSCL. MiShe11e38 (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Heartland. MBisanz talk 21:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland of America[edit]

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

Procedural nom, contested prod. This is a dictionary definition, insufficient evidence of significant coverage of the concept in reliable sources. McWomble (talk) 04:17, 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 21:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah swetnam[edit]

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

Found this while RC patrolling, tagged it at first for a COI. Further research found nothing about this person, or any award mentioned hence it fails WP:N and a link to a blog like site indicates WP:PROMOTION. Also note that there is still a WP:COI issue. Marcusmax(speak) 04:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like this person is pretending to be Drake Bell, as all the characters in the article were played by Mr. Bell. -Marcusmax(speak) 16:14, 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 17:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Sokolowska[edit]

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

Speedy deletion was refused based on a claim made in the article, but I can still only find 8 unique google hits related to this individual, and it is totally unreferenced. I have tried searching via Polish google, and have received similar results. roleplayer 03:48, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 17:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of alternative medicine[edit]

Glossary of alternative medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a repository of loosely-connected topics. Arguably, WP:NOT#FAQ also applies.

Let me expand on the second point a minute, as it's perhaps less obvious. Alternative medicine is a huge, diverse field - each aspect of Alternative medicine has its own jargon, and there's very little overlap. The glossary makes no attempt to deal with this, instead providing random collections of definitions from whereever, ranging from "Index of articles on CAM" (A list of links, filed under I!) Various other sets of links appear somewhat randomly throughout, as it doesn't actually stick to defining terms, but also seeks to duplicate some of the alt-med category trees. Then we get random interjections (Asklepios, Lifestyle), really really obscure therapies that don't even have a Wikipedia article or very little of one, (Bioecological medicine, Group modalities, plus Tibetan eye chart is a one-line stub, and Grahamism redirects to Sylvester Graham, in which article you will find none of the information listed in the glossary) and so on.

While there are probably some subjects that might benefit from a glossary, alternative medicine is perhaps one of the worst choices for such an undertaking. It's far too broad and too disconnected. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment... I note that the page has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. I do think that that is a better location for the information. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the argument here is that a Glossary = a Dictionary... and as such, WP:NOT#DICT certanly does (or should) apply. I am not sure what your comment that "dictionaries do not unsually have glossaries" even means, much less what that has to do with WP:NOT. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be the issue here... are dictionaries and glossaries the same thing or not?... From the discussions on the talk page, it seems that the consensus at WP:NOT#DICT is that there is some sort of difference... but I can not find any place on Wikipedia that spells out what that difference actually is. Blueboar (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DICT doesn't say anything about not creating glossary pages; it says we should not create dictionary entry pages. The difference is simple: a dictionary entry defines one word, while a glossary is a list of definitions (plus other differences between a glossary entry and a dictionary entry that are not relevant here). Glossaries may be kept per WP:LIST, like DGG says. However, like others have commented, the scope of this glossary may be too broad to be useful. I have no comment regarding that. --Itub (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... if I get this, you are saying that Wikipedia can contain dictionaries (or articles that are essentially mini-dictionaries), but should not, itself, be a dictionary? I am not sure if I agree with that distinction. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense, since the creator and a major controller of the glossary was our thrice indef banned User:Mr-Natural-Health/User:John Gohde, who attempted to control and twist all alternative medicine subject matter to his own ends and even bragged about it. -- Fyslee / talk 21:25, 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. MBisanz talk 17:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GeneCosta[edit]

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

Contested ProD, non-notable local politician, fails WP:BIO#Politicians and WP:BLP1E, no sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He got a lot of coverage for being 18 and running after all. If I could have help making these source links work.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBTMANIAC (talk • contribs) 02:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: That one isn't but the one I list below is. - Dravecky (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I refer to above are:
  • Eakin, Dan (March 11, 2008). "Gene Costa, 18, files for Highland Village mayor post". Lewisville Leader.
  • Parsons, Jay (March 23, 2008). "18-year-old mayoral hopeful has some points". Dallas Morning News.
These are not "passing mentions". - Dravecky (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But they're still along the lines of a press-release. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that Wikipedia is not news. The subject needs to be of lasting interest established by discussion in secondary sources. Rklear (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those reads anything like a "press release" and both are exactly the sort of third-party coverage from reliable sources that the standard requires. - Dravecky (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N calls for coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. While newspaper articles can be secondary, the kind of direct interviews with the subject cited here are really primary sources. They can supplement, but they are not a substitute for, secondary coverage. Rklear (talk) 18:20, 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 Speedy deleted by Orangemike. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The E.N.D (The Energy Never Dies)[edit]

The E.N.D (The Energy Never Dies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Back again under a slightly different title. Previously deleted on several occasions (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The E.N.D. (The Energy Never Dies) (3rd nomination) for most recent). Nothing appears to have changed in the meantime. References cited are forum and blog posts - themselves admitting that the information is only rumoured. Delete per WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTAL and arguments in past AfDs. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:44, 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 21:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Violin Diary[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published book, not even available on Amazon.com. Page contains numerous external links to non-existent pages in an apparent effort to falsely fluff up its importance. bd2412 T 01:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I was wrong about the external links being false - the original author used incorrect syntax, so they came up as errors when I tried to visit them. I have now fixed them, but I see nothing that convinces me that the work is notable. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, at least we're a step in the right direction. Thanks for fixing it up. You have proven yourself noble. Woodyallenfan2004 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— 72.73.119.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Woodyallenfan2004 (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
1. it has been "the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." It clearly fails this one.
2. Winner of a major literary award. It fails this one.
3. "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." Again, fails this one.
4. "The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." Fails this one.
"5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." And fails this last one.
In addition, this book is self-published, and "self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press is indicative, but not determinative of non-notability". I can see no justification for calling this book notable, it should be deleted.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

— 66.108.167.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Just for 48 hrs. Anyways the person has left wikipedia. --SkyWalker (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-administrative closure) — RyanCross (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riddler's Moon[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Riddler's Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable film. Does not meet WP:NF. Non-dropframe (talk) 01:06, 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 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molina Cigar Company[edit]

Molina Cigar Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't see how this 2-year old cigar company meets the WP:CORP notability standard. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:31, 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 17:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sliwinski[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:N, WP:BLP. Could be redirected to Love Arcade if that article does not get deleted. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:22, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 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 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Schibeci[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO, notable information can really be included in SEN 1116. Also seems a bit WP:FANCRUFT Michellecrisp (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment these references you've found seem more to prove he exists rather than meets WP:CREATIVE as a radio commentator. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability is marginal, but if there's no consensus to delete after 12 days, it's time to default to keep and move on. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Lato[edit]

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

I've declined a speedy on this article because this biography asserts notability but may not pass WP:BIO. According to Kasnie (talk · contribs), this article has been "deleted for not meeting notability guidelines on Polish Wikipedia and should likewise be deleted from English Wikipedia." Cunard (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 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 no consensus. and non emerging either StarM 04:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Reagan[edit]

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

Non-notable porn actress. No independent reliable source prove any notability per WP:PORNBIO. Seems to be WP:COPY, but I'm not sure. Tosqueira (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does she pass WP:N? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.255.198 (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the significant, reliable, independent coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - According to WP:N, multiple sources means that it is presumed to satisfy notability, but it is not guarantee. Still does not satisfy WP:PORNBIO which is the specific consensus about pornographic actors. Tosqueira (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you read Wikipedia:Notability (people). Epbr123 (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did and IMO it still ain't enough. As WP:N says, "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Tabercil (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I respect that opinion. What counts as "trivial" is highly subjective. But in my opinion, an entire article devoted to her, plus lesser coverage in five other articles, is more than enough to satisfy the "multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability" clause. Also, although I don't expect it to carry much weight until proven, she is likely to receive an AVN Award nomination in a couple of weeks. Epbr123 (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 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 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buenos Aires (song)[edit]

Buenos Aires (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Promo single in US only, never released commerically at any stage Paul75 (talk) 04:14, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 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 redirect to GHV2#GHV2_Megamix. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GHV2 Megamix[edit]

GHV2 Megamix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Promo single only. Paul75 (talk) 04:17, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Can Dance - Single Edits of Album Remixes[edit]

You Can Dance - Single Edits of Album Remixes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Promo release only. Pointless article with no references, the information can easily be assimilated in the You Can Dance page. Paul75 (talk) 04:25, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fat Pig[edit]

Little Fat Pig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unsourced and suspected conflict of interest: article created by User:Anna_kaise, a single purpose account who also posted the band's image on commons, and edited by another IP editor. There are no indications as to how the group passes any of the criteria of WP:BAND in terms of nation-wide tours, or independent review of albums. WP is not Youtube or myspace. 148 Ghits -other than the band's own youtube/myspace links, the vast majority of hits are generic in nature. OINK! Ohconfucius (talk) 06:19, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 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 21:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy McCommish[edit]

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

Does not meet biographical notability standards. Since the article uses a pen name for the author of a column with a narrow audience, there will not be any reliable sources. —— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:18, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 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 21:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jadiel[edit]

Jadiel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lo Mejor de Mí (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable artist, fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:10, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-series[edit]

G-series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable record label. No in-depth, independent coverage provided, none found. I found several passing mentions, but nothing to indicate this is a notable label. TN‑X-Man 17:24, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signuno[edit]

VfDs for this article:
Signuno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a language nobody speaks described on someone's Geocities website. The proposer of the subject this article is about is "anonymous" because all he did was post it to Geocities. Fails WP:WEB in all sorts of ways. Shii (tock) 00:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"delete non-notable, non-verifiable, no sources except its own website.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:07, 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 21:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infighting[edit]

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

This article consists of a dictionary definition and "case study". A previous editor has commented that "I still think this is a bit unencyclopedic". In essence, the definition may have a place in wictionary (though it is not very accurate) and the case study may be an event worthy of its own article. However, without the case study (which is an entirely random example) this is just a dicdef. The article is far from encyclopaedic and reeks of an essay and original research. Emeraude (talk) 20:00, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 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 - good work, people. DS (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Fire[edit]

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

Non-notable, only refs are from the band's site, the label's site and a page promoting the band. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:30, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 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.
More