< September 30	October 2 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water Fuel Museum

[edit]

Appears to be totally nonnotable. This museum was open for only one year, and there are no sources. Fails Google News test. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Apologies, I meant to write "few sources" per the Google News link, not "no sources". TallNapoleon (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See the references at this Google News archive search. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I saw these same sources, and don't see that they establish notability. The only article not from Lexington (the museum's home town) gives it about a two line mention. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N. I'm unaware of anything in WP:N that limits us from using local sources. Hobit (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 02:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the news sources identified above, it's had some notable exhibits. While WP:ORG has some issues with local sourcing, this museum has also been discussed in the field of water fuel. Length of existence/operation doesn't necessarily limit notability. TravellingCari 11:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WARNING: Google is telling me that that site has malware. You may want to check your computer. TallNapoleon (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 11:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs to have references added to it. But beyond that, I don't see a problem with WP:N. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Water-fuelled car. Biscuittin (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Man

[edit]

Delete - there are no independent reliable sources establishing the independent notability of this fictional character. Violates WP:PLOT as being nothing but a re-statement of the film's plot. Otto4711 (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into superman IV--not all the relatively small amount of out of universe material seems to be there. I wonder why this was not considered--I in fact suggested it earlier for this article.? And why a redirect at least was not considered? DGG (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of sources which establish the notability of this character; like this stack of books, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the stack of books that Colonel Warden refers to do nothing but mention the character's name. We don't actually cover every word and concept ever mentioned in a book, we tend to discriminate a little more to ensure encyclopedic coverage. Hiding T 13:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - A bad character from a bad movie is notable enough for its own article? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Wilson

[edit]

no sources; tagged as hoax; just a mess, non-notable person - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 23:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of existence, let alone notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is probably an autobiography; it was created by Badbrad1 (talk · contribs) who has the same text of the article on his userpage. A Google search returns very few reliable sources on this person. ESPN has an article about a college basketball player of the same name, but this person is a golfer. There are no hits related to this individual in a Google News search, which returns only unrelated results. The lack of reliable sources and the lack of verifiability in this article leads me to conclude that this is either an autobiography or a hoax. Cunard (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that it is a hoax, but still, fails WP:V. 69.140.152.55 ([[User

talk:69.140.152.55|talk]]) 04:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per nom South-East7™^Talk/_Contribs 17:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 00:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonies Records

[edit]

Brand new label, only links to own website. not notable. Lots of crystalballing as well. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. 75.172.24.170 (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above South-East7™^Talk/_Contribs 17:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Evening Life

[edit]

With the removal of a speedy tag by the creator, the article has nevertheless been expanded. However, it has been expanded into a coatrack article in which one would be hard-pressed to see where the title fits in. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, suspect WP:COI by main (sole) editor, and some versions of the article have been truly bizarre ... this edit contains a great deal of information which appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with the apparent topic. Since the same editor placed this here - then later removed it again - it all seems very odd.... MadScot (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Substantial copy of Billionaire Boys Club except for the first sentence, which places the action in Lubbock, Texas. Unsourced, untrue, deserves nothing but deletion. --Lockley (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of error codes and messages used on Microsoft Windows-based platforms

[edit]

Wikipedia is not software user manual. Twri (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom plus it seems a pretty useless list. MadScot (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Anakinjmt (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article is a user manual article, and very poor one at that. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could be very useful content, but delete because Wikipedia is not a Microsoft manual. (Would Wikibooks take this?) Stifle (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Wikibooks might be an interesting place for this sort of thing, but simple reproductions of published documentation doesn't need to be covered here. Warren -talk- 23:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL. ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 becoming clear that this was also sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry X clamation point 00:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPod touch Fans

[edit]

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

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

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

Speedily deleted four times as a non-notable forum. The latest recreation asserts notability; however, a brief look at the cited sources yields no non-trivial coverage from an appropriate source. Deletion was endorsed at deletion review in June of this year.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant effort went into providing proper citations since the last version of the article that was published at the end of June and deleted. I believe that the cited sources deserver more than a "brief" look before simply dropping the axe on the article. Furthermore, I don't understand why the same editor is reviewing this three months later... can we get some sort of outside opinion here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruelio1998 (talk • contribs) — Cruelio1998 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete and Salt per WP:WEB. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have read WP:WEB. The multiple sources provided do MORE than simply report the internet address, serve as advertising, or simply provide a generic description of the site. Nearly every source describes a specific aspect or contribution of the site, and does so in depth. --Cruelio1998 (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to assert notability, sources seem trivial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hardly any reliable sources. VG ☎ 23:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please once again look at the sources. Only four of the sources are even to the site, which are references to the other references I might add, and many of the others are notable and reliable Apple related blogs such as TUAW and ArsTechnica. This surely deserves some merit. iPod touch Fans is the largest iPod touch related forum and that itself is worth something. In addition, we have both read through WP:WEB, and iPod touch Fans appears to qualify upon looking through the aforementioned guidelines. In example, iPod touch Fans has been mentioned in the previously mentioned blogs in addition to getting over 800 diggs on the Social News site Digg. I might also note that ArsTechnica and Digg have been verified to be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. Secondly, it is the largest iPod touch related forum with over 200,000 members and 1,000,000 posts. While I must admit that this is not award, it must count for something. Thirdly, it has been distributed on such sites like Digg, TUAW, and ArsTechnica, thus... it looks like it qualifies in all three respects. --mrmoocow44 (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said in the nom, the few reliable sources only mention the forum in passing (quote from WP:WEB: trivial coverage includes a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site...) While you are correct that Digg and ArsTechnica is notable, being mentioned in either does not automatically confer notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources are not "merely mentioning" the site, they are attributing major advances to the members of the site. If I were to report that Stanford University researchers discovered something and link to their site, I am not "merely mentioning" Stanford, but I am establishing its notability as a research university. This is the same thing here, and its unfair to minimize the articles as "mentions." --171.66.37.14 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC) — 171.66.37.14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep How can you assert that the forum is "non-trivial"? It boasts almost 250,000 members, is an authority of iPod Touch related information unlike any other forum available, and is known throughout the community of Apple-related affairs. Various developers of many notable applications spanning from Band (MooTheCow), various emulators (Zodttd), iSoulSeek (errrick), PwnPlayer (errrick once more), and many more all visit the site and use it as an area to spread the news of their applications mainly because they know it is the place/authority to do so. Also, it would be of great help if the articles were allowed to be developed fully before speedily deletion that ignores the above points and much more. As for notability, do a simple Google Search and you'll see that in the area of digital media and Apple, the site is quite Well-Known. Having spawned a separate forum, iPhone Fanatics just because of demand, and high traffic of the site counterpart blog, Hack The iPod Touch. Of course, please take all these into consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.187.62 (talk • contribs)
Delete and salt — (edit conflict) I fully agree with the following that was said in the deletion review: I would suggest working on the article in User space until it's complete and fully cited. And cited means via verifiable, third-party sources. Source #1 is a traffic site, not verifiable. Source #2 provides trivial coverage at best. Source #3 is only a WHOIS on the site. Source #4 is a primary source. Source #5 is not only directly related to this site, but also seems like a blog entry. Source #6 is a blog, not verifiable. #7 is merely a drive-by mention of a user on the site. I have no clue of what #8 is supposed to be. I do not see any mention of the site in #9. #10, #11, and #12 are all forum posts from its own site. #13 and #14 are both drive-by mentions from blogs.
Please read WP:SPS, as blogs, including all these in this case, are not considered to be reliable sources. All others provide either only a drive-by mention or trivial coverage; none that I would consider significant coverage (see WP:GNG). "My site is popular and gets lots of traffic" is not a reason to keep (see WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE). MuZemike (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are you joking? A source needs to support the claim that is being made. Obviously a link to a traffic site that DIRECTLY MEASURES traffic is a good measure of a site's popularity. Obviously a link to a Whois site is the best way to prove the claim about the date the site was registered. I could go like this one by one, but I won't bother. The point is this: Sources do not stand on their own and should not be evaluated as such, they are a crutch for the claim that is being made, and they should be judged on whether they adequately support the claim that is being made when each source is being cited. --171.66.37.14 (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'm not. That's not how establishing notability works here. Please re-read everything I have shown above. MuZemike (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to know why you feel source #2 is trivial coverage. Looks like more than that to me. Hobit (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a large enough blog on an important subject is notable, and if the membership & posts can be verified, thereshould be an article.DGG (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep There is one decent RS (the second reference) and the traffic to the site is provably quite high. That said, the other sources either aren't RS or don't mention this site. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone show me the two non-trivial coverages in reliable sources? I have yet to hear any keep criteria based on our WP:WEB notability policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. 75.172.24.170 (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blogs tend to be on the non notable side unless they do something extraordinary to get coverage. This has not got that coverage. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The second reference is a strong one, showing solid coverage from a reliable source. This leads me to believe that other references may be out there, and I'd like to see the article around to accept them. gnfnrf (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is a very large forum, with almost a 1/4 million members. It provides great, up-to-date information on the iPod Touch and also serves as a social gathering for anyone who likes the iPod Touch, iPhone, or any other Apple product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.217.24 (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Salt from high orbit. HiDrNick! 04:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin There are a lot of random ip addresses and users with this being their only edit. (by random ip, i mean this is the ip's only edit) I'm tempted to file a check user request. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWith a huge community and developers on the site who create applications for the Apple App Store, this is a site just as valid as Bebo (which is crap..) and should be kept as an entry. With about 300,000 members, it's a large enough community to show on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Abcmsaj (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC) — Abcmsaj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have filed a request for checkuser for the suspicious votes. Undead Warrior (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, stubbify or merge (i.e. do not keep in current form) after removing most of the content which is derived from the site itself or trivial mentions that do not directly address the subject there is not much left. However the one reliable source is probably enough to support either a very short stub (until such time that more sourcing becomes available) or an entry in a list or article on the broader topic. Guest9999 (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the sources establish notability. To establish notability, the secondary sources must be about the subject. A mere mention in a reference pointing to the existence of this website does not establish notability. Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY of every website ever created. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second source provides real information about the topic in more than an "in passing" or trivial way. What don't you like about it? Hobit (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Palmer (NZ)

[edit]

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

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

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

A speedy tag has been removed by an IP. No assertion of notability. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I don't agree with the methods used by Mr Palmer and his group, I have to say a page about him will be good for all the organic farmers, including me. Djcostello (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC) — Djcostello (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I've seen this guy in Wellington rallying people outside Woolworths with his group. They want to rid NZ of unpure things and keep NZ 100% pure...pretty strange bloke but I guess that's why he's become a bit of a local/national legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ascii007 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC) — Ascii007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I know Tim Palmer. He moved to Hawkesbay area a while ago to continue his passion for fruits and veg. Met him at Field Day this year. Got good tips on growing egg plants. Taneup (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC) — Taneup (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Okay, so you know him. But how does he fit the criteria in WP:PEOPLE? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~KEEP~~comment. According to your requirements for notability and i quote " The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." Tim Palmer meets several of these requirements, and noting that being famous is as said - secondary. The guy is an eccentric enthusiast for fruit and vegetables, popular amongst the local and extended community. Be honest, have you ever heard of a "fruit and vegetable activist"?? Popular with organic farmers, and hero of many New Zealand families striving towards nutricious excellence. That is Tim Palmer. Given a chance the wiki page will provide an informative and thorough description of a Kiwi legend. Taneup (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jll (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unless that eggplant advice resulted in them frying themselves with added bacon I can't see any notability here. MadScot (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure what a "fruit and vegetable activist" is (fights for their civil rights? maybe ADVOCATE?) but it would seem that speedy delete might even apply. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) Delete No assertion of notability. CSD A7 bio candidate. gnfnrf (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP!!! Tim Palmer and the Fruit and Vegetable Alliance although as weird as they are, are almost regarded as superheroes up in the central north island! The fact that his efforts are now recognised can only further help his cause. Legend!Kiwialltheway (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)--> — Kiwialltheway (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. If "furthering his case" is the main purpose of this article, then it should be deleted per WP:SPAM. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think the internet or "advertising" is something that the group is interested in. They are a sort of exclusive group of associates. But just like information "furthers the cause" of other theories like religion, maths, hygiene, etc, they do forward the message of natural food.Ascii007 (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I had a second read of the article and it doesn't seem to be "furthering his case". Its only presenting facts about a weird yet passionate guy. Djcostello (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, talk about a nonnotable guy. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No Google hits on this guy. Various orgs with similar names exist but the whole article feels like a hoax. No refs at all and suspicious levels of details in the article. - SimonLyall (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Are there any people who want to keep that are not Single Purpose Accounts? I mean, this is beginning to be almost too obvious. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would have said this was simply a case of non-notability, but the SPAs make it more likely to be a hoax.-gadfium 19:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Must Keep~~ Additional comment Unfortunately trying to make a decision from Canada or the USA could be considered biased and simply unfair, and Google doesn't answer everything. I don't want to get into a scrap here, but Blanket man from New Zealand made it into wiki who has done far less - sitting in one position along Lambton Quay footpath in Wellington with a blanket around him - wow! Tim Palmer and his 'Alliance' at least actually stand for something! Sure Tim Palmer isn't famous, but again that is a secondary requirement as stated on wiki. However the guy and his group are interesting and unusual perfectly valid for notability. In terms of my single user account, i received an email from a university buddy saying one of his colleagues had posted something on TIm Palmer. And then i see for some reason you're trying to get rid of him. Be fair guys! Let's get over the bureaucracy. Kiwialltheway (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not a case of "trying to get rid of" anyone (well not for me, anyway). But if he's interesting and unusual, surely some part of the NZ media must have mentioned him, run an article on him or his group? You'll note that the Blanket Man article you mention cites print and broadcast media coverage - THAT'S what demonstrates notability, and that's what Tim needs, too. MadScot (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment So he isn't famous (by your admission), but he is interesting and unusal. According to Wikipedia policy, you have just made the ultimate argument to delete the article. Interesting is specifically listed as a nonreason to keep an article (read about more at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Wikipedia isn't entertainment or a list of "characters", it is an encyclopedia. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add: Canadians and Americans are able to read articles in New Zealand and Australia, and Google spiders websites there as well as the USA. Most of us do speak English and are smart enough to seek them out. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Once again Pharmboy you have missed the point. I understand what you are saying MadScot, and given a chance i'm sure info can be found. No, Tim Palmer is not world famous for his and the 'Aliiances' activities, but are certainly notable amongst the rural community in New Zealand especially in the central north island. His notability (or notoriety depending on who you are) has certainly been acknowledged by local newsagents and efforts will be made to exract those. I hear what you're saying MadScot, but is nationwide media exposure essential for publication in Wikipedia? Don't forget, Blanket Man sits in the busiest part of capital city Wellington all day long. Of course he's going to receive media exposure, but that's not how Tim and the ridiculously named (here goes) Fruit and Vegetable Alliance operate. You have to remember these guys are known to perform brief demonstrations so media exposure is very difficult to obtain. Surely viewers of Wikipedia would be amazed, amused, disgusted, enthusiadtic, or pleased to be informed about Tim and his group. It just seems like you're trying to remove him straight away just because you can.Kiwialltheway (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the author I am obviously going to say KEEP. When I created the page I had no idea a simple article on Tim was going to cause so much controversy. Wikipedia or not, Tim Palmer will always remain in the hearts and minds of hardworking Kiwi families and the organic farming community.Rangi.hohepa (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Rangi.hohepa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Nice to see a unique kiwi personality been recognized by wikipedia. Who are all these idiots who want this link to be deleted. They have no clue, do they? I say long live Tim the vege legend... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.203.13.24 (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC) — 131.203.13.24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No sources, no assertion of notability. Should have been speedied. Edward321 (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Utterly non-notable. The number of ghits from New Zealand sources for "Tim Palmer"+vegetable is an awe inspiring two - neither of which is this Tim Palmer - similar results (three ghits, none of them relevant) for "Tim Pamer" + Ohakune. Local organic growers seem to know nothing of him, either. Only keep !votes seem to be from SPAs. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the article states Tim Palmer is popular among the central north island community. How many organic growers in the central north island have you talked to? And whats with the "ghits"? Have you insulted us or is it a typical case of The Fat Finger Syndrome? Rangi.hohepa (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to read wp:notability which is the policy we all go by when it comes to establishing notability. If someone is popular in a small crowd and no media outlet has ever written about them, then by WIKIPEDIA STANDARDS, they are not notable. If you want to change those standards and policies, this is not the place to do that. This AFD is to discuss the applications of the policies, not how fair they are. No one has a "right" to be in wikipedia, and it isn't an insult if someone isn't. Taking it personal isn't helping your case. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"ghit" is "google hit" i.e. a positive result from a google search. it's not an insult, just shorthand in AfD discussions. I admit it sounds like an insult, but it isn't. MadScot (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What the impassioned keep voters don't seem to realize is that their own observations are not sufficient sources for an article. (don't worry nobody else's are either) All content must be backed by sources as required by the policy on verifiability, and I don't see any sources forthcoming. If they were to show up, it also needs a re-naming as abbreviations should not be used in article titles. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Fruit and Vegetable Alliance is an International organisation, and although it has a New Zealand director ([1]) his name is not Tim Palmer. No references found for a NZ organisation or person and it has hoax written all over it. dramatic (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a hoax from the beginning. The Ohakune carrot was unveiled in 1984, so it's a bit difficult to be born in its shade in 1978. Also, as the carrot is in the middle of a roundabout, giving birth just there would be somewhat uncomfortable. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I believe that the giant carrot installed at Ohakune is a tribute to a massive carrot that was grown and shown there in the 1970's. Anyway it seems that you guys have got your minds made up already...this blog will prove amusing when the "proper" news get some stories out on this (although i thought that there was local news on the expoits of Palmer)....i guess we need to wait for those references until this page goes aheadAscii007 (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)— User:Ascii007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep. I am not sure when and where Tim Palmer was born. However, this character truly does exist. People who know of him either love him dearly or hate him bitterly. For obvious reasons people who hate him think he is wired. I can relate to that. He is not someone I would have coffee with. On the other hand, people who love him thinks he is the best thing that happened to them since they were introduced to slice bed. Yes, I can relate with most of you who think what a weirdo, and Wikipidia shouldn’t tolerate people like Tim. Love him or hate him I strongly suggest we should keep him... —Preceding unsigned comment added by NBartel (talk • contribs) 10:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC) — NBartel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Can you provide reliable sources to back up any of what you stated here? This is to comply with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, nothing on NZ Herald or TVNZ, no references. Looks like another work of fiction. XLerate (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey is there any sort of record for most single purpose voters in one AfD, we may be in the running here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe it says something about the ignorance of Wiki that only a few select geeks get to pick & choose the articles....Ascii007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Hey thanks for the insult, but as is obvious, any editor is free to participate in an AfD. Nevertheless, it is considered somewhat suspicious when a multitude of people with no prior edit history start participating in the same AfD. WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT and WP:SPA contain more information about this topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying it is suspicious when all the DELETE editors have thousands of edits each (average) and all the KEEPs just signed up for Wikipedia today and have only participated in this AFD? Couldn't that be just 100% pure coincidence? That is no more unusual than flipping a coin and having it land HEADS 100 times in a row, or getting 100 bullseyes in a row while playing darts blindfolded. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good one buddy...go read about Type_I_and_type_II_errors...from your own source (apparently you should know it already!). Anyway I see that you guys reject things at a high rate so that erroneous information is "more likely" to be omitted, however, as per the referenced article, this high rejection rate means that some correct articles are rejected as well. Since this is the case I see that Wiki is not a source of news but a source of repetitive information which is useful for lazy people who claim to be doing research. I am glad however that others are sticking up for the right for this article to be included within Wiki...unfortunatly they too are disregarded. Ascii007 (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you finally got something right, Wikipedia is not a news source and was never was intended to be one. WikiNews is, go bother them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even a broken watch is right twice a day. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- No worries, any time! Anyway thanks for the refs...they are totally useless & don't apply. Come to Welly & get in the know! Ascii007 (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find too many notability and verifiability concerns. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. P.S. Protest the Hero is a great band. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 04:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wentzel Syndrome

[edit]

Probably hoax. Searching results in no hits for the condition or the names listed. Disputed PROD. Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Clear hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax per TenPoundHammer. No evidence whatsoever for the existence of this condition. Jll (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, not another one: Delete as hoax per WP:SNOW. Schuym1 (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Cites don't match article title in the least. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete both (G3 and A7) — has boldly tagged as such. MuZemike (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partners In Leadership

[edit]

Messy article which purports to be about a company but which also appears to be a WP:COATRACK for biographies of the founders and the company publications (and both of these subjects have significantly longer sections than that for the company itself). The company itself indicates no notability. The founders fail to meet WP:BIO. The section on books shows nothing to meet WP:BK and quotes publicity material in contravention of WP:SPAM. The entire article has no reliable sources - the only references are to the company's own website or to Wikipedia pages which do not support the assertion. The author shows no sign of resolving these issues - tags are simply removed without addressing the issues raised. Delete. Ros0709 (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Originally created as blatant spam. "Adoption" of the article has not done anything to establish the notability of its subjects. Also the coatrack objections above. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Puff piece with no reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 23:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the books are best sellers & it can be verified, there should be an article somewhere-either the company or the authors or the books. DGG (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI feel similarly, the book is a best-seller and the company has been created basically on the premise of the book...So how can I re-write to make it wikipedia approved? Should I create an article about the book with a sub-heading regarding the company? Please advise..than you, mnpil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnpil (talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do you have any evidence that the book was a New York Times best seller? I can't find it on the NYT web site, which has archives of the best seller lists. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. Comment - The book might meet notability if there are enough book reviews written that can be sourced for content in the article. The company could then warrant a mention in that article. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical practice

[edit]

Contested prod. Stub of a potential book on Statistical practice; if this is an article, what is its subject? Transwiki to Wikibooks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like fragment from a book, but I don't see anything salvageable. VG ☎ 23:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either that, or a summary of one. not needed at all and the title is useless as a redirect. DGG (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Seems to be an article fragment without context. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 00:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lanre David Agbaje

[edit]

Non notable DimaG (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:BIO, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Schuym1 (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With all due respect, Wikipedia isn't the back of a milk carton. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above and because even if he were notable, this article would require a complete rewrite. Cheers, CP 01:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 00:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Brown (author)

[edit]

Biography of a philosopher and author who (if the birth date given is correct) is 107 years old. Written in a facetious tone (e.g. " ...policies including customary beard growth for all, and legalising the shooting of poor people" and " ...became a member of the "Library Gang" alongside Mahatma Ghandi, Oliver Cromwell, and God") and offering no evidence of notability except that he has "with others, penned many books." Possible hoax, but anyway non-notable. JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revised nomination: I should have looked at the history. The facetious parts of the article were the work of an IP vandal. I have reverted it to the version before that; but there is still no evidence of notability. JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost no holding of any of his books in WorldCat. Unverifiable article.DGG (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Digimon in Digimon World DS

[edit]

This is a trivial and unnecessary list. It is essentially game guide material that provides absolutely no context to the reader. TTN (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of context as well as being outside WP:VGSCOPE. MuZemike (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unnecessary list, fails WP:VGSCOPE, WP:NOT#GUIDE. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sign gene

[edit]

Article about a Nonnotable film in production that also appears to serve as an advertisement since the film is being made by Pluin Productions and the sole contributor of merit to the article has been User:Pluin. A Google search for the term "Sign Gene" film has 169 hits, of which only one (the article in question) actually mentions the film (which alone is not enough for notability). No hits on Google News. Perhaps the time will come when this film becomes notable, but since it hasn't been released yet (its existance cant even be verified yet), the article only contains speculative crystal ball predictions. Themfromspace (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crystalballing for a non-notable film. No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL for a non-notable film. Schuym1 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Schuym1 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Has there ever been a full-length film in American or International sign language? What an amazing concept. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it's a great idea for a film, but that's unrelated to the AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you all. It lacks of notability at the moment. I am in the process of deleting the page. Thank you for your contributions and for making sure Wikipedia is a reliable website. User:Pluin. —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- It says that I cannot proceed the deletion of the page: "The action you have requested is limited to Administrators". So, I am letting you take care of this. User:Pluin —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  - I will tag it as csd-g7. Schuym1 (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - With respects, I have just requested a hangon. As you noted, it is a good idea for a film.... and I feel I can find notability to satisfy the delete votes. And with respects to the author... this is not his userpage... the article is now Wiki's. If I fail in showing notability, I will accept myself vote delete... but for now, let's see what I can find. - Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - This isn't the first film to be done in sign language, nor does that establish notability in itself since it hasn't been written about in any third party sources. Please see this [2] for a further list. Themfromspace (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, and allow return when film is released and notability for English Wikipedia can be shown. With respects to all here, I asked for a bit of time and got it. Thank you. I have cleaned up the article per MOS, but was unable to find English language sources toward notability. These may exist in Italian and Japanese, as I came across plenty in those languages... and an Japaneses reading or Italain reading editor may better descern what I could not... but I cannot read them and so cannot make a judgement. And thank you to Themfromspace for the link to other sign films. What a boon it must be for the deaf to have films they can enjoy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Scary Movie (series). The content is still in the history at the old title for anyone caring to merge it. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Logan (character)

[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Scary Movie (series). Schuym1 (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Scary Movie (series). Not notable outside the series, and a redirect is pretty generous. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge briefly. There should be at least enough in the main article to explain the character's role. I gather from t he article its not trivial, and played by a notable actor. DGG (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 00:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retainability

[edit]

Original research: a novel theory (admitted to by the original editor on the article's talk page) with no independent sources to demonstrate that it is generally notable. Furthermore, there are no sources to verify the source. Even the college's website, offered as a link by the original editor, made no reference to the concept. Wikipedia is not a venue for original publication. —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a new theory "developed in September of 2008" and one of Wikipedia's key content policies is that it publishes no original research. JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto JohnCD. The article says it all. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By all means, as speedy as possible. No notability, no sources. OR. --Crusio (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 00:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Te'

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Te'

The article appears to be about a Japanese band. It claims notability (the band apparently had the "highest-ever selling instrumental singles in Japan"), but the only source is the band's myspace page. I'm not finding reliable sources about this group, though my ability to search Japanese sources is limited. The article appears to fail on Notability and Reliable Sourcing. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable band that does not appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC. --DAJF (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 anyway by Ioeth , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western Virginia Land Trust

[edit]

Apparent non-notable promotional, but a fuss made over speedy. I like being formal. Wily D 20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Conservative. BJ^Talk 04:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra-Conservative

[edit]

While used too much to likely be under WP:NEO, it doesn't have a singular definition. At best, it would be a wikitionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. As it is, it is purely original research. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Conservative. Ultra-conservative (with a lowercase c) already does. I'm not 100% on it being a neologism, but either way Ultra-liberal and Ultra-Liberal both don't have articles. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Judgmental. Who decides how far right is ultra? Not wikipedia materialSwimmer1207 (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the nom, I have no problem with turning it into a redirect after (or instead of) delete. Because it is a political term and this is an election year, and the term is used to mean 100 different things, AFD seemed to be the best way to build concensus on it. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and borderline G10. Nothing more than a dictionary definition for one (see WP:DICDEF). It seems to be soapboxing as well as has huge potential for original research, provided this article would be expanded; that is, what exactly makes a conservative ultra-conservative? MuZemike (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Conservative as stated above. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Swimmer1207. At very least a redirect to Conservative. --Jza84 | Talk 17:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the WP:NOR smell test. As stated above, it's good enough for a dictionary article--not an encyclopedia article. If a Conservative is far enough right to be considered fascist, that label should apply. If it does not apply, "ultra" isn't a fitting modifier. A redirect might be a bit close to G10 in and of itself. CorpITGuy (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Überconservative, as in being more conservative than Ultraconservative, but a tad less than Fascist? ;) PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ha! :) CorpITGuy (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just found out (by accident) that Ultraconservative (not this article, Ultra-conservative) is a redirect. I would say the fate of one should be the other, regardless. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 00:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shuuro

[edit]

Contested prod, non notable board game, no independent references, reads like a promotional piece. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When google askes you Did you mean: schuur ? then you are in trouble. Found very little, and none that would pass wp:rs. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Our googles must be different; mine returned 8,220 hits, including a Board Game Geek entry on the first page. May not be notable - its just released, it'd be a surprise if it was - but it's not quite that obscure. MadScot (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I got 8220 hits as well, most are all blogs and sanskrit language definitions. I still get the "did you mean" quote. The Gameboardgeek page has zero star rating, as no one has voted for it yet. It really isn't wp:rs, as it isn't a review, just a "contents" list. I'm not so convinced how wp:rs that site is anyway, google ad city. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non-notable board game. Schuym1 (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I added two references for it but this article should be put out of our misery. Bongomatic (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mental health promotion

[edit]

This may be a notable subject; as written, however, it's merely an essay. We may as well start from scratch, if at all. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The concept is valid, the goal is noble. The term, however, seems to be a WP:NEO, and the nom is right that the article is purely an essay. A pretty good one, but an essay nonetheless. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 23:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite: an essay that needs wikification (the deletion policy suggests copy-editing rather than deleting), but these could be useful sources (apart from the ones already used): PMID 18211677 PMID 18201161 PMID 15966248 PMID 10184883 PMID 10177039 . As previous editor mentions: well-intended, valid concept for an article. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're volunteering to rewrite it, "keep and rewrite" is functionally equivalent to "keep and plaster with templates indefinitely". Looie496 (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there is no deadline in this project, and willing to improve an article is not a prerequisite for adding your opinion in an AfD debate. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of a rewrite or not, how is "mental health promotion" itself a notable term? That is a major issue, regardless of content. My estimation is that this would be wp:neo regardless of content, making a rewrite meaningless. You have to rewrite AND retitle to something else, which is basically, a delete. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a neologism when this exact term is used in so many reputable references that I'm referring to? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, after looking I see it is a pretty common term, used both formally and informally. I still can't see keeping as an essay. If someone wants to reduce it to a stub and tag it as such (ie: delete essay material) then I could be pursueded to change my mind on delete. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with permission to re-create with better content. The term is sufficiently notable, see for example this or this. However, it is not encyclopedic to leave junk articles sitting around in the hope that somebody will eventually rewrite them. Looie496 (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the promotional tone sections. All is left is a WP:DICTDEF. VG ☎ 18:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Recreating the article with substantially different information never requires permission, although it is wise to create in userspace and source it well before recreating. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I doubt an encylopedic article can be written about this topic because it's simply too vague. The article was clearly biased being sourced exclusively from puff pieces instead of peer-reviewed papers. Here's a quotation from the abstract of the 2nd PMID paper (2007) provided above:

“

There have been many attempts to define mental health promotion. To date, there is no consensus in the field as to what it entails. While some understand it as a holistic concept including intervening at structural, societal and political levels to positively influence mental health, others conceptualise it basically as strategies with an individual focus to improve personal competencies. Many of these differences are related to the distinct understanding of the concepts of mental well-being and positive mental health.

”

It will likely be another train wreck like the article on health promotion. This message approved by: VG ☎ 21:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by TexasAndroid as G7 (NAC) Ecoleetage (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McMahon Stables

[edit]

WP:NEO, term has 9 ghits, one of which is this article. Article was just created. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unneeded, poorly written. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holotes

[edit]

This article appears to be an expanded dictionary definition and I can't find any reliable sources to support either the existence or notability of this term. The article's talk page seems to indicate that this is a neologism. TN‑X-Man 19:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neologism, as explained - partly in ancient Greek (?!) - on the talk page. Despite its pretensions, this is in fact something made up in school one day. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I was uncertain about this article from the start but I never really understood it well enough to be really sure that it was a candidate for deletion. I gave it a half-hearted PROD but it didn't stick. It seemed like a dictionary definition to me but the author insisted that it had encyclopedic philosophical content as well. Looking at it again now, I can't see any. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wp:v. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-02t10:55z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 00:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Roots

[edit]

No reliable third party sources as required by wp:v, does not indicate notability, prod removed because of wp:WAX. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-01t19:23z 19:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete having been unable to find third-party sources to back up the article. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 19:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~~SIS~~ 20:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a radio program that doesn't show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD#A7. So Why 19:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon McDevitt

[edit]

Wikipedia is not Facebook - this is just a 16 year old's (well, 16 tomorrow) autobiography. Doug Weller (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Not even close to notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 outside of Afd as G12. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huntington Learning Center

[edit]

There are indeed a bunch of hits in archival news databases, but a great majority of them are either passing mentions, or worse yet press releases and promotional/publicity statements drafted by the company itself. I am not certain that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and will defer to community consensus on that. The article was previously deleted as Blatant Advertising, and since its recreation has been unsourced and tagged as not notable for about a month. Cirt (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually it appears that the bulk of the article is blatant copyvio from [3]. Cirt (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking reliable third party sources. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-02t10:50z
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that the season is not sufficiently notable for its own article TravellingCari 00:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008–09 Kelowna Rockets season

[edit]

Seasons for individual junior teams are not notable in such detail. As has been the past concensus for junior seasons only an overall league season should exist. The most recent example of such a season falling to AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season. However there have been example of this at many levels of hockey such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000-01 Huntsville Tornado Season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 Rogue Valley Wranglers hockey team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 Alexandria Glens season. NHL team seasons have been stated to barely meet the criteria themselves. Djsasso (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - season articles are only appropriate for senior teams playing at the highest level of their sport. TerriersFan (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with this blanket statement. College Football and College Basketball teams have a significant amount of coverage that rivals the professional leagues, as such, these teams deserve season articles as well. SashaNein (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a strong case that not even professional teams should have them per Wikipedia is not a statistics database. However, because of such strong opposition from numerous sports fans pro teams have begrudgingly been allowed to have them. -Djsasso (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good season article would not just be a jumble of statistics. It would provide a summary of the overall season and a short summary of each game, any notable occurences during the season, along with proper references. I want to expand articles for a college basketball conference, but I do not have the confidence that any of it would remain after 18 months. 2008–09 Kelowna Rockets season is a bad example of a season article. Aritcles like 2008 Kansas Jayhawks football team, however, should not be deleted. Until I can be assured that articles like that will be safe, I'm not going to waste hundreds of hours on a project that can be undone by one admin in 5 seconds. I have encountered far too many administrators that would gleefully demolish every single season article, pro and college. SashaNein (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it does have such summaries most of the day to day events of a team are not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Any highly notable events during the season should show up on either the main team page or the history page of the team. And being an administrator has nothing to do with anything, the community is who decides whether or not something is worthy of an article. -Djsasso (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me get this straight, should the 2008 Kansas Jayhawks football team article be deleted as well? Or, is consistency not a priority on Wikipedia? Not to be bitter, but after discussing the Kelowna Rockets season article's deletion for quite some time, I've learned to understand why the Kelowna Rockets season article should of been deleted, so to me it makes sense that the Kansas Jayhawks season article is the same deal, and therefore be deleted. Am I right? — Hucz (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup I would support a deletion of that article but it would need its own afd/prod. I mostly only edit hockey articles as mentioned below so I don't tend to go out routing for articles to delete in other sports, but I do watch for new hockey articles so I can tag them for the hockey project which is how I found this one. -Djsasso (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Black ngold29 19:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT delete I feel that this article should not be deleted for the following reasons:

Having lived in Kelowna my entire life, and family members owning season tickets since the Tacoma Rockets moved here to Kelowna, I can honestly say that this Major Junior hockey club/organization/franchise has had a tremendous impact on this town, giving Kelowna a name in premier sports.
This is the biggest hockey league (CHL) apart from the NHL, with the Kelowna Rockets alone recieving more than 6,000 people in attendence per game.
I have provided adequate references and sources (and will continue to provide more, as there are a lot of websites dedicated to the Kelowna Rockets).
Official sources have kept and are still keeping records of these seasons, preserving a significant part of ice hockey tradition in Canada.
Why would they be keeping these records, if they are not "appropriate" to even worth mention.
The notice that was left on the article page, stated that if the article were to remain and not be deleted, that someone were to cite sources etc. Well I did just that, and still Djsasso blatantly ignored my attempts and stapled the notice on the article again. Am I missing something here? Either put up the correct notice, or don't put one up at all.
Djsasso: You wrote that the article failed to meet the requirements for notability and provided a link to WP:NOTE, stating that the reason it failed notability was because, and I quote: "individual team seasons at the junior level are not notable". Well I read WP:NOTE and followed its guildlines and it mentioned nothing of the sort about what you're using as an argument. Even so, it states that with adequate references and sources and credibility, articles are considered notable. What seems to be the problem here? Either you're wrong, or Wikipedia is wrong.

— Hucz (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were two different notices. One was ((prod)) which means if it stays for 5 days it can be deleted without having to be taken to the point of AFD because its assumed that no one objects to its deletion. This is often the first step to deleting an article which it is assumed there is concensus to delete. When you removed it that was you objecting at which point I put up an AFD so that it could discussed. The issue is that the this ammount of detail for a junior team is too much, wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Articles of this nature would better be found at The Ice Hockey Wiki. Please read through the St. James Fog deletion discussion that is linked above and you will see why this article should be deleted. -Djsasso (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read as much as I could, and I agree with your statements on those respective articles. However, the amount of time and effort I put into this at making it "notable" and significant is what we should really be debating. Not comparing a high-school midget team to a contract paying Canadian Hockey League that makes up the majority of future NHL players. — Hucz (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things, the St. John's Fog Devils were a Canadian Hockey League team as well. Exact same level of hockey. Secondly, players are not paid to play in the CHL. They just receive honorariums so it is not a professional league. You have put in quite a bit of work on it, I have no doubt, but that doesn't in itself make the subject notable. -Djsasso (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah whoah whoah, back up. First you were arguing that the article lacked notability. When I addressed that issue, you jumped onto another argument, stating that it wasn't due to a lack of references, that it was because Wikipedia isn't a stats database. Now, you go back to the argument that it's not notable. I've addressed the notability issue with you, and you agreed with it. Now you're right back where you started.

Also, you still won't even remotely touch my point I've been making. That the CHL is the second biggest league to the NHL. Until you do so, I'm not going to debate this any further. — Hucz (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does lack notability, because its a junior level team and this level of detail for a junior team is not notable because wikipedia is not a statistics database. They are both the same arguement, one is the reason for the other. I never said the article was notable. The size of the CHL is irrelevant, it is still a junior league and as such this level of detail is too much for wikipedia. The fact that the league is so big means that there can be a league season article. (which there usually is). But individual team season articles are too much detail and violates wikipedia is not a statistics database. -Djsasso (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. You continue to derank the CHL of it's name. It's Major Junior hockey, not junior. BIG difference in terms of hockey. You took the postition at stating that the problem wasn't notability, that it was stats. That's agreeing with me that the article is notable. Perhaps you should look at WP:NOTE before bringing up the issue. The sources, references, links, and info is all in the article. Stats is not the only thing in there. So that arguement about Wikipedia being a stats blah blah blah doesn't apply to an article that has things other then stats as it's primary content. — Hucz (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major Junior is still junior hockey. I realize the difference, being that I am part of WP:HOCKEY. The subject of the article is the individual team's season. As such junior hockey (or major junior if you prefer) teams seasons are not notable in this level of detail. It's called undue weight. As for as the stats issue, that applies whether or not the articles main purpose is stats. And I would argue a season page is mostly about stats. Look are most season pages. -Djsasso (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he was giving specific examples as to why the SEASON lacked notability. Considering Dj is probably the ipso facto contributor to the Hockey Wikiproject, I don't see any reason to question his knowledge of Major Juniors. Considering that the majority of the articles he edits are hockey articles, your argument that is not based in policy and is based on some perceived lack of knowledge of hockey that a person who has done nothing but write about hockey is fallacious. Argue about the article, not the contributor. The fact of the matter is that the CHL is not the highest level of ice hockey in any form. Delete per nom, obviously. --Smashville^talk 20:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no reason for this article to exist before the fact, and it would take something unusual during the season to call for an article of its own. A summary of what happens in the season should go at the league's season article and/or the team's; if the events of the season require so much text that they take over the article, then we can consider splitting, but I see no reason to break it out now. —C.Fred (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE#STATS mentions that lists of stats is discouraged, and that they need to be put into infoboxes and tables. Everything you've been saying about stats and referring me to WP:NOTE#STATS is inaccurate. Please explain, with Wikipedia's words. Not biased opinion, and what "you" think is not allowed based on what Wikipedia says. Smashville: Taking to someone else's defense based on their reputation with Wikipedia is offensive to me. I have not questioned Djsasso's behaviour, so whatever gives you this idea, is rather disturbing to me. Stay on topic. — Hucz (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my reason for deletion is that the CHL is not the highest level of hockey in any country of any form. Which is what I said. My comments about Dj were in response to your very clear questioning of his knowledge of hockey. And, again, argue the article, not the contributor. The point is, the CHL is not the highest level of ice hockey. Precedent has been that teams that do not perform at the highest level do not have articles on individual seasons. --Smashville^talk 20:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As much as I love junior hockey, I also doubt very much that a junior team season is notable enough for Wikipedia's main encyclopedia. Yes, even Major Junior. That said, there is an ice hockey wikia that is maintained by another big junior hockey fan. You might consider moving your work to here, where I am completely certain that the article will be accepted. Reso lute 20:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way I can incorporate the article into a "History of Kelowna Rockets" or "List of Kelowna Rockets seasons", or something, without erasing the article in it's entirety? — Hucz (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not completely certain of the rules pertaining to linking a wikia article to a Wikipedia article, but I personlly see no reason why it could not be placed as an external link from the main Kelowna Rockets article, or a proposed one for History of the Kelowna Rockets. It would seem to be a relevant link to me. Reso lute 20:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that. — Hucz (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unprecendented to do. I know that, for example, Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia are linked from Star Trek and Star Wars articles, respectively. —C.Fred (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. It's not advertising and it would specifically be written as a companion piece to the WP page. --Smashville^talk 20:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know we have done it with another deleted hockey article but I can't think of which one it was. Would be fine to me as an external link. -Djsasso (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hucz, is it okay with you if we delete the article? If you set up an e-mail address, the content can be sent to you. --Smashville^talk 20:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to rush to delete the content, the AfD will take care of itself in 5 days. Hucz can copy and paste the material from this article into a new one at the Wikia at any time before then. Reso lute 20:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, he already copy and pasted it, beat me too it. -Djsasso (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okiedoke...just trying to avoid GFDL stuff by it being in two places. --Smashville^talk 20:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hucz is the sole editor of the content, so if he moves it himself, there are no GFDL concerns. Reso lute 21:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I keep you around...--Smashville^talk 21:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable junior team season article, plain and simple. Grsz ^talk 21:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nominator withdrew). --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS/Draw

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/ISIS/Draw

This one-line article does not suggest that its topic, a software program, is notable; it's virtually orphaned and not even mentioned, let alone linked, in the article for the company that makes it. Prod was removed on the basis of the reference, which appears to be a review in a journal of this and three similar programs. Propaniac (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~By the way, the provided ref is useless. You have to purchase the article in which ISIS is mentioned before you can read or check it. Pay-per-Verification, a nice new concept?~~ ~~SIS~~ 21:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article may well deserve deletion, but you are very much mistaken on the WP:V point. Payment is only required for online access to the journal in question, Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences was a printed journal (in changed name in 2004[4]) that was and still is available in many libraries in printed form free of charge (for instance, I checked and my university library has it). There is no requirement in WP:V for a reference to be accessible electronically (for free or for fee), and printed sources are perfectly acceptable. In fact, most print newspapers and other print publications require payment for online viewing of their non-recent issues. This case is no different and the reference is no less valid. Nsk92 (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that (obviously) and thanks for the explanation. I'll strike my remark. ~~SIS~~ 01:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 00:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 00:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs to be expanded but few quick google searches show that the topic is notable. Substantial coverage in newsmedia: 63 hits in googlenews, some with specific and detailed coverage, e.g.[5][6]. Also, 105 hits in googlebooks[7], most with nontrivial coverage a few with detailed and specific coverage, e.g.[8][9]. GoogleScholar gives 803 hits[10]. Fairly clear that the topic passes WP:N. The program appears to have been replaced by Symyx Draw 3.1 according to this[11]. It may be obsolete but nevertheless notable. Nsk92 (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Nsk92. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable program in its time. As an example, [12] describes its installation at Yale, & I think we had it at Princeton too. Used as auxiliary software for a major database [13]. I can well understand not recognizing the title, but not doing even the most rudimentary search? DGG (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the molecule editors commonly used by professional chemists. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very well known in the field of chemistry and chemoinformatics, and mentioned by many sources as pointed out above. --Itub (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if someone wants to close this early. I'm satisfied that the topic itself is notable enough, but maybe someone could have added some of this content to the article in the two and a half years that it's sat there as a one-line stub? Propaniac (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 00:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Carsonia

[edit]

The page was started by User:Robalot on 30 September 2008. That was the only edit by the user. Google search shows nothing, the article could be a WP:HOAX. Even if it is not a hoax, there is no indication of notability. AdjustShift (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a hoax, all right. Such things get into the newspapers and other sources. Not in GNews, GNews Archive, GB, or GS. DGG (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wow, that's one unconvincing hoax. Let's see: misplaced apostrophes; terrible spelling; 'Millions of workmen' being involved; consistent reference to 'masonry's' instead of masons; a corresponding designer with the unlikely forename of 'Alexanda'; billionaires are said to have been present on the ship in 1912, but the world's first dollar billionaire did not in fact appear until 1916; a ship's orchestra whose description is that of a string sextet; final paragraph disclosing that, er, historians think it may not have existed. Arguably, this should be speedied as vandalism. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite funny to read! Did the author expect people to believe this? Themfromspace (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as drivel. MadScot (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious and poorly done hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A ship of such fabulous design and such an unfortunate end, and then no records of its existence? Someone's flight of fancy I think. Benea (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above - I particularly like the "former prime minister of Eastern Europe". Phil Bridger (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. leaning keep following improvements. Consensus is split leaning keep. TravellingCari 00:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Concern For Our Nation

[edit]

Notability of organization not established Appraiser (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keepimportant topic, reported by BBC, could be notableSwimmer1207 (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage the group has received is secondary in the articles cited. I'm not convinced it clears the general notability hurdle yet. —C.Fred (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw a few thousand ghits and was prepared to say keep, then I looked harder at the hits. blogs, christian activist websites (ie: not 3rd party). Not one from a true 3rd party/WP:RS source. I think that C.Fred is right, and they are simply below the threshold at this time. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in article are poor (BBC included) but lots of stuff in various Christian news sources in the US. [14]. What a horrible name for a group that does what they do. Hobit (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepGive the author time to improve sourcing. This sounds like an influential group and people should be able to use wikipedia to find out what they're about. Christian news sources are reporting on them, and this is what you'd expect for a group of this kind.Musoniki (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why again? Sources clearly exist (see above). Hobit (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources now added from The Times and The Guardian, plus the latter's criticisms summarising a Channel 4 documentary. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been established by significant coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJ^Talk 04:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torque MMO Kit

[edit]

Reason Elleachaudaucul (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, Delete anyway I suppose, besides the fact that the nom gives no reason whatsoever; I'll IAR for that. Per TenPoundHammer, which is normally what I say with articles like these. MuZemike (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was db-spam. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miraclesformen

[edit]

It looks suspiciously like spam and does not assert notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Advertising Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: db-spam. Schuym1 (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete either db-spam or db-corp would be sufficient. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — (edit conflict) Hasn't got as much spam in it as spam egg sausage and spam, has it? MuZemike (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — This is the third straight !vote for G11; tagging as such. MuZemike (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW Keep (non-admin closure), as the notability of this highly influential film series is not in question. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Harry (film series)

[edit]

This article consists of plot summaries of the Dirty Harry films (each of which have their own article), speculation about a future film, and, despite the title, a listing of not notable books based on the Dirty Harry character. Unreferenced except for distinctly unreliable sources for the future film. Note that an article about the Dirty Harry character already exists as Harry Callahan (character). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say that a series of five films and a dozen novels (and at least one video game, though that isn't mentioned here) is ripe for a series overview article. The part about "inspired films" should go though, lest it turn into an "in popular culture" cruftpile. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the number of films and books an overview article seems sensible. Yes it needs a bit of work with respect to references and some other tidying up but this is no reason to delete. Dpmuk (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, its definitely notable and can be organized a little better to show off the entire series. --Banime (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this were an actual article about the series I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion. It is plot summaries which are redundant to the film articles. It is unreferenced, except for the future film part which should probably be removed as unverified. The books are not notable. No single part of this is worth keeping. The character article is a better overview. If someone wants to convert this to a list of films and rename it, I'll happily withdraw the nom. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very notable film series, and influential. If there's a concern regarding the content of an article, then that's a content issue. WP:BOLD applies -- if one thinks it's too heavily weighted to plot summaries and the like, then be bold and add content to expand the article. This is Dirty Harry we're talking about-- guaranteed there are reputable third party sources establishing notability, scholarly interest, etc etc. There is plenty of precedent (I don't recognize WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS in this context) for notable film series to have an all-encompassing article as well as articles on characters and individual films. Bond comes immediately to mind. 23skidoo (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's why I linked Harry Callahan (character) in the nomination. Take a look at it. Perhaps I should withdraw the nom and simply redirect? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a franchise article and expand (Dirty Harry must have tons of sources). I'd rather see the character merged into here than the other way around. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid way to present the entire franchise, and the franchise itself is just as notable as the individual films, if for no other reason that the contributions in popular culture. As is, the article seems to be pity and well organized, not sure what the issue is. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 00:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mokshan logographic script

[edit]

This article does not cite any sources, only one person has contributed to it, and upon googling no online sources independent of Wikipedia were found that could confirm its existence. Either this alleged writing system is too exotic to have any online documentation even in English, or it is a hoax. I strongly believe it is the latter. --ざくら木 17:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A primitive writing system is use before the Christianization of the country, & still in use in the early 20th century? The hoax continues into Moksha language, where among the clever drawings [15] is a glyph for "matches", a well-known prehistoric household stand-by. As none of the other Uralic languages have anything even remotely analogous, this would if real be a widely known linguistic curiosity . I suppose Mokshan numeric system should be added to the Afd. As User:Numulunj pilgae is the only significant contributor to a range of related articles, there is probably more content to be examined. DGG (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax, at best unverifiable. Edward321 (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artoose Collective

[edit]

A collective associated with a red-linked gallery. There's no evidence of RS coverage for the collective and the article admits, "The Collective exists purely for the benefit of the member artists,". Further, there's also no evidence that the gallery is notable enough to ever have an article to which to merge this. TravellingCari 17:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 17:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 17:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Group of 9 non-notable artists with a gallery that closed within 2 years. Article seems essentially an excuse to park a bunch of external links to personal websites (see bottom of article). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found discussing this collective, the gallery or the artists -Hunting dog (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable source Clubmarx (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 00:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valley of the Sun (Ultimate)

[edit]

The page in question refers to a non-notable organization, edited by only a few people. Matt T. (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was a bit of a pain to research, since there are many org.s with "valley of the sun" in their name, and this is a common phrase in Phoenix. After all is said and done, however, I just couldn't find anything about these guys in a reliable source (wp:rs). PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd say that the tourney might be notable as I'm sure there is plenty of news coverage between local sources and the UPA's news letter. I'd encourage the authors to shoot for that. Hobit (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by TexasAndroid. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 20:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Kent

[edit]

Article which fails WP:V and WP:BIO about an obscure blogger, loaded with trivial puff facts - is it pertinent, for instance, that she appeared in a local production of the Vagina Monologues and that her own two speeches were interpreted in ASL for the audience? No evidence of published works, no sources proffered, only 22 G-hits dominated by blogs, Linkedin, Myspace, Wiki mirrors ... Ravenswing 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete classic example of an A7/nn-bio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Tagged as such, A7, non-notable bio. TN‑X-Man 19:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Sepulveda

[edit]

Wikipedia is not for self-promotional autobiographies. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It certainly isn't.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Clearly non-notable, as a google search turns up nothing aside from Youtube/blogs/Myspace. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary claim to fame is being involved with a succession of really unnotable bands that don't meet WP:MUSIC. Similar Google findings as above, although I'll note that the vast bulk of the results for "Carlos Sepulveda" aren't actually about this Carlos Sepulveda. The first hit, for example, is an employee at a battery company. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJ^Talk 04:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JUMP - Java Metamodel Protocol

[edit]

No external references given, no assertion of notability, tags removed without addressing issues. Please prove to me this isn't an ad for a pet project, and I'll withdraw my deletion nomination. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 17:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything in reliable, third-party sources. The article seems a promotional puff piece. See [16]. VG ☎ 17:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jumper is a new and innovative experiment in extending the Semantic Web to structured data. It has been derived the Relational.OWL schema and offers significant extensions for profiling data. It is commercially used as an enterprise-wide information management and, ultimately, semantic interoperability framework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.245.32.210 (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be so new that we can't verify if any of it is true. Wikipedia doesn't lead in presenting new technology, we follow what reliable sources report is leading new technology. If sources besides the company/website itself don't exist then we can't verify it's notable enough to be included. Perhaps soon it will but not yet. -- Banjeboi 20:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per VG. -- Banjeboi 20:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:RS. Asenine 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of citations from reliable sources which are a requirement of the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Repellers

[edit]

Silly list of "cat repellers" including "lion poo" and "a big angry dog." Rob Banzai (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lion faeces can actually purchased in pellet form - it is a known repellent of cats. (See Lion Roar in google) Lilsarahp (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentNever said the article did not need improvement. It is not speediable as nonsense though. Dlohcierekim 16:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rename to "Cat repellants" might be in order. Gets more G hits. Dlohcierekim 16:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't strike me as a particularly encyclopedic topic. Besides, WP is not a how-to guide... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Silly nomination which shows no understanding of the topic and does not provide a proper reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Cat repellants. Cat repellant" gets 13 Google Book hits. This is a new article by a new editor, and it needs work, but the subject has sufficient WP:RS for an article. Dlohcierekim 16:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be looking for suitable sources and trying to rescue this. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Note also our article upon new editor repellers. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first article got speedy deleted. Dlohcierekim 16:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given an ideal article name, seems like a salvageable article in terms of inherent notability and source potential. Does need cleanup though, although that in itself is not cause for deletion. If deleted, there are other articles (about pest control, etc) which could be expanded to include this material. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well-known and notable topic in gardening and pet rearing. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability is there for this to become a potentially salvageable article. It certainly does need cleanup and a rewrite to make it more encyclopedic. Nominator gave no legitimate reason for deletion. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cat repellent" gets about 30 unique Google book hits. I used the wrong spelling before. Or is it an Americ-Anglic thing? Dlohcierekim 22:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google scholar gives about 30 hits. Dlohcierekim 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Valid idea, bad subject name. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the worst article that I've ever voted to keep. However, this is clearly a topic of interest to many about which there are numerous referenced, verifiable, notable techniques. Bongomatic (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Bongomatic. -- IRP ☎ 02:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberlee Autry

[edit]

"Best known for" because it appears to be her only role and RS coverage is limited to brief mentions in connection with her husband. Notability is not inherited. Since it survived a 2004 vFD I didn't think PROD was appropriate. TravellingCari 15:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 15:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kimberlee is going to need a new agent if she wants to secure a place in show biz, let alone a spot on Wikipedia. Seriously lacking notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actress whose one and only role (per IMDB) was a 2002 TV movie. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE IndianCaverns (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mumm-Ra the Ever-Living

[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only is Mumm-Ra notable, but so is our coverage of him. See The Wonderful World of Wikipedia which states Where else can you quickly find facts about the stages of glycolysis one second and Mumm-Ra (the demonic wizard and arch nemesis of the ThunderCats) the next?. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the line you're quoting is meant to show he is utterly trivial, Colonel. ~~SIS~~ 20:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Send back to his Black Pyramid per nom. ~~SIS~~ 20:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to ThunderCats. Schuym1 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ThunderCats. Not enough verifiable secondary sources to stand on its own per WP:FICT; however, the ThunderCats article also has some issues as well (only two sources in a article weighing in more than 67 KB). MuZemike (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is the Daily Illini like an AfD discussion? Because they both judge by how nonsensical the names of the articles sound. DGG (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thundercats unless sufficient sourcing can be found to justify a seperate article. Edward321 (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ThunderCats. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monkian

[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to ThunderCats. Schuym1 (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge as appropriate--I cannot judge myself how much detailed coverage i needed. But this series of nominations could all have been handled outside AfD. DGG (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Delete and) redirect to ThunderCats (where this character is already covered). No evidence of WP:Notability, violates WP:NOT#PLOT. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ThunderCats. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackalman

[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (Or skin and turn into a rug) ~~SIS~~ 21:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to ThunderCats. Schuym1 (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Delete and) redirect to ThunderCats (where this character is already covered). No evidence of WP:Notability, violates WP:NOT#PLOT. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas östlund

[edit]

Contested prod. Apparest vanity page by a non-notable programmer with just enough of a vague assertion of notability to avoid speedy-deletion. – iride scent 15:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything on that name in Google or LexisNexis. Bizzare. The "reference" is just to the Swedish front page of some university. I can't find anything supporting a single claim made in the article. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 15:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly, I would have just speedied this. Supposedly wrote a quicksort program, but not only is he not mentioned in the Quicksort article, there seems to be no results for his name +quicksort in Google. Possibly a hoax, and non-notable in any case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "was a huge success and being implented in systems around the world" is enough of an assertion of notability to avoid A7 IMO. If it's speedied, it'll probably just be resurrected; this way we can G4 it away when it resurfaces. – iride scent 16:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The supposedly hugely-successful and widely-implemented program gets not even a single Google hit, which is absurd for a computer progam. Quicksort itself was actually developed by C. A. R. Hoare about a quarter-century before this guy was even born. And the claimed souces go nowhere. This might not be quite as bad as something like "Jonas is emperor of the universe and can transform into a dragon and fly", but it's darn close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pages on the Karlstad University as asserted as source [17]. Nsaa (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete. This is an artical in progress about Jonas Österlund. Improvements should be expected —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linauseslink (talk • contribs) 16:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per previous comments. I hope he doesn't have any siblings, or else we'll have articles about Jonas' Brothers. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any assertion of notability is unverifiable. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 17:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No verifiable sources to support notability. For what's worth, I haven't heard of him or his "theory" either. VG ☎ 14:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He claims an interview in the Swedish Aftonbladet, which is an abomination of a tabloid that is as far from a reliable source as you can get and still be called a news source. Doesn't fill me with confidence. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 20:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aftonbladet is a ok source (as a newspaper), but I doubt the claim about the article printed there. Ask him to send an copy of it to OTRS so we get a OTRS number and a person understanding Swedish (Scandinavian like myself) can verify the claims. Nsaa. But seriously: why isn't this article Speedy deleted? (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. The guy is claimed to have reinvented electricity. There's no verifying this, but it's got to be an assertion of notability. Having said that, I've gone through LexisNexis and most other inventories of scholarly papers, and I have zip, nothing to show for Ostlund, von Ostlund, von Ostland,östlund,von östlund, or even von östland. This is a hoax. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 04:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the claims can be supported by reliable sources. --Kjetil r (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penfold

[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sidekick character (and thus 2nd or 3rd most notable) on a significant TV series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DangerMouse.Delete — Lack of verifiable secondary sources establishing notability per WP:FICT. Definite search term, though. MuZemike (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect wouldn't be very good in this case because the word/name is fairly widely used. See Penfold (disambiguation). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not see that. Good eye. MuZemike (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notability is as a sidekick to DangerMouse, little if any out-of-universe info available. Suggest moving Penfold (disambiguation) to this title. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no plot summary in this one--the nomination seems not to fit the article. DGG (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important character in the series that appears in every single episode. Edward321 (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't an indicator of notability. Most shows have a large number of characters that appear in every episode. For it to be notable, it needs real world information. TTN (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. what isn't WP:PLOT is WP:OR. Also contains like 4-5 FU images in a decorative manner. As I read it, PLOT information isn't literal recitation of the narrative but instead coverage of the subject in a manner wedded to the work of fiction. Here the intro (and the IPC section) contain real life information but the rest is within the show solely or introduced by editors without reference. Concur with deleting and moving Penfold (disambiguation) over the title. Protonk (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:PLOT does not forbid plot summaries, but demands concise ones as part of our overall coverage of a work. This is part of our overall coverage of the work, and is not disproportionate compared with that overall coverage. One paragraph is possibly OR, but I am unwilling to equate "unsourced" with "OR," and so is our policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, are we assuming that the editors who wrote this segment used some sources we have yet to find and decided to not cite them? If an unsourced claim doesn't equal OR, what does? Protonk (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which segment? The German synchronization segment? Yes. I am willing to believe that the search for the presumably German-language sources there has been inadequate, and that this is based not on the author's own guess but on their memory of having read that in a magazine in the past. Remember - unsourced material is not forbidden. Unsourceable material is forbidden. Unsourced material is something we deal with - but we deal with it over time. Removing it before having a serious look for the information is not acceptable. The rest is inplicitly sourced to the primary source, and is not OR by any definition. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The segment that is "implicitly" sourced to primary material is at least partially OR. "Although he is a hamster some people believe Penfold is a mole, possibly due to his dark brown colour and the fact he wears thick glasses, as moles have bad eye sight", "This may have inspired Penfold's name as there is also a Penfold pillarbox design created by John Penfold although the pillar box in the show however was round and not hexagonal like the Penfolds style.", etc. Setting aside the notability element, it is original research to draw conclusions from primary sources. We have WP:PRIMARY because we don't want to be straight-jacketed into an "absolutely no primary sources at all" situation. But that policy specifically says "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." That is pretty clear to me. Protonk (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen a lot of DangerMouse recently, so I don't know if Penfold is confused with a mole in an episode or not, but as we still seem to be talking about 2 or 3 sentences, I'm really not finding much to stress out about here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 VH1 ILL-ustrated. Mr.Z-man 23:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yogi Bush

[edit]

This doesn't seem to establish any notability outside of VH1 ILL-ustrated. It is just a section of just one single episode as far as I can tell. TTN (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but Redirect to VH1 ILL-ustrated in case anybody happens to search for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A section of a single episode is not, on its own terms, notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all of the above. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cliques

[edit]

Non-notable forthcoming made for TV movie. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched for The Cliques Disney Channel, The Cliques, and The Cliques Movie Disney Channel, but I found nothing for this. It shouldn't be hard to find info about a DCOM so this is a hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Schuym1 (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this hoax with haste. Searches find NOTHING.... not with Disney or associated with any of the so-called cast. Balatant fraud. I wonder who will the pool this time? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: looks like we've got a hoax here. Cliff smith ^talk 05:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax-y version of The Clique (film). -- KittyRainbow (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the improvements and the added sources (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Severed

[edit]

Fails WP:MOVIE. Yes, it has a page at imdb, but that's not notable (or a reliable source, mostly). Yes, AMG gives some very basic info, but that's not notable. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources and the article refuses to provide it either. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. Anyone can add anything to IMDB. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Weak keep as improved. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have received sufficient coverage ([18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]). Mostly horror-genre specific sites, but I see no reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, I ran across a lot of stuff like that. Blogs and such are not reliable sources in my book, meaning it fails WP:MOVIE's "...significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Some may be blogs, some may be more professional. This one appears to be from a site that has a staff - we could really do with an expert in the genre to comment on the quality of these sources. I don't think we can reasonably limit ourselves to printed sources these days. --Michig (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per successful updating of reliable sourcing. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 13:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Delete - not finding any big reviews. It wasn't widely distributed and didn't get full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. It's not historically notable -- no broad survey of film critics. No commercial re-releases. No retrospectives. No major awards. It fails WP:MOVIE. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There was an article (review) on the film in Video Business magazine ([24]), although I'm not prepared to pay to read it, and the factual details of the film can be verified from the New York Times entry [25]. There is also an entry at allmovie ([26]). --Michig (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm also unwilling to see if Video Business offered significant coverage. That said, the "New York Times entry" is not a New York Times entry, it's a duplication of info from AMG, which it offers for all films, notable or not. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I mentioned the NYT link for WP:V purposes, not WP:N, as I believe was clear.--Michig (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Sorry if I misread that. I agree that basic details of the film can be verified by AMG. I don't want the "NYT" link to be misread as the NYT covering the film at all. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability found by Michig in sources geared toward that genre, as it is unlikley that Time, Newsweek, or the Washington Post would have a lengthy review about a horror film. The sources found may be considered reliable in the context for which they are offered. And though anyone might attempt can update submission to IMDB, the information contained therein for this film is verified by other sources... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the article itself is not sourced, is not a reason to delete, since WP:NF can be found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hopefully no one is looking for Time or Newsweek on this. But The New Yorker, Chicago Sun-Times, Village Voice, London Telegraph, or something would be nice. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Misconception The NYTimes source actually IS a Reliable Source in this instance. It certainly does contain a review written by Jason Buchanan of All Movie Guide, but All Movie Guide does NOT contain that review. They have their own concerns for COI and their reviewers often write outside reviews that they cannot use themselves. That makes this review independent and unique from AMG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Struck per an AMG error. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment - No, that content IS from allmovie.[27] and it's a capsule summary, NOT a review. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Oops Looks like AMG accepted information for the same film at two different times and did not combine them... they screwed up. One at AMG #1:336224 "Severed" attributed to Carl Bessai and one at AMG #1:3505 "Severed: Forest of the Dead" with no attribution to Carl, but with the review that does. Each different AMG lists a different cast... but with the same release year and length, so I might suppose one AMG submission predates the other by a few weeks or months. My head hurts. Yikes. However, with the newer name, I did some digging. Best-Horror-Movies offers an excellent in-depth review by Lee Roberts, a nationally known expert in the horror genre, that actually lets one see how the two different names exist for the one film, and how this "Zombie" movie is notable for not having zombies... not that I'd ever see that darn thing myself. And then Cinema Fantastique (Belguim) has some good things to say. Again. I feel that when looking for notability for genre films, one must seek it from the experts in that genre. I do not expect the New Yorker to review a minor horror film, just as I do not expect Lee Roberts to review a musical. An expert offers where his expertise is accepted and respected. In that context, and for the information being offered, he meets WP:RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: And in the meantime I had a chance to do some corrective surgery on the article. I have cleaned up the article per MOS, sourced the information to those who have an expertise in the horror genre, and added some external links and reviews in case a reader wishes to learn more. I believe a minor notability has been established. And to those who note a descrepancy in release dates in the reviews... as noted above, the film has (had) two names, and had 4 debuts in various countries from 2005 through 2007. Dates and titles all reflect the film Severed in its various incarnations and releases. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough references in the article to establish notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per the work that MQS did to the article which includes adding reviews. Schuym1 (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Credible reliable sources are in the article to establish notability and more are available. Article needs expansion and improvement -- which has already begun -- not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per overhaul and sources introduced. -- Banjeboi 19:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Webb (footballer)

[edit]

Fails WP:ATHLETE - has yet to make his fully professional debut, according to Soccerbase. Official site has little info on him [28], and no non-trivial secondary sources available to confer notability otherwise. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 13:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. Otherwise merge to a list. Hiding T 13:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was only looking at this at lunch-time thinking that this should go to AfD. I agree with the proposer that it should be deleted for the reasons given. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any significant sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO and he doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE either. Basement12 (T.C) 15:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He just plain didn't appear. RGTraynor 16:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: May be notable one day, simply isn't yet. Recreate if and when... --ClubOranje^Talk 23:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE BanRay 09:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he was given a squad number at the same time as Aidan White - the difference is that White has now played a number of first team games - Webb hasn't (I don't think he's actually even been on the bench, though I could be wrong), and thus fails notability - at the moment. Black Kite 10:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played at the highest level, i.e. in a fully professional league, per WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge instinct

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A one-man theory with, apparently, very little independent support. It's basically Perlovsky's term for something that most other people either don't discuss or use another name for, as far as I can tell. The onyl sources for the definition are papers by Perlovsky, the other sources are part of a discourse on how Perlovsky came to the idea, and are not actually supportive of the term itself. The author of the article has brought this here from elsewhere; I think it may well have a place in a "Perlovskypedia" but there is not enough evidence of usage beyond the coiner of the term, to support an entry in Wikipedia. The previous debate was closed speedily because of lack of copyright permission; a previous different version was deleted as copyright from somewhere else. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as synthesis, because the second paragraph looks to be synthesised into the article, as unsourced because the third paragraph has no sources and as a dictionary definition because that's all your left with once those two are removed. Hiding T 13:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, little or no coverage or sourcing outside Perlovsky's several papers. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also looked around and did not find substantial coverage of the term outside of Perlovsky's own papers. Does not pass WP:N, at least for now. Nsk92 (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. Also, shaky on the RS and no independent coverage found. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 15:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, a non-notable neologism describing an extremely vague theory. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO PROBLEM this article has been made part of Perlovsky bio page so it can now be deleted, thank you. Romanilin (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice merge, then. :D -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 16:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Social Distortion. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skellie

[edit]

There does not appear to be enough reliable source material available for this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 13:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the main article on Social Distortion. The article is about a cartoon skeleton that is the band's mascot or logo. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge depending on consensus. I am happy with either outcome. Hiding T 14:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already proposed a merge, why put it up for deletion? To clarify my opinion is merge with Social Distortion. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 13:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep/withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. Śniadecki

[edit]

Copied from Talk page

Examples of use of "J. Śniadecki":

etc.

Note that there also is a Nathan J. Sniadecki (e.g. http://faculty.washington.edu/nsniadec/pubs.html) and a Paul J. Sniadecki (e.g. http://www.nodra.com/NODS_2006_01.doc). Urhixidur (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that because a published bibliography reference uses the man's first initial, that he is therefore commonly known as "J. Sniadecki"? This is a dab page, not a search page or an index. It is not customary in Wikipedia to have a dab page for every possible abbreviation of a notable person's name. Imagine if we had to disambiguate every "J. Davis" or "T. Jones" simply because there was a published reference to their name as such. That's overwhelming to imagine. I support the deletion of this page, or at the very least, a redirect to the most notable of the two entries. SlackerMom (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, you did not change the page in order to address the concerns raised. What you did was to add references to the talk page. As a dab page, the rules are slightly different here. The concern is that the target articles themselves do not support the claim that these men are commonly known as "J. Sniadecki". We do not have to prove it by placing references here, we have to prove it by placing references in the articles. SlackerMom (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - and furthermore, if these individuals aren't commonly known as "J. Sniadecki", then this isn't really a dabpage at all, but a list of people who might possibly be referred to that way, which makes it even more deletable. Please see W:MOSDP#Given_names_or_surnames for clarity on this issue. Merenta (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._%C5%9Aniadecki"

Delete. The other editors have summed up the same points I was going to make. There is nothing to suggest they were commonly or primarily known by this, so there is no need for this page. Hndis (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Move to Śniadecki and tag as surname list rather than disambiguation. Yes, the people might be cited as J. Śniadecki, but a surname list will allow readers to find the Śniadecki needed just as easily. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to a surname page, and I withdraw my opposition to the page based on this change. However, if people feel the change is inappropriate, I will change it back again. Hndis (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a surname page doncram (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Dancing with the Stars. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Dance (Live)

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Let's Dance (Live)

This page hasn't enough information. It is referenced, the song is just a promotional single and there's no music video for it. It should be deleted or redirected to patent album's page.Voices4ever (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Belongs in Dancing with the Stars, not as an independent article.—Kww(talk) 13:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Promo-only releases are generally not notable. Nothing present supports an article for this song. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was invalid nomination. The article is not nominated for deletion, but redirection. That's an editorial choice any editor can undertake. Hiding T 14:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Completely unsourced, non-notable as notability is not inherited. This is complete original research and can be nothing else. If we don't have articles for each character, why should we have a list of all of the characters? Redirect to the main article. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pyramid_(game_show)#Home_versions. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid (home game)

[edit]

There are hundreds of other game shows that do not have similar pages for home games. Additionally, this article contains unsourced speculation (as in the "Why is the end game not like the TV version?" section) and poor writing. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pyramid (game show) to preserve the article's history. Fits better into the game show article. MuZemike (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unguage

[edit]

Seems to be a made-up, non notable language. Wikipedia is not for things you make up one afternoon when bored. Ironho lds 13:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:V and WP:NFT. JohnCD (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable language game, per all above. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. AlwaysOnion (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JohnCD. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eleteday - Arguably spam, in light of the final paragraph where readers are encouraged to email the article author to learn four more, secret, 'languages'. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above Rosokokolapo (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Over half the !votes are for delete, parts of the article seem to violate WP:SYN, and the "popular culture" section mixes past and future indiscriminately. Will userfy if requested.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World domination in the future

[edit]

Hm, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of fact and fictional conspiracy theories involving crystal balls, board games, and star trek episodes. Anyway, which world is being dominated? Is this talking about Earth, Middle-Earth or the Potterverse? Highly amusing essay, but it is an essay, not an article, and it is original research.

I just hope the Daleks/Martians/Chinese Communists/Antichrist or Michael Jackson don't get me for this nomination. Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and why doesn't this mention the Wikimedia Foundation?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy; most of the content was initially split from the world domination article by Keraunos (talk · contribs) - he may be interested in preserving this wonderful piece of work in his userspace. It is great stuff, but it's not right for an encyclopedia - it's comprised wholly of original research, rambling predictions, and a merry mix of fancruft and fantasy science. fish&karate 13:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge back to world domination and userfy or move to a subpage of the talk page of the World Domination article for the rest. Taking over the world and world government is a fairly well known fictional trope, and at minimum a list of notable examples belongs in the article in chief. The rest may not be ready for prime time yet, but should be preserved. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the world domination article as-is is kinda sucky. Frankly, the article was better a year or two ago ([29]). All the "world domination in fiction"al stuff was excised a few months ago, and never replaced. fish&karate 14:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: there is a lot of fascinating content here, and if reliably sourced with a minimum of synthesis, could conceivably produce an interesting article. I disagree with the notion that an article on this topic is inherently encyclopedic. I suggest userfying (with a redirect to world domination to preserve the history per GFDL), and after a few months bringing it to DRV or MfD to assess its merits. In the case that userfication is not an option, I would prefer to keep and stub to get rid of some of the more harmful nonsense. the skomorokh 15:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any merit in this, it would need to seperate fact and fiction. I could see an article on World domination in science fiction for instance.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anything is worthy of a "...in popular culture" article, it's world domination. I support the split proposal. the skomorokh 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CBALL. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject does not exist as a coherent topic, and is not suitable for a separate article. The information given here seems to have been fairly artificially extracted from sources dealing with other subjects and fairly artificially assembled here. Also an strong element of WP:OR (specifically WP:SYN). Nsk92 (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought nor is it a soapbox. MuZemike (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an arbitrary and incoherent collection of material, some of it OR. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not a fan of applying WP:SYN indiscriminately, but this a case where citations are used solely to verify real and fictional events in order to produce an (incoherent) original essay. It's one of those examples where individual paragraphs make sense and are sourced, but the whole article is a rambling hoo-ha. The main problem is that the article has an extremely vague topic. You can dump tons of science fiction books, movies and video games in it. Like that were bad not enough, the article mixes references to fiction with references to some real world events, e.g. citing facts about the Chinese economy. It's not even clear if the article takes itself seriously and is trying to be a WP:CBALL, or if it attempts to be a list of scenarios from fiction. I think it should be removed for failing WP:SALAT, i.e. it is an overinclusive list of "world domination scenarios", some purely fictional and some that constitute original research attempts to produce a WP:CBALL. VG ☎ 18:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP I wrote most of the world domination article, both past and future, in late March 2007. This article was separated recently from the main world domination article because it was felt by people on the discussion page that the history part and the future part of the article should be separate. It is important for people to be able to analyze possible future world developments so people can choose what kind of future they want, especially if one is interested is futurology. The article is not original research, the references are from well-known contemporary authors such as Richard Heinberg and Ray Kurzweil. The popular culture section is very interesting, entertaining, and informative and the information in it was contributed by dozens of editors over the past year and half when it was part of the world domination article. Keraunos (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but keep the popular culture section for the possibility of being used in its own article. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, that trivia section is the part that needs the most removing. Spellcast (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or userfy, per Karate-fish. Ironically, the original World domination article and this one both suffer from a loss of control over the editing process, so that they went from one overly long article to two overly long articles. After looking at both articles, I think that they're both long... but not very interesting, entertaining or informative. The topics range from empires whose rulers thought that they had conquered the world, or at least dreamed about it, some musings about how our planet of 7 billion might somehow come under one government in the not-too-distant future, and about cartoon characters who dreamed of world conquest. As the old Tears for Fears song goes, "everybody wants to rule the world". Mandsford (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Improving article I added more references to the sections of the article on the World Federalist Movement and Ray Kurzweil's book The Singularity is Near. I also added links to the main articles relating each section at the beginning of each section. Keraunos (talk) 07:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC) I also just added a section with numerous references on efforts to establish a worldwide restoration of the Caliphate. Keraunos (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there's been good faith attempts to build this article, I still don't think it addresses the issues given by VasileGaburici. Spellcast (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with no prejudice against future re-creation if RS are produced. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bionumbers

[edit]

A thick slice of spam promoting a "collaborative community database of useful biological numbers" (as opposed to thoroughly useless biological numbers?) This was originally tagged for Speedy Delete, but the admin who removed the tag even acknowledged it was full of "blatant promotional sections." Fails WP:RS, too. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No particular claim of notability is shown by this page. I looked, and they didn't even know how many stripes are on a zebra. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now. It appears to be a legit project run by a Harvard lab[30][31] and it seems to be creating some sort of a buzz based on plain google search results[32]. But as I understand it, the project is very new and was started in the Spring 2008. A more careful look at the google search result show that there is no sibstantial coverage yet by reliable sources. May well be something that will become notable soon, but not yet. Nsk92 (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems to be OR, by someone who has ceased to be a biologist and become a numerologist. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a free pass to recreate after coverage in reliable sources is available. I think it might become a notable site in the future; however, I don't think the notability/verifiability criteria are met yet. —C.Fred (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on current notability.~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 16:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. They link media coverage of bioNumbers, but at present, none of these qualifies as reliable. The closest I could find elsewhere was Harvard's systems biology department page. I would expect some conference presentations in the near future, which could lead to mention in a trade journal, but for now there is no coverage we can cite. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : Speedily deleted (and protected). Several criteria come on my mind, such as a lack of any claim of notability of this online video, re-creation of a repeatedly deleted article, and promotional. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arby 'n' the chief

[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable film, only available via youtube/dedicated website. CultureDrone (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tagged as G4, previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arby_'n'_the_Chief. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arby_"n"_the_Chief. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G4) and salt — Blatant recreation of deleted material. Time to salt the earth on this one. MuZemike (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refuse resist (Band)

[edit]

Notability not asserted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable band. Schuym1 (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reference added. The Boston Phoenix is a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Strummer25 (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of the Boston Phoenix is questionable (it seems to be a local indie paper which are generally quite favorable to local acts), but that question aside, the write-up that is referenced hardly rates as 'non-trivial' as required by WP:MUSIC. And none of the other criteria of WP:MUSIC are met. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Boston Phoenix received several awards for excellence in journalism, and has a circulation of over 250,000, so it is definitely reliable. You can call a blog, a school paper, or some extremist rag unreliable, but not a paper like this. See Wikipedia:RS. You're also totally wrong about trivial mentions. A CD review is non-trivial. Trivial mention would be the band's name appearing in gig listings. An article which evaluates the band's output is non-trivial. Strummer25 (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the quoted source is reliable, this isn't enough to meet WP:MUSIC. Criterion #1 states that the band must have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works", which this article does not suggest. Delete, unless other non-trivial reliable sources are forthcoming. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 20:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Moore's Head Looks Uncannily Like London Planetarium

[edit]

Even though this fanzine is devoted to the team I support and I own many issues, I can't see any claim to notability whatsoever - only reference is to a cursory sentence on a website selling back issues, and the only other Ghits of relevance were passing mentions in articles about the club or Brian Moore himself..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this one yet, references online refer to it as "award winning" without referring to what award, and it is pretty well known due to its name and its longevity. Also, which came first, the fanzine or the Half Man Half Biscuit song Dickie Davies' Eyes? - fchd (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The song was on an album released in 1987, whereas the fanzine began publication the following year -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it there's a reason why we can't merge and redirect to Gillingham F.C.? Hiding T 13:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was, as I recall, certainly among the more acclaimed fanzines. If the refs are traceable, would they render the article worthy of retention? I'll admit to the same bias as CtD on this one. Kevin McE (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously if refs could be found, I'd be more than happy to withdraw, but is it especially likely that a fanzine will have been the subject of reliable sources.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can conceive of a magazine such as FourFourTwo doing an article on fanzines, and I think they'd be an RS. Now, the question is, did they .... MadScot (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete As per nominator I can not really see the notability. A bit of RS and references could swing me on this, largely because of its longevity of publication--ClubOranje^Talk 11:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have added reliable sources as of timestamp to this comment, so after all comments above. Hiding T 15:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With Hiding's sources this seems safe(r). ntnon (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds United A.F.C. Reserves and Youth Team season 2008-09

[edit]

Season articles should only be created for professional teams in professional leagues per WP:FOOTY and previous AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldershot Town 1992-93. On a general note, I think some policy guidance should be created on what levels can be created for football season articles. Peanut4 (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Peanut4 (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yes, we should create some guidelines. -- Alexf⁴² 11:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Latics (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 12:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - extremely unencyclopedic detail considering this is only the reserves -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with the above. Punkmorten (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - season articles are only suitable for senior teams playing at the highest level of their sport. TerriersFan (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BanRay 09:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the reasons. Would it be suitable to include just the appearances/goals states in the main article for the reserves and youth team or still not notable enough? I cannot see what damage it could do if included in another corresponding article. T1v37r (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2008 (GMT)

I'm not sure. I doubt it would merit inclusion per WP:NOT#STATS though. Peanut4 (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I see no reason to cover reserve teams. TerriersFan (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 except Warthog. I wanted to say Merge to List of vehicles..., but as that article was AfDed before, I felt that wasn't a suitable close at this point. (No prejudice towards independent creation, of course.) Warthog is kept for its refs and examples of real-world relevance.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halo gamecruft articles

[edit]

Halopedia is a wiki on Wikia devoted to the Halo science fiction video game franchise. One user seems to think that we need cut-down versions of its articles over here. I say that they are much more at home in their own wiki. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I rewrote Warthog (Halo) from scratch, using as many good sources that I could find, but I'm still not conviced it passes the general notabiltiy guidelines. As the most iconic vehicle from that franchise, if that doesn't pass then the others certainly wont. I'm open to suggestions as to where to place Image:WarthogActionClix.JPG instead:> Marasmusine (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On your own website or in Halopedia - obviously. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Halo Wiki. Not notable outside their own franchise. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge em all into Vehicles of Halo or some such. The Warthog one is decent, but not enough. I suspect the others can be gotten to a similar state, which would put the group over the GNG in my opinion. Hobit (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Halopedia. Original research does not help pwn teh internets, and extensive plot summaries with primary sources is not l33t, nor does it likewise help in teh internets' major pwnage; it suxxorz. MuZemike (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. There is no point saying "transwiki" - for the ones I have checked, these articles are already transwikifications from Halopedia. As for merging, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in the Halo universe. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'd personally call that a bad close, but wasn't around in 2006 so much. In any case, actual (moderate) sources are cited at this point. My sense of that discussion was that they didn't then. Hobit (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Soft-redirect - Ah you beat me to it RHaworth! I just checked and they are already in Halopedia. Maybe a soft-redirect is in order?--Pmedema (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we generally do soft redirects to non-Wikimedia projects. Stifle (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all or delete A probable redirect target could be Halo (series). I don't see these getting significant coverage from sources independent from Bungie et al. or getting any coverage that isn't largely gameguide info and plot recapitulation. Each title in the Halo series is a featured article so if there are sources that cover the vehicles in some detail suitable for an encyclopedia then they would be linked in the main articles. Protonk (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Keep the Warthog and merge the rest to Halo (series). Colonel Warden (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful information and redirect to a main article. If the Warthog article can be expanded further then it could possibly make a decent article, otherwise the useful information can be put in a larger article. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a new "List of Vehicles in Halo" group article. There seems to be growing consensus (including in discussions on the recent RFC for notability policies) that "spin-off" articles such as "List of" articles are appropriate. (Recent non-video-game example: WikiProject Television is apparently saying that "List of characters on TV Show" articles are now accepted where they weren't before. Perhaps at the time the original "List of vehicles in Halo" article was deleted, the consensus said such spinouts were inappropriate, but the consensus may have changed since then. I think it deserves another try, since Halo's vehicles as a whole have gained much attention, even if no one individual vehicle meets all the requirements. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What consensus? So far i think not a single proposal has even 50% approval, including those for allowing sub-articles to be unsourced.Yobmod (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe calling it a consensus is incorrect across all projects, but I've been seeing more people agreeing to the general idea that "spin-out" articles are okay, though people disagree on what rules should apply to them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or Merge all into a new article per above~~. These are non-notable aspects of the game. Even a merged article would need sources though, which doesn't seem likely, so delete preferred. Actually, sourcing for old games using independant sources seems impossible, so a merged article would still have the same problems. Hence delete.Yobmod (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a failure to address problems in previous AFD discussion, which was closed as delete. None of these articles have significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, and thus fail WP:N (and in most cases WP:V too). Aggregating them all into a single article only duplicates the past AFD discussion, and kicks the problems into a new article. Randomran (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge all per everyone as notable aspects of the game for meeting WP:N and WP:V. We have all sorts of articles that also appear in other encyclopedias, but that is no reason why we should not also cover them.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all articles to a section in the Halo (series) article, which need not be more than a few sentences long to outline that there are several vehicle types in the game. While my gut instinct tells me there are likely some sources for one or two of these for notability, this is basically similar to the old "Weapons of RE4" debate: all that can be described beyond their name and being in the game is details that are only pertinent to gamers, and thus fail the general gameguide approach. However, they are reasonable search terms so an area for redirect targets only makes sense. --MASEM 15:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (1st choice) or delete (2nd choice). Halo is one of the most notable series in gaming history, but the individual weapons, vehicles, and such belong in lists. Delete only if merge meets resistance or otherwise fails. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of these articles are stubs that cannot be expanded and their topics fail notability. Their creation seems to be an attempt to circumvent the deletion of this list. VG ☎ 17:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as merging these would just lead to the same notability problems in the old afd on the list that led to deleting it in the first place... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halo (series). The articles lack importance. Redirect to avoid broken links from external (and internal, if enough) locations. --Super Shy Guy Bros.Not shy? 23:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Hiding T 12:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. lifebaka++ 18:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Knight

[edit]

Declined speedy. Local weather reporter. Fails WP:BIO, not subject of published secondary source material in WP:RS. Fails WP:CREATIVE, not regarded as an important figure nor widely cited by peers. No awards or nominations. Tassedethe (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He may not be known to you but that doesn't mean he is not well known. I know Americans who do the same job whose articles on this website wouldn't even be disputed. NorthernThunder (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* delete The only biography I can find of him is on CTV's site. He is cited in one news article from someplace other than CTV, but it looks like a passing mention (behind a pay wall). If someone can find a solid third-party RS, I'd be happy to change. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Given cites below, I'm no longer sure. They are weak, but not a clear delete IMO. Hobit (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the CTV bio (thus neither independent nor NPOV) there are only passing mentions with no information for a V, NOR, NPOV article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Argument WP:WAX should not be used, as each article much prove notability for itself and not be included simply because there is another article like it. So I made a search: rogerstv.com shows a certain notability, pbase.com shows coverage and interest, IMDB shows a filmology, movie.pri.ee shows one of his recent films has a notability, stephen-roberts.com shows an interest in his special field reports. There is likely more. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All but the movie itself aren't RSs that I can tell (blog, non-third party, etc.). That said, nice job finding that much. I'll strike my vote. If you find anything better, please contact me via my talk page and I'll go keep. Hobit (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Lack of non-trivial coverage. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 1 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, Cirt (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep One of CTV/weather channel's core weathermen. The most gentlemanly of them all! He is going up all the time in ratings. And he just got married! Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a consensus that the sources provided do not meet WP:RS Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bankrupt (band)

[edit]

A similar article was created speedy deleted in May 2007. I originally deleted this article a second time but the creator stated that he had several independent sources to back up notability. I still believe the article fails WP:MUSIC because almost all of the links provided are for very niche type sites. Also, none of the albums the band has released have articles. They are on a minor label and haven't charted as far as I can see. I did a Google search but many were for entirely different bands called Bankrupt. There is a template that will need to be deleted if this article is. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above, fails WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Five new sources have been added, and quotes from reviews suggesting that the band also qualifies for notability criterion no.7. of WP:MUSIC

- 7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; besides - 1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable

It is not stated here that the reference cannot be a "niche" publication. Several of these publications are considered as reliable sources in the punk community. Ox fanzine is the No.1 punk rock magazine of Germany.

I'll create pages for the band's albums. They may be on a minor label, but their recent releases are available worldwide on iTunes and Amazon.

Please note that a band is notable if it meets ANY of the notability criteria, therefore charting is not an obligatory criterion.

Regarding your argument of Google search: please do a search on last.fm. The only band called Bankrupt that comes up with over 15,000 listeners is this one. You can also search MySpace for Bankrupt for similar results.

Strummer25 (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources look reliable, just blogs, trivial mentions, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of references from reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please go through the List of punk bands, and you'll find that most of those band pages have significantly less references than this one. (In many cases, none.)

If you bothered to actually look up the sources before you call them unreliable, you could see that Ox Fanzine has published 80 issues since 1988, and is the largest punk rock fanzine in Germany. Moloko Plus is another major German punk rock fanzine with over 30 issues released. Distorted Magazine from the UK is a very unique flash-based online magazine with over 20 issues published. Est.hu is a major Hungarian entertainment portal. Southspace.de, thepunksite.com, and kvakpunkrock.cz are all punk music portals with hundreds of reviews published, and having a significant readership. Also, Left Of The Dial (USA) was originally a respected print zine, before the author decided to go on as a blog. (see: http://www.insound.com/Left_of_the_Dial/artistmain/artist/INS20548/)

Strummer25 (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some further comments. If you check Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, the guideline states this:

Popular culture and fiction

Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources.

To further back up the reliabilty of my sources, you can check out Ox fanzine on the German wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ox_(Zeitschrift)

Check how many times ThePunkSite.com has already been used as a reference already. Just a few examples:

The_Falcon_(band), MxPx, Say_Anything_(band), Feeling_This, Unicornography

Examples of Left Of the Dial used as a reference:

Snatches_of_Pink, The_Hugh_Beaumont_Experience

You should understand that for punk bands punk music publications are the reliable sources. People who are interested in this music read these, they are not looking for punk bands in the Washington Post or whatever you were expecting as a reliable source.

Strummer25 (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strummer25 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Comment Have you read WP:WAX? Stifle (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other language Wikipedias aren't considered reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it. You may ignore these facts, but the point is:

The band is notable once

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable

The 10 different music webzines and portals I reference are non-trivial, independent, and reliable.

People who claim they are not reliable should provide evidence for this. "I believe" and "look like" is not evidence. I've provided background information on them, you should argue why they are not reliable.

Strummer25 (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about mainstream media rather than minor websites? Stifle (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punk rock is by definition a counter-culture against the mainstream. What is your definition of minor websites? As I said Ox Fanzine is the No. 1. punk rock publication in Germany. It has less readers than Billboard, but people interested in punk rock tend to read Ox and the likes a lot more than Billboard. So for people who would likely be interested to read this article on Wikipedia, Ox has more authority than Billboard.

Strummer25 (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of my references, thepunksite.com is used as a reference in this entry on Answers.com:

http://www.answers.com/topic/dredg-1

Also used as a reference in this mainstream entertainment portal article:

http://www.livedaily.com/news/13589.html

Also listed by several record labels among review references. Just one example:

http://www.sideonedummy.com/press.php?band_name=The_Gaslight_Anthem

These should confirm the reliability of the source, as it's an example of the following WP:SPS exception:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Strummer25 (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another source, Distorted Magazine (ISSN 1754-3746) is referenced by the world's largest punk rock related label Epitaph Records:

http://www.epitaph.com/news/news/2881

Here referenced on a mainstream entertainment portal:

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/what-where-when/Double-dose-of-punk-in.4505078.jp

This is further proof that my sources are reliable.

09:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strummer25 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having a quick look over the sources listed in the article I can see that they would not (well, in my books) classify as reliable. They are composed of unreliable news sources, fan websites and a blog post. Running a quick google search turns up the classic "myspace own website irrelevant" results and a google news search turns up nothing relevant, reading over band notability guidelines, there is no evidence of reliability via sources and the band is not with a notable label. Because of these things, I think the band fails band notability criteria. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 12:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate your google search argument? If you search bankrupt on google, the official band website comes up within the top 5 results after some bankruptcy related articles. As far as the reliability of the sources, please check the links above where the same music websites are referenced by some of the most important independent labels, and by mainstream entertainment sites. Strummer25 (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New reference added to article. Strummer25 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to wp:v, the burden of proof lies on the person adding the material. None of the sources provided verifies the band's notability in my mind. I looked up the band on google news and saw only a trivial mention of the band in a prague newspaper. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If only more music articles were this well referenced. The band seems to be very well known in Hungary based on my limited decipherment of Hungarian news websites. Orpheus (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Notability_(music) has an Others section for composers and performers outside mass media traditions, where criterion No. 5 is

"Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture". So publications devoted to subcultures such as punk rock can be used as references when it comes to determining the notability of an act belonging to a certain subculture. Since there are numerous such publications referenced in the article, it passes the criterion and should be kept. Strummer25 (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The (narrow) consensus is that this film lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 11:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes Beyond Seeing

[edit]

http://www.eyesbeyondseeing.com/about.html http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0192006/

I can't find any reliable sources that shows the movie's notability on the first 11 pages of a Google Search, Movie Review Query Engine, Rotten Tomatoes, and Google News. Schuym1 (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A New York Times link was added by an editor, but that doesn't show notability because it's just a mention. Schuym1 (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VG ☎ 00:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per improvements and citing I have done. However, if it goes, I won't cry. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per MichaelQSchmidt. miniluv (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having a look at the sources contained within the article, I would doubt that any of them are reliable sources (even the NY times one, as movie notability guidelines say passing references don't count. Performing a quick google search, nothing outside of promotion/offical sites/discussion can be found and google news turns of no sources at all. Because of this, I believe the article lacks verifiability and fails movie notability guidelines. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 12:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to change your mind but a Google news search finds 4 results. One of them is the recommendation from the NY Times. One of them looks like it's unrelated. miniluv (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all mentions. It looks like it's gonna go. Schuym1 (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can someone close this already? Schuym1 (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to, but I already !voted. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was not delete. Feel free to seek merges or redirects via editorial means. lifebaka++ 18:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barney's Magical Musical Adventure

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Barney's Magical Musical Adventure

This is a bundled nomination. The articles are either home videos or stage shows whith no claim to notability. On top of that the articles have little or no sources and what sources they do have tend to be fan sites. Any useful information should be merged into List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos and the pages turned into redirects. Also included are, CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question — Why is this at AfD and not as part of a huge merge/redirect proposal on the List's talk page, since deletion is not being proposed? MuZemike (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I wna't them deleted and then recreated as redirects to the list. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work that way. Deleting the articles, among other things, renders the editing history inaccessible to non-admins. On the other hand, changing the content to a redirect does not erase this information, rendering it easier to access should someone oppose the redirect. Redirect is an option that can be decided upon via the AFD process, but taking an article to AFD means the nominator wants the article and all its content gone. If the intent is to have a redirect done, then consensus should be sought on the applicable pages, starting, of course, with whomever created these articles in the first place. He/she may not have been aware that a list option existed; WP:BOLD could also apply, meaning one could just go ahead and do the redirect/merge, if you're prepared to defend the action should someone take umbrage. 23skidoo (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure "It doesn't work that way."? Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barney's Imagination Island and history with 238 deleted edits. There are multiple others but that was the easiest to find. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're merging, you have to redirect and not delete the history for GFDL compliance. As such, redirect all to List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos. No need to delete. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; a redirect may be created through the editorial process. As explained by EyeSerene, a merger would conflict with WP:V and WP:NOR, given the lack of sources (let alone reliable ones) for this content. Sandstein 11:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Techno Union

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article establishes no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of the plot of various Star Wars media, is duplicative of that content, and can be safely deleted. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 15:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although some significant chunks of in-universe plot summary and trivia were removed during/after the first AfD, no improvements to this article to offer real-world perspective have come about since. One of the specific citations is to an unreliable fan site, the other to a one-sentence blurb. WP:PLOT, WP:RS, WP:GNG seem sufficient rationales to delete. --EEMIV (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a combination article on Star Wars Organizations--we have the category, but not yet the article. That would keep the information together in Wikipedia, and remove the problem of individual notability. But seriously, have the Star Wars mavens really checked for sources? is this really not discussed? DGG (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Redirect~~, unless per WP:DEL it went through Wikipedia:Deletion review. I trust that User:Jerry had a good reason to undelete it on May 8, but I don't see that paper trail here. (He both undeleted it and submitted it back for AfD, so I'm sure there's something I'm not seeing here.) Otherwise, I concur with EEMIV and the previous process and suggest that this article be merged into one of the larger Star Wars ones. JRP (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relevant discussion is here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_4. My vote changes to Merge into a relevant StarWars article as determined by a content area expert. JRP (talk) 04:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If no consensus emerges for the "merge" option, I submit delete as my second choice. It seems that relevant portions of this article (but by no means all of it) already exist elsewhere so no merge may be necessary. JRP (talk) 21:27, 26 September 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) 00:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Episode II. Not covered in sources independent from lucasfilm and distributors. No significance outside the franchise. Protonk (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep at least redirect in some place as was result of previous discussion. Obviously a legitimate search term with notability beyond Episode II. --63.3.1.1 (talk) 04:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is (mostly) uncited, in-universe, and has little real value. An attempt to bring the article in line with Wikipedia policies would leave so little article left to be worth keeping. TheMoridian 08:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Transwiki~~ to Wookieepedia, an appropriate location for this in-universe, fancrufty article. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wookieepedia has its own, much more detailed articles on pretty much every subject in Star Wars, including this one. Transwikiing would be useless for them. - Sikon (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, delete. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For me, sourcing and verifiability are the issues here. If all unsourced content was removed, the article would be reduced to two sentences. If reliable sources were used, we'd be down to nothing. For this reason, I don't think a merge would be appropriate, as we'd just be shifting the WP:OR problems into another article. The term "Techno union" doesn't appear in the Star Wars galaxy article at all, and this article is not especially well-linked from other articles. This perhaps indicates not only a lack of real-world notability, but a lack of notability and verifiable information even within the franchise itself. EyeSerene^talk 10:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into...somewhere. Now that the Confederacy of Independent Systems article has been deleted, There's nowhere to really merge it, unless its to Clone Wars (Star Wars). --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about a redirect to Battle droid, then? Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Teleserye actors

[edit]

The said title corresponding the actors'/actresses' names are a hoax and were not ever verified by any means; the introductory sentence is a POV issue; the data inputs are just redundant of what's in the actors'/actresses' page are. This page, I believe, is unnecessary here in Wikipedia. Axxand (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 14:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary list. We already have Category:Filipino actors for that. Starczamora (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified and redundant to a created category.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why look at this category if you have a category that lists most, if not all, Filipino actors in Category:Filipino actors. Additionally, the word teleserye may apply in tl.wiki, but that is a word not included in the English dictionary hence it would hinder its encyclopedic use in the area of categorization, giving little access here in en.wiki and would be considered as an alien term. Shoowak (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxbashing

[edit]

Fails Notability, Google yields few results. Written more as an advertisement rather than a substantial encyclopedic article. Flewis^(talk) 10:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 11:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The Google results don't come from reliable, third-party sources. The page was created by a user who appears to be involved in the organisation the page is about. Sounds like self-promotion to me. I have to admit they did put some consideration into the chronology. Having said that, it's still advertising. Phlyght (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Marie Whelan

[edit]

Blatant self-promotion. Is she notable? Sgroupace (talk) 09:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: self promotion of author, showing obvious conflict of interest. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 11:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:BIO. I am seeing very little evidence of substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. Only 3 hits in googlenews[33] (2 of which may be false positives) and very little in googlebooks[34]. Her books do not seem to widely held by libraries. WorldCat search shows U.S. holdings of only one of her books, and only in 3 libraries[35]. Plus WP:AUTO and WP:COI issues here, so all in all, delete. Nsk92 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shameless self-promotion, major COI problems. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is obvious self-promotion. Sources are self-published or do not support claims made in the article. Should have been Speedied. Edward321 (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 userfy. Recognized as non-encyclopedic content, this can be moved to user space Tikiwont (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frisian is not german

[edit]

This is not encyclopledic content. Koert van der Veer (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree. We must, however, but an end at the confusion once and for all, don't you agree with me on that? What do you suggest me to do? Last king of Frisia (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I suggest letting this article be deleted.

Secondly, I think it is unreasonable to demand that people who don't know a language to identify it correctly. I even think it is worth some prais if they guess the language familly correct (germanic). Don't be offended - just correct the error. I promise you'll be a happier person... Koert van der Veer (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC) (btw, I'm a native dutch speaker myself. I recognize the frustration, I just don't let it ruin my day)[reply]

Ok then. I am a Happy Person. i raised awareness to this urgent problem that is good enough fornow. Last king of Frisia (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frisian languages would be the right place. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete --Flewis^(talk) 10:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete WP:NOTSOAPBOX. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inverell Forum

[edit]

This is a virtually unknown forum apparently associated with a fringe politician Dennis Stevenson. It is not notable. Grahame (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not established. There are many non-notable conferences/forums of this type across Australia (and no doubt in other countries) and this one does not appear to be any more or less than those others.--VS ^talk 10:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like an indulgence by a (seemingly) fringe conspiracy theorist. Given that it is associated with Mr. Stevenson and/or Inverell, a mention with an independent reliable source in either (or both) of those articles may not be inappropriate. A mini-merge, so to speak. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, a fringe event to be sure, but this article from The Australian goes into quite a bit of detail on the event. From a Google search, it also appears to be quite popular and important among the extreme-right political fringe in Australia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Scanlon

[edit]

Notability tagged for 12 months, Prodded by IP who has previously vandalised the article so needs a wider viewing Nate 14 81 08:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on this by the way, better than many but not a strong case for notability. --Nate 14 81 15:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Nate 14 81 08:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Nate 14 81 08:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable leader of notable religious group, per BBC. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One BBC article that is five years old does not confer notability. 94.192.13.95 (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that one BBC article doesn't confer notability, but what has being five years old got to do with it? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong Delete' Not notable enough to warrant a page. Perhaps combine with Abundant Life Church?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.13.95 (talk • contribs)
- Comment I stuck your duplicate !vote. Edward321 (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment 94.192.13.95 was also the IP responsible for the PROD. --Nate 14 81 15:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I seriously doubt many people other than those directly connected to the church have heard of this guy. What does it add to Wikipedia? Appears to have been built around other articles (only one external link). Tdg1986 (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Nikola Tesla (1856–1943)

[edit]

Contested prod. This 43 page book[36] is not notable in itself, and by a non notable author and publisher. The article claims that the book was the basis for a newer book, but as it is a book by the same author and again by a small publisher (Ragusan Press is a company specialized in Croatian Heritage books[37]. THe book is mentioned in one other independent book[38] and is not referenced in any article in Google Scholar. Fails WP:NOTE. Fram (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While Tesla is indeed notable a book that is a bibliography of Tesla's work is not. Also, I note the claim that it's a rare book, yet one that is held by many libraries. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Rare book. Used information as reference in Tesla article. J. D. Redding 12:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I vet the nominator's analysis. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Nikola Tesla 70.51.8.75 (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not relevant that the book was used as a reference for an article in Wikipedia: tens of thousands of books would meet this criterion. Per Beeswaxcandle, it's not a rare book, and reached at least a second edition. Books on Tesla are very common (this site lists 444 titles), and at 43 pages, this is more of a booklet than a book. — BillC ^talk 17:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as spam Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calculator++

[edit]

The notability of this product isn't established by the article, and given that it was released four days ago I doubt that it has achieved notability. Largo Plazo (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete++ per nom. This is obviously not a notable software product. JBsupreme (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although nom is satisfied that this is not advertising I'm not as sure. I note that the publisher has the same name as the article's author. Additionally, I'm not convinced about some of the claims of uniqueness put forward. In the end this is just another software calculator. The bar for software notability is pretty high. We need to see evidence of third party published reviews and users who can only do their particular work because of this product. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible advertising, no reliable references, and relatively new and not notable. --Banime (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a manual. Also fails Notability --Flewis^(talk) 10:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy--: blatant advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 11:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete++, just another calculator program. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the term is not yet notable TravellingCari 21:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judaiology

[edit]

Note: the author has moved the page being discussed to Judaeology. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the term "Judaiology" exists. Google returns no hits. Even if it did, that spelling is unlikely because there is no reason for the "i"; it would be Judeology or Judaeology, though those words don't appear to exist either. The article gives no references that confirm the existence of this term. Given "The canon of Judaiology is open, that is to say, the source material can constantly be added to or updated by the group or individual. Material can be derived from other Jewish sources or even non-jewish sources, such as the Sufism of Islam or the Yoga of Hinduism.", which makes this sound like Wiki-Judaism, I think it's a hoax. Largo Plazo (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever this is, it doesn't appear to be notable enough to have been discussed anywhere else I can find. Note that after the first three paragraphs, this article appears to have been copied directly from the Judaism article. As far as I can tell, no sources have been provided that specifically discuss "Judaiology". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that the article has been moved to Judaeology, but that concept, in the form described by User:Smfield, has not received enough acknowledgement in reliable sources to warrant an article yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete noting above concerns - especially redundancy with other articles. Even if this is a legit topic, the amount of redundancy would seem to indicate that it should exist as a section of an existing article on Judaism. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the purpose of clarity, I've removed the content which was directly copied from Judaism (everything past the lede). What appears to remain is a convoluted claim that there's a philosophical/ethical movement called "Judaiology" which is somehow distinct from Judaism. The fact that no references appear to exist suggests that the movement has yet to gain any recognition. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and while I'm at it: Zero google hits for "Rabbi Shalom ben Rubin", the alleged founder of this movement. Not that I really expected otherwise... Zetawoof_(ζ) 19:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save. You guys are good. What do you do, stay up all night to find wiki trash? Don't you think there should be something called Judaiology/Judaeology? User:Smfield
- Do you mean, do we think there should be an article on it? No, not if there's no such thing. Do you mean, it's a cool word, someone should invent a concept to apply it to? That's a strange notion, and in any event is unrelated to whether there should be an article by that title on Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I respectfully disagree, sometimes the potential for a concept is encased in nothing more then a work. That word in itself can infer meaning, as perceived by the reader, by its structure and place. Just by my wanting this term and concept to exist it now does. User:Smfield —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    - In other words, you made it up. See the article WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Isn't everything "made..up"? Your arrogance exudes like dripping sweat falling from ever word you write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smfield (talk • contribs) 13:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Based on your remark, I conclude that either you haven't read the article to which I drew your attention, or you believe that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can be ignored if you don't like them, which would be a truly arrogant attitude. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In all fairness to the author, "judaeology" appears to be a not-very-often used translation of the German word "Judentums", which does get a lot of hits. Whether this article is related at all to Wissenschaft des Judentums isn't something I'm going to worry about, so no vote on keep or delete. Perhaps this is a candidate for merger. 72.151.55.27 (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only (mildly) informative link returned by Google for "Judaeology" mentioned this, and indicated that it was something entirely different from the meaning that this article's author invented for it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the German Wikipedia article on de:Judentum, it's clear that the word is the equivalent of "Judaism" (and the transwiki link on that page to English Wikipedia leads to the Judaism article). So I think that translations of "Judentum" as "Judaeology" are just poor translations, not an indication of the existence of a concept distinct from Judaism. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy. I am reluctant to speedy articles on this subject during a major Jewish holiday, when many knowledgeable editors will be away from WP. Having made up a word in good faith & thinking it belongs here is not vandalism. Looking at the articles, it's a very trivial naive article on Judaism, very far from the Germanic scholarship of Wissenschaft des Judentums. I don't see anything possibly worth merging. DGG (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, OK, on second thought I'll delete the speedy, because on reflection sometimes I think I'm overly impatient about getting nonsense off the board. Not because of the holidays, though, since you don't need to be Jewish to know that this article is off the wall. Oh, OK, I the speedy tag has been removed already. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless (1) the title can be shown to be a plausible calque of a current term in one or more other languages; (2) the material can be linked to sources employing the term in the appropriate language; and (3) the material expresses enough distinctive concepts that are not already found in Judaism or Judaica. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While a fascinating bit of original research to read, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Themfromspace (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. --MPerel 17:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly a neologism. no sources. Jon513 (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this violation of WP:NEO; WP:NOR; WP:NOTOPINION; WP:MADEUP and probably even WP:HOAX. Even the few so-called references don't say anything about this fantastical term. IZAK (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Farrell (motivational speaker)

[edit]

Delete. See discussion on articel's talk page. The restaurant business does not seem to have an article, and although there are indications that it was a large business and therefore perhaps notable, it is not clear. Additionally, the article is entitled 'Bob Farrell (motivational speaker)' indicating that his notability comes from this work and not from his ice cream parlours. If it is his role as a speaker and author that makes him notable, I can find no proof of it, on the article or using Google, or proof of any books. A Google search turned up only Farrell's own website, which is very similar in wording to this article. Hndis (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As founder of a restaurant chain, clear assertion of notability. If things need rewritten, I'm open to help from anyone. Please note this article gets perennially written (three times before I got here) so the fellow has enough impact that others also see the need for an article. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Farrell's Ice Cream Parlour, doesn't seem to be notable separately from it. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Oops, that doesn't exist, it was a piped link to ice cream parlour on the article. A bit sneaky. Delete. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment bad faith on your part-no one was intending to be "sneaky". Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it has been written before, does this indicate that it has previously been deleted due to lack of notability? There is nothing in the article to confirm that the restaurants were notable. If they weren't notable, then their owner cannot claim notability on these grounds. Hndis (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable: some sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One of your key words used on the Google search was 'PR'. These are all promotional from what I can see and as advertising are not evidence. Are any of them not advertising? Hndis (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The PR keyword in the search is an exclusion which is intended to filter out such material. The search returns newspaper and journal articles such as this which is an example of the sort of notability that the nominator was looking for. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by User:Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 07:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chappa'Hai

[edit]

Delete, fan fiction/hoax. Based on Marvel Comics characters and publications, but not actually featured in any. Postdlf (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax, possible attack page. --Dragonfiend (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is fan fiction Wikipedia isn't a webhost for your fan fiction. Whispe ring 04:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per CSD G1 - Surprised this obvious nonsense/hoax even got prodded. Absolutely no assertion of notability or any ties to the publisher. MrZaius^talk 04:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article does not meet the criteria for either patent nonsense or gibberish. Hoaxes are explicitly not included in CSD G1 criteria. It's difficult to see how a vandalism or attack page CSD is a good fit for the fanfic nature of the content. Further, the rationale for the courtesy blanking is unclear since no real person is attacked or defamed in the article. That said, the standard WP:MADEUP or WP:SPECULATION deletion arguments seem to apply in the absence of verifiable references for the character. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but when I see an article on an apparently non-notable real living young woman whose name is given in the article and who is described as having a fat belly, becoming lovers with a duck, and then going insane, among other things, then I suspect it's possibly an attack page. Somebody just delete this already. It would probably be speedier if I nominated myself for adminship and then did it myself. --Dragonfiend (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No real name is given in the article that I have seen. A quick check of the name you may think is real, Molly Hayes, shows her to be a Marvel character, as is Howard the Duck (who as I remember from days long ago, did have a human lover). If you could provide more substantial justification for the blanking, I would be happy to agree with your action. -- Michael Devore (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I believe you think Chapa'Hai is a real person's name. Well, perhaps. I don't think it fits with the rest of the content or the tone of the article, but you may be right. It's a small matter, since without reliable sources the article should be deleted soon enough. -- Michael Devore (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, one last time going through the article looking for the attack. Too many possible names, but I think you meant the Limberly alter ego of Chappa'Hai. It does look like a not-so-clever switching of first initials of a real person, and the Kansas mention doesn't help. With that in mind, the blanking is certainly justified, along with a possible attack speedy. -- Michael Devore (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gangsta Grillz Sequel

[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL Maybe add article when and if it is released, but right now this is just a bunch of speculation. JavierMC 03:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: plain speculations. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 11:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 19:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this lacks notability TravellingCari 19:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TronixCountry

[edit]

Contested speedy. Non-notable company, ~~no references that aren't from the company itself~~, couldn't find any additional ones either. Grsz ^talk 03:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No references that establish notability. Grsz ^talk 21:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"no references that aren't from the company itself" Blatantly false. BBB, GSB, and ConsumerAffairs.com links are in the article - http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/09/computer_credit.html, http://www.webcitation.org/5ZDDlLdjL, ...) Notable. Article achieves NPOV despite the divisive topic.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertises on TV (like BlueHippo): http://ostria.whatsblog.net/The-first-blog-b1/Blue-Hippo-and-TronixCountry-b1-p13628.htm, http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=644157&st=0--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable company, no encyclopedic value. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 04:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GoogleNewsTronixCountryConsumerReports.comHitsDisputeUserParanormalSkepticClaimOfNonexistence.png 01:51, 2 October 2008 by IReceivedDeathThreats

I've reformatted your contribution so it no longer displayed as an image -- anyone who wants to look at it can go to the URL above. In any case, I don't know what, exactly, you are trying to show by posting it. The Google search hit merely shows that the company exists, which I don't believe anyone is disputing, but has nothing to do with whether it is notable, and whether it serves an encyclopedic purpose to have an article about it. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 05:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It's still an A7 speedy, if you ask me. I don't see any assertion of notability or explanation of the importance of the company in the article. Advertising on TV is not any sort of distinction; so does the local coffee shop. I see no evidence that this is a notable company. --MCB (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable. Dayewalker (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as lacking notability. X MarX the Spot (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources are simply advertisements and business listings of the sort that all businesses, notable and non-notable, use. I'm not familiar with consumeraffairs.com, but the article on that source appears from its style to be a PR piece of some kind, too, and that's the only source that could even claim to meet WP:RS. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional From Consumer Affairs FAQ, it appears to be a site that publishes user-submitted articles, which would not meet WP:RS, and which makes me more convinced that the article on that site is company PR. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. It's very unlikely to be company PR, as the article, as a whole, is quite negative on the company's business model. However, I agree that the site doesn't look sufficiently reliable.--Kubigula (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falls under CSD A7, as far as I can see.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 21:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Brooklyn

[edit]

Yet to be released film with no assertion of notability. COI is present as well. CyberGhostface (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:MOVIE; we're not a crystal ball here. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 04:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Remake once its released if anything. --Banime (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements to article. WP:Crystal does not apply as principle filming has finished. Have cleaned up article per mos and set links back to notability on Spanish Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How is the film notable enough? Even if it was finished, there's nothing in the article to indicate how notable it is.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Expert needed from WIKI Spanish With aplolgies, I found enough Spanish articles that seemed lengthy and in-depth that I must assume good faith in notability. I also learned that some of these actors are notable on Wiki Spanish but have no corresponding article on Wiki English. So I cannot presume, simply because I do not read Spanish that the longer non-English articles do not speak toward notability. You'll have to have a Spanish reading editor do a web search for and translation of the lengthier reviews. My point above was that the assumption of WP:Crystal was incorrect. And with respects, not "asserting" a notability does not mean that an article is not notabile, as all that is required is that notability exist. That "assertion" in an article is not a requisite and is often confused with WP:Peacock. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per adherence to WP:MOVIE. Film fulfills criteria for Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films; it has completed principal photography and has been confirmed by notable sources. This article is published as a fact and not as a promotion or original thought. The film has been shot with notable performers and it is well documented in widely read publications, therefore to delete the article would be a refutation of a factual, noteworthy event. -Newbrooklyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbrooklyn (talk • contribs) 03:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And I'm sure your opinion isn't influenced by the fact that you yourself are affiliated with the film?--CyberGhostface (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: and I have done a cleanup to remove possible COI and POV from the author's original article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per User talk:ESanchez013#AfD nomination of New Brooklyn, I agree with User:Newbrooklyn that this AfD constitutes lazy editing. More peer, less boss. --Una Smith (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since you're using ESanchez013's talk page and are accusing us of being lazy, I thought it would be fair to bring up his comment as well. "It was not my job to make your Conflict of Interest a notable piece of inclusion. If that were the case, anyone could write a little teeny tiny stub and sit back sipping Coke and say "Ha! Let those other suckers do all the work!" If you wanted attention, you should've either told me what you wanted done to see if I (or someone else) could help you, or just stuck Wiki tags 'till the cows come home. I don't believe I should (and maybe I'm wrong for this) help out Conflict of Interests. So, please, don't come here and say "this idiot doesn't care about my article; hang him". Look for sources yourself before introducing this article into the namespace"

And for the record, I did a google search for "New Brooklyn" "Cannucciari" and I came across 50 results, and that's including all the various IMDB mirrors and whatnot. I nominated it for deletion because of the blatant COI and the few sources available to me. I have to ask how notable a film is if someone affiliated with it had to be the one to start it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he got tired of waiting to be noticed (chuckle). Seriously though, I agree that writing about one's own film is as bad as writing one's own autobiography... but once an article is out of a userspace it become's Wiki's... and if it notability can be shown and the article can be cleaned up and sourced, then Wiki would be improved if we try. And for what's its worth a search for "New Brooklyn, Blanca Lewin" was more succesful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By twelve hits. I got 62 when I clicked on the last page (I know it seems a lot when you first click on it, but once you go further, the number of links shorten for some strange reason...)--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes our requirements now. rootology (C)(T) 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center. MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mc Will Hospital Heliport

[edit]

I'm not bunching these together because they each have a different deal about them. Anyway, this is a heliport for a hospital. There is a general consensus with the Aviation WikiProject that these things still need to pass WP:RS and WP:N. This does not. If anything other than delete, merge it with the hospital article. (if it exists) Undead Warrior (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as non-notable. Grsz ^talk 03:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center, fails WP:N. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center, located on hospital roof, no notability on its own, independent of the hospital. --Dual Freq (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billiebob Ultralight Flightpark

[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Google searches bring up 130 hits which 0 of them are notable. They only prove the existence of this flight park. Nothing exists about it's creation, it has not made the news, and it has not been the discussion of an online area. It is completely non-notable. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Grsz ^talk 03:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet meeting the current notability limits. rootology (C)(T) 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winston-Dillard Fire District Station Number 2 Heliport

[edit]

Same spiel. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. A private heliport for a fire station. That has nothing notable about it what-so-ever. The FAA sites and other links are just directory listings which do not prove notability. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable by on its own, if there were an article for Winston-Dillard Fire District I would say to merge to the section about fire station number 2. Looking at the aerial images from mapping sites, the 50 ft square turf helipad is not even visible at the estimated lat/long provided. Wikipedia is not a directory, there is no need to have stub articles for unremarkable, private use, turf helipads. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brownlee Dam. There's virtually nothing to merge, although what little was there is still available under the redirect if anyone wants to do the honours. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brownlee Heliport

[edit]

Completely non notable. The village doesn't even have a page. A private helipad would need something pretty extraordinary to make it notable under WP:N and WP:RS, which it doesn't. The sources given are just listing sites to confirm that the heliport does exist, but that does not pass WP:RS or WP:N. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brownlee Dam, unnotable on its own, records indicate it is owned by the power company that owns the dam. Lat/Long listed is an estimate, but it appears to be located near the dam for power company access via helicopter. It may warrant mention in the dam article, but doesn't need its own. Wikipedia is not a directory and there is no need to have stub articles for unremarkable landing facilities. Oxbow Dam is a similar situation with Oxbow Airport (Oregon) and Big Bar Heliport for Hells Canyon Dam. The dams are probably notable, but separate articles for non-notable associated facilities are not needed. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - fails WP:N, dams usually pass. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of characters on The West Wing. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Sherborne

[edit]

Non-notable fictional character who appears in exactly one episode of The West Wing. Hnsampat (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable or ~~merge~~ redirect to List of characters on The West Wing. Grsz ^talk 03:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to List of characters on The West Wing. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt seem to be listed there--possibly not important enough, possibly it needs to be expanded. Only one episode is mentioned in the article, but it might be more--anyone actually know?DGG (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee Ale House

[edit]

~~Notability not asserted. How is this bar any more notable than any other bar in the Third Ward? So what if it has a brief mention in a notable local newspaper, it hasn't received significant coverage.~~ Royal broil 01:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Coverage in independent sources demonstrated. Royal broil 13:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I originally tagged this one for speedy, but it was saved by newspaper coverage. However, it is not enough to establish true notability, I'm afraid. Surely getting a visit from your local paper's restaurant critic (who picked your joint semi-randomly) isn't enough to make you notable. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It passes the general notability guideline. Restaurant reviewers choose restaurants that are likely to be of interest to their readers, not random ones. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is it your opinion that all restaurants that receive a review in a local newspaper are notable and thus should be allowed to have an article in Wikipedia? Royal broil 04:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where the review is more than just a listing, yes. --Eastmain (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is detailed coverage of the pub in several books. For example, this book[39] has a separate chapter about this pub, including its history. Similarly, this book[40] has a section about the pub that starts with "One of Wisconsin's most acclaimed brew pubs, the Milwaukee Ale House is a hangout for those connected to the microbrewing industry..." (a direct assertion of notability here). There is also substantial coverage in local newspaper, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: 246 hits in googlenews[41], much of it specific and detailed, e.g. [42][43], etc. Enough here to pass WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Sources establish notability. Article should be expanded though. --Banime (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 18:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magic bars

[edit]

Non-notable product that contains a recipe, which is not encylopedic. VG ☎ 01:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to indicate notability. All I could find on Google News were articles about bars where magicians work. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This would be WP:A7 if it were on a different subject matter. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia is not a recipe book, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of unsourced information. Reyk _YO! 20:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCome onSwimmer1207 (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. MuZemike (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Philosopher, Ryek, and MuZemike. Basically a recipe for something that isn't notable. Cliff smith ^talk 05:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 18:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water wagon

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Contested prod. Somno (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reason. No sources. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 11:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced. This won't even survive Wikitionary. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 11:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: a dictionary definition. Cliff smith ^talk 19:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 18:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Int C

[edit]

Future software, currently not notable. VG ☎ 01:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. The title of the language makes it almost impossible to find using a Google search, so it's hard to know if there's any articles about there which could show that it's notable. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while future software could be notable if covered by third party sources, that isn't the case here. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll find sources for this project. It's a small project, so sources are scarce Iphoneorange (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedy would have worked. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I read A7 correctly speedy deletion does not apply to software. Unless you think some other criteria applies. VG ☎ 17:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pure Reason Revolution#The Sunset Sound. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sunset Sound

[edit]

Does not meet notability. This was a non-notable band in that it meets no criteria under 'Bands' in WP:MUSIC. A Google search does not place this subject at the top of the search, and the second page found is this Wikipedia page. Much of the page is about the band which 'emerged' from this one (PRR)and as such simply repeats what is already on that band's page. The references used do not sustantiate the claims made about the band, and, with one exception, are very unreliable. For instance, the citation used to show 'critical acclaim' is a Velocity Recordings listing page, with nothing other than a track listing of a single release, several PRR dates and a promotional biography. I have looked over the Internet for any additional material which could show even the slightest piece of notability or achievement by this band, but can not find anything. User:Spoilydoily|Spoilydoily]] (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:NMG in that Velocity Recordings doesn't seem to be a major label. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, despite having members of another notable (?) band. Very little info about this actual band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This page is mainly about PRR who already have an article. None of the references reinforce the claims they are supposed to. Like a million other bands, this one simply does not meet notability. Mynameisalf (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Suspected sock-puppet comments of nominator confirmed through CheckUser; striking. James F. (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really don't know why the strikethrough. Have emailed the admin as to why. Mynameisalf (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: members of this band went on to be part of a notable band, conferring notability. The band wasn't a 15-year-olds-banging-around-with-toy-guitars group; it was a band with several (albeit small) releases. It contains one sentence about PRR; however short the article is that isn't "mainly about PRR". The references do indeed support the claims made, and little info isnt a reason for deletion except if it was, say, a repetition of the title. This is (yet) another example of Spoilydoily's work, which seems soley based on turning up once a month to try and get as much PRR related material deleted as possible. Ironholds 20:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your (rather neurotic) comments on my editing history. Your article contains 8 lines of Sunset Sound and 10 lines of PRR references. Simply put, this is a 'non-article' about a band who achieved nothing. If you really believe the references support the claims made then it may be a good idea to be specific and expand the argumentSpoilydoily (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The claims made are things such as "this band opened stage x at reading" (followed by a reference with news of them opening a reading stage) "this band broke up because they felt the band didnt accurately represent the type of music they wanted to make" (followed by an interview with the signer saying that exact thing) and so on. It isn't something I should need to spell out. In addition it isn't "8 lines of sunset sound and 10 lines of PRR references" considering the only PRR line is "Chloe Alper and the two Courtney brothers later went on to form the New prog band Pure Reason Revolution". For notability see general DIS page gig review split news and info on opening reading. The band contained members of previous bands (and notable un's, see Period Pains_ and future notable ones (Pure Reason Revolution). Ironholds 13:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I did look the references. The first says "Expect big things of Sunset Sound with former members of Period Pains and Gel they're already half way there!" --Does not indicate notability . The second "There performance is excellent and they look like their having a great time, the biggest problem is that they're over performing and you start to question if they mean it." (sic) --does not indicate notability. The third "Reading's premier indiepunkpop kids, featuring ex members of Gel and The Period Pains have split up.In their brief history they played Reading Festival last year and released a single on the Velocity label. Apparently the lead singer, Jon Courtney, will be back with a new project soon."--does not indicate notability. Where do you get the idea that these articles show notability WP:BAND?.It is even doubtful that DIS would be regarded as a "reliable source". The article does not really need a merge as much of it is already on the PRR page anyway, not that it is of the slightest interest or significance. Spoilydoily (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited, not even in reverse.Yobmod (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Under WP:MUSIC it is; see "contains at least one notable musician"; at best this should be a redir, not a delete. Ironho lds 13:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pure Reason Revolution#The Sunset Sound. The band is notable per WP:MUSIC#G6, and just as per that criterion a redirect is most appropriate: there already is a section in that band article containing most of the information from the article. It does not seem notable enough for a standalone article. --Amalthea^Talk 18:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSIC#G6 is a bit of a can of worms which looks like it may be dropped altogether. I read it as "contained one notable musician at the time the band itself was notable" which gives us a real chicken and egg. I do hear what you say about redirects, however the PRR page already has a subsection about the Sunset Sound (like you say, per WP:MUSIC#G6), so I suppose the question arises as to how folks are going to search for this band. It is much more plausible that a search will be done for PRR than the Sunset Sound, given their higher 'notability factor', in which case the history of the band will be presented, negating the need for a 'Sunset Sound' page at all. Therefore a redirect is not the way to go, whilst deletion will save confusion. A search on 'the sunset sound' will still come up with the PRR page, so nothing is lost. When all is said and done, SS were not a notable band, and, at the time did not have any notable members or have any notable songs. Hope you can follow my logic here :) Spoilydoily (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nonetheless it's a plausible search term at the very least, and even the current, weakened form of G6 finds the band notable. --Amalthea^Talk 18:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In what way is it a 'plausible search term' and why should that or the current version of G6 make a minor band notable? On the contrary, G6 suggests the use of common sense in order to stop senseless backtracking. This band was not notable when it was in existence. Do you, or the writer suggest that Gel (prior to SS) was therefore a notable band, or that any old jam session that preceded Gel was notable? How's about parents of, or the midwife who delivered the band members who later became notable? Spoilydoily (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pure Reason Revolution. While none of the given sources are more than trivial, meaning we can't justify keeping the article, redirects don't need to meet nearly the same standards. See WP:REDIRECT#KEEP, especially #2.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Redirect to Pure Reason Revolution as the Sunset Sound evolved into this group (not unlike The Four Lovers morphing into The Four Seasons and The Quarrymen evolving into The Beatles). Since there is a section discussing the Sunset Sound stage of the band's history at the proposed target, a redirect would be appropriate (see top of WP:RfD for mention as to when a redirect is most appropriately deleted). Sometimes groups like The Mugwumps are notable only for what they later become. For the Sunset Sound to merit its own standalone article, much more is needed to show that it meets WP:BAND, either by national/international recording release, national television appearances, or national tours. B.Wind (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Ethiopian Order of Saint Mary of Zion

[edit]

Contested prod. Contested because "notable, many ghits". Bizarrely, there are only 71 Google hits[44], which after excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors boils down to 16 distinct Google hits[45], no Google News hits, 1 Google books hit and no Google scholar hits. Since the article gives no indication of notability either, there is no reason to suppose that this order meets the WP:NOTE guideline. Fram (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Keep I'm not up to date on the present situation in Ethiopia. If the people who established the order are, in fact, the genuine monarchs of that nation I would think that an order established by them should be notable enough. Redddogg (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Order established by genuine monarch, same notability as for example Blood of Jesus Christ (military order) or Argonauts of Saint Nicholas.Wiki is not paper and ghits test is not objective. Do you searched in other languages? --Yopie 20:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would disagree with the notability even if they were established by genuine monarchs (since notability is not inherited but must be established on its own), but the order is established by a Crown Prince of a royal house in exile, not by a "genuine monarch". Ethiopia is a republic. An "Imperial Decree" by an emperor without a country hsa little value (or at least not much international recognition). Fram (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for "Ghits is not objective": you were the one that removed the Prod because there were "many ghits". You did not provide any evidence for that claim, while I showed the opposite to be true. And searching in other languages: if you want this article to be kept, you will have to do a minimal effort, like telling us what weshould be searching for. The artcile doesn't give a translation, nor does any of the ghits. How are we supposed to know what search term in what other language we are supposed to use? You ahev to give us some evidence of notability, not empty claims. Fram (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:: Just added some sources, search continues. --Yopie 12:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the only claim to notability wouldn't be sufficient even if sourced. Exiled Monarchs can write proclamations every day, but they are not notable, hence the lack of coverage even in the news.Yobmod (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Yopie. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Yopie is incorrect, since he is not a genuine monarch, and he haz not provided any evidence for any of his other claims. Fram (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I´m not claimant for monarchy :-) --Yopie 11:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete: Yeesh. What's next? The Saxon pretender to the English throne (there actually is one) institutes "new royal orders," and she gets to have an article on them? RGTraynor 15:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain I think we need at least some minimal third part documentation, although I recognize the extreme difficulty in finding sources for this. Whether the notability is intrinsic is irrelevant if we have nothing suitable for V. Personally, it sounds quite likely, but that's just my own impression. DGG (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established in the article, and I cannot find any additional sources. --Banime (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: not everything with "Saint Mary" in the title is about religion... Fram (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: any article related to "Saint Mary" can be related to religion. Discerning issues such as these is what this discussion is for. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Request expansion & see if the author or others can give more. Could be notable and significantSwimmer1207 (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although past AfDs do not set precedent, there is a past discussion which might assist in moving this discussion forward. A member of an Indian royal family, given that Indian royalty is no longer recognized, is similiar to the article at hand. This AfD is, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raja Sangram Singh. Although this might provide more perspective, I do acknowledge the important statements made above by Redddogg, Yopie, and Swimmer1207. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: To be honest, what "important statements?" I'm seeing "Gee, I dunno, maybe this might possibly be notable, who knows?" For one thing, this is not an AfD on the pretender to the Ethiopian throne; it's an AfD on a made-up something-or-other whipped up by Some Guy who had a relative who was a monarch. There are no reliable sources about this "order," it meets no notability criteria, and quoting WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation ... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Heck, this is even a piker by the standard of fantasy "orders" - the "Order of the Pelican," a service honor of the medieval reenactionist Society for Creative Anachronism, has over 18,000 hits. [46]. Valid policy grounds to advocate Keep are one thing; I-dunnos are otherwise. RGTraynor 16:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. COI is not a reason for deletion and that aside, there are equally strong artguments on both sides. I don't think relisting again will come to any consensus either. TravellingCari 18:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo Coyle

[edit]

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

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

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

Non-notable author. Article has serious conflict of interest issues as well, as the main contributor is the subject of the article. CyberGhostface (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not being notable with few relevant Google News results. On Google, the best I could find was this, all others were plot summary/eBay/Amazopn-like hits. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 14:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google News of Canada is not a fair search! A straight Google search (click the number) [47]in the USA yields plenty of third-party links, references, reader discussions, and reviews of this author's mystery novels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.57 (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you show us some?--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad to! Here's one (more to come if you need...) Click the link provided to the Independent Mystery Bookseller's Association bestseller list. Scroll down to April 2008. You will see that Cleo Coyle's "French Pressed" was the #1 bestselling paperback for month. Every one of Coyle's books have hit the IMBA list. In other words, the core mystery reading and bookselling community find Coyle quite notable! Here is the link to click: [48] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.57 (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In USA - Washington, D.C. area - my Google search of "Cleo Coyle" yielded me over 30,000 hits Google Search USA "Cleo Coyle I then narrowed the Google search to "Cleo Coyle" and "Coffeehouse Mystery" and still received over 6,500 hits. Google search of "Cleo Coyle" and "Coffeehouse Mystery"Yes, lots of bookseller sites featuring Cleo Coyle's books, but also MANY hits for independent reviews of the Coffeehouse Mystery novels, reader discussions and comments, third-party blogs, etc. This is a popular author! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.224.3 (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A STARRED review from Library Journal is indeed notable for any author. US librarians put great stock in Library Journal. Coyle just received a STARRED REVIEW for her debut hardcover, Espresso Shot. Click the link and scroll down the page to the "Coyle, Cleo" review - note the reviewer affirms Cleo Coyle is writing a "popular" series of mysteries. Again, Library Journal is an important journal for all US librarians. Click here to see the Starred Review for Cleo Coyle's Espresso Shot from Library Journal - Mystery Reviews - 9/1/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.224.3 (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it: Is there a conflict of interest with the author of this entry? If there is, I do not see how it makes any difference. Nothing like that is evident in the text. Every statement looks to come from verifiable sources listed and linked to. Cleo Coyle seems to be a notable author in the mystery field. The author is recognized as a bestseller by the Independent Mystery Booksellers Association and confirmed as a mystery author of note by the Library Journal. Leave the entry up by all means!— ZhaVam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Is there a conflict of interest? Considering the main contributor is User:Cleo Coyle, I would bet that there is.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Cleo Coyle is notable, can someone please explain why A.) The article was speedily deleted for not being notable enough in the past and B.) Cleo herself had to start her own article? I mean, if she was notable enough, wouldn't someone else have done it?--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply: Regarding the conflict of interest: Arguing "I would BET that there is..." does not provide proof that there is. This article appears to have been edited with care to conform to Wiki's NPOV standards. Also, putting up your own article to avoid misinformation and inaccurate representations of your biography and publishing history does not suddenly make you non-notable. Putting up an entry is a starting point for others familiar with the subject to contribute - another argument for keeping, by all means.

Then, by all means. Explain to me how writing an article about yourself does not constitute as a conflict of interest. If you are writing an article about yourself or someone or something that you yourself are affiliated with, then that counts as being a conflict of interest. Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is extremely discouraged here. I also have to ask how neutral you in all this, when all two of your edits have been on this deletion discussion alone.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply: If there was an earlier Cleo Coyle entry, that answers your own questions. Sounds like someone other than Coyle did try to put up a page, but it was marked for "speedy deletion" because (in answer to your question A) the writer of the Wiki article on Coyle did not know how to properly provide verifiable evidence of Coyle's biography, publishing history, and notability to those Wiki users unfamiliar with her work in the mystery field. Can you provide any proof that Coyle herself tried to put up the earlier entry? If she did, then why didn't she provide the evidence that she does now? Seems more likely that someone other than Coyle did indeed try to write an earlier entry on her, which would be the answer to your question (B). —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZhaVam (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask the deleting admin who started the original article. More often than not with these autobiographies (and there have been numerous cases) the original author doesn't know how to take a hint and restarts an article that was just deleted.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wasn't initially going to put in an argument on this one, but the sheer volume of sockpuppetry that has cropped up on it changed my mind. This is pure spam, and Wikipedia is not for spamming your product. An article like this cannot satisfy Wikipedia's neutral point of view guideline, which is a fundamental policy for all articles. If an author is notable, someone else out there will eventually write about her. Until then, let's get rid of this advertising. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCleo Coyle (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC): This has been an enlightening process. I agree it should be deleted given your strong objection to autobiography.[reply]
Delete per nominator. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and all arguments put forward since:notability, WP:NOT, WP:COI. I also don't like the "has made few or no other edits outside this topic" votes. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Best sellers on major lists are notable. Books with major reviews are notable. In this case, 7 weeks on the 2001 New York Times hardcover fiction best sellers list. is sufficient for notability by any standard. So is an LJ starred review. Major established publisher for the subject. Translations exist into Japanese and Korean and Thai. [49] The various misbehavior above is totally irrelevant. We're judging the subject, not the editors. P DGG (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and all other arguments. Overall, huge COI issue and issues regarding the notability of the articles. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG. "Hidden Passions" was indeed on the NYT Best-Sellers list [50] and was written by Alfonsi/Coyle, though not under either name. Stubify it if you have to, but there's no need to delete it. As an aside, Alfonsi and Cerasini also contributed to the Official Godzilla Compendium, which is awesome. Zagalejo^^^ 06:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG, Zagalejo. Bestselling authors are notable.John Z (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A very clear keep. Author is clearly notable and COI is irrelevant to deletion. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usually COI doesn't bother me as long as the article is NPOV and notable, but I can't find anything establishing notability. --Banime (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 evidence of independent reliable sourcing for this film. No objection to re-creation once said information is available via reliable sources TravellingCari 18:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoos: A Scarred History

[edit]

Obvious WP:COI present. "Tattoos: A Scarred History" gets less than 50 hits on Google, and much of the sources available didn't look too reliable. Very few references outside of primary sources. CyberGhostface (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The imdb reference shows it as "under production". The writer is "notable" for a previous directorial effort tagged on imdb as the "tackiest love story ever made". 217.148.178.145 (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, the movie does have quite the lineup of Notable castings. Now, I am foraying into an area not of my expertise, but would not that make it a keeper?

Comment Nothing indicates how much involvement they have in the making of the documentary. For all we know it could be preexisting archive footage about them and their tattoos.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The movie has made it to IMDB, which shows some notability in and of itself. Also, the article has at least one WP:RS to support notability. About the COI, I don't know. Maybe it does/doesn't. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's no 'maybe'. The main user is User:Nikjaw, who just happens to share the same name as the official site.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, I hadn't looked into the COI part.

Delete I don't think that one source cuts it, and IMDb is definitely not a reliable source. Just being on IMDb isn't an assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMDb not a Reliable Source? Since when? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can add anything they want for IMDB. Someone once wrote that Saw IV would star Jessica Alba and feature Jigsaw's baby. That stayed up there for at least a week. If anything, it's worse than Wikipedia as it's a lot easier to remove false information from Wikipedia than it is for IMDB. On another note, having an IMDB entry doesn't equal notability...I can think of a lot of IMDB entries that if they were to become articles on Wikipedia they would fail an AFD.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is usable only if the information being sourced is not contentious and has other suport through RS. It is a supportive source... not a primary. IMDB is not as bad as some editors make out, and they have been improving their own fact-checking somewhat. So yes, being only on IMDB is not proof of notability... but it can support notability shown elsewhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can write about their own not even existent yet etc. film on there, or add made-up content about themselves, I've seen it happen. Sticky Parkin 22:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it gets kicked off when proven false... even faster than a Wiki Speedy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. I've seen vandalism and false information last as long as week, sometimes even more, after it's been added.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it's still there years later, I've seen it, and new ones go up every day. Sticky Parkin 22:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True enough... and could almost be said for here. Pity that IMDB does not have thousands of keen eyes on the lookout for hoax as does Wiki. At least here a hoax survives only a few days before being speedied or sent to AfD. Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Stone Beast. This totally unsourced hoax has so far survived over 10 days. Amazing. Well... each windmill will be tilted at in its own good time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. It needs more sources beyond the listing at documentaryfilms.net... which supports the IMDB that the film is being made, but does not show notability. It needs something to show actual notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" If you visit the web site set www.nikjaw.com you will see some photos of the stars being interviewed. All celebrities listed were originally interviewed for the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikjaw (talk • contribs) 14:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is doubting that the film is being shot, or that it will involve interviews with celebrities. The point you miss is that the only website promoting this is the production company's own website, and that the article was put up here by them to further promote their film. Wikipedia is not for advertising or SPAM. If/when the film gains a notability outside the COI sites, it will be welcomed back. As of now, it fails WP:NF and WP:V. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 18:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calumpang Family

[edit]

Fails WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you would not delete it. it is a family history not a product and certainly not SPAM! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.74.138 (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better if not deleted..[?].. why? just because it is a family history or not a spam doesn't mean it should be kept. Axxand (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every family has a history; but not every family is entitled to have their history here in wikipedia.--Shoowak (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- If you read the reason for deletion (and follow the link), you will see that it is proposed for deletion because of notability concerns - which can impact any type of article. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calumpang which still applies.--Lenticel ^(talk) 13:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 14:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'd still apply my original arguments in the orignial AfD mentioned by Lenticel. --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Lenticel's argument. Why not create wikis from notable members instead of creating one whole wiki about a non-notable clan? Starczamora (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability of one person should adhere to his totality, individuality, contributions, importance, popularity and influence. The notability of a whole clan--,also, should adhere to each constituents's totality, individuality, contributions, importance, popularity and influence. The Calumpangs, of course, are not comparable to the Uchihas in the Naruto world. Axxand (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, closer to home, the Zobel de Ayala family. Starczamora (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, for those outside the Philippines, the US's Hilton family and, of course, the British Royal Family. --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Under normal circumstances, I'd relist this, but since this was a procedural nomination and the nominator doesn't appear to have a strong opinion himself, I've closed this as keep. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark De Clive-Lowe

[edit]

I've declined a prod, the rationale of which was "non-notable MYSPACE musician, fails WP:MUSIC", as the google hits[51][52][53][54], suggest that he might pass WP:N. Bringing it here for your input. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Definitely a jazz musician and producer well known internationally (although best known in NZ and the UK), passes notability standards in news and book coverage. Article needs clean-up, but this will come. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the article can be rewritten to incorporate reliable sources required for WP:BLP articles. JBsupreme (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing should indeed be aspired to, and I have no doubt it will come. But there is nothing remotely contentious in the work here, and thus nothing that might see us consider BLP. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CRG West

[edit]

Appears to fail WP:CORP. The parent company may be notable, but this seems to not be. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a lot of nontrivial coverage on Google and Google News. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the GoogleNews hits are press releases, which are not usually considered to count for notability (WP:CORP), but there are a few gems buried within. - Icewedge (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added have a dozen citations to the article, some of them are of dubious reliability but I think it is enough to demonstrate notability. - Icewedge (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there is enough coverage from reliable sources (I am not counting press releases) to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of independent coverage now. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As written, this article is pure spam. Delete without prejudice unless rewritten. Ros0709 (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Foods (video)

[edit]

I can't find any sources for this. The link in the article doesn't work. See past discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fast Food Video (no links work there also) Schuym1 (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's a link that does work. It seems like most of the article was just copied directly from there. For the record, the correct title seems to be "Fast Food: The Video": [55], [56]. I doubt it's notable, though. Zagalejo^^^ 02:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. Possibly a copyvio too. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 26 September 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) 00:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. due to lack of significant coverage in independent sources, and as possible copyvio. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not state the significance or even point of the video and it's unlikely that will change.IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 02:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. No indication of notabilty. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aftab Iqbal

[edit]

He is non-notable journalist. It might be COI Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 00:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notabilty. Couldn't find any articles on this person. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I would have ((db-bio)). --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one could have been a speedy. rootology (C)(T) 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chì mi na mòrbheanna

[edit]

Contested prod. The songs only claim to notability is that it was played at the funeral of John F. Kennedy. Also the page has been orphaned since July 2006. Dzhugashvili (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is notable as a traditional lullaby, not only for being played at JFK's funeral, and being orphaned is not a reason for or a contributory factor towards deletion - it's simply a reason to look for articles where it may be relevant to link to this one. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo _radda 00:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and try to de-orphan. Seems to be a notable song with multiple sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus appears to be that while the article is faulty, the organization is notable. Problems can be solved with editing, not deletion. TravellingCari 18:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Healthcareer Association

[edit]

Subject to have some sort of notability, but lacks any reliable, independent sources for verification of article content Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a healthcare certification body. The article was created just a few days ago and the nominator feels it might have some notability so per WP:AFD#Before nominating an AfD, it really ought to be tagged with ((unref)) to give it a chance for improvement instead of bringing it to AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Professional certification bodies are generally notable but I had a look for sources when first nominated but couldn't find much. I agree it needs more time. However, if it isn't sourced up in a few months I would have no problem with it coming back here. TerriersFan (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - but needs a lot of work. It should be noted that the creator of the article is an employee of the association (I've templated him about COI). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Keep I am only trying to add the page for National Healthcareer Association to Wikipedia as another way for information to be found about NHA. The organization I work for recognizes the use of wikipedia at many of the schools and organizations we work with, and many schools we work with have their students research topics through wikipedia. If I am in any wrong doing, please let me know, I have edited the information on the page for National Certification in general, and have linked some internal links as well...I am not trying to make this an advertisement, I would just like to have the basic information about NHA, and National Certification for the allied health care field.--Craigbrower (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you could provide links to coverage in reliable sources, it would really help the case to keep the article. For example, an article written about the association in health care trade journal or magazine would help towards establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have revised the page, and added citations and links. I do not know if they are set up correctly. Please advise what more needs to be done --Craigbrower (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response to comment - I've got to undo a lot of these edits, since they user marketing-style language ("allied healthcare" rather than simply "healthcare"; inappropriate capitalization; etc.). You should study our Manual of Style. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Etobicoke#Education. There was not going to be any other outcome, I can't remember the last time there was. Therefore, re-directed. Content is there under the merge if anyone wants to merge anything. TravellingCari 15:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Glen Junior School

[edit]

Elementary school with no claim in article of meeting WP:N. While normally I'd think a school 50+ years old would be notable, there's just 32 non-wiki ghits, none of which show notability, and zero gnews hits. I had recommended a merge to the district article several months ago but another editor removed the tag and suggested AfD. So here we are. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Etobicoke#Education Due to the sheer size of the Toronto District School Board (451 elementary schools), I think it would be better to place a line or word for the school under its city: similar to Los Angeles Unified School District and Huntington_Park,_California#Education. --Jh12 (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Etobicoke#Education as usual. TerriersFan (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo _radda 00:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chick Bowen 16:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bradbury (murder victim)

[edit]

I declined this speedy deletion request from an IP address, who indicated in an edit summary (of deletion ofsources and content) that " this article is extremely inflamatory, and is hurting families involved. Please leave like this or remove entirely. Thank you.". This article is not a speedy candidate but I would like others opinions about its notability. It is not clear to me that this terrible murder is any more notable than the many, many others that occur on a yearly basis. Slp1 (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I looked at the sources and WP:NOT#NEWS. Schuym1 (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there are hundreds of murders that occur within canada on a yearly basis. Why punish the families any further by having this article, yet none about the other's. I don't believe that it's news, I don't believe it's notable. It's an article about two individuals that are not famous for anything else. Please delete it. WP:NOT#NEWS. —Preceding LeeAnne Gould comment added by 75.158.87.15 (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This sounds like a guy who is famous for one thing. Or it's a memorial to a guy famours for one thing. Either way... delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. -- Swerdnaneb 00:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:BLP1E for only being notable for one thing. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Murders are tough to become notable. They need to pass the required criteria to be notable. This doesn't. Undead Warrior (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) declined another speedy by the alleged creator because it has been edited further (I re-declined it when added back on the same grounds). But it should be deleted nonetheless as per the excellent arguments presented above. Regards So Why 07:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:NOTNEWS --Banime (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete famous for one thing only, and the whole thing reads like a news article, barely going into his life. Should be moved to Murder of Eric Bradbury as per Murder of James Bulger, Murder of Rhys Jones etc. -- how do you turn this on 14:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and also delete per the IP comment who wanted this deleted in the first place. -- how do you turn this on 14:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. However unfortunate Mr. Bradbury was, he does not meet criteria of WP:PEOPLE. PK T 15:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Up Call (Hayden Panettiere song)

[edit]

Song hasn't charted yet. Album is up for afd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Falling Down (Hayden Panettiere album) if that's not deleted too. —97198 (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous references to this song, so I say keep. -- how do you turn this on 14:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: if it charts, then this can be recreated. Cliff smith ^talk 15:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 18:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falling Down (Hayden Panettiere album)

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Deleted at AfD last year - now it's back again with the exactly the same issues as last time. A Google search for "Hayden Panettiere" "Falling Down" album returns only a very small number of blog, gossip/fansite-related and WP-sourced hits. Unable to find any official confirmation of a title or even the existence of this album and the list of producers and genres appear to have been pulled from thin air (again!). Delete per WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums, etc. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, still fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Poss Speedy G4. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very little available about this album, most just speculation and rumour. -- how do you turn this on 14:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 15:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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