< October 20 October 22 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep. The article unquestionably needs help, but notability is established per WP:MUSIC. At least one released and reviewed album exists, in addition to music being used on a widely-viewed TV show.  Frank  |  talk  14:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Go Sailing (band)[edit]

Let's Go Sailing (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band that fails wp:music. No released album, doesn't seem to be notable. Tags take up more space than the article itself. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I figured it out finally. Not good to do a move during afd... PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:59, 22 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. Cirt (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Chivers[edit]

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

Non-notable Australian rules footballer. No evidence to support notbaility using multiple reliable sources provided. Yet to play a first team game and does not therefore meet WP:ATHLETE Mattinbgn\talk 23:43, 21 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. Wizardman 16:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kailin See[edit]

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

Not notable. There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Suntag ☼ 10:44, 17 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, Tiptoety talk 23:41, 21 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 complete lack of references, unanimous concerns about it being a hoax, and possible WP:BLP concerns over confusion with the similarly-named real author call for an early close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. Marron[edit]

C. Marron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Can find no reference for this author or any books. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:22, 21 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. James Bond (film series) (now) has the same content.  Sandstein  16:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of James Bond films with synopses[edit]

List of James Bond films with synopses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a redundant list, see List of James Bond films Lithoderm (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't even finished creating it yet (OK now I have), and it's already proposed for deletion. Attempts to incorporate synopses into the James Bond_(film series) article were rather unfruitful, because they were placed (by me) in the table that included box office reciepts. Films with rather Byzantine plots (notably The Living Daylights) always got a bit too long making the chart there a bit unsightly. Most users were Ok with them, but one fellow working only from an IP address twice reverted by doing a whole article reversion that simultaneously reverted dozens and dozens of other legit edits. The first time I undid his work, I pleaded to remove synopses only and not undo. This is actually rather hard to do given that they are table entries. The second time he tried, he on pass 1 got rid of all synopses except for View to a Kill and instead of removing this, once again did the date revert which undid well over a week of lots of other good changes not only by me but by "Chris42" (an excellent editor) and others.
We do in fact have separate articles with lists of TV episodes such as "list of doctor who episodes" "list of Seinfeld episodes" or "list of Star Trek comic books". I think if the box office figures are not in the table, a similar tabular list of Bond films with short synopses is viable. It's the squeeze in the table created by box office figures combined with the difficulty of summarizing more Byzantine films like Octopussy and The Living Daylights which seems to be the source of the problem.

--WickerGuy (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better of course to find a better solution to incorporating short synopses into main article or perhaps just give up on synopses altogether. But we just can't provide any editor with the temptation to remove them by reverting several days of other legitimate changes!!!!

--WickerGuy (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a thought. However, it would at this point have to done separately from the table with box-office receipts for all the reasons detailed above. Box office receipts plus films requiring longer plot explanations make table ungainly which tempts one miscreant (well-intentioned) editor to revert whole article to before addition of synopses undoing many other excellent edits. Clearly, it just isn't going to work putting synopses in the film table with box-office receipts. We could put it at the bottom. The lists I appealed to "lists of Seinfeld episodes" etc. are all much much longer than this list (over 100 Seinfeld episodes- only 22 Bond films), so it's perhaps not a good justification.

--WickerGuy (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, how about creating a table solely for box office performance of the 007 films? See Spider-Man (film series)#Box office performance as an example. That would allow you to use the table under development that can identify the films, their synopses, and the actors and directors. It would require some fairly large changes, but I think it would be better for the long term if the synopses belong on James Bond (film series). Some editors may be adverse to just having an article with mostly plot detail, so if the rundown neighbors real-world context of the film series, it would not be as disputable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We think alike!! I've already done just that before I read your message. See James_Bond_(film_series)#Films. If this change stands, then we can of course delete the article. Note incidentally that the article proposed for deletion currently does not have a link to it from any other page (except my "My contributions" user page of course).

--WickerGuy (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Looks like editors/users Chris42 and Alientraveler are quite happy with the new arrangement, so it looks like this really can be deleted. Apparently, I can create articles but can't destroy them. --WickerGuy (talk) 10:01, 22 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. --Tone 11:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Grim Adventures of the Kids Next Door[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Grim Adventures of the Kids Next Door (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As before, still mostly a beat for beat plot synopsis with nothing to assert the significance beyond it being a crossover episode which isn't considered canon for either series. Throughly non-notable, mostly made up of original research and lacking in any reliable sources or real-world context. treelo radda 23:10, 21 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. --Tone 11:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior (Kid Rock Song)[edit]

Warrior (Kid Rock Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:23, 21 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. --Tone 11:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd sonic boom six album[edit]

3rd sonic boom six album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Three articles about supposedly upcoming albums by Sonic Boom Six - but unconfirmed and without release dates. Fail WP:NALBUMS. Ros0709 (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Rarities and Remix (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Play On: Arcade Perfected & Rare and Rejected (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Also note that City Of Theives (album) redirects to 3rd sonic boom six album.


'City Of Theives' is the title for the 3rd Sonic Boom Six album. It is to be released in Feb 2009.

'Play On: Arcade Perfected & Rare and Rejected' is the name of the rarities and remix album. It is to be released 'soon' - information taken from www.sonicboomsix.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calummckenna (talk • contribs) 22:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have said where the information came from, from a post via the bands bass player on their official forums. I quote: "The provisional title is 'City of Thieves'." Also, as they are a pretty small band, they own their own record label, and the fact that this information was only divulged on Oct 20, 2008 @ 10:16 PM, I very much doubt that there would be information on google.

All I have done is relayed information that the band have released. Calummckenna (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC) There has been proof FROM THE BAND on the bands official website about these releases. If there is any more problems, I suggest that you contact one of the band members yourself, preferably Barney, who's contact information I am not willing to post here but can be found on their official website. That is www.sonicboomsix.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calummckenna (talk • contribs) 22:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calummckenna. Things can change from time to time, and just because a band wants to release something, it doesn't mean they will. I would say it would violate WP:SELFPUB, as it represents the only reliable source out there on the article. In my view, if the release was notable, we'd have some coverage of it in the press, as releases are typically reported in the media, but even still, we're facing difficulties with WP:CRYSTAL. These are my two cents, I'm open to hearing any additional comments you may have. Fraud talk to me 22:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page titled 'rarities and remix' can be deleted, as the page titled 'Play On: Arcade Perfected & Rare and Rejected' has been made to replace it. I don't see anything wrong about that page, it has a release date, album artwork, a record label and a tracklisting. This album has been announced on the bands official website, and official myspace page.
The pages titled '3rd Sonic Boom Six album' and 'City of Theives (album)' could be deleted, as there is not too much information about this future release yet.
As for the band self promoting the albums...I have nothing to do with the band, I'm just a fan, and if by releasing information via Wikipedia is classed as 'self promotion' then you're clearly wrong.Calummckenna (talk) 20:19, 22 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. --Tone 11:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Martin (footballer born 1989)[edit]

Alan Martin (footballer born 1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Alan Martin fails WP:ATHLETE because he has not played a professional match. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:34, 21 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. --Tone 11:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hammond Square[edit]

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

An open-air center even less notable than the enclosed mall it replaced. No references, either. TheListUpdater (talk) 21:35, 21 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. --Tone 11:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R.P.G. Rocket Propelled Guts[edit]

R.P.G. Rocket Propelled Guts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable PC game - the only claim to notability is based on a non-notable website review CultureDrone (talk) 21:28, 21 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 all. There is no consensus to delete. There is no compelling reason to enforce deletion here. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warped Tour 2004[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Warped Tour 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Almost sickeningly unencyclopedic. Some of these articles don’t even have introductions, they’re just huge lists of bands and show dates. The tour itself is very notable, but each year of the tour is not.

Warped Tour 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Warped Tour 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Warped Tour 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Warped Tour 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But how are giant lists of bands encyclopedic or necessary? Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they show which bands played in a specific year? DX927 (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I missed that list. I'm not crazy about how it's organized, though. I think for example Ozzfest lineups by year is better at capturing who was on what tour and level of importance, compared to either the list here or the separate breakout articles here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I wasn't either, so I went ahead and re-did it. I like the way Ozzfest did it, but due to the large amounts of bands on Warped Tour, that just wasn't feasible. Instead, I put it in a table, and I think it looks alright. (Gotta love MS Word's "find and replace" feature. Saved me a LOT of time in putting this into table format.) Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 03:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do any of you even realize how large the one article would be if just one year's worth of bands was added to it? DX927 (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, not too long, as I've already fit ALL of the bands into just one article. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 05:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not even close to "ALL" of the bands are listed on that page DX927 (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, you can. Click the little arrow box next to the year you want to view and it will automatically re-sort to show you all the bands on the tour in a single year. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 15:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so what are they? Did you have to type it up or could you select them with your cursor and copy and paste? I did notice the arrow box next to each year, and I know what it's intended for, but it's certainly not working on my end. --Pixelface (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, it looks like you have to click it twice to get them to the top. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 00:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep, layout isn't a topic of deletion. Even though layout is an issue, deleting a few hundred hours work without discussing notability...? try ((wikify or ((cleanup 89.204.240.36 (talk) 04:03, 28 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. The merge has been completed, although of course anyone may edit further. I left the old title as a redirect for the time being, although it probably is not a particularly likely search term. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AmeriKKKa's Most Wanted (song)[edit]

AmeriKKKa's Most Wanted (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:14, 21 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. MBisanz talk 02:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls tours[edit]

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

Little to indicate notability, not to mention a complete lack of sources. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:12, 21 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. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Tour[edit]

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

Non-Notable Tour Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:09, 21 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. --Tone 11:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curatorial Assistance, Inc.[edit]

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

Bringing here after a declined A7 speedy... no independent sources attesting to the notability of a company that apparently does road shows of art. Even if the artists themselves are notable, I'm not sure the company warrants an article. Newsaholic (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NB, agree with you that the artists may have real-life notability but it does'nt warrant an article. cf38talk 21:09, 21 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. --Tone 12:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeless Tour[edit]

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

Non-notable tour. Little more than a setlist and list of dates. I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

George Strait Country Music Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alan Jackson 2004 Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because another article exists does not mean this one should stay. Likewise, there is no problem with adding portions of this article to the articles of their respective articles, if it were notable enough. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:21, 22 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. --Tone 11:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dignity tour[edit]

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

Non-notable tour. Little more than a setlist, notability not established. I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

Still Most Wanted Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Metamorphosis Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Most Wanted Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:00, 21 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. Improvement and de-blathering strongly recommended.  Sandstein  17:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organic baby products[edit]

Organic baby products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails notability, content fork with Organic food and possibly Organic cotton, no effort taken by editors to prove notability, general blabla state of article. Truetom (talk) 20:52, 21 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. --Tone 11:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EmoTrance[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Fails WP:FRINGE; there are no references from independent, mainstream sources. The lone cited source is a promotional website associated with the subject; most of the cited books are by DragonRising, a small specialty publisher of EmoTrance literature. There is no non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources to satisfy WP:N, and no coverage in mainstream sources to satisfy WP:FRINGE. Without such sources, the topic is non-notable and the article can never get beyond a promotional brochure. MastCell Talk 20:51, 21 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. --Tone 11:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Sanitarium Tour 2003[edit]

Summer Sanitarium Tour 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tour. Unsourced since June 2007, and doesn't seem to be exceedingly notable. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Simply having notable bands on the tour does not make the tour itself notable. You seem to think that all tours MUST be notable in all instances, but I assure you they are not. Nobody is questioning how notable Metallica is, but we are questioning how notable this tour is, because it doesn't seem too notable. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. If this tour is notable then we need to demonstrate non-trivial coverage through reliable third party sources. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 16:17, 23 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. --Tone 11:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lamb Of God's 2008-2009 Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lamb Of God's 2008-2009 Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tour, consists solely of a list of dates. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:48, 21 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 02:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linkin Park 2008 Summer European Tour[edit]

Linkin Park 2008 Summer European Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tour. The article is just an unencyclopedic list of tour dates, songs, and supporting acts with no assertion of notability. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:48, 21 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 02:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Never Gone Tour[edit]

The Never Gone Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tour Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Simply making an artist a lot of money does not make something notable, nor does complexity of the stage show make it notable. If there isn't substantial, non-trival coverage, then it isn't notable enough. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 19:46, 22 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. Non-admin closure. — neuro(talk) 19:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omakase[edit]

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

It must be dictionary definition season. Except we're not a dictionary service. Oh, and "stuffwhitepeoplelike.com" is definitely not a reliable source! coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm pretty sure this doesn't apply only to sushi. --Polaron | Talk 18:58, 22 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 02:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera Latin American Tour 2001[edit]

Christina Aguilera Latin American Tour 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tour, consists primarily of a setlist and list of tour dates. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it is significant to her career, then there is no reason why it cannot be merged with Christina Aguilera, but it doesn't meet the requirements to have it's own article. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 11:17, 26 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 02:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unbreakable Tour (Backstreet Boys)[edit]

Unbreakable Tour (Backstreet Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable music tour, mostly setlists and tour dates. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:44, 21 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 02:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Black & Blue Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Black & Blue Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tour, article is hardly more than a setlist. Despite being a tour for a notable group, an article still must be notable on it's own as per WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Simply making an artist a lot of money does not make something notable, nor does complexity of the stage show make it notable. If there isn't substantial, non-trival coverage, then it isn't notable enough. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 19:45, 22 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. Cirt (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean P. Conlon[edit]

Sean P. Conlon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The coach of a college poetry slam team. Doesn't seem notable. The source provided mentions the team and has a few quotes from Mr. Conlon, but the article isn't about Conlon himself but rather poetry slams in general. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Juvera[edit]

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

Minor actor. Two minor roles, one uncredited. No reliable sources provided. No substantial coverage found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:33, 21 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  17:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SMemory Animation Software[edit]

SMemory Animation Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN software. Major part of the article is chemistry that can be found in other articles. --The Firewall 20:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is meant to describe the s-memory software similar to other software pages listed on Molecular modelling, perhaps it should be more specific? Edguy99 (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other software here are either directly linked to their homepage or have an article with content about the software, for example MOPAC.
My concern is that everything below the contents box in this article is chemistry. The article should be about the software, not a How-To/manual for using it, if it was intended to be that. I also doubt if its notable enough to have a page.--The Firewall 21:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is introducing the idea of the dots that are used as attraction points to draw the structures together, then goes through from simple to more complex molecules how that works all the way up to the use of nitrogen. Would less examples and more to the point work? Edguy99 (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This software is notable and of considerable use to anyone wanting to join bigger collections of molecules together. It displays .pdb (protein data base) format files in the traditional sense, but many other popular programs such as JMOL that just allow you to view and manipulate 1 molecule. Here you can manipulate several molecules on the same page and manipulate them into bigger and bigger structures of molecules through special 3-D editing capabilities.
The dots are not misleading as they help the user connect multiple complexes of molecules together into groups. The dots can be rearranged by the user or more can be added to allow you to model any molecules orbital structure. Think of it as using VP2000 (as I understand how it works) to find the orbitals, and then marking the centers (where possible) with a dot.
I do see better how this section is organized and should have reviewed pages like MOPAC more carefully before posting, sorry about irritating anyone Edguy99 (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VP2000? Do you mean VB2000? --Bduke (Discussion) 20:52, 22 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. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move America Forward[edit]

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

This article shows extreme bias and is not in accordance with wikipedia's NPOV policy, to an extent that it cannot be salvaged. Mercury981 (talk) 20:23, 21 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. Without prejudice to the creation of the article proposed by Itsmejudith, but the current content is probably unhelpful for that too.  Sandstein  16:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astrosociology[edit]

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

The article fails to establish the notability of the area of research. Despite various links dug up during the first AfD, none of these have been incorporated into the article. Most of the papers in the scholar search appear to be authored by the same person, and nearly all of these appear to be associated with astrosociology.com. Moreover, an anonymous editor points out on Talk:Astrosociology that there are no publications on astrosociology appearing in reputable academic sociology journals. This clearly disqualifies the subject of the article as a non-notable academic field of study. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. None of the third party sources identified during the previous AfD are particularly high-quality. Neither of them was in a sociology journal or other highly regarded academic source, which I believe is what would be needed to support the article's own claim of notability as a subdiscipline of sociology. If we wanted a keep based on WP:FRINGE, entirely different sources would be needed for evaluating the field, which no one has so far presented, and it would require a rewrite of the article as well. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of those is a guide to doing a PhD, which suggests it as a novel disciplinary theory such as 'nanotheology' and comments it will have to start somewhere and that a PhD would be a good place to make the first move - sounds like that source doesn't see it as an existing discipline. Others reference the web site, Pass, etc. One, 'Ambassador Without Credentials', says "Everybody knows that only those with exceptional spiritual qualities are selected for astrosociology" and is listed on Amazon.com as an adventure and fantasy book. What is missing is lack of notability in the sociological literature, journals and books. No one is saying there is a field now called "sociology of outer space", just that an article on that can include astrosociology and other ventures at extra-terrestrial sociology. If you add 'sociology' to Piotrus's search, you are down to 6, one of them being the PhD tip book that seems to think it is a non-existent field. The most relevant book there is Cosmic Society:towards a sociology of the universe, and see this page [4] which says "There is a distinct danger that some fledgling projects to explore the relationship between society and the universe, such as the field of 'astrosociology' being developed by Jim Pass (2004). do little bur reproduce hegemonic common sense about the benefits of space exploration and development (Ormrod 2C05). Although ;istrosociology may draw public attention to under-researched issues, it will offer nothing if it does not do so critically. Some previous studies offer more hope for this kind of sociology." Doug Weller (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. It is my understanding that in AfDs we are discussing WP articles, and not the subject of the articles. Is that correct? If so, this article does nothing to establish the notability of the subject, notability being the grounds for votes to "Keep", or "Delete". Have I misunderstood something? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if there is a possibility of rewriting an article so that notability is established, then that might be grounds to keep. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, make this into a Scientology WP:COATRACK, that's exactly what was missing here. VG ☎ 10:05, 26 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  17:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saugus.net Ghost Story Contest[edit]

Saugus.net Ghost Story Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NN local contenst. Failed ((prod)) after sole editor objected. Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 21 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. Tiptoety talk 06:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daivajanam[edit]

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

Fails WP:BK. Article written by an editor with the same name as the book's author last name. VG ☎ 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable book. Springnuts (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable and part of a walled garden of material that *seems* to be pushed by the subject of the article as discussed here--Cameron Scott (talk) 23:19, 22 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  17:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Kuzhinapurath[edit]

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

Non-notable priest. Practically all references document trivial aspects of his career. Original editor's name indicates auto-biography. VG ☎ 20:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Wiproman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
you understand that personal testimony means absolutely nothing here? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done a research on the basis of the writings of Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath in connection with my Bth Thesis. I could find the following works written by Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath in the Library of St. Mary's Malankara Seminary and Public Library, Trivandrum:
— Davis_Mathews (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Well an AFD runs for five days - any reason why RS couldn't be added in that period? But neither was Mother Theresa. eh? that would be Mother Theresa who had 100s of books written about her and thousands of magazine and news articles in every single major newspaper around the word? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have enquired about Mathavum Chinthayum. It is a theologico-philosophical bimonthly. Grreat personalities like Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India have contributed articles to this journal. It is not a students' Magazine. Bishop Thomas Chakkiyath was its Chief Editor when he was a professor in St. Joseph's Pontifical Institute, Aluva. Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath may be the chief editor from the part of the students. About other publications I got the following details: Vjnanakairali is the official organ of the Kerala Language Institute, an agency of Kerala government. The Kerala University whose Chancellor is the Governor of Kerala State has published one one of the essays of Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath (See, Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath, "Palam Thettunna Kaumaram", Bhashathilakam Kerala University Press, ISBN-81-86397-13-2,1998, pp. 146-154.). The University affirms in the introduction of the essay that Fr. Thomas the Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Trivandrum has contributed a number of essays of essays on various socio-ethical subjects and that he is the author of the book Daivajanam (Bhashathilakam Kerala University Press, ISBN-81-86397-13-2,1998, p. 146). Power Vision TV owned by Protestant Management has telecastes a programme on the litrary and social contributions of Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath.Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The following articles are created by this group in English wikipedia.
Thomas Kuzhinapurath - I think this is the master article.
John Kuzhinapurath
Kuzhinapurath Family
Salvific Law
Daivajanam
The user who had created Thomas Kuzhinapurath had created the same article in Malayalam Wikipedia also. We have deleted the article from Malayalam Wikipedia after a long discussion. The discussion regarding the deletion of the article is available here. The users who have voted in favor of this article have participated in discussions there also. I have strong doubt whether these users are puppets/meat puppets of one user.
Moreover the below edits are just ridiculous.
and, this was too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shijualex (talk • contribs) 06:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


--Shijualex (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


NOTE: There are more articles that are created by this group and needs investigation regarding the notability.
--Shijualex (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The QDOS profile of Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath shows that he is having 11346th rank of 67104 profiles. Ref.[6].Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

means absolutely nothing. This isn't a popularity contest. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The QDOS citation makes me feel a little too suspicious about the intention/credibility of this/these author(s). The higher QDOS profile rank seems to result from Wikipedia citation. Is this author trying to make a circular reference and fool all of us? --Jacob.jose (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of the long list given above, the only mainstream publication is Deepika. Add Philip Chempakassery to Shiju's list. Tintin 12:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWritings concerned with theological and spiritual subjects appear in theological journals and Religious Magazines. But I think Vijnanakairali is also a mainstream journal published by Kerala Language Institute. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official website of the Syro-Malnkara Catholic Church praises Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath's book Salvific Law.Ref. [7].Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The people who published it.... --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*CommentThe Holy See of Rome gave a destinguished recognition for Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath's work Salvific Law (Monsignor Gabriele Caccia, Letter to The Reverend Thomas Kuzhinapurath, dated September 23, 2008, Secreteriate of State, First Section, General Affairs). The official News Paper of the Holy See, L'Osservatore Romano (Indian Edition) has published a review on Salvific Law (Dr.Daniel G. Fulton, Book Review, L'Osservatore Romano, (Malayalam Edition Supplement) 1/21 (2008) p.vi.). The books Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath were found in the following libraries: [8][9][10] Ref.: www.unigre.it/English/Library/Catalogue/Author/Kuzhinapurath (Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome), www.pio.urbe.it/English/Library/Opac/Author/Kuzhinapurath (Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome). Among these Daivajanam (People of God) (Carmel Publishing Centre, Trivandrum, 2000, ISBN 81-87655-13-5) was reviewed by the following reviewers:
1. Dr. Geevarghese Panicker, "Jeevitha Sparshiyaya Daivasasthram" (Lifebound Theology) in Aikyadeepam, July 1998, p.34.
2. M.V. Thomas, "Daivajana Jeevithathinte Vilayiruthal" (An Evaluation of People of God's Life) in Deepika, July 26, 1998.
3. Daniel Poovannathil, "Uthamamaya Vayananubhavam" (A Real Reading Experience), in Christava Kahalam, March 2002, p.58.

And Salvific Law (M.S. Publications, Trivandrum, 2008) was reviewed by:

1. Dr. Daniel G. Fulton, "Book Review", L'Osservatore Romano, (Malayalam Edition Supplement) 1/21 (2008) p.vi.
2. Philip Chempakassery, "Book Review", Aikya Samiksha, 4/2,2007.Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Aikya Samiksha is the in-house journal of his church who also happen to be his publishers. It say nothing about notability. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aikya Samiksha is the official theological journal of the Malnkara Seminary. It has a readership of around 5000 (Selected Theologically Educated). It publishes only well studied theological articles and Book Reviews. Ref. "Editorial Guidelines", Aikya Samiksha, 4/2,2007. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The equal representation from different communities in responding to a single article looks interesting. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Massive self-promoting delete - this is one of the most blatant self-promotions that I have seen on Wikipedia. He wrote his autobiography (those who have been invited here by Mr. Kuzhinapurath or other members of his church, please note WP:AUTO). Remove all sources connected to him, either directly or indirectly, and there would be nothing left to show that he would be notable under WP:BIO. To meet the notability bar, there must be something from reliable sources (as Wikipedia defines the term) to verify his notability... and I must add that the reliable sources must be clearly without connection with him or his church. Even then, autobiographies tend to be hastily deleted a Wikipedia as the author of an autobiography has a conflict of interest. B.Wind (talk) 04:51, 26 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  17:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William P. Simmons[edit]

William P. Simmons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NN author. Failing to win lots of awards doesn't pass Wikipedia:BIO#Creative_professionals. Failed ((prod)) after sole editor objected. Toddst1 (talk) 19:58, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Martello[edit]

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

"Arthur Martello is retired Educational Administrator and teacher that is presently enjoying a second career as a part time professional magician." I don't think that is enough to establish notability. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:50, 21 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 redirect (non-admin closure). Orlady (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McQueen (rat)[edit]

Steve McQueen (rat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and the article is not serious AlwaysOnion (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly implemented the redirect. While it's unlikely that anyone will type this precise name in the search box, complete with parentheses, there is a likelihood of typing "Steve McQueen rat", and this redirect will take them where they wanted to go. --Orlady (talk) 15:53, 22 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. Cirt (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected Marxist Images[edit]

Unexpected Marxist Images (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reason I assume the Marx in question here is Karl, although Groucho might be more appropriate given the comically bizarre nature of this article. I have WP:V problems here, and I am wondering if it okay to call it a hoax. Feel free to weigh in with appropriately Marxist commentary (Karl or Groucho is fine). Ecoleetage (talk) 19:32, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During[edit]

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

Attempted dictionary definition (WP:DIC) with irrelevant wikilinks. KCinDC (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, during is not a state. During is a preposition, not a noun, which is why it makes no sense to say this can be expanded into an encyclopedic article, and why the definition given is invalid. —KCinDC (talk) 16:49, 22 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. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xconq[edit]

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

A game article I started a long time ago, before I was aware of WP:N. Last year, User:Stan Shebs mentioned that this game was discussed in a couple of books, but these sources have not yet come forth, and no reply on his talk page. I propose deletion on the grounds of WP:V and WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 18:56, 21 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 02:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kirksey[edit]

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

This article was prodded with stated reason: "non-notable surgeon. Only 6 articles in PubMed and contributor to 1 book. Misses WP:ACADEMIC". The (expired) prod was removed with by an editor who gave as edit summary "deprod, undisputed valid claim of notability". While the presence of a claim for notability is a good motivation to refuse a speedy deletion, it is a rather meager reason to remove an expired prod. Earlier I cleaned up the article, but I don't find sufficient sources to establish notability. Six articles and a contribution to 1 book are not really sufficient to establish notability under WP:PROF. His charity activities do not seem to have generated interest from independent verifiable sources establishing notability under WP:BIO either: just 58 Ghits for "Lee Kirksey", not all of this concerning the subject of this article (but "Arthur Lee Kirksey") and including WP itself. Hence, I am proposing this article for deletion. Crusio (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what the? Lol! I am an established editor who is contributing to AfDs, like I always do when I feel like it, I've contributed to several in the last couple of days, based on what is up at AfD that I feel like contributing to and nothing else. I can assure you, I've never even noticed you around before yesterday. Your comment is a gross violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Sticky Parkin 14:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me?? Minimus search?? Slamming deletion tags?? Please take a second to look through the history of this article. I extensively edited it to try to make an acceptable article out of it. While I did so, I checked the references given (mostly the subject's own promotional websites) and searched for other references. Being the "second African American to receive specialty certification in vascular surgery" is indeed a claim to notability, so a speedy deletion would have been unjustified on those grounds alone. Whether it is a claim that would satisfy any criterion of WP:N or WP:BIO is open for debate (as the following !vote -with whom I was in edit conflict- shows). In any case, except for the subject's own sites, I have not found any reliable, verifiable, and independent sources for this claim. After spending quite some time editing the article (and if you care to compare the original version with my final version, you'll see that the article improved quite a bit, I think) I decided that there was not enough substance to satisfy either WP:BIO or WP:PROF and prodded the article. I placed a prodwarning on the creator's talk page, thereby giving that person 5 full days to improve the article. In short: I improved the article, notified the creator of problems (through the justification in the prod and the prodwarning), and now propose it for AfD in a reasoned way and you now seem to imply that this is a frivolous AfD nomination? And what's with the nota above to the closing admin concerning stalking by Sticky Parkin? That editor !voted before you did so how can that count as stalking? If my search for sources is so minimus, it should be real easy for you to come up with good sources establishing notability without doubt. Please do so and post them here or in the artciel, because that way I can withdraw my nom an my previous work on the article will not have been wasted time. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS I have taken the trouble to go through your contributions history. Perhaps I missed something: what article did you recently (or ever) improve? 90% of your edits seem to be removing prod and other tags accompanied with acerbic edit summaries, leading to many unnecessary AfDs and a general waste of time. --Crusio (talk) 13:22, 22 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 both. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go Fuck Your Jewish "God"[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Go Fuck Your Jewish "God" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Puzzlez Ov Flesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. Per WP:MUSIC, demo's are in general not notable, unless they meet the general WP:NOTE requirements of course. Prod was contested because "a simple google search turns up thousands of results for this demo". However, a Google search turns up only 108 distinct hits[15]. At first glance, none of these give sufficient info from a reliable source to let the demo meet WP:NOTE. Most are fansites, youtube, lyrics websites, ... Fram (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated: Puzzlez Ov Flesh (129 instead of 108 distinct Google hits[16], same reasonin otherwise)
For the record, the author of the articles in question was not notified by the AfD nominator of this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I never notify any editor of AfD's. I note them for Prod's, which don't get widespread attention and discussion. AfD's should be judged on their own merits, and the author had the chance of improving the article when he removed the ProD. While comments by the author of the article are welcome, they are not needed more or less than anyone else's comments. Fram (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin, you should know better. The AfD template specifically requests that authors be notified that their articles are being discussed for deletion. The article's author should have the right to defend his work, especially if the request for deletion is weak and wobbly. In future, please extend the articles' authors the courtesy of knowing that their work is being threatened with removal. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It lists it as a courtesy. I don't think it is a useful courtesy, and one I disagree with, as has been discussed before on talk pages of deletion policy. The user was given the chance to discuss and improve the article when it was prodded, but choose to remove the prod without any improvements to the article. I have also stated previously that I don't object to a bot doing this job. And since this request for deletion is not "weak and wobbly" but quite clear and well rooted in our policies and guidelines. As somoene who statezs that they perform non-admin closures of AfD's, I had hoped that you had a better grap of those, since closing AfD's involves weighing the strength of arguments wrt policy and guidelines, not the number of votes or the existance of unreliable Googlehits. Fram (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your attempt to change the subject to my non-admin closures and to belittle my "grap" of policy, but that's not what we're talking about. I have put many articles up for AfD and I always alert the articles' original authors to what is taking place -- it takes no more than 30 seconds. The fact remains that you attempted to sneak this AfD in without having the basic respect (not a "useful courtesy") to allowing the article's creator to defend his work. Your prod on the article was separate and apart from this discussion. And until such time that a bot comes along to list articles for AfD, please show some respect to your peers when engaging in this process, thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you try to lecture someone on policy, while at the same time defending an article on very shaky grounds, you should not be surprised if your remarks are used against you. You adressed me on an AfD as an admin, so I adressed you as a AfD closing non-admin. Apparently that is not allowable? The article's creator is allowed to defend hiswork, but his opinion was already expressed on the prod, and isn't worth more than those of everyone else. If a subject is appropriate for Wikipedia or not should be obvious from the article after it has been prodded and the prod has been removed. But to get back to the case at hand: I asked you already, but did not get a reply: where is the evidence for your repeatedly stated assertion that this demo has gotten a wide release? Fram (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering that as someone who performs NAC, I can only close to Keep, and even then I would do it when it is 100% clear that the article's meet policy and there is unanimous consensus by a strong number of editors. I have yet to perform any NAC where my actions were called to question, so I would like to think I am doing something right in terms of interpreting policy. (Though I should thank you for noticing that I do NAC -- anything to help out, I am glad to contribute). As I stated, I put a lot of articles up for AfD, but I have enough respect for the authors of the articles to alert them that I am trying to push their work off the project. The AfD process specifically requests that the article's author(s) be notified of this action, and I was surprised that, as an admin, you chose to ignore it (I am unaware of your previous qualms on the subject). That notification is not, I believe, a "useful courtesy" -- it is basic respect for the editors who contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD tag says: "Please consider notifying". WP:AFD states that "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion.". So yes, it is a courtesy, and it is one I choose not to follow. I do believe it would be more productive to discuss the article at hand than some general reamrks about AFD policy, so perhaps you could turn your attention to the question I have asked quite a few times already? Fram (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for your links: first is a Wiki-like user submitted review, second is a tracklisting, third is a tracklisting, fourth is a tracklisting, and fifth and last is a tracklisting with user submitted points. I don't see any commentary, reviews, ... from reliable sources. I also don't see any evidence that this demo got "wide release". Could you point out which source gives you that impression? Fram (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fram. The review is user-submitted, and the rest are mere tracklistings. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP: MUSIC states the following: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." There is no debate that Watain is notable. The demo was released, as detailed in the various sources that have been listed. Please note that there is nothing in WP:MUSIC that requires reviews -- the key word is coverage. Technically, the track listing is coverage. It may not be a lengthy rumination on the music's value, but it nonetheless is published on well-recognised and well-respected online media devoted to the music. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage <> tracklisting. Furthermore, you again state that the demo was released "as detailed in the various sources". It is not because a copy of the demo is illegally put on the internet and all user-contributed sites get their tracklisting from that illegal download and from each other, that it is officially released. When? Which label? Where was it for sale? Which source states that it has been officially released? Fram (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what makes the sources given unreliable? Undead Warrior (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also take a look at this. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UW you know I disagree with you about what is WP:RS.:) What sources are given in the article? Only a website called "metal archives" and the band's own website or something. Find numerous discussions of it in well known newspapers etc or books published by well-known presses, then I'll say keep:) But I looked and they aren't mentioned anywhere in WP:RS as I understand it. Diskery? What's that lol, another website?:) Few websites are as reliable sources as news articles etc, unless it's the website of a broadcaster/publication that also exists in the real world. I'm especially impressed by a site with "buy online" "promote your music" "e-commerce"and stuff like that as part of the page. Oh and Diskery, the site you linked to also has the option to "add a biography"- so anyone can write anything there too- that's the opposite of WP:RS. "Submit your band" [23]- "you can enter any info you want". :):):) Sticky Parkin 03:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way you can even come close to saying that Watain is non notable. The Diskery site lets you submit a band, yes, but that doesn't have anything to the effect of the demo albums or Watain. Someone submitted Watain and the site took over from there. My point is this: If so many user submitted sites contain information on this, even if it's just a track listing, that is still coverage and that passes WP:MUSIC. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that watain are sufficiently notable - I added an allmusic link and I found some sources earlier which I will add to the band article. That doesn't, however, justify a separate article for every recording by the band. Coverage isn't enough unless it's significant coverage in reliable sources. Tracklistings are not significant coverage. Your best bet would probably be to migrate this article into a new section within the band's article.--Michig (talk) 17:18, 22 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 redirect. Sorry, I would never have brought it to AfD if I had realised it was a fork. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick Ralph Cornelius (Fred) Penner[edit]

Fredrick Ralph Cornelius (Fred) Penner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Singer songwriter. Strong whiff of self-promotion. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:13, 21 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 Mobile Suit Victory Gundam. Whether another redirect target and/or a merge would be good ideas is, as always, at editorial discretion. Seraphimblade Talk to me

LM314V21 Victory 2 Gundam[edit]

LM314V21 Victory 2 Gundam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units is already quite large, as the UC timeline is quite large. May I suggest a better merge target, such as List of (series) mobile units (where "(series)" is the name of the series, as this is copypasta as your !vote)? 208.245.87.2 (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
care to explain why? You can say "not notable" and I could reply "notable", and no matter how much of it there was, it wouldn't amount to an argument either way. And care to explain why it is not suitable for a merge? or a redirect? Remember, you said delete. DGG (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional weapon has very few Google search, it's not referenced by any magazine, as far as i know and additionally, its notability, if any, depends on the anime series. Additionaly, article has so many speculations like "The most important upgrade was the Minovsky drive system" that probably it's just an original research. -- nips (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you have read the article or not, but it says that the mecha also appeared in a game that is totally unrelated to the anime seires, and this particular mecha became a main character of it as well. So its notability may also come from that. It is a pretty old game and the article for that is only a stub, but I am pretty sure that the notability, if any, is not purely from the anime. MythSearchertalk 01:54, 25 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 with Mobile Suit Variations. Being lazy and all, I am only redirecting, keeping the original content underneath, and the edit history available for merging at any editors discretion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA-78-1 Gundam Full Armor Type[edit]

FA-78-1 Gundam Full Armor Type (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units is already quite large, as the UC timeline is quite large. May I suggest a better merge target, such as List of (series) mobile units (where "(series)" is the name of the series, as this is copypasta as your !vote)? 208.245.87.2 (talk) 15:56, 22 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 Mobile Suit Gundam 0080: War in the Pocket.  Sandstein  16:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MS-18 Kämpfer[edit]

MS-18 Kämpfer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • All articles must follow WP:N. There are several different discussions working on reworking the guideline, but until such a time, it still needs to be followed. TTN (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I highly doubt it to be highly notable in the series itself. It is notable in the Gundam Universe, but in the original 0080, the focus on mobile suits are much less than other Gundam anime series. MythSearchertalk 18:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have a strong opinion about this particular article, but for your information, WP:N is still just a guideline, not a policy. We are not required to deal with these fiction articles immediately. Couldn't you limit yourself to one or two nominations per day? We're not dealing with BLP violations here. And most of these articles could at least be pared down and merged into other pages, so deletion tools aren't needed in the first place. Nominating 10+ articles a day just seems unnecessarily aggressive. Zagalejo^^^ 19:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though this really isn't the place for this discussion, there is an extremely large amount of articles on fictional elements. More are created each day, while the rest just constantly fall into disrepair (if they weren't already created in that state). My main goal is to have fictional subtopics at a manageable level, and this is the only way to do it without taking ten literal years to do so. We're not in a rush, but there is no need to go at a snail's pace. With articles like these, the main details are way too crufty to actually merge half the time, so deletion really is the best path. TTN (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units is already quite large, as the UC timeline is quite large. May I suggest a better merge target, such as List of (series) mobile units (where "(series)" is the name of the series, as this is copypasta as your !vote)? 208.245.87.2 (talk) 15:56, 22 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.  Sandstein  16:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Fried Cruelty[edit]

Kentucky Fried Cruelty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and has no reputable sources -- Teancum (talk) 18:00, 21 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 Mobile Suit Gundam: The 08th MS Team.  Sandstein  16:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RX-79 Gundam[edit]

RX-79 Gundam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units is already quite large, as the UC timeline is quite large. May I suggest a better merge target, such as List of (series) mobile units (where "(series)" is the name of the series, as this is copypasta as your !vote)? 208.245.87.2 (talk) 15:54, 22 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_in_Gossip_Girl#Lily_van_der_Woodsen. History deleted as nothing sourced to retain. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lily van der Woodsen[edit]

Lily van der Woodsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was deleted via prod and recreated. Fails any notability outside its fictional world. No references at all. Magioladitis (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the information there is more (3-lines instead of 1) than in the article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Magioladitis accepting his judgement that the already present material is sufficient. Or is there any argument against a redirect. Why was not a redirect proposed in the first place? DGG (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a secondary character. If this was a main character, a redirect would be appropriate. That's why a proposed a prod at the very first place. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say rather that if it were a main character an article of its own if possible would be appropriate. & if not enough material, a considerable section of a combination article. And, checking--I see that List of characters in Gossip Girl lists her as a principal continuing character, On that basis, redirect (there's nothing here worth the merging) --and a recommendation to expand the part on the list and if possible try to develop it into an article of its own, if there is comment on it to be found. DGG (talk) 03:57, 23 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. If anyone is willing to do the merge and add appropriate sources, feel free to contact me for a temporal recreation of the articles. --Tone 11:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Database (Super Robot Wars)[edit]

Database (Super Robot Wars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

These elements of the Super Robot Wars series do not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. TTN (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryusei Date (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dis Astranagant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Divine Crusaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ibis Douglas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Duminuss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dynamic General Guardian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Einst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Einst Alchemie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keisar Ephes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Excellence (Mecha) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fairlion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fury (Super Robot Wars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kyosuke Nanbu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tytti Noorbuck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tetsuya Onodera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yuuki Jaggar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gilliam Yeager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wodan Ymir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zfylud (Mecha) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sänger Zonvolt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TTN (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in that thread that suggests that discussing article merges is a bad idea--the arbs who commented seem to be encouraging proper discussion in the right places. The way to find out is to actually suggest a merge, not give up ahead of time. I'll be glad to come by and endorse it if it preserves some reasonable amount of content DGG (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is, if there is any opposition at all to begin with, an inordinate amount of effort has to be spent dealing with local editors who are only in the best-case scenarios cordial and understanding. If there isn't initial opposition and the merge goes through then TTN is by fait accompli causing a problem if anyone has an objection later on. It's a catch-22 which is resolved through the use of a page dedicated to third-party discussion regarding the fate of a (set of) article, or AfD. Nifboy (talk) 01:38, 23 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 Jordin Sparks or Jordin Sparks discography. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Now[edit]

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

Self-released EP, no sources found. I have to give her credit, she at least worked with some good writers. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:32, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Europe emerging as a New superpower[edit]

Europe emerging as a New superpower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This probably falls under WP:OR, but I can't find a speedy category it'll happily fit in. The two people mentioned in the article are experts in their field, but I'm concerned that the account may be pushing their views, rather than contributing for the good of the encyclopaedia. That said, there might be some salvageable material here. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:11, 21 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 02:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emergenetics[edit]

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

A psychometric profiling tool. Has been deleted twice as spam. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Mo2415a (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Ladybug97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sensatori[edit]

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

This has been tagged as a hoax; it's not quite that, but it is seriously misleading and I don't think there is a valid article to be made out of it. Sensatori is not a place name: it is "A new generation of stylish hotels exclusively from Thomson". The first of these is in Crete. It's not an "island resort", except in the sense that Crete is an island; it opened in May, not "the last quarter of 2008"; and the stuff about being "built on top of a live volcano" which erupted in 1704 and "follows a 300 year cycle" is nonsense. The descriptions and dates of the images make it clear they have nothing to do with the subject. The author has no other edits.

The facts could be corrected to make an article about this hotel, or about all of Thomson's "Sensatori" hotels; but it would be hard to avoid a spammy tone, and IMO they are not notable enough for an article, so I propose we delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:05, 21 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. Kudos to Malaiya for article improvement Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nattal Sahu[edit]

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

The article asserts that it's subject is a "merchant-prince". Such an individual should be notable enough to have more than 28 google hits [26], most of them originating from wikipedia and mirror sites. Just being mentioned in a book doesn't make an individual notable. The Journal, whose text can be viewed at http://www.jstor.org/pss/604073, refers Nattal Sahu as the patron who commissioned Parshvanath Charitra, but thats the only instance where Nattal sahu is referred. Here, WP:ONEEVENT applies. If the subject is a historically important merchant-prince, there must be more references to him in Indian history. The references given include a dead web link, Also "Agrawalon ka Jain sanskriti men yogadan" just gets 4 google hits owing to wikipedia. [27] --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added references to four books that refer to Nattal Sahu, including the four volume "Tirthankar Mahavir aur unki Acharya Parampara".--Malaiya (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The dead web link was included inappropriately by someone, I have removed it.--Malaiya (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also addd a Univ of Penn PhD dissertation as a citation.--Malaiya (talk) 01:54, 25 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.

Dear friends, Jay Jinendra

I do not see why the page on Nattal Sahu should be deleted. He is a historically significant person and has had a book written about him! He is linked not only with Jain history in Northern India, but also plays an important role in the subaltern history of India. Manish Modi 02:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish Modi (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Théophane Rifosta[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Subject does not meet primary notability guidelines that require non-trivial coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources. Had been tagged as unreferenced since August 2007 (before the tag was removed without the addition references) because, aside from trivial appearances on "oldest people" lists, there do not seem to be any references. Subject has a French Wikipedia article, but it too lacks references of any kind. In short, this is essentially a list entry, not an article, and could go on one of the many oldest people lists if appropriate. Cheers, CP 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

Here is one list here (COI noted):

http://www.grg.org/Adams/L/France.HTM

Mr. Rifosta was the oldest man in France at the time of his death, according to INSERM. However, I have not seen any news coverage, so merging to a list could be appropriate.Ryoung122 02:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete per above. B.Wind (talk) 05:32, 26 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. Hoax / vandalism Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DinQueen[edit]

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

"DinQueen" + "L'thumania" gets 0 Google hits, so I believe this is a hoax. TML (talk) 15:20, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blacksmith: The Movement[edit]

Blacksmith: The Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mixtape, per WP:MUSIC. No reliable sources provided, none found. Contested prod. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:20, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Veronicas Third Studio Album[edit]

The Veronicas Third Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Good Times (The Veronicas song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Future album release unsupported by reliable sources. Article is an exercise in crystalball-ery. TN‑X-Man 14:49, 21 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. Between canvassing and a significant amount of change to the article, this was a tough AfD to close. However, after having examined the article, the purported "sources", and the arguments presented here, I'm forced to agree with Amalthea and DGG. The "sources" in the article are in the main self-published and/or unreliable, and even at that generally mention the subject only in passing (if, that is, they mention the subject at all, which several do not). This along with at least two of the "keeps" here having been canvassed and one more being an SPA (and AfD being a discussion based on strength of argument, not a vote based on strength of numbers) lead to the result being to delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Masse[edit]

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

Bruno Massé, an anarchist author, researcher, activist, publisher, musician and lyricist.
I believe that Massé fails the notability guideline for people, WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE, WP:MUSIC, WP:ACADEMIC. In particular, I find no significant coverage about him, his academic work, research and papers have not "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline" that I can find, his books are not "significant or well-known work", neither are his plays, and "The Bloody Band" fails WP:MUSIC.
The article has a high number of references since I discussed notability with the author at Talk:Bruno Masse before, but I'm afraid that they too don't amount to significant coverage by far. The best of those I think is a radio interview (in French) by CHOQ-FM.
He sure is versatile and very active, but at this point fails the inclusion criteria for biographies. AmaltheaTalk 14:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. the skomorokh 19:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Charlesfournier (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Can you give me *one* French source that covers him in detail? Cause I haven't found one, and I have looked pretty hard. --AmaltheaTalk 11:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember that radical environmentalism is the number one domestic threat in the US Oh, jumping jesus on a pogo stick. Bearcat (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand you haven't found one and I'm sorry. But the sources are there for you to read. They are significant. I understand we disagree on this but there's not much I can do, just have a look. Perhaps if you could cite the french sources in detail and explain how that they don't qualify, that might help foward the debate instead of claiming that they don't cut it, and me replying that they do, etc. I'm sorry I can't be of more assistance. Moliere's tongue sure is a tricky one! Charlesfournier (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, I'll do that right after I've finished disproving the existance of god. If you happen to find significant coverage of the topic at hand in the meantime, feel very free to enlighten me and add them to the article, it should be a real easy job if "the sources are there".
      And FWIW, he's spelled "Molière". --AmaltheaTalk 17:36, 24 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. Tiptoety talk 06:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kuzhinapurath Family[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this family. Doug Weller (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was duplicate discussion closed in favour of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuzhinapurath Family, which is now listed as of today and properly linked-to from the AFD notice on the article. Uncle G (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kuzhinapurath Family[edit]

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

A family who have a strong involvement in the Christian church in india and also run a number of businesses. If there is notability in here, it escapes me. Cameron Scott (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a problem here - it seems there is already a running AFD. I'm not sure how that AFD was started but no notice was added to the article page (maybe a broken tool) and no attempt seems to have been made by the creating editor to do so. anyone know how to merge this one into that one or something similar? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe request speedy of this page, and change the notice to point to the other? Verbal chat 14:38, 21 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 closed, with this article redirected to Murder of Thomas and Jackie Hawks, which I am currently refactoring on BLP1E grounds to discuss the people notable for one event in the context of that overall event. You can still discuss the merged article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skylar Deleon. Uncle G (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Deleon[edit]

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

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Elliskev 14:10, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salvific Law[edit]

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

Non-notable PhD thesis. Sources are emails and other puff type sources. No coverage in any notable third party sources of the type that we would expect for an academic work with any weight. Cameron Scott (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Salvific Law succeeds in demonstrating that the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches has a particular congruence with the Divine Will. The aim of both is salvation of souls. While this book will be of interest to theologians and canonists, it is also particularly suited for priests and even laity. The sections regarding the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Penance demonstrate how God's saving love for man is made manifest in Canon Law." This comment very well speaks about the content of the book. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this due to some comments about *another* article at the RS board - it seems to be part of a wider walled Garden of stuff around this author and his family (for example, check out Thomas Kuzhinapurath. I'm looking further into all of those articles but it all seems to be puff and misdirection at this stage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One, in L'Osservatore Romano, even is a general periodical, not one specifically on a narrow topic on canon law. That's a bit of a disingenuous claim - it's the newspaper of the holy see and as far as I can determine, the review was in the regional edition not the main Italian one. As for Aikya Samiksha, that is published by St. Mary’s Malankara Major Seminary as is this book. It's hardly independent cover to have your in-house journal cover a book published by your in-house publishers and written by a member of your organisation. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:42, 24 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. Cirt (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agios Dimitrios (Kefalonia), Greece (disambiguation)[edit]

Agios Dimitrios (Kefalonia), Greece (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It is an exact duplicate of the correct disambiguation page, Agios Dimitrios (disambiguation). This page does not conform to dab page naming rules, as it would refer to multiple localities named Agios Dimitrios within Kefalonia, which is not the case. Furthermore, converting it into a redirect to Agios Dimitrios (disambiguation) would be redundant, as it is unlikely that any user try to get there through this obscure page. Already the dab link from the article where this originated, has been corrected, and hence, this page is orphaned. Constantine ✍ 23:37, 17 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. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boyan Josic[edit]

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

This article is about an obscure CEO of a non-notable company. Less than 1500 hits on Google. Fails WP:BIO. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:56, 18 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 Exactly what Elliskev said. This didn't need an afd. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CNN HD[edit]

CNN_HD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This page should be deleted and the information in it should be merged into CNN. CNN HD is simply a direct simulcast of CNN and all content is the same and therefore it doesn't need its own article.TomCat4680 (talk) 23:34, 17 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 Comfort. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comfortability[edit]

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

Fails per WP:DICTIONARY. Sorry, didn't know what section to CSD. If it's obvious, could someone message me on my talkpage and let me know what CSD section this would fall under? Thanks. Beano (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm... that's very odd. Twinkle must not have completed it properly. My apologies. Beano (talk) 17:57, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daybreak (folk)[edit]

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

Fails A7 = "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." Also fails all twelve notability criteria for musicans and ensembles outlined as per WP:BAND. Article also fails to list any sources, references or citations. Alphageekpa (talk) 13:37, 12 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, ffm 18:07, 16 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. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Hames[edit]

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

Non notable local politician and election candidate with no reliable 3rd party sources Valenciano (talk) 09:10, 19 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. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Pritchard[edit]

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

Short article with almost no content, no sources, about someone with no claim to fame except for one minor role in a film. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 18:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though with no prejudice to future recreation if material for an actual article presents itself. --Delirium (talk) 18:14, 19 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 as vandalism. (non-admin closure) Protonk (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Werid Werid World[edit]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Islamic reconciliation conference[edit]

Iraqi Islamic reconciliation conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lacks third party sources to establish notability. also WP:NOT#NEWS Michellecrisp (talk) 01:03, 17 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. Protonk (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Amel[edit]

Jabal_Amel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[((subst:FULLPAGENAME))|View AfD]])

The article Jabal Amel is so poorly written, lacks citations, highly sectarian, and constitutes an insult to the non-Shi'a population of that Lebanese geographic area by depicting them as auxiliaries to it. In many cases, the information in the article are highly inaccurate and subjective. Please examine the version of the article that does not include the corrections made by the user Fastabbas. The information remaining in the page are poor quality and perhaps useless, as the original authors of the article filled it with village names and the names of "respected" 'Hezbollah' "heroes." Fastabbas (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. Wizardman 16:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James_Kotecki[edit]

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

Non-notability, unsourced entries, subject lacking notoriety, shameless self-publicity featured in article,

Delete per nom. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 04:31, 19 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. Cirt (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Munro[edit]

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

Munro never played at a fully professional level in Scotland - East Fife F.C. and Cowdenbeath F.C. are semi-professional clubs - and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. There is only incidental coverage (match reports, team lineups) using a search with the club he played for most. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:05, 16 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. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of gangs active on the east coast[edit]

List of gangs active on the east coast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A list of random gangs on the east coast, primarily original research. Doesn't really serve a purpose. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 17:59, 19 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. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miffy Englefield[edit]

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

One sentence with no sources, etc, about an unnotable actress who played a minor role in a film. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 18:12, 19 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. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orion progresive rock[edit]

Orion progresive rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(completing nomination) Non-notable band

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ShockForce[edit]

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

Stub Article. No third party sources. Very little activity. The article has no hope of becoming an encyclopedic entry. DDDtriple3 (talk) 19:55, 17 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 02:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Grade Biology[edit]

Standard Grade Biology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Also nominating the related articles:

Standard Grade Chemistry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Standard Grade Physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Do we need articles on specific high school courses? Surely the article on Standard Grade suffices. Its hard to see how these can ever be more than a course structure and a note on assessment methods. Given that syllabi frequently change, I suggest delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:22, 16 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 (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Tour (Elena Paparizou)[edit]

Summer Tour (Elena Paparizou) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable tour, little more than a list of dates that isn't likely to grow beyond that, as the tour is over. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it should be kept or not, but it actually is a notable tour for the artist. It is her first tour of Greece in her career, with more than 190,000 people attending (a record for Greece). It's main sponsor was also Alpha Channel who will also televise the concert, which will also be released on DVD later. How is the any different than other tours by major singers who also released on TV and DVD? The only thing missing is a set-list, which I am sure can be obtained. Greekboy (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, in my mind, tours are rarely notable on their own. There are some cases when the tour receives a GREAT deal of coverage and there is substantial content other than just describing the tour, but I don't think that's the case with this article. It just seems like a standard tour. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 01:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than deleting, I think it could be expanded. The tour was actually very notable in Greece, with a great deal of media coverage. I can find sources on line from Greek sites about it if needed. It was also well integrated into the release of her latest studio album. I mean what is so different about this tour compared to ...Baby One More Time Tour or The M+M's Tour, other than it was from a less known artist on a worldwide standard? Greekboy (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its sourced and besides being short, I don't see any other reason why it shouldn't be kept. Like Greekboy said, it will soon be shown on TV and followed by a DVD release all of which will be added to the article soon. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To answer Greekboy's question, there actually isn't much that separates this tour and the ones you posted in terms of notability, which is why I've nominated those as well. But there is actually some precedence for something like this. For instance, look at Soul2Soul II Tour to see what I mean by a notable tour. That tour had substantial media coverage, and there is a great deal of content within the article. With this, it's not much more than a setlist and a list of dates. If the DVD is released, then the DVD can have it's own page, but at this point I just don't think that there's enough to justify it's own article. It could also be Merged into the artist's page. But as I said, there is precedence with tour articles being deleted. For instance, here, here, and here, just to name a few. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 03:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly made that tour more notable? Like I said, this article could be expanded substantially. It got a LOT of media coverage in Greece all summer, as well as being one of the most attended tours in Greece ever. There is more than enough news sources and details out there to add to the article. Greekboy (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
Well for one, it was the highest-grossing country music concert of all time. I initially nominated that one for deletion as well, but enough changes were made to convince me to withdraw my nomination. If this article is expanded to a similar degree, I will withdraw this one as well. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 03:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And this summer tour was one of (if not the) most attenuated tour around Greece ever. I have to look for sources, but I am a bit busy currently. Greekboy (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the reasons stated above. Greekboy (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Rwiggum's notion that concert tours are inherently unnotable is badly flawed. In many cases, concert tours are artistic endeavours of their own, due to staging, presentation themes, song selection, arrangements, etc. And in many cases, concert tours are seen by more people than buy the same artists' albums or singles, and are more commercially important to the artist. If this was one of the most attending tours in Greece ever, it definitely belongs in Wikipedia. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Simply making an artist a lot of money does not make something notable, nor does complexity of the stage show make it notable. If there isn't substantial, non-trival coverage, then it isn't notable enough. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 19:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But wait. Didnt you say above that Soul2Soul II Tour was the highest grossing country music tour, which is why you decided to keep it? Doesnt that contradict what you just stated above? Greekboy (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of many reasons, yes. During that deletion discusion, Wasted Time R did an excellent overhaul of a few articles, combining them into one and making an article that I felt met the notability guidelines. Also, if there are sources that actually say that this is the highest-grossing tour in Grecian history, or something to that effect, I will reconsider my nomination. But in my statement, I wasn't addressing my reasons for nominating this article, but rather addressing Wasted Time R's comments that tours should always be kept because they make the artist more money than album sales. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With your point of view, barely any articles would be notable. I would support its inclusion even if it wasn't the highest grossing tour or whatever because it is a tour by a well known notable artist. Would we omit an album page because it was a flop? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:53, 25 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. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twinsun[edit]

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

Topic lacks significant coverage in reliable third-party sources and thus fails WP:V and WP:N. No significant coverage can be found, and so this article should be deleted. Randomran (talk) 15:51, 17 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 A7. lifebaka++ 02:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weston Free Runners[edit]

Weston Free Runners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lacking noteworthiness Jeff (talk) 04:00, 18 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. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

France–Lebanon relations[edit]

France–Lebanon relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another trivial X-Y relations article. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 21 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 (non-admin closure). Nom withdrawn and article refactored to focus on the murder; this alleviates all concerns of delete !voters. VG ☎ 18:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Thomas and Jackie Hawks (neé Skylar Deleon)[edit]

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

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. --Elliskev 12:56, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders omnibus[edit]

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

Already covered in the EastEnders wiki. Fails WP:N for an article in its own right. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article's creator reverts redirects, so deletion is the only option. Darrenhusted (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. MBisanz talk 02:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nirimba Polecats[edit]

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

This is an article about an amateur university football club. It doesn't appear to be notable in any way. I am also nominating the following related pages about amateur university football club for the same reason:

Macquarie University Rugby League Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
University (rugby league team) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Australian Catholic University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Grahame (talk) 10:43, 21 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 (A7) by Herbythyme. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel regueira[edit]

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

Contested prod. Autobiography of a barely notable painter. Very few relevant ghits. Delete. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 10:27, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Moving Van Goghs[edit]

The Moving Van Goghs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability as per WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To say 'plenty of information here' is meaningless, since that's not a reason cited in nomination: its lack of compliance with basic notability standards is. Perhaps you would care to address those that were cited? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Information is never meaningless. "Notability," on the other hand... Fumoses (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comment did not assert that the information is meaningless, but that your argument to keep based on there being lots of information is meaningless. You need to provide evidence that the article passes the necessary guidelines at WP:MUSIC in order to prevent deletion. That is all that counts in AfDs. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:40, 21 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 02:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpenTTD[edit]

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

Article does not show how this game passes the notability threshold (WP:N), nor does it provide any references from reliable, independent sources (WP:V). Sourcing is difficult through a web search due to the large number of download sites and forum chatter amongst the hits, I certainly couldn't see anything appropriate through the first 10 pages or so. Prod with these concerns was contested with the paradoxical comment "It might lose at {AfD", so here we are. Marasmusine (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • See WP:GOOGLE - a large number of hits does not equate to the existence of reliable sources or notability. As per Marasmusine, third-party, non-forum, non-blog sources are needed to establish the notability of this. --MASEM 13:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were just a large number of hits, then I'd agree. However, it's not a large number of hits just mentioning the project; it's a large number of individuals actually discussing the subject. I take issue with the principle that something has to be picked up by mainstream reviewers to be notable. Verifibility is difficult here, but notability is not. WP:GOOGLE, which you refernece, backs this up in a backhanded way, when it states Google hit counts... "only rarely "prove" anything about notability..." - it doesn't say that it can't, it just says that it is rare. I think this is one of those instances. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that security advisories count towards notability. VG ☎ 19:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sure they do. No one issues security advisories on software that no one uses. Doesn't mean it's Firefox or AutoCAD, but it's still something. At the absolute minimum, it's equivalent in credibility to MarketWatch or BusinessWire press release--someone in the company announces a new version with a security bug in the old one, and puts out a release that's picked up by press release aggregation services. However, SecurityFocus does independent verification on the submissions and assigns their own severity scores, meaning that an independent reliable source exercised editorial control over that press release, and then published a page/document/advisory exclusively about that issue. That adds up to independent, reliable, non-trivial coverage in my book. Jclemens (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I disagree. Getting some free software included in Fedora/Debian/OpenSuse is relatively trivial, and bares no relationship to how often the software is used, but guarantees that security-related bugs in such software will result in an official advisory. VG ☎ 22:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and sorry for the crap edit summary. Finger slipped before I'd finished the sentence.Booklegger (talk)
Comment: OpenTTD has also been awarded the "Hungarian Unix Poral" readers award in 2005 and 2007 (both times first place). Would OpenTTD getting a few hundred euros within a day in a fundraiser (two times) been seen as notable? 85.149.88.77 (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is a large German forum I could immediately find [42], youtube lists 76 Videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.108.122.254 (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC) — 134.108.122.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Merge and redirect to a section of Transport_Tycoon. The award link [43] claims that OpenTTD is not a standalone game since you need the original game data to play it. Regarding the other source, xpressd is personal web site [44]. There isn't enough coverage in WP:RS for a separate article. VG ☎ 10:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)(changed to keep)[reply]

  • Comment - currently OpenTTD does not require the original game data anymore; there are replacements for the graphics and the sound and music is optional. There's however no "notable" source that tells this. 85.149.88.77 (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did that Special:Random thing. Going on your theory, London - which was the second one to come up - should be deleted. Also, Google hits don't count as verification of notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Also - Why does this have an article, but not any of the Service Packs for Windows XP? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because TTDPatch relates to Transport Tycoon Deluxe in the way OS/2 relates to Windows 3.x (OS/2 patched Windows 3.x on the fly, TTDPatch patches Transport Tycoon Deluxe on the fly) and OpenTTD relates to Transport Tycoon Deluxe in the way Windows XP relates to Windows 3.x (OpenTTD has many core technology changes w.r.t. Transport Tycoon Deluxe and Windows XP has many core technology changes w.r.t. Windows 3.x e.g. a completely new network stack (for both)). That immediatelly would make me ask the question: why a page for each version of Windows, shouldn't those be merged? 85.149.88.77 (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE: The point of what I was saying is that there are literally hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles that discuss subjects much less notable and considerably worse sourced than this one. How is this not about double standards and bad prioritizing? I mean, if you bother to look at the list of open source games I just mentioned, you'll see that in if OpenTDD really deserves deletion, so do practically all of them. Yet I fail to see such a discussion on, say, FreeCol or Egoboo. What purpose would it serve to delete all of them, anyway? Surely, I wasn't the only person who found the list helpful. And for the Google argument, I managed to find a perfectly neutral magazine article in less than a minute. Dismissing 250,000+ search results with dozens of independent reviews and hundreds of specific blog and minor site entries in a discussion of notability seems just plain unreasonable in my view. Particularly when when original "Transport Tycoon Deluxe" -openttd gets only 280,000 results by itself. The last point: regardless of the fact that WinXP Service packs are already on Wikipedia, they mere fixes and updates to the original product. Considering that OpenTTD does not even require the game it was based upon, I fail to see any possible relevance of such a comparison. Rankiri (talk)
It is not the number of hits Google gets on a subject that determines notability, but the quality of its sources thereof. Also not the common WP:WAX deletion pitfall. If other articles have similar problems, then they will be dealt with in due time. However, right now, we are dealing with this article. MuZemike (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles mentioned have been proposed for deletion and nominated for deletion, respectively. Thanks for letting us know. MuZemike (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just for comparison using the same metric: Wikipedia has 689 hits. For OpenTTD it's quite hard to find everything because even though it is called "OpenTTD" people write it also as "Open TTD" and "Open Transport Tycoon (Deluxe)" 85.149.88.77 (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure: www.aurovillenetwork.in/download_center/books/tux_magazine/tux014.pdf Rankiri (talk)
  • For one, the software in question is under ongoing development. A visit to Category:Upcoming_video_games provided numerous "no information has been released on this title as of yet" and "Rumors claim that the game will be for multiple platforms". What's the official policy on this? Also, could you define notability for me? WP:N indicates that "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable", and a developing product that is already in such widespread use looks rather notable to me. To put it into perspective, Oldmans_Township_School_District has 244 students and practically no media coverage whatsoever. Should it be nominated for deletion as well? As for WP:V, considering that none of us actually bothered to search through all those Google results, shouldn't ((unreferenced)) be a more appropriate response? Rankiri (talk)
  • Maybe Oldmans_Township_School_District, Blue Dragon 2, and Delta Force: Angel Falls should be deleted (WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING). However, as mentioned before, we are not talking about other articles - we are talking about THIS ONE! If you are asking me to define notability, I am not a dictionary. However, I can certainly give my view of this crucial official Wikipedia policy. I believe that articles establish notability through proof thereof in reliable sources. My interpretation of the portion of policy you quoted is that such reliable sources just need to exist for inclusion of an article; they don't necessarily have to be cited; surely, many article that come of AfD that are kept are because someone either (a) did not see that reliable independent sources providing significant coverage exist but was later to be found, or (b) no one looked for them. Given that I have not given my !vote on the article yet, I cannot find any right now via a simple Google search that would be considered verifiable secondary sources. MuZemike (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe? If you don't know what notability is, perhaps it is not up to you to enforce it. This debate is relevant to all such articles. If you delete OpenTTD without any good reason, what will stop you from deleting something I do care about in the same manner? Regardless, I already gave you one magazine article from a third-party source. Since I've apparently become the sole official source finder for the page, here's another one:
  • What further proof of notability would be appropriate for you? Encyclopædia Britannica? It doesn't deal with unfinished freeware. Oxford dictionary? Same here. Gamespot or IGN? Both deal almost exclusively with high-profile titles and practically never cover small projects like this one. As for my examples, what I meant to say that OpenTTD actually seems to have more sources than a good portion of Wikipedia's articles, not that it's similar to one or two of them that didn't receive similar treatment. I don't see how WP:WAX can relate, particularly when it specifically says "they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this". So what about the official policy on unreleased/unfinished popular software that verifiably exists but -for quite obvious reasons- hasn't been covered by any highest quality publications as of now? And what of "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable"? As with the previously mentioned magazine source, you're practically ignoring my some of perfectly valid arguments and keep shoving all my secondary observations under the tent of WP:ATA. Let me do the same and point you to WP:BASH. Rankiri (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Don't tell me that I don't know what notability is; I am well aware of the policy. I am not going to read or interpret the policy for you. I expect users to read and follow that and similar policies and guidelines within reason and with reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, I do not delete articles; as you should know, that is the job of administrators to make that decision of whether to delete or not. I will throw one more guideline at you, and that is assume good faith. No one is out to get you or your OpenTTD community. MuZemike (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my belief that reduction of each argument to WP:ATA (as well as baseless accusations of WP:COI) is not an acceptable way to argue, and I partially demonstrated the validity of that belief by pointing you to WP:BASH. Let me assure you, I was quite dispassionate in that response. To finalize, I'm glad you finally agreed with some of my reasoning. Until next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankiri (talk • contribs) 22:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just on the sources part. If you brought that (that is, the two magazine articles) to the table first, then it would have saved a lot of arguing and carpal tunnel from typing. Oh, well. MuZemike (talk) 00:35, 24 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. MBisanz talk 02:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corned beef sandwich[edit]

Corned beef sandwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N, could possibly be mentioned in passing in the Corned beef wiki. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swapped them- though it doesn't look like one in the UK, which looks like a 'normal' sandwich, and this one doesn't look pleasant to my unsophisticated food tastes.:) Sticky Parkin 22:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's Space food. The paragraph I typed could be used for that article and the Gemini III article. As a child, one of my heroes was Gus Grissom; even dressed up as him for school once (although looking back I think I looked more like a Klansman).--Gen. Bedford his Forest 06:33, 22 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 transwiki to Wiktionary. The "Keep" opinions ignore our policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and are discounted.  Sandstein  16:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign place names in Japanese[edit]

List of foreign place names in Japanese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Transwiki to wiktionary, per user:Timurite below. `'Míkka>t 15:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC) List of Japanese words. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. `'Míkka>t 08:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note-actually Mikkalai wants to delete it. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:35, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1949 Rally Of Finland[edit]

1949 Rally Of Finland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
1949 World Rally Group B Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Intentional hoaxes or not, there was no Rally Finland, World Rally or Group B in 1949. Prolog (talk) 08:14, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese exonyms for places in Russia[edit]

List of Chinese exonyms for places in Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of translations into chinese language. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. `'Míkka>t 08:02, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mother and Father (Madonna song)[edit]

Mother and Father (Madonna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Promo only release. No references Paul75 (talk) 07:53, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emer O'Loughlin[edit]

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

My apologies for not editing this page to include much more information as yet, I am new to Wikipedia editing. This page is a joint effort between three people, all of whom, close to the deceased. As for notable, a case such as this is notable depending on where you live, if you live in the villages or towns of the Republic of Ireland, everyone knows of the case, it hits the communities hard. I will be sure to include a line stating that if you allow the page to be left live for just a while longer. The whole county of Clare in Ireland heard of this case and realise that this is not an everyday occurrence to them, its the sort of case which just takes you by Storm, despite the troubles in Ireland. Thank You, —Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingShooter06 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken on board the points on that page, personally, I have been trying to put across a neutral point of view, another editor is not. I realise it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to promote cases for the benefit of one side only. It is difficult to be completely unbiased, however, I have agreed with the other two editors, that I will write the rest of the page, seen as the only information to stay on the page was posted by myself. I hope you can appreciate that it takes a great deal to write about something such as this. Thank you for letting it stay live for that bit longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingShooter06 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The last media interest was more than two years ago. Sadly, people are murdered every day. What puts this incident above WP:ONEEVENT? WWGB (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of coverage in Ireland. Maybe. I understand that the article is thin and the fact that is unsolved is the main reason for the coverage, but with several wp:rs sources, it seems to pass. If nothing else, WWGB says cover the event, not the person, which would mean a move to different title, not a delete. I'm not claiming to be ironclad about this (and fully understand your argument), but this is what I am reading in the policy here when taken literally. I am all ears to hear other precedents and learn something new. Is there another article it can be merged into, if it is borderline? PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
other comment Read the intro for JonBenét Ramsey which says that the main notability is the longevity and the media interest. This article isn't at THAT level, but where is the threshold? idunno. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:45, 17 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, kurykh 07:36, 21 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 - this article has been floating around AfD for quite some time (at least 15 days) and has been relisted 3 times. I think its time to close this discussion. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 08:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Fables[edit]

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

No sources found. Unsourced since 12/07. No notability asserted besides a long run in Grand Rapids. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:02, 11 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, treelo radda 00:33, 16 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, kurykh 07:35, 21 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, MBisanz talk 02:39, 27 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 Paul McCartney#relationship with Nancy Shevell. History retained as there are some useful WP:RS sources there. Cirt (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Shevell[edit]

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

This is a classic WP:ONEVENT subject. None of the third-party references (excluding the bio at the subject's own company's web site) refers to the subject in a context other than in relation to Paul McCartney. All of the material information and references from this article have been merged into a brief couple of paragraphs in the main article, Paul McCartney.

Suggested course of action is to replace the article with a redirect to Paul McCartney#relationship with Nancy Shevell. Bongomatic (talk) 07:14, 16 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, kurykh 07:30, 21 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.  Sandstein  17:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delta (Latin)[edit]

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

This short substub contains no useful information and thus fails WP:STUB criteria. It might possibly be adequate for Wiktionary, but currently it's non-informative. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 18:56, 16 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, kurykh 07:28, 21 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 02:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laven Sowell[edit]

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

Non-notable. Local music teacher. No career backed by reviews in publications. Kleinzach 07:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Sang Marcello and Colline in La bohème throughout US and Canada with the Charles L. Wagner touring company which was fairly notable as such companies go (See: Wagner's book [54], Time Magazine article about him [55] and mentions in these journals [56], [57])
  2. Sang comprimario roles at Tulsa Opera before becoming their Chorus Master, a position he held for over 30 years.[58]
  3. Received the Oklahoma Governor’s Award for Excellence in the Arts (1991).[59]
  4. Books: Williams, Jack A. and Sowell, Laven (1992) Tulsa Opera Chronicles 1948-1992, Tulsa, OK: Tulsa Opera; Sowell, Laven (2000) My music notebook, Tulsa, OK: Hammondo Press. Voceditenore (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC) (further additions Voceditenore (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I agree. The most glaring problem is that article is written like an affectionate tribute from one of his students, which it probably is. I might be able to 'rescue' it to a "weak keep" in a few days when I have more time. But, I'd like to see what the general feeling is here before I put in too much effort. Voceditenore (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but is this man even notable on a national level? --Kleinzach 02:18, 24 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 Tu-Plang. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sucked a lot of cock to get where I am[edit]

I sucked a lot of cock to get where I am (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NALBUMS notability requirements. No references or external links. All the information listed within the article is already presented here. Flewis(talk) 06:46, 21 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Meade (soccer)[edit]

Darren Meade (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO and has been lacking sources entirely for the past 18 months. JBsupreme (talk) 06:45, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Dragons[edit]

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

Amateur Taiwanese sports club with very-weak-to-non-existent claims to notability, with little to back up said claims. CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Baseball-softball is considered the national sport of Taiwan. Amateur softball in Taiwan is as big a deal as college football, which is amateur as well, in the United States. Whether a team has "claims to notability" should be decided by locals whom the team is based in, not by assumptions from people who never set feet on its home base. In this article, there is indeed sufficient backup to its notability claim, just not in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gannilaomu (talk • contribs) 07:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Editor's ONLY contribution to Wikipedia, so far.[reply]

To say 'plenty of detail' is meaningless, since that's not a reason cited in nomination. Perhaps you would care to address those that were cited? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:38, 21 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. I the nominator withdraw this afd, due to subsequent improvements to the article. (non-admin closure) Flewis(talk) 05:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Central College[edit]

Ananda Central College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another High School that lacks sufficient context to determine location or any significant info.

Yes, very encyclopedic. WP:N concerns aside, no WP:RS or external links for verification. A WP:OR is also a viable problem Flewis(talk) 06:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in List of schools in Sri Lanka this is categorized as a national school, whereas it appears on this page as a provincial school. The sources for the school seem mighty thin to me; can anything in the article be sourced other than the school's existence and the fact that it's in Elpitiya? Deor (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article still requires major cleanup, the issues are listed within the article.--Flewis(talk) 15:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is poorly written, isn't it? Gawrsh, Goofy--is it a high school or a college? Oh, it doesn't matter because we Keep both of those!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the school is also listed at Elpitiya#Key Institutes, and perhaps that would be a better place to include a "brief sentence or two" and to target the redirect. Deor (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest we use for sources? Deor (talk) 16:16, 21 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 copyvio. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. joseph old boys foundation[edit]

St. joseph old boys foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non non notable association. Could be deleted on the basis of ambiguity, because it fails to state exactly which school this really is. From what I can deduce, this school is located in England, however there must be hundreds of "St. Joseph’s High Schools" in England and indeed internationally. Does not present enough information to sufficiently determine context. No inbound/outbound links, references, external links or citations either.

No prospective reader knows who "Brother John" or "Brother Jude" is. Weasel words, un-clarified statements bordering WP:OR and so much more. This article is a mess. Flewis(talk) 06:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point - the location is arguable - another reason to delete under {db-a1} --Flewis(talk) 07:16, 21 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. A7 or G11, take your pick.--Kubigula (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Chaserz Productions[edit]

Paper Chaserz Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, unencyclopedic advertisement Mcbill88 (talk) 06:05, 21 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breathing Room[edit]

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

Article tagged in May for notability issues. "Citations" section does not establish notability of film, does not meet criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (films). Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 16 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, Spartaz Humbug! 06:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There issue here appears to be the reliability (or not) of the sources. Some discussion of this would helpful for closing this either way. Spartaz Humbug! 06:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sources listed are okay, for a low budget horror movie. That plus the festival listings make me say the article is good enough to Keep. raven1977 (talk) 19:42, 23 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 02:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Mann (singer)[edit]

Gabriel Mann (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. There is an actor with the same name (and has article here) and searching for sources, you have to weed those out. I couldn't find anything I felt established notability for this SINGER (title says singer, description says best known for writing, I dunno...). Was a prod, was deleted, was recreated by SPA. Note talk page on article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. However, it's impossible to believe (notwithstanding the article snippets you found) that Mann opened for Alanis Morissette for a couple of reasons. First, it wouldn't generate so few hits if it were really true. Second, the article's subject doesn't mention this on his web site--it's hard to imagine that would be the case given the amount of other achievements cited. Bongomatic (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Retracted. Bongomatic (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If only the primary source existed I would agree to the dubious nature of the claim. Since the primary source is at least partially verified by reliable sources and there's nothing to be found that contradicts the primary source, it's acceptable to take it at face value. (I'm not necessarily saying, however, that everything on his website should be taken as gospel.) I would say that the European tour with Alanis Morissette, his producing Sara Bareilles' first album, along with his other work (videogame soundtracks, song(s) on Arrested Development, etc) added together equal notability. Put me down for Keep. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:32, 17 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, Spartaz Humbug! 05:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - but where are these citations to come from? We've looked and all that exists is confirmation that he exists. There's no articles being written about him. -- Whpq (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not that I am an expert on all things Wikipedia, but a lot of this article can be supported by an interview that Mann gave on "... is good." (http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/19527) as just one source. While I understand that this is a primary source, I do believe that it has merit. A few more can probably be done with some legwork beyond just googling. It would be interesting if someone could actually get a hold of the liner notes to Sara Bareilles' first album for instance. He produced half of it and should be credited, and considering her huge popularity now that alone entitles him to be considered "notable." Voxbaryton (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)— Voxbaryton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Château de Lussac (Lussac Saint-Emilion)[edit]

Château de Lussac (Lussac Saint-Emilion) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A minor wine estate/wine in a minor Bordeaux appellation. Basically non-notable (a Google search reveals no substantive media coverage) and apparently created by or on behalf of the estate owner simply as an advert for their product. Nickhh (talk) 08:13, 16 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, Spartaz Humbug! 05:46, 21 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prinzzess[edit]

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

Contested prod (although I can't imagine why). This person is a million times less notable than Ginger Jolie and is completely lacking in the reliable sources department, let alone non-trivial sources. JBsupreme (talk) 05:44, 21 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.  Sandstein  16:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional history of Spider-Man[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fictional history of Spider-Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

What more do I need to say beyond the title "fictional History of Spider-man"? We don't write in-universe fictional histories of characters. We write real world perspective encyclopaedia articles that keeps recaps of plot to the bare minimum and concentrate on what third party reliable sources (which this has none of) have to say about the cultural and historical significance of a character. This article doesn't cut it in any way shape or form nor can it be made to because it's structure and purpose are so out of line with every policy we have. The MOS (and a dozen other policies) is clear and explicit about this - we don't have articles that are just fictional biographies, we don't write articles that are just to provide descriptive accounts of fictional happenings - we do not.

I Quote "An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading, gives undue weight to unimportant information and invites unverifiable original research. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be or become". Cameron Scott (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? that's a quote not my own words. Would you like to rephrase your accusation? As for "disruptive repeat nomination" - that is in regards to repeat noms by the same people in a short period of time (there is a space of 4 months between noms). I was not involved in the first AFD and have never edited this article. I have read it and concluded that it should not exist - that's is my reason for nominating it. This article is just one lengthy plot summary, much of which is just a repeat of what is covered in individual articles. If I removed the in-universe perspective and the duplication, we would be left with two paragraphs. The function provided by this article would be better serviced by a "list of spiderman storylines" which would link to the article that we have on the individual storylines. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing personal; just that I have read your nomination and concluded that it should not exist. Your explanation of how this material might be better presented fails to explain how deletion will assist this. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does "a few weeks" become "a couple"? The point is that it is too soon to claim that we need to go through this again to try to get a complete reversal of the result. The correct process for overturning recent results is WP:DRV. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please tell me you're not seriously suggesting that a minor misquote negates my whole point. As Cameron Scott said, the limit is four months. It has passed, and it's a valid AfD. Your speedy keep vote is invalid, period. JuJube (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no formal limit but common sense indicates that at least a year is required to avoid vexatious disruption. Cameron Scott has brought nothing new to the subject and this discussion is just generating tiresome drama to no useful purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't an "origins" or a "development" article. This article is explicitly geared towards providing an in-universe fictional history. Now you could say "well retitle and go from there" but you'd still be forced to delete all the content and start from scratch anyway. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, but there is also sourcing to support a much shorter fictional history article. I mean, this is a comic series that has run for decades and is extremely popular. there will be some sources on the subject. I agree with you 100% that this article in particular doesn't look anything like what that hypothetical article would look like. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fictional history of Batman from 1956 to today is covered in eight paragraphs in the Batman article. If someone wanted to spin that out to a "publication history" article for Batman and do the same for Spider-man, I would vote "keep" for both. I cannot do that for an article that is designed to provide an in-universe perspective. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I don't claim that my view on the subject delegitimizes your view. I just feel that it it is possible for this article to turn into one that meets the inclusion guidelines without a deletion in the middle, we shouldn't delete it. We may have to wait some time for an editor to come along and fix it, but it will happen at some point. I don't think it is terribly likely for this article, hence my "neutral" above. Protonk (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, thank you for taking the time to articulate your point, but let me just say I'd expect Amazing Flying Spiderpig (or maybe Peter Porker) go past my window before that happens ;-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't - it's entirely composed of primary sources. That does not equal a "very heavily sourced article" it represents an article consisting of primary sources which is not the same thing but for some reason people think that it is. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are the best sources for matters of canon and quite acceptable per WP:RS. There are thousands of other sources which we might add but there is little need. Is there any fact presented which you find to be dubious or untrue or are you just reaching? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:RS states that works of fiction are only reliable as primary sources that should only be used for plot summary and that "primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an anayisis of the characters in the work of fiction). For such statements, we must cite reliable secondary sources." Furthermore, "Wikipedia articles should be based around reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources." Themfromspace (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a spin-off article from the main article on Spider-Man and its nature gives it a particular focus upon canonical sources which is reasonable and sensible. The article gets over quarter of a million hits per year and so is serving our readership well. Are any of the facts presented disputed? If not, then nit-picking about sources is just tendentious wikilawyering. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The argument isn't about sources but notability. Spin-off articles are still articles so they still have to abide by the WP:GNG. Certainly Spider-Man is notable himself but his long detailed history is another story. If it isn't notable than it shouldn't have been spun out to begin with and needs to be trimmed to the point where it helps the real-world discussion of the main subject. Themfromspace (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not being clear enough on my opinion here. Due to the 40+ year nature of the character, and the incredible amount of information/interest out there on the subject matter, it seems perfectly reasonable to consider a synopsis of the character's history (yes, fictional and plot driven as that might be), if only to help illuminate the larger article(s) that rely on the character itself. As Protonk notes above, it's definitely NOT a perfect wiki article by any means, but it does have the sources needed, and imho, the notability (not to mention practical necessity) to remain a wiki article. My .02; cheers! JasonDUIUC (talk) 00:29, 18 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, Spartaz Humbug! 05:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, we' don't have wikias. they are not WMF projects, but a separate profit making enterprise. DGG (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that section of the guideline is in contradiction with the guideline as a whole, and with the lead section, both of which talk primarily about the need to avoid excessive length. We therefore get to use our own judgment. DGG (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not in contradiction to the guideline as a whole; It is a reminder not to game the system. Summary style is a way to deal with excessive length. It is not a way to circumvent other policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOTE, which is the way of determining which subjects get stand-alone articles. Read entire guidelines; don't just take the parts you like. Failing to understand how guidelines work is a terrible argument. Jay32183 (talk) 06:31, 23 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 02:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orange & Bronze Software Labs[edit]

Orange & Bronze Software Labs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. I was not able to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. It is a real company, according to the Philippine government. Wronkiew (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Can't you see the official website? or at least try searching Google or Yahoo....the page is not yet completed and its references are not yet finished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supremo106 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what credible sources do you refer to and where do you look in to? Orange & Bronze has top clients in the Philippines if you try searching it in google or yahoo...how come you couldnt find any? in its homepage alone, it is linked to several other webrings and pages Supremo106 (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline to which Beano refers is WP:CORP. It requires a nontrivial reference in a reliable secondary source, which is properly cited in the article. So far, only internal Orange and Bronze sources have been cited, which is why this article fails the notability guideline at this time. --Nsevs • Talk 06:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nsevs is correct on this. Sources to prove notability and satisfy WP:CORP must be third party and prove notability. Beano (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the current third-party links Ive added now, are they enough? Supremo106 (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would say that none of those sources provide nontrivial coverage of the company. Many of those links are for business directories, which are specifically excluded in WP:CORP. Other links are in the same vein. --Nsevs • Talk 07:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only link that helps to establish notability is the OS Summit speaker bio, but it's not enough by itself. The easiest way to establish notability would be to point to an in-depth article about the company in national media. For a "pioneer in software development best practices" with a "respected name in the software industry" and a "reputation for accomplishing difficult software projects", it shouldn't be difficult to find. Wronkiew (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with VasileGaburici. This does show WP:ADVERT. Beano (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have erased contents that are "Advertisements" in nature..could all of you review it it at least. Thanks. Supremo106 (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Even in its present form, it lacks notability. Some of the statements come from the owner's personal blog, and it is not mentioned in prominent independently-published sources such as broadsheets, news websites, and even television. Starczamora (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, per Starczamora. Beano (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ey, great wiki administrators and I think a fellow Filipino who writes and protects the philippine entertainment articles, Ive added a publication where O&B is featured, in Globe Telecom's MASIGASIG Magazine, Nov. 2007 Issue. I think it is a notable secondary reference... Thanks. Supremo106 (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, IF, and only IF (since you guys are the God in this site), it is decided that the article should be kept, does this deletion discussion would cease to exist? this is publicly viewable in the net and that it could undermine the company that is being discussed. This discussion is displayed on top search results in google and yahoo that could affect the company's name..Just a logical concern, though. Hope you guys can respond asap Supremo106 (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the links of the said Magazine here in the Philippines, so you all can check and may settle this issue asap so I can organize the Article more... Globe Telecom's Masigasig Magazine - November 2007 Issue: Pages 9 -10 : Article: "Blazing New Trails" Words by: Ruth M. Floresca. For Magazine reference See http://www.sme.globe.com.ph/GlobeCSME/View/MasigasigOnline.aspx / Globe's MASIGASIG Online]], [[http://www.sme.globe.com.ph/GlobeCSME/images/uploaded/Masigasig%20November%202007%20-%20SMB.pdf / PDF File of GLOBE MASIGASIG November 2007 Issue: Pages 9 -10 : "Blazing New Trails" Supremo106 (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not play God. Wikipedia is built on consensus, and please practice civility. Starczamora (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think we should assume good faith on the publication. I think Masigasig looks like a "trade publication." Starczamora (talk) 01:48, 24 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 02:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrexiophobia[edit]

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

Dicdef of a fairly nonnotable specific phobia, one of thousands things a person may fear. Unlike, say, claustrophobia or some others, no notable research exists and the term is found only in phobia lists, dictionaries, and in unscrupulous websites, see -phobia#Phobia lists for some amusing examples. `'Míkka>t 05:27, 21 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. Certainly no consensus to delete; opinion remains also divided about whether it should be merged, but that discussion may continue elsewhere. I note that the article has been much improved since its nomination, so the earlier "delete" opinions are taken into account less.  Sandstein  16:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Sanchez (sexual act)[edit]

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

This is such an obvious delete I'm not even sure why we need to have this conversation, but oh well. We're not a dictionary and this is a dictionary definition. I rest my case. JBsupreme (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it survived five AfDs previously. This one is number six. See the "AfDs for this article" list, just above here. — Becksguy (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, look at this recent edit since my above comment: Gustavo Arellano in his ¡Ask a Mexican! column explains the origin of the term by the fact that thick moustache is a stereotype of a Mexican in the United States.[2]. Is this guy a Dirty Sanchez scholar? What Arellano says is very plausible but what makes him reliable? WP:Notability says sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, and it's going to be an uphill battle for Dirty Sanchez.
I can't see how the disambig. argument flies. It could easily be unlinked and be covered in coprophilia. Switzpaw (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, consensus can change (although I believe it's rare), but the other side of that coin is forum shopping. At some point the combined weight of multiple keep consensus based AfD decisions are clearly for inclusion. And these were Keep closures, not "No consensus, defaulting to Keep", which show a very strong longitudinal consensus to Keep. And if the sources need improvement, then we fix them, although they seem sufficient to me, and several other editors here, and they were sufficient in previous AfDs. From WP:DEL, If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. AfD is not for cleanup and deletion should be reserved for articles that cannot be improved no matter what. I'm assuming good faith that this is all intended to improve Wikipedia, but aren't multiple AfDs (and possible DRVs) for one article counter productive? — Becksguy (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The racist slang is more notable than the sexual act, but is not this article or the subject of it. It's probably already in a list of racist slang or something, or should be. Anyway, that's not about the subject of this article, and just goes to show that other uses of the phrase are more notable than this. How about a merge to that telly prog with the same name? I think they named themselves after this mythical practice. Sticky Parkin 02:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's gross, but WP isn't censored. "Childish joke" and "ew... that's sick" are not policy/guideline based reasons to delete, they seem to be more about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Saying that something isn't encyclopedic doesn't really explain why. And as argued here by several editors, this article is about the sexual act, not the definition of the word. — Becksguy (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...but this article is still an under-glorified dictionary definition, and we delete those all the time. WP:NOT a dictionary. JBsupreme (talk) 14:11, 24 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, McWomble (talk) 10:06, 26 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. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Gontiya[edit]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PWF Light Heavyweight Championship[edit]

PWF Light Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Cleanup of two leftover championship articles for federation deleted last year in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional Wrestling Federation. Fed failing afd would be a pretty good indicator the titles don't pass notability either. Search results: PWF Light Heavyweight Championship 0 gnews hits[71], 4 ghits (+tx) [72] , ROW West Texas Wrestling Legends Heritage Championship 14 ghits [73] (wikiclones), 0 gnews [74]. NO significant coverage, badly fails WP:N. Horrorshowj (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [other title from same fed. now used by another non-notable. Cleanup]:[reply]

ROW West Texas Wrestling Legends Heritage Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Horrorshowj (talk) 05:14, 21 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 Transport Tycoon. MBisanz talk 02:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TTDPatch[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass our notability guidelines (WP:N); no independent, reliable references (WP:V). PROD with these concerns was removed in September by User:Maximr without comment and without addressing these issues. Marasmusine (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually restored it as a contested prod. See the deletion log, this is simply an alternate account. butterfly (talk) 18:59, 16 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, ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 05:01, 21 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Submachin gun facts[edit]

Submachin gun facts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Also included: International assault rifles

Lists of guns, of a sort, with short commentaries on a few representative elements, created by the same account at roughly the same time, who also removed a PROD from both. Both articles are indiscriminate collections of arbitrary stats, not encyclopedic articles. Wikipedia is much better served by the articles on individual weapons, and the existant list articles list of submachine guns and list of assault rifles but I don't see how those would be a useful redirect target for these. gnfnrf (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be said about the International assault rifles article (what makes them international to begin with?) VG ☎ 16:01, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Davis[edit]

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

nn boardgame champion who fails primary criterion of WP:BIO due to a lack of reliable sources. PROD contested without comment. gnfnrf (talk) 14:11, 16 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, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a joke, I was present at the tournament. The video was uploaded from a similar play made in 2007 when Scott Riley defeated Robin Grayhorse in the semifinals. Contact the WJA (world Jenga association) for conformation of the event. http://www.atari.com/us/jenga/

You have provided a link to the product page for a video game about Jenga. Is there any documentation in reliable sources that this tournament exists, or that this person won it? gnfnrf (talk) 13:58, 25 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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Techmare[edit]

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

Non-notable search engine, no reliable sources (the only independent source mentioning it is a blog entry listing Japanese job search engines). Was founded this month. It may become notable in the future; no bias against recreation once it is. Huon (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what particular source would you deem to be reliable. As the company is quite young, there have been no major articles in major periodicals or major blogs- as of yet. Based on your argument, I assume any young or niche company that does not imediately generate main stream press should not have an article on wikipedia. That seems somewhat hard to grasp. Can you give me an example of a reliable source that covers every young company that exists in this world. I suppose that Wikipedia is a tool to help us to find new information on new topics- sometimes, if not often, before they hit the press- or the Universites etc. Would you not agree? Also as an engineer living in Japan who has used this site- I find it useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackshinjuku (talk • contribs) 13:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


Also, since you seem to believe it is not notable, can you please provide a link to a similarly tech job focused search engine in Japanese, or any other language, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackshinjuku (talk • contribs) 13:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackshinjuku (talk • contribs)
I do not see any evidence presented for the above claim that this site is not notable.
It seems to be just an opinion based on no particular fact of any kind- that I am able to determine. The above phrase "Non-notable search engine" is not defined clearly. What does the author mean by this phase? Please define. I think this article is valid and should remain.
There's a very comprehensive policy on notability. See Wikipedia's notability policy --Ged UK (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pls see discussion section for this article-
Where does it state that blogs do not pass the reliability test? I notice that quite a few Wikipedia articles use techcrunch as a source- which is actually just a blog- albeit famous. And if fame is the most important criteria for a blog, then should we not eliminate newspapers with minor circulations- or perhaps periodicals that we do not agree with. E.G. too right wing- thus unreliable. Search Engine Journal is also more of a blog than a "newspaper" proper. If it is correct that blogs are not considered reliable sources- then it would seem that Wikipedia itself must be deleted- since so many article refer to blogs. In addition, media is changing, traditional corporate owned media is dying, and independently minded citizens and bloggers are growing in influence and respect- as is Wikipedia. And since Wikipedia itself is nothing more than a collaborative effort by individuals- that is-non-corporate identities- to make a valuable resource for everyone, how is it possible that it would reject the opinions of other socially created media like blogs?
User JackShinjuku —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackshinjuku (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs as (un-)reliable sources are discussed in this essay. As an obvious example of blogs' unreliability, I could create a blog and publish fictious negative information on Techmare (such as "Finds useful hits only on 10% of searches!"). That would obviously not suffice to add these made-up claims to the article.
Concerning the Search Engine Journal, while it's probably not among the most reliable sources in existence, it looks much more sophisticated than a blog. For example, it has a list of staff and a physical address. But that's completely irrelevant; whether Indeed.com (whose article cites the SEJ) is notable enough for an article is not the topic of this discussion, and whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is irrelevant for the question at hand.
Finally, Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source, and neither does it consider most other user-submitted content (such as other wikis) so. Huon (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well it seems that based on the comments above, the only way to have an indisputable conclusion as to whether a specific source was reliable, would be to have some sort of official and presumably countless list of "approved sources". Yet even if there was an attempt to make such a document- it is not at all clear how there could ever be a fair consensus as to what sites are reliable. For example among many of my associates- Fox News is considered completely unreliable as a news source. In fact it is often not considered a news source at all, yet for millions of Americans it is their primary source of news and information.
The author of the previous comment states- "while it's(Search Engine Journal) probably not among the most reliable sources in existence, it looks much more sophisticated than a blog..."
Is this not case and point- an individual judges a site to be reliable by it's appearance- and thus it is. (It seems also worth noting that the Search Engine Journal does not have an article on Wikipedia- despite it's presumed notability. Is it indeed notable?)
In lieu of such an officially sanctioned list, the argument is reduced to who thinks XYZ source is reliable or not. There are a myriad of opinions on which particular sources are reliable or not. And a source that would generally be considered highly reliable among a particular group of people, interest group or nation would be considered just the opposite by another group. It is interesting to note that the comments above suggest that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source- because it is user generated. If that is indeed the case, then what exactly is the point of this discussion. The logic seems to be almost self-defeating, at least in it's conclusion. No article that does not have a reliable source can be posted on a site that, according to the previously posted comment, is itself unreliable.


Overall the article contains information of sufficient merit and quality to continue. This is not to say that it could be improved in the future- as many other articles on Wikipedia could. But to argue for deletion of this article based on the aforementioned arguments would be arbitrary, subjective, unfair- and a detriment to the viability of Wikipedia as source of information.


User- JackShinjuku Oct.16 2008

As mentioned before, since mainstream media is dying, and alternative/community media is growing- it is illogical to use mainstream media as a bar for notability or lack of. Keep

User- JackShinjuku Oct.18 2008

This is a Japanese language site- not English- so naturally one would not find so much english media about. As one would not for fc2.com a top website here in Japan. Keep

User- JackShinjuku Oct.18 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.105.47.239 (talk) 09:54, 18 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 02:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Turk[edit]

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

Fails notability for biographies since June 2007. It was prodded for deletion in June 2007 but it was declined. No improvement happened since that day. None edited this article in 2008. Magioladitis (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources, and there is nothing in the article now that isn't cited or visible in the sources cited.John Z (talk) 17:21, 21 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, ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:50, 21 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.  Sandstein  16:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Child Left Unplugged[edit]

No Child Left Unplugged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable; its a high school students project that got a newspaper mention. Habanero-tan (talk) 04:41, 21 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 02:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piero Mazzi[edit]

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

Fails notability since June 2007. The article was tagged by the Notability wikiproject. I am just copying the reason from the Talk Page: It is currently unclear whether this artist is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, since no proper secondary sources are cited. By the notability criteria for biographies, independent reliable sources are required to make sure that the subject is notable. These sources might be, for example, an independent biography of the person, or press coverage in which he is covered in depth.

Currently, the article only points to a text "Piero Mazzi" of unknown origin; in fact, this does not seem to be a published book, at least I was unable to find it via the usual sources. If it is a independent source and not a self-published booklet, please make the reference more precise, e.g. by adding an ISBN number.

Also, I have my doubts whether the museum makes this person notable. First, dedication of a building, etc. to the person is not regarded as a fact establishing notability. Second, if the museum shows work of the artist, then it should be made clear that this museum has received sufficient recognition, say by press coverage in major newspapers. In the current state, there is no evidence in the article that the museum is not only a private, non-notable collection.. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:09, 12 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, NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So he had a commercial exhibition in Elba, and ....? Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and sources may be available in Italian, but I can't read Italian. That I managed to find one despite this handicap indicates that there are more available to an editor who has some proficiency in Italian. We delete articel the are unsourceable, not merely unsourced. -- Whpq (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can bid on an oil on board painting of his on Italian ebay here - 42 bids to get to €120 so far. That seems to be it. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not ready for this encyclopedia.....Modernist (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC) see below.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:35, 21 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Råshön wind farm[edit]

Råshön wind farm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The only reliable source that I can find is the official site. Schuym1 (talk) 23:48, 16 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, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 19:12, 20 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, ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:34, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of most frequently mentioned brands in the Billboard Top 20[edit]

List of most frequently mentioned brands in the Billboard Top 20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

original research, indescriminate information Habanero-tan (talk) 04:09, 21 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. no objection to a merger at the talk page MBisanz talk 02:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Do (Jewel song)[edit]

I Do (Jewel song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

song wasn't really a big hit and has no sources, tried to redirect but was reverted without explanation, not all chart singles are inherently notable. Caldorwards4 (talk) 03:53, 21 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 Userfy and delete. The consensus below is that the film does not now meet the guidelines but probably will soon (it it certainly would meet them in the near future, I'd say just IAR and keep but we all know that distribution could fall through), so I will be deleting the article from the main article space and moving it to User:Erik/The Speed of Thought were it can be worked on (with history intact) and moved back once it has been released and reviewed. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Speed of Thought[edit]

The Speed of Thought (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is based on a future film whose notability is questionable because there has not been any recent update of this film's progress. I've sandboxed this article at User:Erik/The Speed of Thought until it can be determined that this film will be coming out, warranting all the usual coverage a film gets. Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, my issue is that August 2006 was more than two years ago, and it does not seem clear that the production is notable. Obviously, the cast members are prominent, but the lack of progress makes me wonder if this may be shelved. To my recollection, The Adventures of Pluto Nash was made in 2000, was shelved for a while, then released two years later. If significant coverage gears up for this film to show that it will really have a presence, it can be recreated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked more closely with Access World News and LexisNexis Academic, and there is not even a passing mention of this film in the year 2008. While the overview links mention 2008 as a date, there does not seem to be any definite source on this. It's possible that the film will be direct-to-video... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found contact informations for El Camino Films. Would wrinting them to simply ask if they have a release date yet be considered original research? They may be able to either direct me to a site that has such information, or inform me that it is not yet been decided. That could then either confirm that the article might stay (with the new source added) or that it might otherwise be deleted until a release is announcd. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wouldn't be considered original research, but I'm not sure if it would be something that a reader could verify (like a website or a book in a library). You can give it a try; I just suppose I am pessimistic about the progress of this film after so long. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... just fired off emails to El Camino's production staff and then even spoke on the phone with Chris Romano, one of their execs. He sympthyized with the article, explained that the post production took much longer than they expected, further shared that the film IS finally out of post... finished and is even now being lined up for release. I said that that was good... but unless there is something somewhere that can others can verify, the article may be deleted... at least until the film does get out. He promised to check his email, check with the film's director, and send me word. So... if I do not hear in a day or two, just save it and let it come back. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to admit, that's pretty cool. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope he is able to follow through as promised. At the very worst, we just stick this in a sandbox foe a few weeks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point; I've done so. To the closing admin, if the article is deleted, please userfy it to the above link. I will keep my eyes open for additional coverage and move it to the mainspace when there is sufficient coverage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((db-author)) is a request for a page to be deleted. If this article is deleted, its page history can go to the now-empty page (rather than deal with the ((db-histmerge)) process). Don't worry, the article won't be gone forever; I've asked for retrieval of some deleted articles to cull useful resources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:39, 22 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 02:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Guerin[edit]

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

I feel that every professional athlete regardless of their sport or their country of origin has the right to be on this free site. Mixed martial arts is slowly becoming one of the most popular sports around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.21.128.52 (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that basically a 2-2 MMA fighter in Japan is that notable. I think there's also some heavy COI between the uploader of the images and User:61.21.128.52 who removed the prod and the infobox. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Guerin has fought at the professional level since 10/19/00 [77] and most recently at the Deep M-1 Challenge 7/17/08 [78] which will pass WP:ATHLETE, Being "top" in MMA is not being debated. More biographical data will be added.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Tone 11:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nanopol[edit]

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

Notability, no references. Everyme 02:54, 21 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. MBisanz talk 02:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre[edit]

Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable festival. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 02:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't matter where we're from. If the festival is as notable as you say it is, then there should be no problem providing souces to back that u p. However, a google search] for the phrase "Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre" only produces 59 results, which doesn't suggest that it's as hugely important as you say. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 12:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said though, not many people know it as "Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre". In fact, I wasn't even aware that that was the new name for it. As well as "Waltham Forest Drama Festival" (a further 43 ghits), MOST people just call it "Waltham Forest Festival" (and drop the "of Theatre" bit, even though referring to the theatre festival) which has 224 ghits. Glastonbury's official title is "Glastonbury Festival of Contemporary Performing Arts" yet that gets 9570 as opposed to over a million ghits for "Glastonbury Festival", and that is in spite of the fact that an even bigger majority will call it just "Glastonbury" - a huge chunk of the 8.6 million hits that that word gets. But the official title gets just 9570 hits. Just because the official title doesn't get many hits means nothing. 267 ghits for either "Waltham Forest Festival" or "Waltham Forest Drama Festival" is not insubstantial and Wiki pages have been created for far less important festivals, especially considering the cultural importance of this festival and its esteemed patronage. I mean, what is it you've got against this charming cultural festival in the East End of London, anyway? Incidentally, you get 559 ghits if you search for pages that include both the terms "festival of theatre" and "waltham", so I rest my case. Tris2000 (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


1. The article was incorrectly tagged for deletion on the basis that the Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre is a club. The following message was written: "A tag has been placed on Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club". The Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre is not a club. It is an open entry Festival. Entry is open to all. Anyone can take part in this Festival, it is not exclusive, it is not a club, it is a well-known, inclusive, open event that anyone, no matter who they are or where they are from, can either take part in or, if they wish, spectate. The whole mission and raison d'être of the Festival is the inclusivity and accessibility of drama and theatre at the Festival.

2. It has been mentioned that the Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre is not notable because there is a lack of independent sources quoted. I apologise that the Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre does not have a very long online Internet history, but it does have a long and important history spanning nearly 28 years. It has to be remembered that Theatre in the UK has been very late in adopting the Internet both as an information source and as a historical archive. I carried out a search on the database of The Guardian Newspaper Series and found independent stories and reviews relating to the Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre and its pre-2006 title of Waltham Forest Drama Festival dating back to 2004 [79], but my understanding is their online Internet database does not go back long enough to read the Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre's entire 27 year history, anyone wishing to look into the Festival's early history would have to consult the volumes of the relevant Newspapers that have been archived and are available for inspection and study in the British Library [[80]]. Non-trivial independent sources do exist and are available but finding them on the Internet is a bit harder. I believe a research study at the University of East London is in the process of attempting to gather together a definitive database of the history of theatre in London, but given the hand to mouth history of theatre in the United Kingdom this task has its pitfalls. I agree that the article on the Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre does have some scope for improvement at this early stage, but the nature of Wikipedia will allow it in time to become the definitive, reliable article that reflects the strength and history of this Festival of Theatre in London.

3. The Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre is a notable Festival. Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre is clearly referenced in the Wikipedia article on the All England Theatre Festival (AEFT) 1. It is also referenced in the article on the National Drama Festivals Association (NDFA) 2, albeit originally under its pre-2006 name of Waltham Forest Drama Festival. Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre is the new name for the Waltham Forest Drama Festival which was 27 years old this year and soon to enter its 28th year. Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre is the largest amateur theatre festival in Greater London and the only amateur theatre festival in East London. It is a well known event in East London and attracts participants from across the highly populated boroughs of East London and as well as the the Counties of Essex and Hertfordshire.

I propose that the article on Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre be kept for the above 3 reasons. -- unsigned

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  17:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Lees[edit]

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

Delete - subject is not independently notable apart from the disappearance/death of her boyfriend, fails WP:BLP1E. Information is adequately covered in other articles about the person and the event. Otto4711 (talk) 02:19, 21 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. --Tone 11:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of monarchies by GDP (nominal) per capita[edit]

List of monarchies by GDP (nominal) per capita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Also nominating:

List of monarchies by GDP (PPP) per capita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Forks with no extra value. All the author did was copy List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita and List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, respectively, and remove the non-monarchies. Creates a maintenance problem—future changes need to be reflected in each page—and the author is already changing values on "his" pages so they don't have the same information as the originals.—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:01, 21 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. kurykh 02:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-homophobia[edit]

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

This is not a list of articles associated with the same title, but an original research compilation of what the editors of the page think are anti-homophobia. There is no reliable source criteria for inclusion in the list and the name itself seems to be without clear scope. See Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. -- Suntag ☼ 01:53, 21 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. kurykh 02:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berg v. Obama[edit]

Berg v. Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A pending case filed by (apparently) a conspiracy theorist. Anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone for anything these days. I don't see what makes this lawsuit notable. 67.150.122.240 (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1: Nomination was started by an unregistered editor. I have completed it on their behalf. No opinion on my part. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2: — 67.150.122.240 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I don't feel my account is a 'single purpose account.' I've made some submissions and edits to Wikipedia before, but I have just never bothered to register before. Since this is the first time I've wanted to create an article since Wikipedia made the change that allows article creation only by registered users, I registered. I will continue to use this account to make Wikipedia edits in the future. I don't feel that the characterization of my account as an SPA is warranted. Zad68 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's warranted for the moment. Your week-old account has made no edits to any article except this article, the one you proposed shortly after starting this account. Not that it should change the merits of the argument one war or another, but describing you as an SPA for now is definitely warranted.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as when you say "Not that it should change the merits of the argument one war or another", you're saying the truth, then OK, it doesn't bother me. I guess I shouldn't expect everyone else here to be able to prognosticate what other edits I'm going to make with this account in the future. Zad68 (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the fact that you are an SPA is separate from the many good, strong reasons for immediate deletion (which are enumerated below). These strong reasons for immediate deletion would be just as strong if you were not an SPA but rather a longtime user with a varied track-record.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Many editors prefer to document all SPAs, in case we get a flood of 'keep' or 'delete' votes, and we notice all of them are SPAs. In that case, it would look like someone was gathering people to "vote" (meatpuppeting). That isn't the case here, but I didn't know when the AFD started, so I just documented it because the nom was SPA. It is just procedure in this particular AFD. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 00:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but notability isn't temporary. If it is covered by multiple reliable sources (and it is) then it is notable, per WP:NTEMP, regardless of the long term (the coverage is what makes it notable, not the result of the case). You are welcome to try another argument, but it passes wp:v, wp:n and wp:news pretty clearly since it is a court case that is covered independently. Also note, I found these sources in about 5 minutes, so I bet more can be found. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly my point. Notability is not temporary and the notability of this case is temporary thereby failing WP:NTEMP. Not all legal cases are notable even if they are independently covered per not the news. This case in my view is really just the legal system being manipulated for political reasons. When the case fails to go to trial (most likely) or loses (and it will lose as it is a very weak legal arguement as Obama was born on US soil) then the case will cease to be memorable for itself but only as a part of Obama's 2008 bid for presidency. I rarely express my personal opinions in AFD debates but in this case I think to give this topic an article at all is undue weight. If this were a serious lawsuit than you can bet it would be making headline news and causing serious discussion internationally. As it is, several major media outlets have not even picked up the story. Bottom line is that I doubt this case will even go to trial, a fact that makes the notability unclear. FYI, I am not an Obama fan but I find this sort of political monkeybuisness entirely reprehensible.Nrswanson (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The policy says "if it is ever notable, it is notable forever". The line " there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic" demonstrates that. Once it gets multiple coverage, it is notable and it doesn't have to prove that it will be covered ever again. THAT is the purpose of the policy. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there isn't an element of .. well.. question-begging involved in stating that if the case went to trial [the plaintiff]would lose because Obama was born on US soil, when an allegation included in the suit is that Obama was not born on US soil, but in Kenya, to persons who were neither US citizens nor eligible to be (The issue of Indonesian residence, etc., is another matter.)It implies that Obama's birth "on US soil," therefore his citizenship, is or would be presented as a self-evident fact and foregone conclusion. Of course, it may very well be just that, which would be fine with me. [Potentially-sarcastic remark conscientiously deleted here by signer.]--JWMcCalvin (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obama was born in Hawaii not Kenya as evidenced by his birth certificate.Nrswanson (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, he was not. Obama's black grandma says she was in a hospital room, in KENYA, on the day of his birth. Angie Y. (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. If you wished to advance such a claim, you should cite your sources. But this debate is not about whether Obama is American, Kenyan, Indonesian or Martian; it's about whether this as-yet-unheard legal case is notable. In my opinion, it is not notable as distinct from the general welter of misinformation and vexatious claims surrounding this candidate. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, wikipedia is not the news. Just because something has been reported in multiple newspapers doesn't make it notable. In this case we have a ludricrous law suit filed that probably will never see the inside of a courtroom. It's getting news coverage today but once it gets thrown out it will cease to be notable. Per WP:Crystal this article really shouldn't exist. If the case does turn into something more substantial later (which I think is highly unlikely) then by all means the article could be created again.Nrswanson (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to labour the point, but wp:crystal can't apply as nothing in the article is about what "will" happen, and it is properly sourced. I am also confident that the case is bunk, but that isn't the standard, independent coverage by multiple reliable sources is. I wish I hadn't seen the AFD, honestly, but I can't pretend that I feel the article genuinely meets policy in a very clear way. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - Those aren't reliable sources. The Kentucky Lake Times article is obviously a press release from Berg - it refers to 'our website obamacrimes.com'; a quick glance at the KLT home page reveals it to be a highly biased site, filled with unverified claims, politicised opinion, and crazed hyperbole. The NewsStar 'article' is a letter from a reader. The title of 'Right Side Politics Examiner' should be a clue as to that site's persuasions; but in case there was any doubt, the article itself is an editorial, re-posting a YouTube video from Berg. The Australia.to 'article' is an opinion from a syndicated blog, and the blogger claims that the case has received very little attention. (A Google News search shows that that, at least, is true; almost no news sites carry the story.) Your 'reliable sources' are neither news sources, nor especially reliable. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<sarcasm>*Yes, nonsense sources. That's why I hate The Washington Times] because they're nonsense </scarcasm> 68.143.88.2 (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection - GoodDamon posted that remark nearly an hour before you posted your link to the Washington Times. Mocking him for not predicting the future seems both uncivil and excessively demanding. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Times? Are you kidding me? We might as well be citing the Weekly World News. MissingNo (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Neither case has any significant level of mainstream coverage. See above for my analysis of the sources provided. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Writing a long manifesto of your personal assertions is not what a AfD debate is about. Please refrain and stick to WP:Notability. davumaya 18:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have yet to be persuaded that this is 'highly known' or 'very public'. It's just an unheard lawsuit. And Wikipedia is not a news service, we shouldn't retain an article simply because someone might be looking for one. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whats the point on creating any article if it's not because someone might want information on the subject? Doesn't that seem like violating the very spirit of the encyclopedia? Also, my wording "in-the-news" was an attempt to illustrate notability, not the fact that it is, indeed, in the news. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between an encyclopaedia and a newspaper. This is the sort of item which gets into the 'Funny Old World' column of the London Metro, not Encyclopedia Britannica. I wasn't intending to criticise your choice of words, but simply to point out that the article is a reasonable subject of criticism under the heading of WP:NOTNEWS. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't think you were criticising my words, I was just frustrated because my original thoughts weren't put forth correctly due to my own wording! :) I suppose I'll change my keep reason as per WP:NTEMP. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be good to note the pro-Obama and pro-Obama socks !votes as well :) 68.143.88.2 (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion - Would both sides like to take any serious accusations of sock-puppetry here, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or, the media is in the bag for Obama (pro-Obama)? 68.143.88.2 (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing a verb there. I'm not sure your suggestion is relevant to this discussion, though. If it is, could you be a little clearer, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully we never have to do business together. You'd order a office chair and I'd send you a bag of charcoal. Perhaps my keyboard hates me? :) 68.143.88.2 (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a start. You've done better than Pharmboy in finding a really reliable source. I still stand by my 'delete' argument based on WP:NOTNEWS, but the Washington Times is certainly a sufficiently reliable source. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. So, regardless of what course the case takes, it's a real lawsuit, against a real notable person, with real reliable sources...so, what was your argument? 68.143.88.2 (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is: this case may yet fizzle out entirely, so it's not notable. Simply mentioning a notable person does not make a document notable, because notability is not inherited. The case against McCain mentioned earlier was not independently notable, and nor is this, yet. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That actually makes sense. I'm changing my vote. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to speedy --- it appears that all of the article sources are primary sources only. --guyzero | talk 20:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Prolonging this deletion discussion until the presidential election would be an obvious POV variation of the normal deletion process. It would be POV, in my opinion, on the grounds that the purpose of the case is to discredit one of the leading candidates in that election. If the election takes place, and Obama loses, the case is redundant. The timing of the election should have no bearing on our decision here. Out of curiosity, does anyone know when the next official decision about the progress of the case itself is due? A judge somewhere may yet save us all some trouble. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to wash my hands of this article, delete or not. It looks Obama will likely win, which means the lawsuit will be an ongoing thorn. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This case was thrown out by the judge: http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20081025_Judge_rejects_Montco_lawyer_s_bid_to_have_Obama_removed_from_ballot.html I agree now that it's a novelty case and not notable. Zad68 (talk) (pardon me for not logging in to make this comment)
An AfD discussion typically lasts for around five days, there are exceptions such as discussions which are closed per WP:SNOW or when the nominator withdraws their nomination. Guest9999 (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Berg is moderately notable, and Obama is unquestionably notable. But notability is not inherited; the court case doesn't deserve separate treatment. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth rebutting every piece of anti-Obama hyperbole in this discussion? To my mind, this case is no different to the very similar one brought against McCain, and no more notable. Party politics don't really enter into it. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Savage may be an insane rightwing nutjob, but he's an insane rightwing nutjob with an audience. Several million a night, in fact. What's the sound of 5 million rightwing nutjobs simultaneously telling everyone in earshot Obama is from Kenya? Notability. With regards to the case brought against McCain, that was dismissed immediately (basically on the grounds that there was no way to prove the plaintiff had been injured by McCain and thus could not sue.) Berg, however, filed for an injunction and orders of admittance, the latter of which was granted. The motions of dismissal and staying of disovery made by Obama and the DNC have been denied, and Obama and the DNC have failed to meet the deadline set for discovery and answers to the order of admittance: it is a very, very real possibility that the judge may rule in Berg's favor. —123fakestreet —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. It clinches the matter that this case is completely non-notable.Nrswanson (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If that isn't a WP:Crystal statement I don't know what is. The media nor Berg have released a statement confirming an appeal.Nrswanson (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even if berg does appeal (who knows if he will or he won't) that still would not make this notable. All we would have is a coatrack for a fringe theory, by a serial filer of lawsuits in support of fringe theories.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. There is very little unbiased information about this case/controversy on the internet. This subject is small in comparison to most of the issues facing us, granted, but people who hear about the allegations will be curious and deserve a place to come to find factual information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.242.105 (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC) 70.195 etc... is an spa.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "factual information" is there to know? A crackpot sued Barack Obama, claiming he wasn't born in the United States, despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, including a birth certificate and an announcement of the birth in the local newspaper. The case was thrown out. There, that's the extent of information about it. It's a curiosity, not an encyclopedia entry. --GoodDamon 23:47, 25 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. kurykh 02:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doc scott[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. Notability is not clear. POV issues. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:25, 21 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belzebuub[edit]

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

Non-notable person; sole assertions of notability are from their own webpage; google search turns up links to book sales but no substantial discussion in reliable, secondary sources required by WP:BIO.

Also note that I screwed up the nomination because the previous deletions were for Belzebuub and for Mark H. Pritchard, his real name (and can be found here - if anyone knows how to fix it, please do so! I've Mcguyvered a pseudosolution.) WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 00:51, 21 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. kurykh 02:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Rose Gedris[edit]

Megan Rose Gedris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails to establish notability, and provides no sources; but is not a clear speedy since the person in question might be notable. Search finds nothing verifiable. Arsenikk (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 21 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penny rugby[edit]

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

How-to like, almost covered by made up in a day. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is poorly cite, no even one ex link.--Freeway8 20:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note a previous AfD was held when the article was titled "Penny Football": Discussion resulted in 'keep'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadScot (talk • contribs) 03:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you could keep an article so easily via WP:ITSNOTABLE back then compared to now. MuZemike (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 21 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classmates (1986 film)[edit]

Classmates (1986 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable porn film. Tatarian (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Tatarian (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 21 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alasdair Hunter[edit]

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

Notability is unclear. No references. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:46, 21 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.  Sandstein  17:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darin Raffaelli[edit]

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

Fails notability for biographies since June 2007. No references. Magioladitis (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 21 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Side Basher[edit]

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

This fictional weapon 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, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 21 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. Wizardman 16:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lahinis[edit]

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

Completely unnotable group of characters The Second Jungle Book. Lahinis aren't even really characters, its just Kipling's name for the she-wolves. Dic def at best. Failed PROD with PROD removed by editor who stated "I do not believe that deletion of this article would be uncontroversial as required for WP:PROD. Please use WP:AFD if you want it deleted." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 21 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.  Sandstein  17:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse course[edit]

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

There was a discussions about sources on the talk page of this article back in 2005. There are still no references. I can't see anything here that isn't covered by the Cold War and Japan articles. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 21 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. kurykh 02:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Helgason[edit]

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

Declined speedy deletion request because of (weak) claims of notability (national TV, etc). However, the only independent reference in the article doesn't mention the subject, the 19 non-wiki ghits don't show a whiff of notability, and zero gnews hits. Either non-notable, a hoax, or wishful thinking. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 21 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. kurykh 02:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reyna Kola[edit]

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

Non-notable, Please note it is no article about the main producers. AlwaysOnion (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 21 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. kurykh 02:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modernage[edit]

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

Band which fails notability criteria of WP:BAND. Article has been unreferenced since March 2008. DAJF (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 21 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 consensus about notability and the addition of reliable sources in the article. Non-admin closure. Jamie☆S93 02:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Weinberg[edit]

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

Non Notable, Unsourced Eatabullet (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 21 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. Protonk (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoyo Records[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 11:17, 12 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, Mr.Z-man 03:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 21 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Committee for Display Metrology[edit]

International Committee for Display Metrology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems little more than a summary of a project (in progress) from some random committee. Perhaps it is important work, but it is not encyclopedic. (Perhaps once their work is complete and it is covered by reliable sources, then we can revisit). ZimZalaBim talk 03:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 21 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 The CMT source is a good find, and has me convinced that there're probably more sources somewhere, just not on the 'net. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonnie Barnett[edit]

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

Reads more like a magazine article. Some notability but it seems very thin (wrote a hit for Clay Walker, a few other minor writing jobs, very very minor acting roles), and the sources don't seem to cut it. Most seem to be personal websites or trivial mentions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:56, 12 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, Mr.Z-man 03:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 21 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. kurykh 02:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Resnick[edit]

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

Person is non-notable; after extensive editing to initial hoaxy article, we have an article on a person who doesn't need to have an article on Wikipedia Drmies (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 21 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. Wizardman 16:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Maddock (CBSO)[edit]

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

Person is entirely non-notable: at best this one sentence should be merged into the main article Drmies (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 21 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. kurykh 02:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vamsi (film)[edit]

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

Unsourced, non-notable. Maybe merge into one of the actor/actress's articles? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sources exist to show notability.[91] [92]. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 21 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. kurykh 02:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackedout TV[edit]

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

Non-notable self produced comedy film series. Lacks reliable sources by any measure. Icewedge (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 21 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maïté Schwartz[edit]

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

Non notable actress Honey And Thyme (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 21 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ostrich strategy[edit]

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

Looks like a monetary neologism. For the record, ostriches don't hide their heads in the sand -- they are actually quite fierce fighters (you go, ostrich!) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the point of the article is economics, which is why I put it up here. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would invite anyone to expand the article. As it stands, however (it remains an economic article), it doesn't make the grade. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:42, 21 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 Nomination withdrawn as per Deor's exceptional editorial input. Job well, done, Deor! And kudos to the other editors who successfully argued for its inclusion. I am glad that this is being preserved. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ozark Southern English[edit]

Ozark Southern English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Do y'all think this article has WP:OR problems? I reckon it does. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I rewrote the article as a short stub, with references (before I saw the references supplied by Uncle G above). I think that a decent expansion will require some library research, but is this a good enough start? Deor (talk) 12:20, 21 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. kurykh 02:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theory-based semantics[edit]

Theory-based semantics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a non-notable theory advanced by one or two researchers, possibly with a commercial interest. See [93] and Talk:Knowledge Science. Beland (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Further analysis (thanks, Phil) shows that the expression is used with different meanings by other authors. I don't see evidence that Ballard's Ph.D. thesis, on which this article is based, has gained a significant degree of acceptance. VG ☎ 15:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 21 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.
  1. ^ "Press Release from Philip Berg - Seeking the "Truth of 9/11"". Scoop Independent News. Retrieved 2008-10-25.
  2. ^ Duffy, Shannon P. "Lawyer Slapped With $10K in Sanctions for 'Laundry List of Unethical Actions'". Retrieved 2008-10-25.
More