< October 28	October 30 >

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Jennifer Lopez Greatest Hits (2009)[edit]

Untitled future album without great sources for notability. Almost certainly will be notable if and when it's released, but WP:CRYSTAL says we need to wait. Hammertime. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a crystal hammer. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 00:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per The Hammer. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTALHAMMER; also, greatest hits collections are a dime a dozen and aren't necessarily notable. 23skidoo (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop! Hammertime. JuJube (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Snowhammer! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 12:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Gerard[edit]

Subject matter is not notable outside the the movie itself. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 23:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand considerably. The character will have been discussed in every review of the movie. There is no proper rule about being notable "outside the movie." Indeed, I don't even understand what that phrase means. That's the basis at which notable fictional characters become notable.DGG (talk)
Merge or Redirect for now. Let's see if this article builds up or else it will have to redirect or merge to his linked movie. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 05:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep character was in two movies... was he in the TV series, too?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Non-admin Closure. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wests Tigers players[edit]

Contested WP:PROD. Indiscriminate list. My rationale is under list item 4 under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MuZemike (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is better in this article than a sprawling list in the main Wests Tigers article. Given that players listed here play in the top level rugby league competition in Australia. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Patently not indiscriminate. Daft nomination. Hesperian 01:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll admit that the list isn't finished (two columns are blank), but if you honestly think that this isn't worthy at all, then you're setting a very dangerous precedent whereby hundreds of other lists including dozens of featured lists should be deleted under the same rationale. MDM (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC) (article creator).[reply]
Keep List of first grade players at one of the 28 biggest Rugby League clubs in the world. If it included all the players in the junior ranks or something silly like that then it would be a indiscriminate. Mattlore (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, fuck this fucking shit! MuZemike (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be WP:CIVIL in this discussion.Mattlore (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PROD reasons, and per MDM. If this is deleted, then it will most likely be created again. The Windler talk 05:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Mattlore, not in fact an indiscriminate list. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as per all. Wonderful list of fabulous players for a superb club. Though I may be biased. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No real difference in style between this list and that of many other sports teams here at wikipedia. It is a real decent article.Londo 06 13:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — Withdrawn. And I echo what I said above. MuZemike (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Van Helsing JodyB_talk 19:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Velkan Valerious[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its film 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) 23:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article, but I do think it should be deleted. There's not a lot of info on the character for him to need an article. Son of Kong

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Van Helsing and Set redirect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect - The charecter fails to meet WP:N and fails to cite secondary sources aside from the movie publisher. Note that this was also the result of the first AFD. —— nix eagle 19:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Poole[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This character 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) 23:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge as a secondary character in the film, and not all that important a film either. The importance of the character & the film makes a difference, though these nominations do not seem to acknowledge things like that, being the same for all. Clear specification of what the article is about in the nominations would help productive discussion of the alternatives. DGG (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Treasure (film). Searching for the main character Benjamin Franklin Gates results in a redirect to the movie article. The two sources are from IMDB and both of them are not enough to justify a secondary character having his own article, in addition to failing inclusion criteria. DDDtriple3 (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'm going keep on this one: character has appeared in at least two movies plus promotional material tie-ins at Disney. Imrpove the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't make articles from promotional material. That is precisely the reason why WP:N demands independent sources, so that we don't end up having a distribution of articles that is based on corporate advertising. The subject hasn't been covered by reliable, independent sources. Movie reviews are plentiful, but do little besides mention the character name. A redirect is fine, too. Protonk (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article could be expanded, but contains information about the specific character. There are many pages devoted to other literary and movie characters on Wikipedia. 75.131.212.75 (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the character is not notable independent of the films. Any information about the character can be conveyed in the film articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable secondary sources independent of the subject with real world content to establish notability. Jay32183 (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Secondary character. Also, redirect ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete/merge and redirect - This is a secondary character that has no other secondary references. I suggest that when it is merged, merge to the popular culture section... and if you are really bold... rewrite the pop culture section. (See talk page of Cool_Hand_Luke for the contents of this article if interested in merging —— nix eagle 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Dick[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its film 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) 23:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the grounds of TTN making way too many AfD nominations. I would recommend a maximum of three a day. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Discuss the article and not the nom. MuZemike (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. You're right, of course. I apologize. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I always think it better to judge on the quality of the articles & the nominations, not individuals who may have authored them or nominated them . In this case, although the film, Cool Hand Luke is extremely notable (being on the National Film Registry, this is a very peripheral character and inappropriate for an individual article--unless there has been significant commentary on him, which I would tend to doubt & even if there is some, I still think it would be better as part of a more comprehensive article. The problem with the multiple nominations of this sort is it obscures these actual distinctions. We can deal with any reasonable number of good well presented nominations, while one cookie-cutter nomination without specifics is one too many. DGG (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Do not merge The article on the movie Cool Hand Luke does not have any sections on characters. A merge would result in a secondary character having his own character section. It would be the only character section in the article while main characters do without. The content from this Blind Dick article is badly written and there are no sources listed at all. A merge will only reduce the quality of the main article and it will not add anything to it. I suggesting redirecting to the Cast section. DDDtriple3 (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect One-off characters rarely ever need separate articles. This one reads WP:OR-ish, which is bad for a merger per DDDtriple3. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and create a section on characters in Cool Hand Luke. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect The notability of the film is a binary status. It is either notable or it isn't. In this case, Cool hand Luke is a very famous film. It is critically very well regarded. But it is just as notable as Cool Runnings. One of the reasons why notability isn't inherited is that there is no rational way to speak about notability as a magnitude. Is two NYT mentions more than a book chapter? Is an article in The American Economic Review worth more than 5 articles in People Magazine? The answer to all those questions is likely "huh?", as we can't assign some value to notability. So Cool Hand Luke is notable. Good. What do we find when we look for the subject of this article? Not much on google books. Nothing on google scholar, though they don't index all the humanities journals. Nothing on an archive search of gnews. Deletion or redirection is a perfectly acceptable outcome here. Protonk (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Googling this is really hard, if only because Dick's Sporting Goods sells hunting blinds. However, I was unable to find any references to the character in the movie outside of discussion of the movie or the actor who played him. Also, I found some other references to people called "blind Dick"; in particular the first references outside of us, IMDB, and youTube are for an ex-slave who lived in North Carolina and was enough of a celebrity to get a NYT obituary. I got a bunch of other hits, including a placename in Canada. I'm sensing that anyone who knows about the character knows about the movie. Mangoe (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the character is not notable outside of his presence in the one film. There is zero reason to have this article as a spin-off of the film article, the latter which could use some development of real-world context. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:WAF reads that "Very rarely should such spinout articles be about a singular topic (e.g., character, plot item); either that topic has demonstrated its own notability, or should be merged into the main article or existing spinout articles." And this is a case of an unnecessary spinout article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, atleast in this case, and that's why I said merge. I assume you mean that as well. DGG (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the valuable information is not in the main article, yes, merge it there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and Redirect. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 22:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Song jat Shariff[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its film 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) 23:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's the protagonist! although I think the film unimportant, I suppose it qualifies as a "cult classic". I am more and more amazed at these nominations, which seem to be in ignorance of the subject of the articles being nominated. Given the references at the main article, some of these will discuss her. and, does the nominator actually oppose a redirect for the protagonist of a notable film? If you do, it would be helpful to know why. DGG (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - I think there is enough info to identify the character's role in the movie. Next time when you nominate AfDs, don't say 'the character does not assert notabliity independent of its film/game/etc.' Characters are not made to leap out into the real world and get famous with us - they are there to make the plot move. Sounds to me as a really lame AfD nom and a hopeless, bad-faith one. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 05:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. As the nominator said, the character is not significant outside of the film, plus half the page is just restating the plot of UltraViolet and the rest of the page could be integrated into the film's article. However, since the name of the protagonist is a likely search term, the page should redirect to UltraViolet (film). I see "independent notability" is challenged above, but the film does not necessarily confer any notability to the individual, even the protagonist, and thus they don't always deserve their own Wikipedia article. This is similar to articles created for every single episode of a TV series: each episode moves the plot along, but by no means are each of them notable. If the character was analysed or appropriated in other works, they might warrant their own article, but I don't see why this stub should be isolated from the texts that establish her as a character. [Phlygh t] 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Not signifigant outside of the film. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ultraviolet (film). Majority of article is written in in-universe style with repetitive content from film article and provides no sources for any content. There is possibly a scope for growth considering that a novel and anime have been created post the feature film, if someone wishes to revisit the history of article. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and Redirect. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 22:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris the Crafty Cockney[edit]

This character 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) 23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of course. the character, just one of the running joke characters in The Fast Show, is indeed not independently notable nd cannot support an individual article. Even if the nominator insists on coming here to do his suggest merges in defiance of deletion policy, it would still help to say the possible solutions in the nomination and explain why-- I seem to find myself doing his work for him. As a personal note, perhaps I should not complain: given that I have no personal interest in the subject, it's been at least an interesting education, because nothing else could have gotten me to look at these articles.DGG (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Lone source from BBC satisfies verifiability but not notability. Character-specific content from this article can be placed into the character section of The Fast Show. DDDtriple3 (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Non-notable outside of TV show. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Only use is in the context of the show. Notability goes to the show not the character. Dimitrii (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and Redirect. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 22:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Unlucky' Alf[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/'Unlucky' Alf

This character 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) 23:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge as above. DGG (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge and Redirect to The Fast Show as per my rationale in this AfD of another The Fast Show character from nominator [1]. DDDtriple3 (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Only use is in the context of the show. Notability goes to the show not the character.Dimitrii (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mother and Son. Content is there for the merge. StarM 04:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Beare[edit]

This character 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) 23:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -— Longhair\^talk 23:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- to Mother and Son. - Longhair\^talk 23:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Although one of the two principal characters, there does not seem to be enough to say to make a separate article. DGG (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mother and Son, no cited information here really suitable for merging as far as I can see. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Mother and Son. Insufficient notability to be a significant fictional character. WWGB (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mother and Son. Content under the re-direct for whoever wants to do the merge. StarM 04:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Beare[edit]

This character 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) 23:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. In practice, one article is enoguh here, -- though its really an editing decision. DGG (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect page to Mother and Son. Insuffucient notability to warrant separate article. WWGB (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- to Mother and Son. - Longhair\^talk 09:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mother and Son. Not much in the way of cited information to keep. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mother and Son as above, nothing here really worth merging. Possibly also a good idea to do the same to Arthur Beare. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EdgeCast Networks[edit]

Nonnotable article created with a conflict of interest (see the conflict of interest report for details. As it stands the only assertion of notability is the fact that the company recieved $6 million from Disney, although the reception of this money (not an overly large amount in the corporate world, especially to Disney). Very little is mentioned on Google News and most of it is pressy statements regarding their business partners. Themfromspace (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. The article seems reasonably NPOV, so I'm not worried about its COI origins. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article still has notability issues. The Yesmail reference does not establish notability via WP:ORG which states that notability is achieved with "significant coverage" in secondary sources. Furthermore, there is little to no discussion of the corporation itself (not its actions) in secondary sources as that is incidential coverage which per WP:ORG isn't enough to establish notability. Themfromspace (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a non-notable, non-consumer tech business. The only claim of notability is that they received some venture capital from an investment subsidiary of the Disney Corporation that doesn't have its own article. This is not enough to bootstrap notability for this business. Their other claim to notability is that they signed a deal to deliver email from a convicted spammer, which suggests the motive for their wanting a Wikipedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable as per above.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable company. Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Either nominate separately or at least split this up. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ring Mao[edit]

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. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden. TTN (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

TTN (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject out of hand and ask for some assurance from the nominator that each article has been individually examined to see if it does meet each of the nomination criterion. Otherwise its a case of "I want to delete articles [1 through 100] on the basis that some are plot summary, others unsourced, and various miscellaneous reasons including any or all of the ones listed in deletion policy." DGG (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally,these articles are dissimilar--some are human characters, some are robots, some are weapons. These need to be considered separately. I think there is a much stronger consensus to redirecting or keeping articles of characters than on plot accessories. DGG (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reject out of hand --Kiz o r 23:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reject out of hand There isn't enough similarity, and the list is too broad to be a valid combined AFD. And DGG is right, concensus is usually to merge/redirect anyway. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 00:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Improper bundling, articles should be relisted separately. Edward321 (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JodyB_talk 12:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fridn[edit]

I think this article is a hoax. It is an unlikely story - I have never heard of an "Old English" migration to north Norway, enough to establish an "ethnic group"; and I would have expected an author who knew this much to give more detail of linguistic family than just "English, German, or another form of Germanic language." That's not conclusive; more serious is that no references are given, and I can find none: see Google Scholar for Fridn or for the two other forms given, Firdosk and Fridisc. Nothing relevant in Google, either, or in either of the Norwegian WPs. The article was created on 3 Sep by SPA author Lakorvo918 (talk · contribs); it was tagged "unreferenced" before the author's last edit, but in 8 weeks s/he has not supplied any, or made any other edits at all. Delete as probable hoax, certainly unverifiable. JohnCD (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax. With no sources given, no hard information to go on, and the number of independent ghits that substantiates this (big fat zero), let's throw this one back. --Lockley (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. There are no sources supporting the article content. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Taylor[edit]

Unsourced BLP of a person of marginal notability, either sources should be added or it should be deleted. RMHED (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep " He was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba", right from the lede sentence of the article, an undoubted factor for notability. 23:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Keep. A member of a provincial legislature, past or present, is automatically notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per DGG Dlohcierekim 00:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per others. This article was created before it was standard practice to add footnotes to biographical articles; the sources exist, and can be added now. CJCurrie (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep members of a legislative assembly are notable (but not local councillors).--UpDown (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted, elected members of a provincial or national governing body are inherently notable. If there are BLP issues those can be addressed in-article and anything libellous removed. 23skidoo (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that sourcing exists to add to the article (as opposed to being unverifiable). Also that this position establishes notability StarM 04:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Leipsic[edit]

Unsourced BLP of a person of marginal notability, either sources should be added or it should be deleted. RMHED (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep city councilor of Winnipeg, a large enough city that all of its councillors are notable. I note the nom does not assert these are unsourcable, DGG (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. As a former deputy mayor, she is particularly notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable local figure. There are plenty of sources that attest to her notability. CJCurrie (talk) 03:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the world is full of thousands of local councillors, and they are not notable for being one. I could produce references for my local councillors, with lots of local press attention and so on - but are they notable outside their area. No. Members of the Winipeg City Council are not notable. And the fact she was Deputy Mayor is also not notable. If this page is kept, I could easily create many pages on my local councillors, with valid references. Wikipedia cannot, and should not, have articles for councillors.--UpDown (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep I imagine that if councillors are not notable that it could easily extend to provincial legislatures and the majority of MPs. The fact of the matter is that elected officials are notable and I have no idea why it is an issue. Are we talking about limited bandwidth? jdobbin (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have totally missed the point. You seemed to be suggesting all elected politicians are in the same category of notablity. There are not. MPs are members of national parliaments and far different from a councillor a small town, say, or a county. It is an "issue" because local councillors are not notable outside their area, i.e. borough or city. They have no effect on national laws or major decisions.--UpDown (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York City lists its councillors. They should be removed as well? jdobbin (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG's rationale. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 17:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of above. Wikipedia:BIO#Politicians says, "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Winnepeg is Manitoba's largest city and provincial capital. It's one of Canada's ten largest cities and has a population of greater than 500,000. The city council members of such a city surely qualify. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. The sourcing is more than adequate and I agree with BIO in that that the position of councilman in a major city confers notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that sourcing exists to add to the article (as opposed to being unverifiable). Consensus is also that this position establishes notability. StarM 04:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Browaty[edit]

Unsourced BLP of a person of marginal notability, either sources should be added or it should be deleted. RMHED (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we can verify he was a councilman for a major city. that's enough to keep. Dlohcierekim 01:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about verifiability but primarilly about the fact that it is an unsourced BLP. Surely no BLP without adequate sourcing should be allowed to remain that way. Anybody reading this BLP would have to take the time to do several Google searches to confirm if its content was correct or not. Now that can't be acceptable, can it? RMHED (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And since the subject is clearly notable, the best option is to source it. If it were negative BLP, it would demand immediate removal under BLP. There is nothing injurious to the subject here. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<expand>>Wikipedia:BIO#Politicians says, "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Winnepeg is Manitoba's largest city and provincial capital. It's one of Canada's ten largest cities and has a population of greater than 500,000. The city council members of such a city surely qualify. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sufficient sources to verify the subject's notability (even if they haven't been added to the article yet). CJCurrie (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the world is full of thousands of local councillors, and they are not notable for being one. I could produce references for my local councillors, with lots of local press attention and so on - but are they notable outside their area. No. Members of the Winipeg City Council are not notable. National politicians are "clearly notable", local politicians are not.--UpDown (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as councilman to a major city is notable. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 17:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Pharmboy --Bucephalus (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To me at least, position of councilman in a major city confers notability; a quick search reveals plenty of material that can be used to source it; this article can be improved by the regular editing process, so it isn't a good candidate for deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy-deleted as recreated content which was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Protection Program. Rossami (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess protection program[edit]

No reliable sources/poorly written. Edgehead 5150 22:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Has been taken to AFD once already under a different title and deleted because of a lack of sources. Nate • (chatter) 23:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4) — blatant recreation of deleted material as shown above. Nice try, though. MuZemike (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This thing is finally real. I went through and added a few real references and found a planned novelization, which should be sufficient to keep the article alive.—Kww(talk) 11:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Angus (politician)[edit]

Unsourced BLP of a person of marginal notability, either sources should be added or it should be deleted. RMHED (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep another member of the Manitoba legislature. DGG (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Former member of a provincial legislature ("a member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba from 1988 to 1990"). -- Eastmain (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per DGG and Eastman Dlohcierekim 00:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per others. This article was created before it was standard practice to add sources to biographical articles; the sources exist, and can be added now. CJCurrie (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Elected members of provincial or national governing bodies are inherently notable. 23skidoo (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Duguid[edit]

Unsourced BLP of a person of marginal notability, either sources should be added or it should be deleted. RMHED (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~speedy keep~~ Keep ~~Mayor of Winnipeg in 1995. Mayors of large cities are unquestionably notable.~~It would have been more constructive to source these than nominate them, and just as rapid. DGG (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC) -- and, given his business itnerests, that should have been possible easily enough. DGG (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy keep per DGG Unquestionably meets WP:BIO as the mayor of the size and importance of Winnepeg. Dlohcierekim 00:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He ran for mayor in 1995 and was placed 3rd. He has never, at least according to this unsourced BLP, been Mayor. RMHED (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

right, my error here. I changed my comment above. DGG (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, RHMED. Nevertheless, Keep as a city councilman of a major city. Dlohcierekim 01:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Major city", in Canada maybe, worldwide, I doubt it. My local county council has a larger population, so are all its councillors notable?--UpDown (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<expand>>Wikipedia:BIO#Politicians says, "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Winnepeg is Manitoba's largest city and provincial capital. It's one of Canada's ten largest cities and has a population of greater than 500,000. The city council members of such a city surely qualify. Cheers,

Keep Terry Duguid is a very prominent public figure in Winnipeg. This article was written before it was standard practice to add sources for biographical articles; the sources exist, and can be added now. CJCurrie (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the world is full of thousands of local councillors, and they are not notable for being one. I could produce references for my local councillors, with lots of local press attention and so on - but are they notable outside their area. No. Members of the Winipeg City Council are not notable. The above above says is he a "very prominent public figure in Winnipeg". That's not notable. In my borough, we have a few very prominent figures, but they are notable outside my borough.--UpDown (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, as councilman of a major city. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 17:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Major" worldwide city? I think not. My [English] county has a larger population, should I create articles for all its councillors?--UpDown (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

County is not a city. WP:BIO does not address. The criteria for county officials would need to be higher 'cause counties usually contain more people and cities. Is your county among the ten most populous in its province/state/etc? Or in your country? (Not knowledgeable about UK political divisions.) If yes, then yes. Dlohcierekim 18:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The position of councilman in a major city confers notability. Beyond the notability of the subject, there are more than a few things on the internet, and I'm sure more can be found in print and television given his position. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lubosch[edit]

Unsourced BLP of a person of marginal notability, either sources should be added or it should be deleted. RMHED (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' though I could understand an argument that one term on the winnipeg city council might not be notable. However, there is apparently actually a reliable source, going half way to show notability under the GNG, though it is only alluded to rather than specified fully in the article. Careless nomination at best--source should have been fixed . . DGG (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG So much better to have sought sources than bring this here. The effort expended here would have been better placed on improvement. Dlohcierekim 00:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sources for this article, even if they haven't been added yet. CJCurrie (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the world is full of thousands of local councillors, and they are not notable for being one. I could produce references for my local councillors, with lots of local press attention and so on - but are they notable outside their area. No. Members of the Winipeg City Council are not notable.--UpDown (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<crosspost reply from other discussion>> No, Updown, that's not what I'm saying. You are correct in saying being a local council member is not inherently notable. For instance, those of a small city like Largo, Florida are not. Those of Pinellas's largest city, St. Petersburg, are probably not. However, Wikipedia:BIO#Politicians says, "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Winnepeg is Manitoba's largest city and provincial capital. It's one of Canada's ten largest cities and has a population of greater than 500,000. The city council members of such a city surely qualify. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that Winipeg is a large enough city, or important enough worldwide, to pass the criteria. Cities like New York, London, Paris, maybe - Winnipeg no.--UpDown (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you quantify major? It is, after all, one of the 10 largest cities in Canada, and is an especially important cultural hub and has a population of well over 500,000. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG, as councilman of larger city. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 17:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like the article can be easily improved. Keep per the notability inherited as councilman of a major city per BIO. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Magnifico[edit]

Unsourced BLP of a person of marginal notability, either sources should be added or it should be deleted. RMHED (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep another city councilor, with specifics asserted that should surely have been in the city news sources. Needs to be verified, not deleted. AFD is not cleanup. DGG (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without sources we can't verify and can't know if there is any credible notability. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep me can verify that he is former city councillor in Winnipeg, Manitoba. That suffices to establish notability and keep. Dlohcierekim 01:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prominent local figure. The sources exist, and can be added. CJCurrie (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the world is full of thousands of local councillors, and they are not notable for being one. I could produce references for my local councillors, with lots of local press attention and so on - but are they notable outside their area. No. Members of the Winipeg City Council are not notable. And "promient local figure" is not a reason to keep - if it was we could have an article on practicaly every single councillors in the world.--UpDown (talk) 08:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Updown, that's not what I'm saying. You are correct in saying being a local council member is not inherently notable. For instance, those of a small city like Largo, Florida are not. Those of Pinellas's largest city, St. Petersburg, are probably not. However, Wikipedia:BIO#Politicians says, "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Winnepeg is Manitoba's largest city and provincial capital. It's one of Canada's ten largest cities and has a population of greater than 500,000. The city council members of such a city surely qualify. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that Winipeg is a large enough city, or important enough worldwide, to pass the criteria. Cities like New York, London, Paris, maybe - Winnipeg no.--UpDown (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep again a councilman for a large city, per DGG. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 17:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Swandel[edit]

Unsourced BLP of a person of marginal notability, either sources should be added or it should be deleted. RMHED (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep and look for sources--member of the city council. DGG (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Active politician; there are many sources that could be used for this article, even if they haven't been added yet. CJCurrie (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the world is full of thousands of local councillors, and they are not notable for being one. I could produce references for my local councillors, with lots of local press attention and so on - but are they notable outside their area. No. Members of the Winipeg City Council are not notable.--UpDown (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, notable as a councilman for a large city. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 17:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG Wikipedia:BIO#Politicians says, "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Winnepeg is Manitoba's largest city and provincial capital. It's one of Canada's ten largest cities and has a population of greater than 500,000. The city council members of such a city surely qualify. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. JodyB_talk 19:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garth Steek[edit]

Unsourced BLP of a person of marginal notability, either sources should be added or it should be deleted. RMHED (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a member of the city council. DGG (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without any sources we don't know who he really is.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we can verify he was a councilman for a major city. that's enough to keep. Dloh cierekim 01:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prominent local figure, who has received plenty of press coverage (even if it hasn't been added to the article yet). CJCurrie (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the world is full of thousands of local councillors, and they are not notable for being one. I could produce references for my local councillors, with lots of local press attention and so on - but are they notable outside their area. No. Members of the Winipeg City Council are not notable.--UpDown (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<cross post reply from another discussion>> No, Updown, that's not what I'm saying. You are correct in saying being a local council member is not inherently notable. For instance, those of a small city like Largo, Florida are not. Those of Pinellas's largest city, St. Petersburg, are probably not. However, Wikipedia:BIO#Politicians says, "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Winnepeg is Manitoba's largest city and provincial capital. It's one of Canada's ten largest cities and has a population of greater than 500,000. The city council members of such a city surely qualify. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that Winipeg is a large enough city, or important enough worldwide, to pass the criteria. Cities like New York, London, Paris, maybe - Winnipeg no.--UpDown (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable, independent sources are added to this unsourced biography of a living person. Per WP:V "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.", per WP:BLP "biographical material about a living person... must adhere strictly to all... of our content policies, especially... Verifiability." Guest9999 (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting policy. Sourcing exists-- all you need to do is the work, the digging, the reviewing and the adding in-- and this is not improvement. It is not necessary that the sourcing be in the article to keep it. It would be far better and far less disruptive to add the sources yourself instead of imposing some sort of deadline. The subject is clearly notable and there is no deadline in improving any article. Certainly, it would be nice if article creators should cite their sources. But that is not always how Wikipedia works. BLP is intended to prevent the use of Wikipedia as a platform for defamation and casting aspersions. Such content can and must be removed on sight. This is not negative content, period. It is certainly not primarily to attack or disparage the subject. As side note, it is also not promotional material that would be harmfully taking advantage of Wikipedia for selfish gain. It is a neutral article aobut a subject that is clearly notable. Article deletion is a remedy that is to be used for non salvageable article for which no other alternative exists. Once again, the alternative to deletion, the best choice entirely, is to improve the article. My suggestion to anyone who laments the lack of sourcing in the article is to use the opportunity to do a little article building. If you are too busy, I would recommend adding a (({stub))} and an (({unsourced))} to the article to attract the attention of those who have the time. Dloh cierekim 12:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; notable as a councilman of a large, major city. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the article can't be improved using existing sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Savoie[edit]

Unsourced BLP of a person of marginal notability, either sources should be added or it should be deleted. RMHED (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep another member of the city council. Given the many election campaigns, probably sourceable. should have been tried before these nominations. DGG (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without sources we can't know if there is any credible notability. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we can verify he was a councilman for a major city. that's enough to keep. Dlohcierekim 01:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep There are a variety of sources behind paywalls. See for example this article. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prominent regional politician who has received plenty of press coverage. The article was written before it was standard practice for Wikipedia editors to add footnotes to biographical articles; the sources exist, and can be added now. CJCurrie (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the world is full of thousands of local councillors, and they are not notable for being one. I could produce references for my local councillors, with lots of local press attention and so on - but are they notable outside their area. No. Members of the Winipeg City Council are not notable.--UpDown (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<crosspost reply from other discussion>> No, Updown, that's not what I'm saying. You are correct in saying being a local council member is not inherently notable. For instance, those of a small city like Largo, Florida are not. Those of Pinellas's largest city, St. Petersburg, are probably not. However, Wikipedia:BIO#Politicians says, "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Winnepeg is Manitoba's largest city and provincial capital. It's one of Canada's ten largest cities and has a population of greater than 500,000. The city council members of such a city surely qualify. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that Winipeg is a large enough city, or important enough worldwide, to pass the criteria. Cities like New York, London, Paris, maybe - Winnipeg no.--UpDown (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Councilman of a major city, nothing to suggest the article can't be improved using existing coverage. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no consensus or even !votes to delete, and merging or leaving where it is an editorial discussion that doesn't require AfD StarM 02:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Music[edit]

Currently seems to lack any notability, anything important could quite easily co into the other articles dedicated to MTV — Realist² 21:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MTV#The Internet and expand that portion of the parent article. All they did was redesign the site and give it a unique URL off the mtv.com domain; that doesn't justify an entire article about it. Nate • (chatter) 22:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliably sourced, stubs are harmless. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MTV. The site has been launched barely two days ago and it is too premature to assert its notability as a standalone article. It is better to expand it under MTV before going for a separate article. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 03:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The service provided on MTVMusic.com is no different to Hulu or Yahoo! LAUNCHcast. So the deletion/merge argument fails completely. Plus the sheer free legal catalogue size of the service makes it notable.—IncidentFlux ^{[ TalkBack | Contributions ]} 06:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let it be a section in the MTV article and establish that notability over time then. MySpace Music and YouTube have received many of the same videos without having to publicize the fact beyond the usual press release. Nate • (chatter) 21:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reliably sourced stub and as IncidentFlux says the sheer legal catalogue size makes the site notable and the service is no different from others which have seperate articles. Cabe6403 (Talk•Please Sign my guest book!) 11:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What inclusion / notability guideline would this come under? ie WP:MUSIC doesn't really apply here. If we know which one its a matter of yes or no. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 11:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - RE: Comment: According to WP:WEBSITES the site is notable since it meets a number of their requirements. The page has had around 600,000 unique hits in the 2 days it has been online ( [2] ) and is the 3rd result in a google search for Music MTV behind the mtv website and music subpage of the main MTV website. The site has appeared on a number of news and blogger websites such as Digg and Reddit recently too. Cabe 6403 (Talk•Please Sign my guest book!) 11:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This site is part of internet history, as much as YouTube and Napster. Back in 1999 MTV was against music sharing on internet, a whole campaing was thrown against music sharing, specially against Napster, including commercials inserted directly on MTV VMA. IMHO we need to preserve and expand the article. It's important to notice that it's part of a bigger context where RIAA and MPAA starts to accept that music sharing isn't a crime after all. - FabioMazzarino (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's been up for two days. And it's more a desperate attempt by MTV to say they're a music network even as they haven't had a dedicated block of on air music videos in the last two months than it is about anything the record lobby wants (MPAA has absolutely nothing to do with music videos at all). Nate • (chatter) 21:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "And it's more a desperate attempt by MTV to say they're a music network"; Unless that can be found in reliable sources, it's original research, and does not have any bearing on whether the site is notable or not. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most certainly notable. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A couple more sites referencing it. Including Gizmodo, a major tech website:

In my opinion this article easily meets WP:N. As numerous people have stated, similar, less popular, sites have WP articles. As such I believe that MTV Music could be Speedy Keep

--Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 23:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally not a good argument, that said, I haven't been monitoring the development of this AfD/article in recent days. — Realist² 23:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wavevolution[edit]

PROD declined by author; original research/essay. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 0 hits for the term in Google Scholar, and only 10 ghits when searching on the term in its supposed context. There are also come copyvio issues with [3]. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 01:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep, it is WP:OR. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the copyvio. It Is Me Here (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JodyB_talk 20:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental health registration board[edit]

No references, no context; it's not clear what this organization is or how it's notable. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I expanded the article. It's a British body. The article should be moved to the correct capitalization, Environmental Health Registration Board . -- Eastmain (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eastmain has fixed all of the issues identified by the nominator. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Kado[edit]

Apparently non-notable blogger with a couple of self-published books: upgraded contested speedy delete Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The ((COI)) tag appears well-deserved (See a discussion at Wikipedia:COIN#Clear COI). There is a distinct lack of reliable sources to show importance. An editor named Bkado created this article. The subject's removal of the WP:PROD tag is allowed by policy, but doesn't suggest a collaborative spirit. PROD removal would be more acceptable if it was followed by an improvement of the article to meet our standards. There is a possibility that the subject has also edited the article as 67.36.189.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He should avoid the use of multiple identities on the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I seconded the PROD, which was also removed. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not notable is plenty of reason. Editor seems to a absolute love for the subject matter, including intimate knowlege of his life. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops I forgot to add crystalballing about the movie that is scheduled to be released in the fall fo 2008. Oh wait, maybe that's the reason for the article. Never got to use so many policies in one AFD before. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 22:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Themfromspace (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete vanispamcruftisement. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right about the one blog link being ok, but he was using it to prove he won an award, which isn't ok. Where you put it is fine. I should have checked that it was his and just moved it so it was basically an EL instead of a cite. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 19:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Bonfire of vanities (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be active on a local scene but there is not really supporting citations to show they are representative of said local scene. The blogging part has already been addressed and I agree. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Alexnia (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7) by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moëvöt[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC; the problem is the same with almost all LLN bands... never progressed beyond demo stage, and no third party reliable sources because they didn't give interviews. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to The_Fame_(album). The song charted for one week in the bottom half of the Canada Hot 100. Per the song notability guideline, articles that are unlikely to grow beyond being a stub should be merged or redirected; this seems like just such a case. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Game[edit]

~~Very poor sources, nothing to proof this was a single, no music video, no charts, no commentary. — Realist² 20:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)~~ After the nomination it charted in Canada and there is now some critical analysis from the Boston Phoenix. As the nominator I now move neutral. — Realist² 14:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the song itself does not seem to be very notable - googling "lady gaga" "love game" does give 28000 results, but they're pretty much all blogs. The only real commentary or charts about it I found were here that it's album, which already has a wikipedia page, was pretty popular. Also, the article itself says nothing more than The_Fame_(album) does about it, so it definitely seems unnecessary. Firebat08 (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE The fourth single WAS released on December 22, 2008? Ooook.
Keep Sources seem to have been added. It's a charting single, therefore passes WP:MUSIC. GlassCobra 22:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's official...see universal music brazil. there are charts!!!!!!--Cacarlo92 (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I would say delete because there isn't enough information about the song (ex. a release date). But since the song did chart I vote for a redirect to The Fame. Moon (Sunrise) 21:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect Wait for more evidence before we even know it will actually be released. Also it charted high on the first week The Fame was released, like many other non-singles tend to do when an album is released by an artist. Also the cover is fan art. So far Poker Face is the 2nd International single, and there is no information on a third single. So in conclusion delete/redirect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Getluv (talk • contribs) 09:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Pleasure P, on the strength of the Billboard article. When released, and reliable sources appear, there's no reason the redirect can't be undone and the article restored. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Introduction of Marcus Cooper[edit]

Non-notable unreleased album with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Pleasure P. Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pleasure P.. Agree with nom. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 21:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not be opposed to a redirect IF verifiable information from a reliable source shows this is in fact the title of his upcoming album. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, here it is: http://www.singersroom.com/news/entertainment-story-2305.asp Schuym1 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I hate to sound picky, but can you find a more reliable source? An established source "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:RS? The best I could find was Allmusic (not the most reliable of sources 100% of the time) and they said the title was only "tentative". A Google search for the title doesn't turn up much other than blogs and the like. Even the most recent news on the Atlantic Records website doesn't give a name for the album. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, it was posted about three times on his MySpace blog -- yeah, yeah, I know...step off with the "not reliable" bullsh*t. He's also said it himself. Also: http://www.singersroom.com/news/entertainment-story-2598.asp I highly doubt so many places would be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.0.181 (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Reliability on Wikipedia is not "bullshit", it's one of the cornerstones of the project. A Google search returns a grand total of 44 hits for that name, so it's really not "so many places" saying the title. But don't worry, I found it mentioned in a new Billboard article (in case you're unsure, Billboard does qualify as a reliable source—and that's no bullshit); so I can support a redirect in good conscience. Thanks, though, for posting that singersroom link a second time; that site still looks pretty suspect as far as reliabilty goes. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well if it's reliable AND has a date AND confirms a number of songs, why delete the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.8.184 (talk) 07:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And there's about 70 hits, nt 44. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.173.235 (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh and http://blogs.sohh.com/soul/2008/10/new_keyshia_cole_ft_tupac_vide.html and http://blogs.sohh.com/soul/2008/10/new_keyshia_cole_ft_tupac_vide.html and http://www.pleasurepmusic.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.173.235 (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        At the time I posted the above, there were 44. It now shows 67 but if you page through the results, Google cuts it back to 19! —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pleasure P. Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That's a mighty ammount of "media coverage." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.173.235 (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly blogs and other nn and unreliable sites. Most of it really is "media coverage", but not actual media coverage. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A single from the album has hit the Hot 100. Here's a Billboard article mentioning it [4]. Teemu08 (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~STRONG Keep~~ Might I add that The-Dream's 'Love vs. Money' has the same sources (Billboard, not to mention a title and single) and it's up and going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.102.51 (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And it also has no media coverage. So, I say ~~Keep~~--172.131.102.51 (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)P[reply]
  - One !vote per person, please. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin All of the IPs that have weighed in so far (172.162.0.181, 172.164.8.184, 172.129.173.235, 172.131.102.51) resolve back to AOL and are almost certainly the same person. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You just assume it'll be closed. The sources are they're. If this gets closed, I'll know for sure Wikipedia has been smoking something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.200.73 (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know this AFD will be closed; all AFDs are closed. Whether it's closed as delete, keep, merge, or redirect is up to the closing admin. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 10:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SOHH blogs and primary sources do not equate to reliable coverage in any way, shape, or form. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as not having a snowball's chance in its current format. I have preserved the text of the article at a subpage of the original author's page, in case he wishes to rework his book review into an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Review of "Can She Bake A Cherry Pie?" By Mary Drake McFeely[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/A Review of "Can She Bake A Cherry Pie?" By Mary Drake McFeely

Unencyclopedic review of an NN textbook, no sources, POV and original research issues, possible COI (looking at author's username) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as per nomination as well as: I actually went to PROD this, but I suppose AfD is a better route, especially if the author wishes to argue the point. Either way, I think it's clear that this is a review, not an encyclopedia article, and as such, does not belong in Wikipedia. ~Pip 20:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a term paper repository. -Verdatum (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was flagging it as a (speedy deletion) university essay when it got flagged here. It is quite a good essay, so far as I can judge, but not an encyclopaedia article. Peridon (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, original work that doesn't belong here; a WP:SNOW close might be appropriate. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:IAR. Original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Anthro SR per WP:BITE, with the understanding that the review needs to be moved offsite. Stifle (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Planninefromouterspace (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay that is a textbook example of WP:OR. Pun intended. 23skidoo (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Political refugees of the Greek Civil War and/or another appropriate preexisting article. For what I hope are obvious reasons, I've discounted all opinions who appear to be primarily motivated by the editor's ethnic or national background. What remains is the consensus opinion enunciated by Fut. Perf., Stifle and others that this appears to be a content fork and should be merged with the preexisting relevant article(s) to the extent that consensus allows. Sandstein 21:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus of Ethnic Macedonians from Greece[edit]

WP:POVFORK. This is User:PMK1's second attempt to create a POV fork after Aegean Macedonians. This latest one is a POV version of two pre-existing articles: Political refugees of the Greek Civil War and Child refugees of the Greek Civil War. It is a POV fork since it is using all facts and figures referring to all people affected in general (mainly Greeks) as if they refer solely to ethnic Macedonian people. Please see talk page for further info Avg (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - obvious POV fork. The subject could easily be treated in the other two articles. The current one only suits one POV and is there to equal Communists to ethnic Macedonians and present all that left the country in the period as ethnic Macedonians again, which is obviously not the case. Basically, it's the same article as the Child Refugees, only that it treats the subject in a POVish and ORish way. --Laveol ^T 21:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article has been unfairly nominated by a user who has had very little if any input on the actual content on the article either on the talk page or by making a constructive edit. Not a POV fork of either Child refugees of the Greek Civil War or the Aegean Macedonians article. Claims that i removed the information from Child refugees of the Greek Civil War are wrong, i clearly created that page on the 11,October 2008, see here. This article has been rejected by the majority of Greek users as they deny that an ethnic macedonian minority exists in that country or ever existed, this is contrary to popular belief and historial events. Claims of using fraudulent sources, were investigated by User:Crossthets, and resolved here. Claims of ethnic cleansing, genocide etc. have not been brought up in the article but have been brought up by people wishing to remove the article. Claims presenting only the "SLAVOMACEDONIAN", "FYROM", "SKOPJAN", "COMMUNIST" POV's are untrue, source used in the text are numerous and very few of them originate from Ethnic Macedonian/Communist sources. This seems to be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination, for a well referenced, relevant and encyclopedic article by a group of editors not wishing to contribute to the article. Not enough substantial evidence to have it deleted, therefore it must be kept. PMK1 (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I urge anyone to actually follow the link regarding the history of Child refugees of the Greek Civil War and see for themselves what PMK1's action was (it was a redirect from a non-POV title to a POV title, so that anyone searching for the history of child refugees of the Greek Civil War would find themselves thinking that all child refugees were ethnic Macedonian). --Avg (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i created the article and then mobved it to what i considered a more appropriate title. Your point is baselss and a fellow user created anohter POVFORK of this article.You seem to nominate every article regarding the ethnic macedonians in Greece to AfD. Then you tell the wikipedia community that, that is not a POV? PMK1 (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ave seems very sneaky, and this isn't the first time a Macedonian related article was nominated for deletion by him. He seems to say his actions are to prevent "POV" pushing, but anything that isn't pro-Greek is "POV pushing" to him. Mactruth (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. POV forking is not an appropriate method of resolving a content dispute. Stifle (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Political refugees of the Greek Civil War, final article title to be determined later. It is indeed a POV fork of that article (not of the Child refugees of the Greek Civil War article though; that one is in fact a second POV fork of this one here.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Political refugees of the Greek Civil War. They cover aspects of the same subject. However I doubt this is a POV forking as its covers details not covered in the other article, such as countries of destination and fates of the exiles. Dimadick (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is merging to Political refugees of the Greek Civil War such a wise option. When the article clearly states The Slavophone Greeks who were taken from Greece refer to themselves as the Detsa Begaltsi (children evacuees). Many of these people had a Greek ethnic consciousness (slavophone Greeks) but were subsequently educated in the Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia, founded in 1948 by Yugoslavic State, that they were of Slavic origins. other kinds of greek POV on that page. The page is badly sourced and badly written and innacurate. Anyway the point of this article was to inform readers of the "Ethnic Macedonians" who fled Greece. Their story is different to many greek's experiences and are still different today. PMK1 (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the source and it is badly written and clearly POV, I see why PMK made this article. It is ridiculous that the children refugees self declare themselves as ethnic Macedonians, have a "children refugee of aegean Macedonia" festival every year, yet on Wikipedia they are Greek. Mactruth (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per comments above; POV fork. "Ethnic Macedonians" were not the only refugees of the Greek Civil War, and in any case were rather called Slavomacedonians at the time. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 02:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge In case of merge... to page relating to Greek civil war (or as alternative create page whose title deals with ALL communists ejected from Greece not only FYRoM nationals). I have no problem keeping mention of valid historical points (e.g Greece didn't let Slavic communists back in due to concerns of irredentism) but it must be careful not to attempt to link them together into a narrative that is essentially one long Greek bashing page claiming persecution of FYRoM nationals (because of a series of distinct conflicts...Baltic Wars, WW1, WW2, Communists, Naming dispute).

Due to the Macedonian naming dispute (since Greece also considers Macedonia part of its cultural identity) some FYRoM nationals now have made it a national pastime of accusing Greeks of "persecution" and "genocide" (and comparable to Nazis too apparently)

e.g.

http://www.macedoniainfo.com/macedonia/Genocide_of_Macedonian_Children.htm

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=15759666129

http://www.makedonija.info/

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-the-macedonian-genocide.html

http://myclubmk.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=7

etc... etc...

I would also ask admins to consider instantly deleting any further attempts to open up one of these persecution-ish POV-forks and warn any contributer who tries to start yet another one. (wasting everyone's time over and over) --Crossthets (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May i ask what the "Baltic Wars" have anything to do with? PMK1 (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or weak merge~~. This is an obvious POV fork (see commends above and history/talk pages), it was also a very suspicious sneaky attempt to create a redirect to this page from the Child refugees of the Greek Civil War. This article try to support the argument that the refugees were expelled due to their origin which is not the case, all refugees were forced to leave because they were supporting the loosing party. Plus at that time, this group was not called ethnic Macedonias, or anything similar. --MaNiAδIs-τάλκ-03:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion, what about a possible renaming of the page, to say Deca Begalci for example? PMK1 (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content to Aegean Macedonians. Jingby (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Typical WP:IDONTLIKEIT. lol --Raso mk (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a real argument or just the one and only think you could say to justify your rather predictable vote? Seriosly, do you have any arguments behind it - have you read the article, have you studied the matter and so on? --Laveol ^T 23:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have and that is do not bother me. On this wikipedia i do not have nothing to discuss with you. Finito --Raso mk (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your problem is, but you didn't present any arguments. You just say so, cause most probably this is the only thing you could say. "Do not bother me" is far from an acceptable argument. --Laveol ^T 23:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article tries to portray a political conflict as an ethnic one. The exodus (or expulsion) occured cause of the involved people's political beliefs and was not ethnically motivated. Had these slavophones had not supported the (defeated) communist side, they wouldn't have left the country. This is demostrated by the fact that slavophones remained in Greece. The Communists slavophones that remained faced persecution in the years to follow, as did all the communist Greeks in the 1950s-70s. The inclusion of this article in the disambiguation page Exodus, made by its creator [5], clearly tries to present the exodus as an ethnic one, contrary to historical events and facts. The political exodus from Greece after the Greek Civil war has nothing to do with the ethnically motivated German, Italian, Palestinian and Tibetan exodoi, among which it is presented. A clearly POVish and politically motivated article that needs to be deleted. --Hectorian (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! Not only is this article a two-way POV fork, but it also lacks notability, it is way too long for what it refers to, and most of the sources it is based on are dubious. This article implies ethnic persecution and cleansing and does not really cover the "exodus" from Greece after the Civil War, but only the Yugoslavian-Soviet point of view of an un-notable minor aspect of it. It is just a part of the series that attempt to verify FYROM claims of the entire region.--Michael X the White (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. POV fork containing questionable data derived from or influenced by organizations promoting "Macedonian Human Rights" (as if to imply that "ethnic Macedonians" were the real sufferers of the Greek Civil War). The article seems to ignore the fact that the so-called "exodus" of "ethnic Macedonians" was a consequence of the civil war in Greece that was instigated by both Skopjean and Greek communist forces. The article also implies that the Hellenic Army was focused on deliberately removing "ethnic Macedonians" when it was technically more concerned over developing strategies in order to prevent Greece from becoming assimilated into the Iron Curtain. Keep in mind that the article contains a section that describes the evacuation of Greek and Skopjean communists from Greece. How can an evacuation mean the same thing as an exodus when the former occurs under circumstances of choice and the latter occurs under circumstances of force? This kind of blatant inconsistency is unnecessary in a Wikipedia article. Overall, articles engaging in the over-politicized victimization of war casualties (i.e. combatants and non-combatants) can hardly be considered encyclopedic for a vast array of reasons. Therefore, I vote that this article be deleted completely. If there is any salvageable data, then it should be academically scrutinized for accuracy prior to being incorporated into other Wikipedia articles. Deucalionite (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This art. exagerates about every fact using unreliable sources. It serves just propaganda purposes. The main historical facts are already mentioned on related articlesAlexikoua (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a weak merge to Political refugees of the Greek Civil War, according to Fut.Perf.. A pure POV creation by a user who has a long history of creating articles of this quality. Kapnisma ? 16:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is hipocritical seeing as you made a POV fork of this article. The Child refugees of the Greek civil war. or has that been forgotten

Keep. Future, where is your opinion now? Is this pure nationalistic behavior to remove some facts? Would you let the Greek nationalism rule the Wikipedia? If this article would be deleted, that proves your neutrality as administrator. If you allow to be deleted this article than you do not have credibility to tell whether MK Wiki is awful or the articles there are nationalistic (because the EN Wiki works as nationalistic base of the Greeks). Regards-- MacedonianBoy ^Oui? 17:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek nationalists ruling Wikipedia? Nonsense. This article lacks facts and is not neutral regardless of whether or not the users here who question it are Greeks. Even Future Perfect admits that this article is a POV fork. Stop railing against Greek editors (and Future Perfect) just because a certain Skopjean user wrote this unencyclopedic article. Thank you. Deucalionite (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic?? This article is well sourced and referenced, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is one of the main reasons for deletion, not for it bieng unencyclopedic. Macedonian sources were ONLY used when i was not able to find non Macedonian sources. Anyway the sources were used only in the Aftermath and Initiatives and Organisations section. Not very highly disputed. Also NOT implying that the Hellenic Army's main obejctive was to remove ethnic macedonians. They are your own imaginative thoughts. I am also deeply offended at your "Skopjean" reference, i am not from skopje and this is the kind of attitude by anti-Macedonian users. These kind of references are derogatory and offensive, please stop. PMK1 (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for the interfearence). "Skopje" and "Skopjeans" are the terms Greeks usually use when referring to the people and the country in the north. It has nothing offending in it. If you claim it is your right to call yourselves the way you want, it is also our right to call you with the term we want. (Btw, the world calls us Greeks and our country Greece; though we call ourselves Hellenes and the country Hellas-I've seen no Greek offended by that). --Hectorian (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh. Your quick to ignore the fact that your article was primarily based on "Macedonian" sources before you decided to incorporate "non-Macedonian" reference citations. Also, some of your "non-Macedonian" sources are not very reliable (i.e. Dennis Hupchick) when used to describe the so-called "forced Hellenization" of Slav-speaking Greeks.

I hate to burst your bubble my friend, but your article does contain information that implies that the Hellenic Army was focused on removing so-called "Aegean Macedonians". Stop denying what you yourself wrote: Over the course of the war thousands of Aegean Macedonians had were killed, imprisoned or had their land confiscated. The sources you used to substantiate this piece of "wisdom" are derived from two authors (i.e. Danforth and Roussos). I've checked these sources and they both contain reference citations from the "objective scholars" at Skopje. The fact that Danforth and Roussos provide no other reference citations to substantiate some of their bold claims doesn't make them very reliable (let alone accurate).

Like I said before, your article is a POV fork and must be removed. Also, I did not call you a Skopjean to offend you. Greeks in general call their "Macedonian" neighbors to the north Skopjeans just like Hectorian explained. So, spare me your useless complaints of "derogatory" and "offensive" behavior on my part. Deucalionite (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ hectorian, if you wish to be called a Hellene, i will call you one. I on the other hand do not wish to be called a Skopjan because i am not from Skopje. In reference to the point stated: Over the course of the war thousands of Aegean Macedonians had were killed, imprisoned or had their land confiscated.. Yes thousands were killed, BUT this does not mean that Greeks were not killed. In fact Greek and Macedonian fighters died side by side fighting for a cause that they believed in. Talking about one ethnic group, does not deny that the other group was involved, nor that the other group also made sactrifices. This article is merely focusing on the ethnic macedonians who left greece at the end of the greek civil war. There experience was much different than the experience of their fellow greeks, this was markedly mor significant in the years after the war. PMK1 (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete: Weak article, looks like original research and motivated by nationalism. I don't believe it has much to offer to the wikipedia readers. I would propose a merge with Aegean Macedonians, but that article seems weak to me too.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete it's a fork to advance some nationalistic pov or other.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely KEEP:
Not a fork content: the article is beeing accused of forkcontent with two pre-existing articles articles
- Political refugees of the Greek Civil War: is a relatively small article that has not as a main subject the Exodus of Ethnic Macedonians from Greece pretty clear there is no fork content.
- Child refugees of the Greek Civil War: what User: Avg "forgot" to state is the fact that this page was created by User:PMK1 and that was one hour later moved-renamed to the Exodus of Ethnic Macedonians from Greece by the same User:PMK1, as we see in the history the white page name "Child refugees of the Greek Civil War" created by PMK1 was than used by other editors to create a WP:POVFORK with the original PMK1 article. In other words the User: Kapnisma started the POV forking on the the empty Child refugees of the Greek Civil War page (by PMK1) on 12:55, 11 October 2008 in order to create another version of the preexisting article by PMK1 Exodus of Ethnic Macedonians from Greece from 02:56, 11 October 2008; so if there is an abusive pov fork page for deletion its Child refugees of the Greek Civil War.
Does not "use all facts and figures referring to all people affected in general (mainly Greeks) as if they refer solely to ethnic Macedonian people" its clear that the numbers refer to the ethnic Macedonians not to all the inhabitants example: "the estimated 100,000 ethnic Macedonians.." its not that Avg is trying to say that in 1945 there were 100.000 inhabitants in Aegean Macedonia
It is not a "pov" article, let me just quote some of the references: Greek Helsinki Monitor, Greek Deputy Foreign Minister Announcement, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - Greece, Council of Europe and many other significant reliable official sources, thats not how "pov" articles are.
It is a pretty rich and precise article about the Ethnic Macedonian refugees from the Greek Civil War an important encyclopedic information. Alex Makedon (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pure, unadulterated, gibberish. This article is a POV fork and the so-called "objective" sources you talk about appear to possess underlying political agendas. The Greek Helsinki Monitor, for example, has signatories who have struggled to invent a "Macedonian" minority in Greece (one of them being the Rainbow Party of Greece). The source you provided from the Council of Europe is also questionable since the signatories denouncing the "discriminatory laws" against "Macedonians" mostly come from FYROM and Turkey (not surprising given the deep political ties both countries share). The Country Reports on Human Rights Practices are from the US State Department that obviously supports FYROM since the US government has military/economic interests in the Balkans. As for the Greek Deputy Foreign Minister, his speech is derived from an IOS interview and is presented from within a "Macedonian Human Rights" website. How do we know that the IOS interview wasn't doctored or altered? Even if the interview was not changed, IOS is an extension of the left-wing Greek newspaper Eleftherotypia, which possesses obvious political positions. Granted, there is no such thing as "objectivity". However, your "non-POV" sources are too damn politicized for any scholar to extract any reliable and accurate data. Plain and simple. Deucalionite (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

omg not the conspiracy theories again. what was that again the Council of Europe and the US Department along with other 126 (85% of the world) countries in the world that recognized Republic of Macedonia are all part of the conspiracy against Greece. And ofcourse we can consider plausible the statements that Greece is the unique state in the world with no minorities, god forbid a minority from a neighbouring country. You are right, the neutrality of Council of Europe and the US Department is disputed in the light of the significant, reliable and official information from the User:Deucalionite source. Alex Makedon (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets be honest: the US Department definately cannot be considered objective-if it was, its "objectivity" would be used in Iraq- and Afghanistan-related articles as a unique source. Are there sources other than political? Alex, remember: many countries in the world have indeed recognised FYROM as "Macedonia", but no country or academic institution in the world (save those in Skopje) have endorsed any theory about the purported connection of its people with the ancient Macedonians. That's a Skopjean invention; so, are the 6+ billion people in the world part of a conspiracy against the "Macedonians"? god forbid a minority from a neighbouring country: quite funny that FYROM does not recognise a Greek minority within its borders (not to mention that Bulgarian self-identification was banned until 1998...). --Hectorian (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont mix Ancient Maceodnians in the matter now. If someone invented talks about Ancient Macedonians-modern Macedonian relation is the Greek goverment, in the bottom line this kind of Ancient-Modern links do not show a thing. No one in their right mind would clame a 3000+ year old descendancy, or succession of ancient civilisations, right?

Republic of Macedonia denies the "existing Greek minority" and Bulgarian identity is "banned" this are Hectorian sourced, the objective, official & reliable information, finaly a bit of honesty after all that POV chat from the bad greek-haters like the Council of Europe and the US Department Alex Makedon (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, very "intelligent" responses. It seems that based on your unnecessary comments, it is you who seems to be dabbling in conspiracy theories. Your utilization of "colorful language" in your response to my analysis only indicates that you really didn't review your own sources. Moreover, the fact that you call Hectorian and I "Greek haters" only indicates your inability to provide a rational retort to any form of rational academic scrutiny. Rather than provide better sources, all you're doing now is engaging in implicit ad hominem attacks by judging both Hectorian and I on the contents of our respective userpages. Let me remind you that this community judges users based on their actual contributions and not on whatever stuff they decide to put on their respective userpages. So keep your text-based "tongue" in check. Thank you. Deucalionite (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Council of Europe? When did that happen? Last I heard, it recognized the country only as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", quotation marks and all. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 02:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out Kekrops. You'll end up on Makedon's blacklist of "Greek haters" and "conspiracy theorists" just for exercising basic critical thinking skills. Deucalionite (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that. I've now progressed to being a sarcastic racist from the poor and insignificant Greek state. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ hectorian, the republic of Macedonia recognises five ethnic minorities on its territory, Albanians, Turks, Roma, Vlachs, Serbs. Bulgarians and Greeks combined do not even make up 2,000 people. Anyway that is besides the point. Do you have anything to say to the well referenced article which is proposed for deletion? PMK1 (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made by thoughts clear about the article. The case of the political (id est Communist) refugees of the Greek Civil war should not be presented as an ethnic issue. That's why I am for deleting it. As for the Greek minority in FYROM, I will reply in the same way: the Greek state recognises only one religious minority, the Muslims (Turks, Pomaks, Roma), and also the minorities of Roma, Armenians and Jews. Skopjeans and the rest make up only a negligible part of the population. (Claiming official positions, leads to the same reaction from my part). --Hectorian (talk) 09:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in minorities in Greece or Macedonia. Your thoughts about the article seem very WP:IDONTLIKEIT PMK1 (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article shall be upgraded like all other articles on Wikipedia, this is only a primordial nationalistic exitement/reaction over the article. Bomac (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely KEEP: First of all this article is very informative and is BACKED by references. About 1/4 of the population of the Republic of Macedonia has origins from Greek Macedonia - thatis they are either refugees or descendants of the refugees from the Civil War, so this is not an fictive issue, this article represents an real event and is backed by references and facts. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice as yet another Macedonian WP:POVFORK. Mangoe (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really can't wrap my head around this article; I guess I just don't know enough about the conflict and the ethnic groups. That said, a very quick look at the talk page makes it look like people are factionalizing (stuff like this). I would really suggest a MEDCAB case for these whole area of Greek/Agean/Macedonian whatever, and don't AfD or create articles in the meantime. This situation really needs to be defused. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..."Greek/Agean/Macedonian whatever"!. I am not going to vote in this AfD. I actually disagree with almost everybody in here, but the wording of the previous comment is simply too much to swallow. Some of us, the happy people of "Whateverland", would appreciate a bit more respect. Even if I find this whole situation ghastly, I am well aware that it matters dearly to a lot of "Greek/Aegeans/Macedonians". If you are sincerely interested in the area you can start by dropping the "whatever" tone and do some reading before any pontification. Oherwise I can't see why one should bother for "whateverians"... --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested. I'm trying to point out that a number of people here, yourself included, are probably going to wind up blocked as a result of all of this, and you should go through DR before it happens. You didn't get what I was saying; I wasn't trivializing this, but stating that I knew nothing about it and wasn't involved in it. Read WP:AGF and take some time out from typing. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try re-reading my answer for a start. You don't have the faintest idea about my conduct so far in Macedonia related issues so I would appreciate it if you kept the patronizing tone to yourself and the blocking admonitions to whomever they may actually concern. Then take some time out and try re-thinking what "volunteer for the Mediation Cabal" actually means, because in my book it doesn't include lack of proper etiquette when refering to a region -be it "Macedonian", "Greek", or "Aegean". I don't have a shred of a doubt that you are actually not interested in, let alone aware of, the issues involved. And BTW, assuming good faith does not presuppose becoming impervious to derogatory remarks. I won't be posting anything else here so should you have any more comments, my talk page would be a more apropriate place. Cheers--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy, while I can understand an outsider may occasionally be exasperated at the intensity of conflict in this domain, your comment was undifferentiated, and the "yourself included" was really, really out of place. This would be immediately obvious to you if you knew the participants and the issues a bit better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was supposed to be undifferentiated. Assuming one side is right while the other is wrong (which I can't tell, as I know nothing about the various ethnic groups, Greece, etc.) I've seen a lot of good editors get blocked because they got frustrated and did something out of character. I'd rather see things deescalated before that happens to anybody. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telling a sterling editor like Giorgos that he is "probably going to wind up blocked", when you have not the slightest indication whatsoever of any disruptive actions of his, is extremely insulting. Don't do that. And don't try to rationalise away this attack with hypothetical scenarios in the abstract. If you want to help deescalate things here, this was certainly not the way to do it. (Not that Giorgos was in any need of deescalation, but still...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:POVFORK. _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree with Future Perfect. Merge to the Political refugees of the Greek Civil War article. Kyriakos (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge - Fut. Perf is completely correct. But, if merged, the references should be transcluded as well, which will not be an easy task. — Ceranthor (Sing) 14:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Political refugees of the Greek Civil War. In addition to being a POV-fork, this article treats a purely political event into an ethnic tragedy. By dealing exclusively with the Slavomacedonian exodus, it misinforms and needs to go, one way or another. --Tsourkpk (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposal[edit]

Dear colleagues, I propose a compromise solution of this dispute. Having in mind that the article is backed by references and that it represents a historical fact that is open even today, I propose that the whole article be renamed from Exodus of Ethnic Macedonians from Greece to Ethnic Macedonian refugees from Greece, and a link will be included to the article Political refugees of the Greek Civil War. The ethnic Macedonian refugees are not only those that were evacuated or expelled during the civil war, but also those that refuged in order to be saved from the terror made by the PAO and Tagmata Asfalias during World War 2. By changing the name of the article this dispute will be resolved. I must add that there is no reasonable argument for an article backed with so many references to be deleted, and so renaming it will be the best solution of the dispute. Regards to all. --Revizionist (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether there have been refugees (including children) who fled Greece for the Eastern Bloc during or after the Civil War, this is an indisputable fact, so this is not a case of people "denying" the facts. The issue is who were these refugees. This article claims that they were ethnic Macedonians. The reality is that they were people who fought or supported the losing side, the communists, because of the McCarthyist climate of the era. Overwhelmingly these people were Greeks, with small percentages of Bulgarians, Albanians and ethnic Macedonians (perhaps not in the scope of this discussion to mention the reasons that ethnic Macedonians fought together with the communists in the Civil War, most of them were simply communists but at least some others had additional motives, hoping they could get a level of autonomy under a communist rule). Anyway, this is why this is a POV fork. The nationality issue here is irrelevant. The only reason people fled Greece is because of the side they took during the Civil War. It's like creating an article named Exodus of plumbers from Greece, since a small percentage of the people who have left were plumbers. So to sum up the issue should be treated in the article Political refugees of the Greek Civil War. This is why I proposed the deletion of this article, although I do applaud PMK1's effort to list as many references as possible. My problem is (since I have read most of the third party references) that they are about the refugees in general, not the ethnic Macedonian refugees. Therefore I would propose to PMK1, if he's genuinely interested in the subject and not just creating forks to push a particular POV, to channel his effort towards improving the main article (which undeniably needs improvement). However, as I've already stated in the talk page, it's not only PMK1's fault. This is part of a revisionist approach (no pun intended to the above poster) originating from the ethnic Macedonian intelligentsia, which aims at reinterpreting all events of Greek (and Bulgarian) history as centered around the ethnic Macedonians and their alleged oppression. --Avg (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion User:Revizionist. I have two proposals for your suggestion.First proposal: rename to Ethnic Macedonians refugees of the Greek Civil War. Second Proposal: rename to Deca Begalci, Detsa Begalci or Decata Begalci, depending on the transliteration the second option would probably be the best.

Intro to proposal one.

Ethnic Macedonian refugees of the Greek Civil War (title)

The Ethnic Macedonian refugees of the Greek Civil War refers to the group of Ethnic Macedonians who fled or were evacuated from during the Greek Civil War. This event is also known as the Detsa Begalci or the Exodus of Ethnic Macedonians from Greece. ... (example 1)

Intro to proposal two

Detsa/Deca/Decata Begalci

The Detsa Begalci is the Macedonian name for the group of children evacuated for the group of children evacuated from the Greek Civil War. This event is also known as the Exodus of Ethnic Macedonians from Greece. ... (example 2)

Please comment on the proposals. PMK1 (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was not an ethnic Macedonian exodus. It was a communist exodus. These were not (only) ethnic Macedonian children. They were just children, Greek or ethnic Macedonian or "whatever" as someone said above. --Avg (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The children were just children, yes. But that does not mean they should not have an article written about them. The User:Kapnisma is uninformative and a ridiculous POV of this article. I would not object to the article if it were informative and actually had a purpose, not just a sort of ressurection of a title formerly occupied by this article. There has been discrimination against them on the part of the greek government. Whereas the discrimination against the greek children ended many years ago. This article was designed to focus on the "deca begalci". All people familiar to the topic would have many sympathies towards the children, regardless to their ethnicities. Many sources claim that there was an exodus, this included the Macedonians who were communists. This also included teachers in the 87 Macedonian language schools, journalists of the Macedonian language newspapers etc. These people were not necessarily communists, but rather ethnic macedonians who had utilised the freedom that the communists had given to the ethnic macedonian people in greece. They were also forced to leave or left by choice. I do not mean for this to be a rant but rather some information on the non-communist adults who also left greece. Please comment on the above proposal so that we can improve the article as opposed to just deleting these childrens stories. PMK1 (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the Communists had given freedom to anyone in Greece, could form a debate on its own. At least history has spoken about the Iron Curtain. As for the "exodus", a BBC article attracted my attention a few days ago. Beyond any doubt, among the 500,000 descendants of the Spanish Democratic exiles are quite many thousands of Basques and Catalans. Yet, none has taken the issue so far to create an article like Exodus of Basques from Spain or Exodus of Catalans from Spain. These people left, not cause of their ethnic self-identification, but because the supported the loosing party. Exactly what happened in Greece ten years later. Renaming the article Ethnic Macedonian refugees from Greece or any slavic translation, is not a compromise. I surely know that the Balkans are still a volatile region and that the ethnic "Macedonians" are in need of history and identity (the side effects of a nation-building process), but it is not Wikipedia's business to supply them the tools at the expense of facts. Everyone agrees that all the refugees who left Greece after the civil war were communists. Greek-speaking Greeks, Slavophone Greeks, ethnic "Macedonians", orthodox or muslims, journalists or farmers; this does not mean that we should create an article about each group seperately. --Hectorian (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not nation bulding. We are not looking for history. This is apart of our history. This was and still is a very important event in the history of the Macedonian people. I cannot comment on the spanish issue, but you are free to create an article if you wish. You seem to misunderstand the term, compromise. PMK1 (talk) 05:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, compromise. A fair compromise would be to include the subject of this article in an article that covers all the refugees of the Greek Civil War. Or would having to share the article with the "Greek" refugees be beneath you? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beneath me, whats with that tone? I am not making parallels to certain genocides. As far as i can see you have actually put very little effort into to creating an article about refugees of the greek civil war. Now, we cant be possible making other articles за инает, now can we? PMK1 (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!!!! This article is up for deletion, yet [Greek refugees] article and [Pontic Greek Genocide] is allowed to remain up! This is the same situation and are parallels to one another. This article should not be deleted, if it is, then the Pontic Greek articles should be too. Revizionists idea is a good one, renaming the article to Ethnic Macedonian refugees from Greece can include the exodus and other refugees that occurred as a result of ww2 policies. Avg you are wrong on the issue, those refugees that were Greek returned to Greece in the 1980s, this focuses on the refugees that could not return to Greece as a result of Greek discrimination, in which "non-Greek" political refugees would not be allowed to return. In any case, the amount of people that returned to Greece were small, and the overwhelming amount proclaim to be ethnic Macedonian. What a horrible argument you present, I wouldn't be surprised if you believed the refugee children were Greek. Mactruth (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But of course most of the refugee children were Greek. Actually many children were sent to the South, not only to the North, and then shipped to the US to adoptive families. From those who were sent to the North, most were Greek speaking. From the Slavophones, most had a Greek consciousness (exactly as it's the case today). Ethnic Macedonian children were a minority. I don't want to offer any figure without proof, but I cannot imagine it is a large percentage of the total 23,696 - International Red Cross figure - number of children who left the country. PMK on the other hand and actually all ethnic Macedonian sources, continuously use the whole figure as being ethnic Macedonian children (and even grossly inflate it to over 30,000), which is ridiculous. Now regarding your comparison with Greek refugees, may I remind you there were 1.5 million Greek (and only Greek) refugees from Turkey after the population exchange, which is more than the whole ethnic Macedonian population, so there is an issue of sheer scale here (and even not with pompous titles like "Exodus"). In any case, how many do you think were denied entry back to Greece after the full amnesty? Only the handful of those who are blacklisted by the Greek government because of their participation in irredentist organisations abroad who demand "unification" of Macedonia. Most of the refugees (including the Greeks), simply decided not to come back after so many years.—Avg (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most of them were not, including the refugee children (who self identify as being ethnic Macedonian). You make a lot of bickering without using any sources, just like the silly "Republic of Macedonia violates Hellenic Human Rights" claims. You are trying to confuse the audience by saying the complete opposite of what is written in history: it is known Greece violates Macedonian human rights, you confuse by saying the opposite, the same is true in the case of the refugees. Again, like I stated those that were Greek have returned to Greece in the 1980s with law changes, if you want to prove your case, show us a document representing the amount of Greeks that got their citizenship back in the 1980s (that will prove your case). In regards to the "1.5 million Greek refugees", 620,000 of them were sent to Macedonia (Greece) and those today believe they are descendants of the ancient Macedonians, but that is a different conversation and thanks for showing us the paradox that arises when your president states "2.5 million (99%) Greeks are Macedonian." Even with that, you try to say one refugee article is more important then the other simply because of the amount of numbers, which is even more ridiculous. Again, all I hear are arguments created a few minutes ago in your head. Mactruth (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want sources check the refs in the article Child refugees of the Greek Civil War, check the refs Kapnisma provides at the talk page of the "Exodus" article, check the UN resolutions on the matter of Greek refugee children go to 288.B, check Milan Ristović's "A Long Journey, Greek Refugee Children in Yugoslavia 1948-1960", check Georgios Manoukas' "Child Gathering, Education and Teaching of the kidnapping Greek children" just for starters. Now regarding my "silly" claims regarding violation of Greek Human Rights, perhaps you could check the Greek Foreign Ministry page and see that this is the official Greek position: go to the 1st Q&A. But of course Greece is silly anyway right? Now regarding who ridiculously believes they are the descendants of Ancient Macedonians, three words: Airport, iGenea, Burusho. Nuff said. And by the way, what is the Vergina Sun doing in your user page? Are you a descendant of the Ancient Macedonians?--Avg (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hellenic Red Cross was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 19 times for its relief efforts to the Greek refugees. The world's newspapers referred constantly to the Pontic Greek Genocide, and The New York Timeswas awarded its first Pulitzer Prize for its related work. Of course, everyone knows that the American newspapers and the Swedish Academy are biased in favour of the "silly" Greeks, right? (This was a reply to Mactruth. I will not comment on these issues here again; take'em to the respective talk pages, if you wish). --Hectorian (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To whomever has the audacity to compare this to the Pontian Genocide, I have only two words. Fuck. You. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Avg i have listed the sources, which refer to the number of child refugees here on the article's talk page. Please provide you comments their. Rash comments like the ones above should be refrained from. Mactruth try to refrain from over stating your case, or comments like kekrops will become very common to you. PMK1 (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only valid source shown is the UN, but during the Kosovo War in 1990s, most articles called the refugees “Kosovar”, indicating that it was not an ethnic designation, but rather an indication of which nation/state the refugees came from. This may be the same case. All the other “sources” you showed Avg are either Greek or Serbian, and the international community can’t take that seriously considering the Greek-Serbian friendship. In terms of the Greek human rights in Macedonia, it is hilarious because your own government has suppressed Macedonian, Albanian, and Turk identity for a hundred + years now, and only when another nation calls them out do they state “The Greeks in Macedonia have no rights.” If Greeks in Macedonia don’t have rights, then what statement would you use to express the situation of the ethnic Macedonians in Greece? Considering the two cases, only Greek media states the Greeks in Macedonia have their rights violated, while the Macedonians in Greece have been written about in the UN, US Department of State, and Human rights organizations. I believe we are a mixture of ancient Macedonian and Slavic, which is constantly being proven by many genetic testing, not simply iGENEA. But, you can stay in denial, my ancestors have lived in Macedonia long before the 1920s, and as I stated before 620,000 Pontic Greeks (before population growth is taken into effect) believe they are ancient Macedonian due to Greek propaganda.

Hectorian , I never stated the Pontic Greek Genocide never occurred, you are not comprehending my argument. I am stating the Macedonian refugees from Greece are well recorded also, and that a double standard is occurring because of it. As for the personal attack stated by ΚΕΚΡΩΨ, your statements shows you don’t comprehend that the Macedonian refugees were a big event in our history just like the Pontic Greek refugees were a big event in your history. You statements shows lack of respect for other peoples suffering, and you have been reported for it. Mactruth (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People, calm down! This guy is just an other of those that roam around every now and then...Just ignore him and he will return to Maknews forum where he came from the first place.. Kapnisma ? 17:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, WP:DNFTT, if you will. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back on the subject: This discussion was derailed from the topic. First of all I must agree that I cannot agree with user Kekrops using terms like the F word in his wiki colleagues, for all of us are civilized people, and this kind of attitude insults our intelligence (all of us). Secondly, the article is about a topic which was thoroughly researched - a lot of books about the subject can be quoted, espetially Kirjazovski's book "Македонската политичка емиграција од Егејскиот дел на Македонија во Источна Европа", Скопје, 1989. The article will clearly state that it is about the ethnic Macedonian refugees, which were part of the total amount of refugees from Greece. The Macedonian refugees had thir own cultural organizations, newspapers, magazines and publishing houses. The best sollution is to move the article from Exodus of Ethnic Macedonians from Greece to Ethnic Macedonian refugees from Greece. Btw the article referes not only to those ethnic Macedonians that were evacuated or expelled during the civil war, but also those that refuged in order to be saved from the terror made by the PAO and Tagmata Asfalias during World War 2. Third, the article is backed by many refrences, and there is no real argument for it top be deleted. By changing the name of the article this dispute will be resolved. Regards to all. --Revizionist (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it won't. I, and others here, disagree with the very premise of the article itself, namely that the "ethnic Macedonian" refugees should be treated separately from the others who, having been associated with the losing side in the Civil War, fled the country. You have yet to provide any adequate justification for this. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if the article is extended with chapters added on the Ethnic Macedonians who left Greece after the end of the German occupation and World War Two. This is also a topic with much information in it. It could also be complimented with the emigration of Macedonians from 1920-1936, and the people who left in the Metaxas era. This way the article would not solely be based on the Macedonian refugees of the greek civil war but on all the Macedonians who have left greece in the past 100 years or so. What are suggestions towards that? PMK1 (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would then have to establish that the people who left before the war were/identified as "Macedonians" (in a specifically ethnic sense), rather than Slav-speakers who suffered discrimination for simply being different. And the weight of evidence is firmly against you, I'm afraid. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That this is an international encyclopedia that cares about validity, not some ultraracist, pseudohistory topic of Maknews forum. Kapnisma ? 11:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody claimed that only Greeks left Greece after the Civil War, but what truly left Greece was communists and those seen as leftists. It is normal that some of the communists were non-Greek, if non-Greek populations existed in Greece. But at that time they didn't care for one's ethnicity, but only for their political belief and ideology. So it was never an "exodus" of Greeks, Bulgarians, Yugoslavians, etc. It was an "exodus" of leftists. Renaming won't solve the problem, only mask it differently. The problem is the content, that misses the point. Perhaps we could include a paragraph in the original article for "refugees" after the Civil War, stating that there were some non-Greeks amongst the leftists who left. But this article should be deleted. --Michael X the White (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do what ever you want

Obviously here never anything is regarded weather it is true or not, you people accept everything as “already invented”, and the back of the truth you smile with words “that was the right thing to do”. I doesn't matter if it is on Wiki or some other similar page , on a document ... who cares, it was. Hiding only lies the eyes for a time. I said what I wanted. I just want to point that it is time to reconsider your blind running, things are different out there, maybe thats why you are so confused in this world and other know everything, I hope that most of us learn the life any moment they can. For what do we fight, well where will we be after. I'm Macedonian and will be, sorry if your world is not the way your pride sees it. Vlatko (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouw, that deserves a Barnstar from one of the rest of you! I can already see it: " Barnstar for Macedonian truth"! And of course it's entirely off topic.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here is everything an off topic, numbers do win, not the truth. That is your topicVlatko (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Zulia. I believe the consensus was to attempt the preserve the article's content through a merge, but the article in its current form does not have sufficient sourcing to verifiably introduce these claims into the main article. I have taken the sources found in the discussion here, and will add them to Talk:Zulia with a note asking for coverage of area's push for independence. Due to the concerns about the veracity of the claims in the subject article, I have deleted it prior to redirecting. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Republic of Zulia[edit]

It has been brought up several times in this article's talk page that this article may be a hoax. Coupled with the fact that it does not seem to meet notability requirements and had been blanked for being "a lie" recently, it seems to need a formal AfD discussion. MrNerdHair (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not a hoax, although I don't know how it does in terms of notability. See here (search for Independent Republic of Zulia) and Maracaibo, which references the Republic. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi, I speak to you from Caracas, Venezuela, I am from the city of Maracaibo in Zulia STATE!, "The Independent Republic of Zulia", does not exist, that name is used most of in Maracaibo as a joke among locals, because the great regionalist sentiment that exists in the region, its culture and traditions, but until there comes the question, as the Zulian Citizen, loves to Venezuela and there is no plan of separatism, although some neo-Nazi groups want to push it, but not have any support. Greetings and I hope that erased the article once, as it is a hoax --190.79.108.72 (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Erasing the article is not a solution. AfD is a far better option (where it is right now). Can you cite any sources that point to this being a hoax? I would change my views on this article if this is true. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My Reasons for blank the article are my talk page, not repeat them here again, if you want to believe in any more trash gets on the Internet as a source in someone's native place and several warnings from users for months on the discussion page from the article, as well, If you want to remain partial and pretend to know about from Maracaibo, Zulia from the United States, as do --190.79.108.72 (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If as anon states, it is a "joke among locals", and that joke has been plublished in multiple independent and verifiable sources, it may be a notable hoax, and thus deserve to have an article that describes the nature of the hoax, but even if this is the case, such an article would be completely different from it's current revision, and thus, deletion would be appropriate. -Verdatum (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See more evidence of the joke, are in Spanish, sorry

http://www.venelogia.com/archivos/309/

http://www.caballerosdelfuego.com.ve/cdfeventos/Visazulia.htm

http://forosbeta.cantv.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=32503&PID=1354442#1354442

http://www.tunoticierodigital.com/foro/republica-independiente-del-zulia-t570.html --190.79.108.72 (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect - to Zulia. Not worth its own page but the speculation and proposal is well sourced and certainly merits a section in the main article - see [6][7][8][9][10]. TerriersFan (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Agree with TerriersFan above - enough info, but doesn't deserve its own article. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 21:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zulia unless any evidence can be that this state ever achieved any form of independence, rather than some people simply declaring it. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. The lack of sourced content militated against a merge. I couldn't see any advantage to deleting prior to the redirect, so I simply pointed the article to Mobile Broadband. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cellular broadband[edit]

Doesn't cover anything not already covered in the articles it links to, and I can't see that it ever could. Any material that could be added to this article could be better added elsewhere. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't particularly well written, but I think that the concept of cellular broadband is important enough to stay. Suggest we either find a volunteer to clean it up, or delete without prejudice for its recreation when someone comes along. --John24601 (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a recommendation for cleanup. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(In response to John 24601) - or perhaps redirect to Mobile broadband? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good plan. --John24601 (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mobile broadband, article is no more than a personal essay. --neon white talk 21:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What content do you suggest we merge? None of it is appropriately sourced, hence it is not reliable. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:36, 26 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, Sandstein 19:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here is appropriately sourced, hence there is nothing to merge. Redirection is fine but the delete comes first. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? All it does is cause extra work for administrators. Unless it's a clear copyvio there's no reason why it should be deleted before a redirect is put in place. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mobile Broadband The Advantages/Disadvantages look similar to the sections that were recently removed from Mobile Broadband. I see no value in the current article to merge. Dimitrii (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Zoobooks. , content is under the re-direct for whoeever wants to perform the merge. StarM 03:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zootles[edit]

Article seems to be non-notable and contains no references to establish its notability. ♪Tempo Di Valse♪ 19:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Zoobooks. It's a spin-off of a magazine that has been in print for at least 25 years. Mention on the relevant parent article would be a good idea. As for the references, that is what cleanup is for (article is less than a month old). I'm still trying to wade through the people selling databases to find circulation numbers. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, obviously enough. DGG (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Yamaha products. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha PSR-S900[edit]

This is strictly an advertisement for a new instrument, not an encyclopedia article. The model that this product replaces is redlinked here, too. A Google news search turns up nothing. WP:SPAM problems. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Another editor created the article, and I tried to make it as NPOV as possible. I found a review at http://www.yamaha-keyboard-guide.com/yamaha-psr-s900.html , but didn't add it since I felt suspicious about the site. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that review passes WP:RS. I commend your effort in trying to save this article, Eastmain, but sadly it is still not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the review's website, "My name is Mantius Cazaubon. I've been playing keyboards ever since I was a child. Yamaha keyboards were a favorite of mine at that time and continue to be." It's a fansite of sorts, and that disqualifies it, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with kudos to Eastmain. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to List of Yamaha products#Electronic musical instruments which I intend to do. RMHED (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are there any magazines not available on the Internet which might have reviewed this instrument and which would count as a reliable source? I'm not a musician, and I'm not familiar with the specialist magazines that potential purchasers of the Yamaha PSR-S900 might read. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge according to notability guidelines (WP:PRODUCT) products should be included in the company page. --neon white talk 21:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if it is merged, notability is not confirmed as per WP:RS. Without any confirmation of notability, I still believe deletion is the only proper course of action. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There is no "merge and delete". According to the GFDL, if content is merged to another location, the history is to be maintained. Besides, redirects are cheap. -Verdatum (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge per RMHED. (the merge appears to have already taken place, so a redirect should be all that's needed). -Verdatum (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the decision to merge the information in attempt to save the subject, nonetheless it still quotes the Yamaha promotional material as its sole source of information -- I had to remove the merged text because it still fails WP:RS. The sad fact remains the subject is just not notable and this article is completely non-encyclopedic. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a major company's description of its own product is a sufficiently RS for factual material. DGG (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a very, very brief acknowledgment of the existence of the product, perhaps. But marketing collateral should not be used for RS purposes, which is what happened here. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. PC78 (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Quest: A Cassini Space Odyssey[edit]

No evidence of any notabilty. A Google search is rather telling and turns up no reliable sources, just an IMDb profile and multiple other directory listings. PC78 (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Crystal failing WP:NFF. However, bring it back when there is more than rumour. With the cast as offered, it will be worth seeing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. Schuym1 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Strong Keep per the improved article and the amount of coverage the film has been recieving since its conception. Excerpts have been screened, so it passes WP:Crystal and squeeks past WP:NFF, as WP:NFF states "...films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines" (emphasis mine), The cast and crew and the involvement of NASA and JPL allow it to pass notability guidelines: "Never before have on going missions been involved in a film project, and never before has a film been initiated by NASA."[11] Per the guidelines, this one is a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NFF and has sources. Schuym1 (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to post-nom improvements. Cliff smith ^talk 20:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in its current version. The references, though websites, are the usual ones for notability of sciencefiction &c, and have long been accepted here. Although an 2010 film, the production is well advanced & excerpts have been shown. DGG (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice job on the rewrite. Gopher65_talk 04:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a chance to go through the article and look at the references used. I'll certainly agree that this is a nice rewrite, though it does appear to be padded with a bit of filler: what is the value of the Brent Spiner quote, and why do we need to have seperate "Plot" and "Synopsis" sections? Though many references are used, I found a great deal of them to contain only trivial mentions and/or found them to be rather dubious in terms of reliabilty, while some are certianly redundant to others used. That said, there are a few decent sources in there which are enough to satisfy (just!) my concerns regarding notabilty, and since what remains is a matter of cleanup, I shall therefore withdraw this nomination. PC78 (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. and none on the horizon. StarM 02:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of national football (soccer) teams by nickname[edit]

the list is simply non-notable (and pointless). I can't really put this Afd nomination in better words rather that it fails wp:n. —Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 23:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nickname this list provides for Russia, for example, is pure BS; I suppose there are much more mistakes. Keeping this list is tolerable if and only if every entry in it is perfectly sourced. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 10:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Giant Snowman 11:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, unsourced BanRay 16:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. List is sourced (see [12] which was there in black and white in the notes section). Nicknames are notable, they are in regular use by multiple media sources. The nomination smacks of an WP:IDON'TLIKEIT drive by nomination of a long standing article, without even starting the talk page first. MickMacNee (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but... What makes you think I nominated this for deletion simply because "I don't like it"? Ever thought that I might have nominated this because I felt like there was not enough significant and independent coverage regarding the topic of nicknames in football? The only thing we have that really elaborates on nicknames in football is from FIFA, which is hardly independent in this case. —Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 06:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One article on fifa.com doesn't make a topic notable. If a national team has a regular nickname, that should be mentioned on that team's article. Just to point an example that is glaringly obvious to me, I have never heard of Scotland referred to as "The Bravehearts". That sounds like an Americanism to me. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To you and the russian, the presence of vandalism or nonsense edits are not a reason delete articles, ever. And I didn't point to the FIFA article as an example of notability, it is a response to the falsehood above that the entire list was unreferenced. So what if the Scotland team doesn't have a nickname - that's no reason to pretend nobody would ever want to find them out for other teams in a list format. Acknowledging that they do exist, but then imposing the rather ridiculous expectation of making people read every single national team article if they want to find out this information, without a valid policy reason to justify this, is again just not a valid reason to delete it. MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My contention is that the subject isn't notable in itself. I don't see why it is ridiculous to expect that someone who wants to know what the nickname of the England team should have to look up the England team article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply cannot see what magical notability standard you want satisfying for what is essentially a basic information list, the likes of which exist all over the pedia. And anyway, the actual concept of "notability" as applied to article topocs does not even exist for lists (search WP:LIST for the word notability, look at the heading under which the notability guideline appears on the list of guidelines). A list merely has to be a sensible collation of notable facts, and satisfy WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. The collation of national team nicknames doesn't have to be a topic discussed in the wider world in multiple sources (although actually what do you call the FIFA article if it is not a discussion of the topic of national team nicknames?) The list is hardly a random collection of unrelated information or statistics, or original research, or trivia, or synthesis, or a copyvio, or anything else that resembles (or is supposed to) the actual list of reasons why we take the serious step of destroying an article (for easy reference they can be found here). Deleting this solely on the grounds of "notability" as it applies to articles is just misguided and counter productive puritanism if you ask me, it certainly brings no net benefit. Here's hoping the closer of this debate agrees with me, knows the deletion policy and discounts non-policy arguments. And if he doesn't, then at least let's hope we get one with the decency to explain why what I have written above is nonsene. MickMacNee (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've used it before, that's in part why I created it. Never used by you <> unnecessary to the rest of the world. MickMacNee (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was skeptical about this article, and my first reaction was that it was wishful thinking on the part of a fan. It's important to note that these are not official nicknames. It's more along the line of popular usage, like calling the New York Giants "Big Blue", or calling the Pittsburgh Pirates "the Bucs" in a newspaper headline. As noted, the page cites to a verifiable source (fifa.com, which is the website for soccer/football's world organization). However, more importantly, doing a google search on a few nicknames chosen at random-- Palancas negras, bravehearts, tricolorii, etc. -- demonstrates to me that these are used in the media for the respective countries, and that this can be sourced even further. I'm willing to look for citations beyond the source that started the article. Mandsford (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems sourced, manageable, not indiscriminate. Mandsford and MickMac make good arguments. Dlohcierekim 00:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the 'source', while the official governing body's site, clearly know jack-all about nicknames. I can absolutely guarantee that if you were pick a random Scotsman (hint - you might be reading the thoughts of one) and attempt to tell him that Scotland are "the Bravehearts" he would laugh in your face. Unless a means can be found of providing truly verifiable nicknames for these teams - and I doubt one can be - then the only recourse is to have a nickname - IF ANY - documented on the team's own article. That way only REAL nicknames will exist, not the hallucinations of a marketing-obsessed Swiss bureaucrat. MadScot (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At least get your facts straight before forming an opinion, the word Braveheart does not appear anywhere on the FIFA source. The rest of your rationale is also completely wrong, anything you can verify for an article can be verified for a list. MickMacNee (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a friend in college who was marketing-obsessed and took hallucinogens, and he became a bureaucrat and moved to Zurich, and you're right, that type of guy can't be trusted. And I'll try not to say, "How 'bout them Bravehearts?" to a Scotch soccer hooligan, since he'll probably laugh in my face and then throw a punch. My point is that the FIFA.com website by itself isn't much of a source, but that if these nicknames are used in the media, that would easily be verified. Thus, if it the sports section of the Glasgow Globe has a headline that says "Bravehearts Kick Arse", that's a secondary source. Mandsford (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep There is nothing wrong with sourced lists, that have the premise validated (premise validated is the key for anything encyclopedic). And if you look at the structure of all encyclopedic articles they are in effect just lists with a premise validated, in various subjective orders and designs that you can design. To me this particular type of list design is an important no frills encyclopedic wiki article, as important to the wiki tapestry as much as any other encyclopedic list. This is quality free encyclopedic research material that has sources and can bring in newer sources to improve other articles on wiki and elsewhere. To me discriminating against one type of validated list and not others is bizarre, almost like a fad.--82.39.74.59 (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC) >>>>>> On Micmacnees advice below, I've signed in with an account--Biscuit2008 (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said, but policy dictates that IP addresses cannot participate in deletion discussions. If you register an account you can sign the above comment. MickMacNee (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it does not say that in WP:DEL. WP:AFD states that unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. MuZemike (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to add more here. All encyclopedias are designed to be as objective as can be... So why discriminate against this type of no frills encyclopedic list structure that when validated is the hardest list order and structure to pervert? I mean with other list structures, you can get sentence after sentecnce were someone perverts a cite, leading to an edit war. Yet with this list design, there is no sentence after sentecne, merely one or two words in a premise with a cite, one one line and the next and so on, there is not much room for wiggling. If you were to design a course on how to use a wiki thjis type of list would be the second thing you would use to show the about premise validation, then you would go on to more complex stuff.

Also my bet is here all these people who are arguing to delete this type of no frills list have been involved in an edit war over a paragraph of sentence after sentence leading up to a perverted/not perverted, valid/invalid premise that has been cited. Yet they argue over this type of list that is the hardest type to pervert?--Biscuit2008 (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOLROF. Firstly, Biscuit, you'd lose that bet. Secondly, lists like this always draw good faith editors from good faith editors on both sides, because they ride the border between an indiscriminate collection of information and our goal of being the storehouse of all human knowledge. Thirdly, ad hominems only weaken your argument and encourage those you disagree with to fortify their positions. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cierekim, I have not used any ad hominem for any advantage, I've merely attempted to show something in the context that doesn't make sense when you look from outside (am I not allowed to show key naunces? Or show why this looks like a fad?). Yet you are the one who is ridiculing, instead of keeping to the context, note your use of 'LOLROF'. BTW, again, if you look at the outline structure of any wiki article it is a list that has been worked on with cites, all in various order, so why discriminate against another list that is hard to pervert with prior sentences? I just dont understand why someone would try to remove a list that if cited is the hgardest list to pervert. Alist is a list, whether it is a list of paragraphs and sentences in those paragraphs, or a no frills list packed with knowledge.

There is nothing wrong with this particular list, it could be better with more cites, it has knowledge that some would find useful. I just get the impression, that people wrongly think these types of lists are not encyclopedic for some reason--Biscuit2008 (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've having a hard time imagining why anyone would find this list useful. If they wanted to know the nickname of a specific national team, why don't they just look at that specific national team's article? – PeeJay 17:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And why exactly does it have to personally appear usefull to you to not be deleted? The list was viewed 1,621 times in September, (4,522 times in June during the national team season). Are all these people complete idiots? MickMacNee (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Honestly, yes. Seriously, though, I'm not denying that someone might find it useful, but I personally don't see it. – Pee Jay 22:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Since when number of views is a parameter for notability? —Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no}
- PeeJay, Encyclopedias do not work on subjective outlook, for example I don't find 95% of the 2.5million+ articles on wiki interesting, but others do--Biscuit2008 (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List is useful as reverse lookup. It is not principally a matter of looking up the <country national football team> to find the nickname of a team, it is more often the other way round - who are "The Mambas"? I read many football articles that refer to "Elephants" "Lions" "Bafana Bafana" "The Flames" "Seleçao" and whilst knowing some of them, many I don't without thinking about it. Not only FIFA use the names, Aussie press uses "Socceroos", NZ Press "All Whites", BBC often refers to "The Mambas", "Les Blues" "Seleçao" "Indomitable Lions" etc. It is at least partially sourced, and to those that want it deleted on the basis that it is not fully accurate or not fully sourced I can only say this Be Bold and fix it. Notability? as notable as the articles it cross-references I believe.--ClubOranje^Talk 23:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A perfectly valid way of organising information. Those above who can't see the use of this would appear to be severely lacking in imagination. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. StarM 03:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Girls and Love Hotels[edit]

Fails WP:NFF. No evidence that principal photography has commenced for this film: of the cited sources, one is two years old and merely says that Kate Bosworth bought the rights to the book, while the other is from this month and says that she just finished writing the script. PC78 (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rights have been bought script has been written. Still far away from actually being shot hasn't even gone into pre-production. Violates WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL on all fronts. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice since shooting hasn't started. Cliff smith ^talk 22:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. Schuym1 (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G3. Stifle (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dardan Latifi[edit]

Appears to be a hoax, no ghits RJaguar3 | u | t 18:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Complete hoax. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 18:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The creator of this nonsense this can't even make up his mind which century this character lived in. Rklear (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this dif and this one. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 20:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete yet another hoax disgracing our encyclopedia project. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. alreay gone - tidy up Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fonigurator[edit]

Word invented yesterday. PROD removed by IP. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was speedied while I was AfDing. Somebody close this please. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music Box Sacramento[edit]

A promotional article about a online public-access local show, on a Sacramento-local equivalent of YouTube. ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the source is the accesssacramento site and Myspace pages. Promotional material, and no notability (sources are not independent of the subject). Anti venin 17:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 10 non-wiki ghits, none of which show a whiff of notability; zero gnews hits. Simply not notable.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — borderline spam. No reliable, independent sources establishing notability of this article. MuZemike (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and per MuZemike. No notability of this article has been proven at all. Borderline spam. ~Beano~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep — nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Job scheduler[edit]

Article does not cite enough sources. Also borders on WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. The implementations section is more of a list than what should be an article.Spidern (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to have a lot of references in technical magazines, as per the Google News search page. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not disagree that the subject is notable, I just think that this page should have more sources to live up to Wikipedia standards. Spidern (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources can be added. Maybe the verify tag could be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antivenin (talk • contribs) 2008-10-29 17:49:55
- Unreferenced tag was put in place September 2007. I suggest that unless anyone adds sources now, they can do so when they recreate the article. Spidern (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with you and I change my vote to Delete. Antivenin 18:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please familiarize yourselves with our Wikipedia:Editing policy and our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. We allow articles to exist in a state of imperfection. We don't delete imperfect articles for them to be re-created later. We build upon what exists, and improve articles, by boldly editing them. We only delete articles if no sources actually exist at all, and it is thus impossible to write an article. AFD is not the only tool in the toolbox. Please read, and absorb, User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. If you come across an article that you think does not have enough sources, look for sources yourself. If you find an article that is bad, rewrite it yourself to make it better. Writing the encyclopaedia is not somebody else's problem. Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: Under the current circumstances, where no sources have been added to the article in over a year, should the article still be kept? Anti venin 18:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody worked on North Asia for almost five years. There is no deadline. I suggest also bearing in mind that by not looking for sources yourself you are perpetuating the situation of no-one working to improve the article with sources. Please take quarter of an hour or so to look for some sources (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), and then come back to this discussion. If you find sources, cite them in the article, so that the next editor to come along doesn't have to repeat your work. This is how articles get built by collaboration.
        If you find multiple independent, in-depth, published sources whose authors are reliable, then the inescapable conclusion per deletion policy, is that we must keep the article, because all that needs doing is for editors to take sources in hand, hit that "edit this page" button, and make the article better; an administrator using administrator tools isn't required. Uncle G (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - While in principle I agree that an article should be allowed to exist in a state of imperfection for an extended period of time, the principle of verifiability takes a higher priority in this case. I challenge this article for AfD in light of a notice for lack of sources which has existed on the page for over a year. This is not an unreasonable case for nomination. Further, the content is not encyclopedic for the reasons I outlined above. Spidern (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Unverifiability means that no sources exist, not that no sources are cited. You haven't looked for sources yourself to see whether that is the case, and thus have not made a case, in accordance with deletion policy, that the subject is unverifiable. Please read the aforelinked policies and pages, as well as Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination. Nominating an article for deletion on grounds of unverifiability requires that you look for sources yourself. This has been our policy on verifiability since 2003. Uncle G (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for the information, Uncle G. I misunderstood verifiability policy. Is it possible to withdraw this AfD? Spidern (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, altogether possible: if the nominator wants to withdraw it, it will be withdrawn. I'd do it, except that I've never learned; the only time I did it, I accidentally closed all the nominations posted on that day's log, causing confusion. Nyttend (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it done. MuZemike (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. StarM 03:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The World Ends[edit]

Explicitly fails WP:NFF. According to the cited interview (dated 1 October 2008), the film's script hasn't even been written yet. PC78 (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per WP:NFF Anti venin 18:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 20:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: shooting hasn't started. Cliff smith ^talk 22:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the posterboy for WP:Crystal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Orangemike. Non-admin closure. PC78 (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postcode Anywhere[edit]

Blatant advertising created by James Williams (User:JamesLWilliams2010) of 'sister' company TheWebService, who has been actively spamming original research like this while trying to forcibly introduce the protoglism 'data as a service' (separately nominated). Article has multiple issues (tagged) and appears to be beyond repair. Furthermore, the subject itself is of questionable notability and the references provided likely don't satisfy the verifiability requirements either. -- samj _in^out 16:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G11. Tagged accordingly. Stifle (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gestapo SS[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:MUSIC; no releases on notable labels (much of the discography is demo material, it seems the band has yet to release a studio album), no coverage in third party sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , per WP:MUSIC and WP:RS, and what the hell was up with that first AfD? -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 16:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no idea... it rather confused me as well! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Anti venin 18:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has no evidence of significant coverage, and I couldn't find any.--Michig (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 19:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Z Corp.[edit]

This has been speedied 4 times under 2 different names[13][14] in the last week and the first name was protected for excessive spamming. The 5th speedy was declined for substantially the same content. McWomble (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is asserted but unsourced, making the assertion that it is the
"only company to have developed a full color 3D printing technology"
questionable. According to this source,
"Though others had marketed similar machines before, Z Corp. made a splash with its speed, its low cost, and its ability to print objects in color"
so Z Corp. is not the only nor is it the first company to offer 3d color printing. Furthermore, this article fails WP:SPAM. Finally, the speedy deletes also point to the fact that this article is spam. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The existence of the an article in the Boston Globe about the company, whatever the content, is evidence in favour of notability, not against it. If one specific claim in the article can't be verified then the solution is to edit it, not to delete the whole article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Following several of Phil Bridger's comments on other AfDs and PRODS, I have come to realize that it is probably better to fix the article than to delete it outright. Therefore, as sources can be found and because the page is already tagged with a ((advert)), I vote keep. DARTH PANDA ^duel 19:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I don't see sufficient evidence that this company meets WP:CORP, and the article is almost entirely WP:SPAM. -Verdatum (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Phil Bridger's findings below. -Verdatum (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet criteria in WP:CORP. Peacock (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Basic searches show that this passes WP:CORP with flying colours: Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News Archive. I've added some of those sources to the article to go with the ones that were already there. There is plenty of factual, non-spammy content here, and anything thought to be overly promotional can easily be fixed by editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicely done. I changed my vote accordingly. -Verdatum (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central College of Commerce[edit]

Non notable college, un-referenced, only serves as an unmonitered page for vandals. WORM | MЯOW 15:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, needs a cleanup though. And sources too. Anti venin 18:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. First of all, move and redirect to Central College because it is no longer called Central College of Commerce [15][16] - that should probably be fixed in the History section. Other links: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] - there's more, but they don't establish notability so much. Just google it. The college has become increasingly relevant in recent weeks (see the BBC link) as it prepares to merge into a 'super college' and become 'the largest in scotland and one of the largest in the UK'. Still could use some major cleanup, but I've edited it some. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 20:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel I was probably a little too hasty with this, having a bad day! Kudos to your improvements Bsimmons666, I'd have no objections if this was closed --WORM | MЯOW 20:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pentaverate[edit]

Non-notable group. Sources provided, such as they are, cannot be verified. Only Google hits have nothing to do with this subject, and mainly refer to some video-game group (I think - hard to tell for sure). I smell a hoax. Contested prod, removed without explanation by original author. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The external link provided does not refer to the subject of the article; I agree it sounds like a hoax. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Probably a hoax. Anti venin 18:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satoshi Kizu[edit]

An article on a Japanese photographer whose "own style of photographing women [...] is characterized by the contrast of light and shade in natural light and the ability to capture on film the natural movements of women, especially those with large breasts"; and of course there's nothing wrong with that, but his remarkable mammary techniques seem to have gone unremarked in those sections of the Japanese photographic world with which I am familiar. This despite his having published (we're told) such books as Madonna-mate Juicy Jelly and Mini Dachshund, which do sound titillating, or at least wobbly. For five months, this article has started "This article does not cite any references or sources." And it still cites no references or sources. Enough. -- Hoary (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems hoaxy. Stifle (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability shown. --Crusio (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because non-notable. The single source given is a porn site. I believe this guy exists, and is associated with Yulia Nova, the Russian big-bust performer, but I don't see his notability. --Lockley (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no hint of independent coverage (and no, I'm not talking about the mammaries). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Goodbye, and thanks for the mammaries. I'll get my coat Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 07:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Tatarian (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time Cube[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Not a notable site/theory/person [25] Page resembles an attack page and could not be NPOVed. Sticky Parkin 15:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to clarify on my latter comment- can't be made to have a neural point of view, because there are insufficient reliable sources. Sticky Parkin 15:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a FAMOUS crank theory, and a part of internet culture, often referenced and parodied. NPOV? Well, I don't know that ANYONE other than Gene Ray takes it seriously. I think the article handles NPOV fairly well considering the topic is in essence a pile of crackpottery. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a crackpot, but a pretty well known one, as the sources and external links show; "Time Cube" +"Gene Ray" gets four Google Scholar hits as well. I'm sure more references in popular culture media could be found with a bit of looking, but the sources already there confer notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YOU TRY TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH OF CUBIC TIME AT YOUR OWN PERIL!!!1!cos(0)!1. Yes, it's a joke, but a notable one. The lectures held at MIT and Georgia Tech alone establish notability. Some of the comments on the creator could use some editing, but that's not grounds for deletion. henrik•talk 16:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page needs improvement but it's a noteable topic. Lots42 (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article clearly establishes notability of the concept, per the other responses. I don't even really see any serious NPOV issues. The Time cube is well-known as a crank theory, and so it should be characterized as such. Any (unspecified) NPOV issues in the article should be dealt with in the usual way, by discussion and editing, rather than by deletion. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it has significant coverage. As long as we're not presenting this as anything approaching sanity, much less a valid scientific theory. The article clearly states "Time Cube is a website". Your assertion of non-notability is , uh, hilarious, consdering that even the UK Google News shows 3 newspaper stories about the website. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 16:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this isn't the second nomination for deletion, and possibly not even a single-figure number! Dave-ros (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although everybody knows time isn't a cube, its more a big ball of wibbley wobbley timey wimey... stuff. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Four-dimensional keep - Highly notable crackpottery. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Russia. Cirt (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rossija[edit]

Utterly fails WP:MUSIC; one album out (label unknown... a search for the band name and the album title gets 15 ghits) and an appearance on a compilation album, no coverage in third party sources. And their website is down. Googling for the name gets thousands of hits, but none of them for the band bar this site. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Keep and change it back to the redirect that it originally was. Cheers for pointing that out Russavia. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect fails WP:MUSIC miserably. And redirect back to Russia as was previously the case. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of passing WP:MUSIC. If redirecting, please delete the page history first. Nsk92 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Honduran[edit]

I cannot verify any content in this article, not even the title, and the creator has a habit stretching back for over a year of making vaguely-plausible-sounding but unverifiable articles which turn out to be false or wildly incorrect. Tried searches like "Japanese (living/working/studying) in Honduras" "japones(a/es) (en/de/a) Honduras", "Japanese Honduran/Japonés Hondureño", etc. The site DiscoverNikkei.org, which has quite good coverage of Japanese immigration to the Americas, barely mentions the word Honduras at all, and certainly makes no reference to Japanese emigrants in Honduras. [26].

Bringing it here to see if anyone else has better google-fu than me. cab (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of claims made, no sources presented, none found by nominator. Mandsford (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media Power[edit]

Non-notable corporation, fails WP:CORP, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:COI. The company has one trivial press mention for contributing money to develop a advertisement delivery system to cellular phones, other sources/ references are either the company's website or a boilerplate press release. Article's author apparently works for the company and has been warned in the past for conflicts of interest. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Media Power and related topics suffer from severe POV and COI problems and a lack of reliable secondary sources to remedy them. Except for a single donation, the entire article is based on primary sources. Huon (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete due to lack of assertion of notability. Tagged as such. Stifle (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voice reality links[edit]

~~Seems like a fork from Augmented reality links~~. Google turns up nothing directly relating to this concept. While I'm not doubting potential notability (this appears to be a legitimate concept being developed into mobile devices), butwithout non-trivial, secondary sources to confirm, it doesn't pass WP:V, you can't only just quote another Wikipedia article. Unless someone knows of some sources I'm not finding here, ~~I think letting it stand at what's covered in augmented reality links is the way to go.~~ Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the author's other main contribution has been a COI article about the company he works for Media Power (its been speedied twice and has a notability tag on it at present), which is the main developer of VRL's. Is it safe to assume that this is a COI article a as well? Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augmented reality links. Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's what I get for failing to check the page history, should of known ARL was a repost. Thanks, Uncle G! Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Solution (band)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, only released one album, no significant third party sources. There is a claim to notability: that the band were featured in the documentary film Skinheads USA: Soldiers of the Race War. This may be true as, having just watched said film, there are several bands briefly shown to be playing. None of them are named, or credited at the end, and I can't find anything to verify whether one of the bands is Final Solution. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of passing WP:MUSIC Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Nothing significant found from a Google search.--Michig (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dave Howard Singers[edit]

Not Wikipedia notable. The sources used in the article are connected to singer-songwriter Dave Howard. The sources in the article do not meet Wikipedia reliable sources. As for the topic itself, there does not appear to be enough reliable, secondary published sources independent of the subject and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 14:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Keep A few (but not many) of the articles listed as references would actually qualify as non-trivial secondary sources, but they fail WP:RS seeing as they're reprints on the band's website, and not ~~from the original publisher~~ on a third party, independent site. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless you're assuming that the band is actively misrepresenting these sources, why would it matter whether the article is hosted by the band or not. We've used, for example, scans of paper sources in peoples "press review" sections before. The one I checked was a scan, so unless someone went to the trouble of typing up a fake article - in a suitable font and layout - and then scanned it, all against the possible need for a WP:RS ... I'd say that without evidence that the press clippings are fake then Occam's Razor rather suggests we can assume they are valid. MadScot (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By analogy, if we were reviewing paper sources, would you insist on the original print copy of a newspaper, or would you accept a photocopy, or a print from a microfiche copy? The latter are just as easy to forge, if one were so inclined. MadScot (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make a valid point, and of course I'd accept a microfilm reproduction of a print article, but I'm always dubious of things reproduced on an organization's website. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it were just quoted statements presented on the page, or a retyping, or similar, I'd agree entirely. Anyone can type "MadScot is the Greatest editor ever, signed, Jimbo", but having it in the right font and such and on a letter head would be a bit more reliable .... MadScot (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you've convinced me, I need to assume good faith concerning these sources, lets let it stand. Source issues aside, the charted hits establish notability in it of itself. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 02:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep. The Dave Howard Singers had a number 4 hit on the UK Indie Chart with "Yon Yonson", (I have a source with Barry Lazell's Indie Hits book) and I have two other good sources - an allmusic bio, and Martin C. Strong's The Great Alternative & Indie Discography, which has a bio and discography. I remember seeing them on television back in the 1980s (on The Tube (TV series)). The band featured, at various times, former and future members of Subway Sect, Poison Girls, and The House of Love.--Michig (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the allmusic bio isn't great, but it's still significant coverage in a WP:RS.--Michig (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The press articles reproduced on the DHS website appear to be genuine, by the way. I remember them getting a fair bit of press in the 80's, and they all look totally plausible.--Michig (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Yon Yonson" was at number 5 in the indie chart at the time when this was broadcast on primetime national UK television on The Chart Show.--Michig (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original Poster's Feedback - Thanks to all who have commented on the article (especially those who have defended it). My original intention in writing the article was to cover an intriguing cult music act whose professional links and career provided an interesting perspective on the UK independent pop music scene at the time, and whose story had enough interest in itself to provide readability and notability. I accept the broad point about sourcing material from a subject's own homepage (and generally try to draw from other sources when writing articles) but on this occasion the most effective compiling of information was carried out on the subject's homepage by means of scans from original printed material (In some cases this can be the only source, as many publications do not archive online as effectively as major newspapers). Michig also makes a good case for keeping the article due to the notability of Yon Yonson as a chart hit. - Dann Chinn (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with everything Michig says above. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. There are a lot of sources to the band's own website, but sometimes bands like to keep copies of external press coverage and the sources also include 2 books and a magazine article. So there are at least a few reliable sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason hentschel[edit]

Article asserts notability therefore not a candidate for speedy deletion. Zero Ghits or Gnews for the name plus either of the supposed hit albums. Fails WP:MUSIC. McWomble (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing to assert notability, as per WP:MUSIC. I've been unable to verify this, but I would imagine that the claim regarding the VIBE award is a great big porky pie, btw. one brave monkey 17:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe cricket[edit]

Contested ProD, one school's non notable variation of Cricket, if this variation has a wider reach than just Dunedin New Zealand, it can be covered in one sentence in the main article. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds made up. McWomble (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A shoe is used in place of a cricket bat? Those kids must have big feet. Mandsford (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per McWomble. Anti venin 17:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by above and WP:N. Planninefromouterspace (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made this article and can assure you that this sport is not made up and is played as a recreational activity in many Dunedin, and New Zealand schools. Please don't delete this article as it is useful in examining the sociology of sport and how games develop. The number of participants also warrants an article. As there has not been a great deal of writing about this particular activity, references are difficult to find. Any help on this article would be appreciated. I am myself a regular shoe cricket player and I can get other uses of wikipedia to verify my statements tomorrow. I must add once again that to delete this article would be to deprive a thriving sport recognition. And to the comment that stated that this article should be covered in one sentence in the main article,why does Kilikiti or ice cricket have their own articles, this sport is almost as popular and just as widespread as them, only lacking in formal leagues.

As you say, "there has not been a great deal of writing about this particular activity". I think that pretty well sums up why nobody else takes this seriously. Mandsford (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My name is John Dominick and i am from the South African city of Cape Town and at my school we have a competition simalar to this game that has been writen about in this article, we play cricket using a shoe and a tennis ball and we also play against other schools. last year we came first in the inter school competion.

Find a source then. In googling the phrase "shoe cricket", it returns several hundred hits, but very few of them pertain to a game. It appears that in some places, particularly in the southern hemisphere, school kids bat a tennis ball with a shoe at recess and call it shoe cricket. If you want to gain notability, call a local reporter at the Otago Daily Times, the newspaper for Dunedin, New Zealand ([www.odt.co.nz]) Mandsford (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am from west otago and at my school we play this game. We have a school competion.in the local newspaper there was an article about this game and how it is taking off all over the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.99.82 (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good start. I couldn't find an article, but www.odt.co.nz is the website for the local newspaper. Mandsford (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The local news paper for WEST otago is The Newslink —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.99.82 (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for something made up one day. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article says: "Shoe Cricket is a recreational sport played mainly in the New Zealand city of Dunedin." If it's true that it's mainly played in a single smallish city then it doesn't strike me as being notable. JH (talk page) 21:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was . Speedily deleted as an attack page about a named individual, who if we can trust the article was a high school student; also as vandalism, not really an article meant to be taken seriously. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't know he is breathing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Doesn't know he is breathing

Not notable Church of emacs (Talk) 13:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- see also WP:NFT. - Longhair\^talk 13:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G3) — Pure vandalism. This is not for things you make up on the street corner one day. MuZemike (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for G3. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 13:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 information presented in the individual article's is brief and the predominant form of information is through the link to this page. Consensus has been formed below to keep the article, if this is of less significance in the future, request deletion at that time - were that time to ever come. Caulde 18:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Brand prank calls row[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Georgina Baillie

WP:NOT#NEWS. All of the relevant infomation is included in The Russell Brand Show (radio show), Russell Brand, Jonathan Ross and Andrew Sachs anyway. See WP:NOTE also. Dalejenkins | 13:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a big story with implications not just for the celebrities involved, but for the ongoing debate into governance of the BBC. So far, the Prime Minister, and leader of the opposition have spoke out. The police and telecommunications watchdogs are investigating and the Director General of the BBC has personally suspended an A-list Celebrity. Yes, some of the information is on other pages, but if there was no article on the incident, we'd need to include the information separately on The Russell Brand Show (radio show), Russell Brand, Jonathan Ross, Friday Night with Jonathan Ross (to explain he suspension), Andrew Sachs and whatever article we have on public controversies and the BBC. It is far more efficient to put a brief sentence or two on each and then link to one main article. Merging isn't all about notability, it is also about "best organisation of material". There are also BLP issues here, and it is far easier to police one article than split and repeat the information over many.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough at the moment to warrant its own article. All the information here can be placed under different articles, as the nominator suggested; such as under controversy sections and the like. ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per ScottMacDonald. There is a major UK news story, with widespread media attention, political comment, two A-list celebrities suspended and so on - certainly enough notablity for a seperate. It is also a lot easier to have one page with all relevant information, rather than spread on many different pages. And with investigations coming up, the story will run on for a while yet.--UpDown (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — How is this not notable? Anyone in the UK right now will be hearing this as the top story on every news channel and in every newspaper. They are two of the biggest celebrities in the UK and the British Prime Minister has commented on the issue. This needs to be kept, although I'd rename to make clear Jonathan Ross' involvement. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm currently watching the ITV Lunchtime News and the first 7 minutes of were all on this story - so clearly notable. Yes the info could theoretically be split into other articles, but surely keeping it in one place is simpler (and consistent with e.g. Celebrity Big Brother racism controversy - the info in this could just as easily have been put into related articles). davidprior (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - EASILY passes sig. coverage in mutiple reliable sources.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7696714.stm

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbiz-News/Jonathan-Ross-And-Russell-Brand-Georgina-Baillie-Wants-BBC-To-Sack-Pair-For-Andrew-Sachs-Call/Article/200810415131828?lpos=Showbiz_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15131828_Jonathan_Ross_And_Russell_Brand%3A_Georgina_Baillie_Wants_BBC_To_Sack_Pair_For_Andrew_Sachs_Call

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/arts_entertainment/media/bbc+suspends+ross+and+brand/2682487

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3278635/Jonathan-Ross-and-Russell-Brand-suspended-by-BBC-over-Andrew-Sachs-calls.html

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article5037322.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/29/jonathan-ross-russell-brand-suspended

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23578878-details/BBC+suspends+Ross+and+Brand/article.do

Leading story as of 29/10 13:40pm on all of the above. 84.9.58.85 (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a leading story today, yesterday, and maybe for a few days to come - but so are a lot of subjects, and not all of them have their own article. Will this subject be so notable in ten years time, or is it something that could just be added to the relevant articles? ≈ The Haunted Angel 14:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Now that the WP:BLP1E issues have been mostly sorted out, I feel that this story is notable, and is already having repercussions with regard to the governance of the BBC. It may be a pretty stupid-looking story, but it's gained a huge amount of press coverage, and the attention of many senior politicians. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event is notable and BLP1E issues have been resolved. McWomble (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How interesting. I recommended Deletion for Georgina Baillie's article, but as the WP:BLP1E issues have been resolved this seems ok. Concerning WP:NOT#NEWS; I'd say that this avoids that by merit of not being "routine news coverage" (and by having Mr G Brown stick his oar in), although I'm still not sure that this can't be better covered in one of the aforementioned articles, or perhaps in Criticism of the BBC. So it's a Keep, but only a weak one at the moment. one brave monkey 14:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But to be honest, which "one" of the articles? It effects the TV stars, Sachs, their respective shows. One article with all the info on saves a lot of repeated information on other pages, and I believe its better to have all info in one place.--UpDown (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd randomly disperse the words between all of them. (I don't know). one brave monkey 14:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - massive coverage in all British news outlets including up-market respectable broadsheet newspapers. Considered likely to significantly influence BBC editorial policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilandi (talk • contribs) 14:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep a major new event concerning a major British institution, two of the biggest celebrities in the UK and the government is worthy of an article by every measure. I don't even understand why we're discussing it. Also aree that article name should include Ross.RaseaC (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major news story that will have/is having political reverberations, both within and without the BBC. The story is notable, Baillie isn't (yet, though she will be as her career rockets after this). --Ged UK (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The moment I read about this I turned to Wikipedia for unbiased and factual information on the subject. It was of course heart-warming (but perhaps predictable) to get to the article (and the one on Georgina Baillie which preceded it) and find the customary crowd of Deletionists already hard at work trying to suppress the material because of its populist leanings. My own view is that the existing material is worthy of retention. Kind regards--Calabraxthis^(talk) 14:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is all discussed in the other relevant articles and adds nothing new. It's far more appropraite to have this stuff on Ross' and Brand's page etc. --Tefalstar (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To avoid WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM on main biographies. The article title also needs to mention Ross. — Realist² 14:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All sorts of resources here, shows plenty of notability given circumstances. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I cannot believe people want to delete this article when it is such major news and will be relevant throughout time. I can only suggest people who wish to delete are Brand or Ross fans wanting to play down the incident. As you all are aware, this is a paperless encyclopaedia and to delete an article on a news story this big would be unjustified. It is stupid to argue this is not a big enough story. 80.42.182.225 (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I want it kept too. But there's no need to abuse those who are saying otherwise, see WP:AGF. There's no need to assume they are stupid, or are fans of Ross (or is that the same thing ;) )--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry. That wasn't supposed to sound like abuse in anyway. Although I cannot see any other reason why people would want to delete this article, and there is no denying this is a big news story, the point is taken.
Keep - per above. The amount of coverage, and comments from both David Cameron and Gordon Brown show to my that this passes notability guidelines. However, I would suggest mentioning Ross in the pagename. Gran² 15:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Russell Brand Show (radio show), with mentions in the other articles mentioned in the nomination. First, let me say that I am definitely not a fan of either Ross or Brand. But after a while, this incident will have been largely forgotten about. Just because Gordon Brown and David Cameron have talked about it doesn't mean it's worthy of an article. --RFBailey (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly keep: Yesterday (28 October) this article is featured as a lead story on the main news on two tv channels. Today it is the front page story ion virtually all the daily newspapers and lead story on all lunchtime news programmes. This is a major news story in the UK, and as such should certainly be kept. ArnoldSideways (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage satisfies source and notability policies. Hey, it's snowing here in Ithaca I think it's snowing on this AfD as well! Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - major news story, can't see why it's been put up for deletion in the first place to be honest. Page should be renamed to include Jonathan Ross mind... Cavie78 (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any rename can be discussed on the talk page. Feel free to join the discussion.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't think it's worth all the fuss but people want to know so it should be on Wiki.217.44.182.20 (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for the moment. It's presently relevant so I think we should keep it, maybe in a year when it is no longer relevant we should delete it. Nemesis646 (talk)

A good point there. This AfD should not have been started when the incident had only really just blown up. It should have left to see what happended, so if in a week it'll had all blown over it would have been a easy delete. I think this should now been snowed.--UpDown (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly a noteworthy incident. Mayalld (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Mayalld, the plethora of news sources and the interest by the leaders of the UK. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 16:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is major, major news in Britain, with even the Government & Prime Minister intervening. Definitely worthy of an article. Giant Snowman 17:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per all previous keeps. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons already stated. If this blows over then it can be merged with the two mens articles, if they end up getting fired then that is a pretty notable event, a landmark incident where the BBC/British public has drawn the line in the entertainment world and said 'thou shalt not cross'. If in a couple of weeks they are back in their jobs just add a paragraph or two to each presenters pages.--EchetusXe (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as if it will matter at this point): Yes, it's very important right now, but it's just a news story! Wikipedia is not for things that are relevant only as news. As has been pointed out, all information can be kept on the show's page. If this page would be deleted in a year when it's no longer relevant, then it shouldn't have its own page right now. -Platypus Man | Talk 17:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this row is not over yet, it could turn into a incident similar to Celebrity Big Brother. An incident cannot be assessed properly while it is going on, this AfD should have waited.--UpDown (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons already stated. -supervegan 17:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its relevant, could end up destroying two great men's careers. Should be kept for historic purposes.
Keep. The British PM actually had to make a public statement. Cribananda (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that a motion was started in the Commons - more sign of notablity. And Brand has resigned.--UpDown (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Clear evidence of independent notability. DWaterson (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that it's snowing Passes WP:N and WP:V.--Pmedema (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (group) by Orangemike (non-admin closure). THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White American Youth[edit]

The band fails WP:MUSIC. Solitary album on borderline-notable German far-right punk label, no significant coverage in third party reliable sources. Only claim to notability might be that members went on to form the band Final Solution, which may itself be non-notable. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability for this one, no resources. Google turns up little that seems relevant. Change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete "This page ~~may~~ meets Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject" ...nuff said. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MadNet[edit]

Article has been tagged for notability issues and references since August 2008. I have searched the internet and cannot find any 3rd party references that can show this company as notable or validate any of it's claims ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 12:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough external sources to qualify for WP:COMPANY. Plenty of ghits, but none assert notability as the nom says. DARTH PANDA ^duel 14:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say A7/ G11 speedy except that it does have an assertion of notability being the first company in Serbia to offer fixed wireless internet services. Fails WP:V and WP:RS miserably, google turns up nothing usable. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One explanation for the lack of references might be that most Romanian newspapers and magazines don't make the full text of their articles available online. I think that references in reliable sources almost certainly exist, but editors without access to printed copies of Romanian publications will have difficulty finding them. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't tell if the Romanian company and the Serbian company are related or not. Their websites look different, and if they were under the same ownership, I would expect them to use identical logos and similar-looking websites. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'd be willing to bet that some sources can be found, but can notability be established? (Ah, forgot to sign... Sorry!) DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brigada NS[edit]

The band fails WP:MUSIC, owing to having no significant coverage in third party reliable sources, and a solitary album that looks like it may well be self-released (I've been unable to identify a label, but if they've only released one album the label is somewhat irrelevant). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:Music. The article was created in 2005 and has not sources establishing notability. EconomistBR 17:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:IS WP:RS prove notability. Tosqueira (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn.. Smashville^talk 15:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan King[edit]

Contested prod of junior hockey player. Consensus has been that junior hockey players are generally non-notable and do not meet WP:ATHLETE. Smashville^talk 12:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it is true that junior hockey players generally do not pass WP:ATHLETE, the article contains a sourced fact that "King was invited to join the USA World-Under 18 team" which allows King to pass the criteria: "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports". DARTH PANDA ^duel 14:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what...you're right...--Smashville^talk 15:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3 vandalism, obvious hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Schimann[edit]

No google hits, unreferenced Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete strongly suspect this is a hoax. Tagged. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, with no prejudice against recreation after publication. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Handbook of Green Chemistry[edit]

This book has not yet been published and for that reason is unlikely to be notable. Also, the article reads like an advertisement. Sandstein 11:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Books need to have significant verifiable impact to be notable, and that usually necessitates the existence of the book. --Itub (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though it's a borderline case, it's still an article in violation of WP:CRYSTAL which disallows speculation. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Also considering that it falls under notability of books, the article does not provide any significance of the book in the related area. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 12:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might well become notable in the future, after it is published, but for now violates WP:CRYSTAL and does not pass WP:BK either. No independent academic reviews yet or other evidence of having influenced academic research. For those doing googlesearching, please note that there is another book with a similar title, called "Handbook of Green Chemistry and Technology", that was published in 2002 and that can be easily confused with this one. Nsk92 (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violation of basic policy. Not-yet notable. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} Ici pour humor 07:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Tim Vickers (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Micro Process Engineering: A Handbook[edit]

Unclear how this book is notable. The style suggests copyvio, WP:COI and/or advertising issues. Contested PROD. Sandstein 11:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like an advertising brochure, and has no assertion of notability. Not every handbook or textbook is notable; there needs to be some independent proof of the impact of the book. --Itub (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Book is edited by at least one tenured professor and published by a reliable publisher in academics. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Asserts no significance of the book in the area it deals with (which in turn is extremely specialized and known to few) and thus fails to meet criteria for notability of books. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 12:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being written by a tenured professor is not an assertion of notability. Many of my professors have written books that have little scope outside the institution I attend, these would not qualify as notable under WP:BK. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Suggest condensing and merging contents to the existing page Micro process engineering. This is almost an extension of the page the 'Links' section points to, however it has pertinence. As it stands the page strongly resembles an ad to sell books and pdf downloads. --VictorC (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, copy violation. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} Ici pour humor 07:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball Delete --JForget 21:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hookology[edit]

Article was prod'd by four different editors per WP:NEO, WP:NOTDICT, WP:SPAM, WP:RS. Ghits don't come up with reliable sources. Cited sources do not support the subject. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 11:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This artical has secondary support in the cited sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hookology (talk • contribs) 11:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No it hasn't. The sources support other things, which have been synthesized, in a novel manner, into this, which is a violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Uncle G (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. This seems to be a neologism with slightly confused origins at the very least. Looking at what appears to be the website behind this, they seem to put it down to the teachings of Rev Amiri B. Hooker, whilst the article credits it to a Dr Benjamin L. Hooks. That's just the tip of the iceberg, though, and the whole thing smells suspiciously hoax-like to me. If it does turn out to be genuine, it still fails the majority of the acronyms that Mufka mentions above, in conjuction to being entirely unverifiable and carrying with it WP:COI concerns. As such, Deletion is the best option. one brave monkey 11:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not quite true. See what was excised from the article in this edit. Uncle G (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, yes... that makes a bit more sense. I called it as the article was as it was nommed...didn't look in the history. one brave monkey 12:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google Web search is informative. This concept is a novel synthesis of other ideas, being propounded by one person with a web site and a MySpace page, and brought here by the single-purpose account Hookology (talk · contribs), whom it is not unreasonable to suppose might be that very same single person, deciding to abuse Wikipedia as a platform for promoting xyr idea to the world. There are no independent reliable sources documenting this idea in depth, and there is thus no evidence that it has escaped from its creator, been acknowledged by the world at large, and become a part of the documented corpus of human knowledge. This is original research. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promoting new ideas. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is a non-cromulent word that doesn't embiggen Wikipedia. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 12:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non-notable neologism. MuZemike (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original synthesis of a non-notable neologism, with kudos to Pharmboy. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool I love kudos. So crunchy. When I saw the article title, my first thought is that it was an anthology for the 70s band Dr. Hook. Seriously. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 14:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I saw it, I thought it was a religion based on the teachings of Captain Hook. Of all the hoaxes User:Hookology could've created, I don't see why they chose this one. [Phlygh t] 14:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my PROD, WP:OR and something that has no reputable sources that I could find by google. --Terrillja (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Side note 3 PROD2s? That is certainly a first for me --Terrillja (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References to Ben Hooks have nothing to do with this. This appears to be little more than a synthesized neologism. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The synthesis in this article really is fascinating; the words "something out of nothing" come to mind. Having said that, the article is about a non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Phlyght (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy? Shame we don't have WP:BJAODN anymore, this would make a good addition :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete this should have been speedy deleted. there are no sources, it's non-notable (perhaps non-existent) etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 21:33, 30 October 2008
Comment, although somewhat on a tangent: Would it be appropriate to also nominate Hookology's user page as miscellany for deletion? It seems to be a biased and personal version of this article, and is a good example of what shouldn't appear in userspace. [Phlygh t] 14:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:MADEUP, WP:NOR and WP:SNOW and because I agree with the above Pharmboy that the subject is not cromulent. I might go as far as to say that it is nuncupatory (in a Vancean sense rather than a Pickwickian). --Bonadea (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Kriho[edit]

Delete - fails WP:BIO, notable for only one event. Prod was removed with some rather sweeping comparisons to Dredd Scott and Marbury v. Madison, which to be charitable strikes as just the wee bit hyperbolic. Otto4711 (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a juror is not noteworthy, anyone can be called to be one. This article gives undue wait to negative events and this case had no effect on related laws and regulations. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. If the case ever gets WP:RS attention outside its time in the courts (1997-99), the case might deserve an article someday. Failing that, it is not notable. This is an interesting but mainly local news story about juror misconduct. Jurors who don't make full disclosures sometimes get punished. Enduring interest is in a small specialized circle. Marbury v. Madison this isn't. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No hint of meeting WP:BIO. No significant third party coverage. Dlohcierekim 23:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SEN 1116. Cirt (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Zantuck[edit]

fails WP:BIO, so evidence that he is actually "well known". should only exist as a name on the list of presenters at SEN 1116 Michellecrisp (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say merge but there is not cited information to merge. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect Article mentions more than a mere merge could. Even if an article is not desireable, there's no reason not to redirect without wasting time on deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the subject is notable. Lacking any coverage in reliable secondary sources. Murtoa (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SEN 1116. No real notability in being an AM radio presenter on a minor radio station in one city, but I guess it's a somewhat plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City Wizards Reserve Season 2008[edit]

The Kansas City Wizards are obviously notable, but an individual season of the reserve team is not. The Reserve team in gerenal gets very little attention[27], and not one Googlelisted news article in 2008[28]. Fails WP:NOTE. Fram (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 10:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 11:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot think of any reason for a "junior varsity" team to be notable, even if it is pro.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia does not and should not field information about reserve teams. DARTH PANDA ^duel 14:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom BanRay 23:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete Because it is my baby and what difference does it make to any of you? I have been wondering why our football project hasn't been working on a template for "current season" for our clubs, I guess we're all too busy working about deleting a well maintained reserve article. Morry32 (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:COI? I fail to see how this is notable. DARTH PANDA ^duel 18:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It isn't really notable I just don't see why we're deleting something that isn't bothering anyone instead of focusing our energy towards real concerns. Morry32 (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting inclusion criteria. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Dlohcierekim 00:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Skitzo (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother Australia 2007 highlights[edit]

These five pages are all "plot summaries" or "news reports" (where to draw the line with such programmes?), not encyclopedic articles on Big Brother seasons. Each of these accompanies a "normal" article on a BB season, but adds a bunch of in-universe / news facts. This fails WP:NOT (I don't know if there are any moresimilar pages, these are all the ones I know of). Fram (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

Big Brother 8 (U.S.) highlights
Big Brother 9 (U.S.) highlights
Big Brother 2007 (UK) weekly summary
Big Brother 2008 (UK) weekly summary

Keep all they are content forks which stop the main articles from bloating up too big. The same reason why the last four UK BB article also have Housemate lists, the two UK summaries have refs, and are in the exact same vein as the main articles themselves. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a content fork is not a reason to keep anything per se, the content has to be encyclopedic and worth keeping according to our guidelines and policies. Yes, including it in the main articles would bloat them. But then again, that's not what I suggested. Not having the information at all would not harm the main articles one bit. Fram (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you may as well delete the main articles, these simple summaries lifted out of the articles when they get too large. They are similar to episode lists for other TV programs. As they are sourced they don't fail WP:V, the sources (for the UK article at least) are RS. Other than you not liking them (as shown by the scare quotes above) I don't see a valid reason to delete. If you look at the first UK Big Brother you will see a weekly summary, for the last four season this has simple been separated out. As you are not being specific I'm assuming you are leaning on Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information but this list is specific in it's scope. Unless you want to redirect and merge but then that would mean the articles would become massive, I'm not sure what you want to be done, after all the first four UK BB article have this information, just in the body of the articles. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am leaning on WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NOT#NEWS, that's why I referred to plot summaries and news reports obviously. And I can only list for deletion separate articles, not sections in articles, that's why this discussion is only for these five articles. Fram (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you are happy for these sections to exist within the articles but not as content forks which prevent the articles from rising to 100k each? Because if that is the case then I don't see a strong enough reason for deletion. I hate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but these are nothing more than episode lists that most TV programmes have. If you delete this information then it will only have to be put back in to the articles for each program year, and then that will incur a "Long" tag, and then someone will end up re-creating them as content forks. I can't see this deletion process helping the overall good of the encyclopedia. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "So you are happy for these sections to exist within the articles"? I would appreciate it if you don't conclude things I haven't said at all. This is not the place to discuss these sections, this is articles for deletion. I am of the opinion that the current articles like Big Brother 2008 (UK) contain all the info we need, and that the rest is excessive detail. Fram (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All This is precisely what WP:PLOT is for. If the main article is too big and unwieldy, it's time to cut, not split. gnfnrf (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to their respective series articles (eg. Big Brother 2007 (UK) weekly summary to Big Brother 2007 (UK) etc). Dalejenkins | 13:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as plotcruft. McWomble (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE that I suggested an alternative to the problem before, but it was opposed to on article talk pages. See User:Dalejenkins/BB9. Dalejenkins | 14:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inherently failing WP:NPOV — who decides what's a highlight? Stifle (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think these should disappear completely, instead be re-worked back into the main article & trimmed or keep the article & trim. These aren't any different than the Episode Guides that most scripted TV shows have for listing episodes. I know that Big Brother 8 (U.S.) highlights & Big Brother 9 (U.S.) highlights include a bunch of random facts that shouldn't be included and could be removed. Or we should do as Dalejenkins suggests. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 17:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The problem with all of these is that they'll simply turn into fansites with everybody adding their favorite moments from each seasons. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 18:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, basically a huge plot summary. Would be happy with perhaps an extremely condensed version being re-integrated back into the main TV show article though. As User:Stifle has also pointed about above, there are NPOV problems here; because "highlight" is a very subjective term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Which is why the UK articles were moved to weekly summary. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think they should be kept because they are similar to the episode guides scripted shows have which give a basic plot summary of the episode. The only difference here is these articles don't seperate into episodes instead it sums up multiple episodes in the week they aired. If these are deleted I can see anon IPs reformatting American Big Brother articles similar to how Survivor articles are. There should be guidelines set for these kind of pages since they are basically episodes guides to Big Brother which airs continuously for 24 hours during three months. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 01:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Piggybacking (internet access) . MBisanz ^talk 19:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Trawling[edit]

Contested prod. Neologism with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 07:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- to Piggybacking (internet access) if popular usage of the term is confirmed, otherwise Delete outright. - Longhair\^talk 07:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A google search suggest this is not a widely used internet term. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The actual widely used name for the activy is wardriving. Uncle G (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to wardriving. --McGeddon (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. wardriving and Piggybacking (internet access) should probably be looked into being merged, I wonder if there are more. Dimitrii (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion about merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Airlines destinations[edit]

Redundant article - company has just gone bust. No need to have a spin off article to document previous routes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Sterling's website has closed - this is the only place where journalists can get info on where passengers are stranded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chillipeber (talk • contribs) 08:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge and redirect to main article on company. The company has going bust doesn't mean we delete the article on the airline (Notability is not temporary). Therefore, I do not see a valid reason to delete an entry on its destinations either since it's still possible people will want to look it up.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is not temporary. Quite the contrary, now that the company is gone it is in the spirit of Wikipedia to retain the knowledge of the company and its operations, not delete it along with the company and its web site, making knowledge on the subject perhaps disappear. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sterling Airlines. The information can be kept in WP but doesn't need its own article. McWomble (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or (full) merge with Sterling Airlines. I'm not sure if this destination list is long enough to justify a separate article (generally, they have been split out for large airlines since they are long and unwieldy, but this one has only a few dozen entries), but information on where Sterling Airlines flew is definitely of relevance when covering the airline. An airline makes business by flying people from point A to point B, so the location of point A and point B matter. The one column which can be dropped from the list is "aircraft type", we don't need to be told 20 times that Sterling Airlines, with an all 737-fleet flew 737s to all their destinations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Merge with airline article. The list is the final list of places served. It is not a list of all the places it ever served. It is thus a final snapshot, not a hisotrical article. The airline article will be worth keeping as historic. However I doubt this one is. Nevertheless, bankrupt businesses will sometimes rise phoenix-like. I therefore think immediate deletion would be premature. However if there was no rescue within (say) a month, I would suggest deletion then. Furthermore, I do not like articles such as this that are heavily based on timetables, because they change. The operator has an incentive to keep their site up to date; WP has none. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or full merge with Sterling Airlines. There is particular interest in the company at the moment - information on routes is no longer available from the company website. Pmbma (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Pmbma[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a copyright violation (G12). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Facts Of Life - Short Film[edit]

Contested prod. Short film with no assertion of notability. Subsequent edits after prodding only serve to describe the production company that made the film, and not the film itself. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 07:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as near 100% copyvio from the DVE Productions website (at least 4 pages). Tagged for G12. • Gene93k (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - this article is too new, shows vanity, original research, Facebook/Myspace page and stuff made up one day in school/work. You should have tagged it for a speedy. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 08:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marc lachance[edit]

Just by reading the article which claims he is the "foremost composer of Jazz Music in Mid-South-Central Nebraska" it would seem that he would be notable but I am unable to find any reliable sources to verify the article, the best I could find was a Press release by Hastings College ([29]). Coverage in mainstream media is non existent as far as I have been able to determine. Icewedge (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, but seeing that this article was created too recently, you should have tagged it for a speedy instead of putting up for AfD. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 08:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to several pages, for example this one he's professor of Trombone as stated in the last sentence. That would make him noteworthy per our Academics guideline. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speedily Claiming to be a leading musician is enough to keep this from being speedied. On the other hand, how is simply being a professor enough? The closest I could see that he passes WP:PROF is criterion 5, "The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research;" but I doubt that being a trombone professor at a school of 1100 students fulfills "named/personal chair", "distinguished professor", or "major institution etc." Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trombone professors need not be notable. Come to think of it, no assertion of meeting WP:BIO Dlohcierekim 00:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above... also, I'm the best jazz composer in mid-north-central new jersey.Bali ultimate (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huzzah!. Dlohcierekim 12: 32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I added a load of citations and information. He's the president-elect of a statewide org and the lead of a local band. I don't know whether to move the article while its still in AfD, so if you close this nomination please move the article, too. • Freechild'sup? 22:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Rereading the original nomination, it strikes me to remind the choir that "coverage in the MSM" is not a requirement; rather, it is coverage by a reliable source, which in this case includes no less than a college, a university and two national organizations. Not MSM, but definitely RS. • Freechild'sup? 14:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Thompson (radio presenter)[edit]

fails WP:CREATIVE Michellecrisp (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 04:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On-air radio presenter who has hosted several shows. Meets WP:V and WP:NOTE. Additional content, and cited sources are required, but AfD is not cleanup. --Gene_poole (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you haven't provided any sources to back up your claim. In particular, how Matt Thompson meets WP:GNG. Michellecrisp (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find any more than trivial coverage of this subject Google search. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe the subject struggles for coverage in reliable secondary sources. A fleeting reference in The Melbourne Age. I don't consider coverage on his employer's website and promotional materials plus occasional references in footy forums constitutes notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Murtoa (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable third-party sources for the subject, or any reliable sources mentioning him even in passing. Raven1977 (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet the notability requirements associated with WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER. WWGB (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Daddy's Restaurants[edit]

A closed-down restaurant previous to 1990? Without references or citations or proof of notability? Suggest Delete. Kickstart70TC 04:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this Google News Archive search which returns results from The New York Times, The Charlotte Observer, and The Miami Herald. These reliable sources allow the article to pass the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Restaurants need more than a few random newspaper reviews for notability. The local sushi place in the small town I live in has been written about, but that by no means shows that it deserves a Wikipedia page. --Kickstart70TC 06:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: These references are enough to show that Big Daddy's is notable. A review from The New York Times in and of itself definitely asserts notability. Furthermore, although this is a pay site, I can tell that an entire article is devoted to this restaurant and its founder because of this title: IVi'urray L. Handwerker, 4.8, A Founder of Big Daddy's. The same goes with the other articles I cited above. If that's not enough to show that this restaurant is notable, take a look at this Google News Archive search. There's a review from the Los Angeles Times, Associated Conent, and hundreds of other new sources. There are also extensive reviews from a Google Book search. From this book search, I found Carolina Beach a history book with a page (illustrated with black-and-white photographs) dedicated to the early history of Big Daddy's. Note: This is not a closed-down restaurant — it's a chain of restaurants that continues today. Only a couple Big Daddy restaurants in New York are closed down. Big Daddy's chain includes Big Daddy's Diner, Big Daddy's Restaurant and Oyster Bar, Big Daddy's Liquor Store, Big Daddy's Bar and Grill, and Big Daddy's Pizza all still exist today. Cunard (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the restaurant was closed down, Notability is not temporary. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Meets WP:V and WP:NOTE. AfD is not cleanup. --Gene_poole (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per given sources above. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources showing notability. Being "a closed-down restaurant previous to 1990" has no bearing on notability. Wikipedia covers historical subjects as well as current ones. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only issue is notability, and it looks notable enough based on the sources. --Lockley (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a blatant advert (CSD G11). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off Kilter Productions[edit]

A completely non-notable wedding-video-making company. Prodded, and the edit was undone by an IP without comment. IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:SPAM? Definitely not notable under WP:CORP --Kickstart70TC 04:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and blatant advertising. sixtynine ^{• speak, I say •} 06:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Ad, completely irelevant pics and hoax. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 09:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A3, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Rock Cafe[edit]

Fails any sort of notability requirement. Kickstart70TC 04:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete absolutely no content. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 09:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bagatelle restaurant[edit]

Doesn't appear notable. Single reference doesn't point anywhere. Claim of Michelin star without citation. Kickstart70TC 04:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this Google News Archive search, which returns results from ~~The New York Times, Miami Herald, Financial Gazette, and Sunday Mercury.~~ See also this Google Books search, which returns plenty of results about this restaurant. The claim about the Michelin star is now cited: See this and this. Cunard (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are many (MANY!) restaurants with this name, and while some of what you linked to may show notability for that particular restaurant, the Afd is for a specific restaurant in Oslo Norway. --Kickstart70TC 06:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the invalid refs I have cited above. I've struck them out. I still say keep because of the extensive coverage this restaurant has received in many different reliable sources from books to news websites to traveling websites to dinner guides. Look at this Google News Archive search about this restaurant. There are many notable mentions of this restaurant and its chefs. This restaurant has received several reviews from traveling books, including Frommer's Norway, Laponie, and Oslo und Umgebung. DuMont direkt. This is an extensive review of Bagatelle Restaurant which states that it has received two stars from the Michelin Guide since 1993. Also, note this sentence in the article: "Today, there are a total of six restaurants in Oslo with awards in the form of Michelin stars, but it is only Bagatelle that offers two." That's pretty notable. There are also other online reviews about this restaurant, including VisitNorway.com, VisitOslo.net, After Hours Magazine, and Baysider.com. See page 28 of this magazine article, which says that Bagatelle received a lot of press when Nicolás Catena, "one of Argentina's leading wine producers," visited this restaurant. Also, the royal wedding of Benedikte Ferner, the daughter of Princess Astrid of Norway was celebrated at Bagatelle restaurant. Here's some news about the restaurant's owner. In addition to this and this which I mentioned above, page 11 of this link, this, this, and this are other reliable sources which say that Bagatelle has two stars in the Michelin Guide. This is restaurant is definitely notable. Cunard (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bagatelle has been downgraded to one-star (see references below), but it has verifiably been a two-star restaurant, and subject to more media coverage than any other Norwegian restaurant I can think of. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a well-known Norwegian restaurant, due to the two stars in the Michelin guide, the most any restaurant in Norway has ever had; I would guess a review like that is already "non-trivial coverage". There is plenty of independent coverage of the restaurant in independent media anyway, [30], [31], [32], [33], and this one in English related to Bagatelle being downgraded to one-star. Although Bagatelle itself does not have an entry in Store norske leksikon it is mentioned since its chief cook Eyvind Hellstrøm, and the kitchen chief Terje Næss both have entries. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly notable restaurant domestically (personally I have no interest for cuisine or restaurants, and never been to it, but I have still heard of it). This search with Norwegian seach engine Sesam finds 22 news hits for "Bagatelle restaurant" and this search in the same news search engine finds 352 hits, without the "s, of which the top eight all refer to the restaurant in question, and all are published within the last week, including in several of the largest national newspapers. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable restaurant run by a notable chef. --Lockley (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasons, probably move to Bagatelle (restaurant). Punkmorten (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any Michelin starred restaurant will have had plenty of coverage in reliable sources, and there's no real need to provide an explicit reference in the article for it having a star - it's pretty obvious that that is verifiable from the Michelin Guide. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine actresses[edit]

useless list redundant because it is just a raw list. A category already exists Ohconfucius (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: much too broad a scope for a list. Philippines has a small much thriving movie and TV industry and this list would become unwieldy in very short order. --Kickstart70TC 04:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. There is already Category:Filipino actors for that. Starczamora (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to project space. Categories do not allow for inclusion of redlinks and the redlinks in this list might be useful in creating article. (I do however agree that besides the redlinks, this list has no redeeming features). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is a necessary and logical part of a substantial series of indexing lists on actors by nationality. Redlinks show the reason why lists are not redundant to categories, and point out gaps in coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, male actors should be included in the list as well. Starczamora (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored List of Philippine actors, which was turned into a cross-namespace redirect to a category. Question: should these lists be "Philippine" actors and actresses, or "Filipino"? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The people are called Filipinos.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The base concept of such lists is flawed...it's just too huge a concept. For example, with Bollywood's huge movie industry, a list of actors or actresses from India, if even partially complete, would crash browsers with overwhelming size. This is why categories exist, and why those categories are easily split into alphanumeric pages. --Kickstart70TC 17:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Smerdis. Note that "list-category redundancy" is not a valid reason for deletion, becuase lists and categories are meant to be complementary. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories are more useful than lists are, and if it's already categorized, it needn't be listified. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 17:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even though WP:CLN explicitly states that lists and categories are meant to be complementary and synergistic? Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work further upon. I cant really vote for a delete or a keep yet until the evolution of the said list. Shoowak (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are tons and tons of Filipino actresses and actors, and if they're in one article/list, it'll be extremely long they'd have to be reclassified into some other way (like by decades). Plus the list exclusively lists actresses from a certain time span and no contemporary actresses are listed. I don't think it's a good idea to put them in one super list. –Howard the Duck 16:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selby's Secret[edit]

This page is not needed as it is not wikipedia quality and it would not be missed if it was deleted. A merge could also be considered. Crazyla112 (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep Multiple awards for this book, in notable series by notable author. The citations do need to be added. AfD is not cleanup DGG (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, merge or redirect - if it's kept, it should be expanded, add a plot, and more info about the book (read the book if in doubt); if it merges, add it to an article that lists a summary of all Selby books; and if it redirects, redirect to a summary of all Selby books. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 04:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has provided no valid deletion rationale. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The book won a few awards. Schuym1 (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added a citation to the Wayrba award web site listing this novel. Meets the requirements of WP:BK. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eaton Harbors Corporation[edit]

Non-notable company with no claim of notability. Almost no ghits , no gnews, no Google books. The single reference is an extremely hard to find book so I can't use it to see if there are any other references, but no news coverage and not publically held. Logical Premise^Ergo? 03:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did speedy it, but Eastmain decided that A7 has to do with references and not claims to notability. I've left a note on his talk page, but in my opinion the article should be speedy deleted. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 03:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Blatant advertising and non-notable. Just because it has a reference does not mean it is notable. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 09:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But conversely it doesn't mean it's not either. You can't know unless you check said reference. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which, as it happens, is very difficult to do. If there were multiple sources, checking would be easy. There is one, period, in totality. Kinda hard. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 13:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A7 applies when an article does not indicate notability. "Assertion" ,"claim" or synonyms do not appear in the criterion, which states that it is "a lower standard than notability." The basic criterion of notability is (multiple) (independent) (reliable) sources/references. So having references (that are not obviously irrelevant or made up) is an indication of possible notability, which is all that is required to satisfy A7. The article does not appear to be blatant advertising either, so it does not appear to be speedy material.John Z (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I cannot support that one mention in a book which is about a local neighborhood -- and no other mentions anywhere else - comprise "(multiple) (independent) (reliable) sources". I suggest that it should be deleted due to it's failure of both Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and of WP:RS. The book is, at best, a secondary source. There remains no independent third party coverage.-- Logical Premise^Ergo? 13:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The corporation has some of the functions of a municipal government, paying for the maintenance of private roads and common facilities in this community, any levying assessments which are very much like taxes. The article seems neutral, which means it isn't an advertisement. And while it is convenient for references to be online, there is no requirement that they be. -- Eastmain (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/32050434 for a list of libraries which hold the book used as a reference in this article. -- Eastmain (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local homeowners' association that fails WP:CORP for lack of non-trivial WP:RS interest. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its a neutral article about a company that manages sizable amount of land in Eaton's Neck and Asharoken. As Eastmain said, the corporation is notable because it acts as a semi-municipal government for parts of the towns. At the least, it can be merged into either Eaton's Neck or Asharoken's article. Noneforall (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Notability is marginal, admittedly, but it can be confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can notability be confirmed? It has zero mention anywhere, at all, outside of a single book. It's just a incorporated homeowners association. You can feel free to merge the article content into the other articles, but your !vote simply makes no sense. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 04:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. X clamation point 00:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Hill High School[edit]

fails WP:ORG and WP:SCHOOLS Michellecrisp (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep Not sure how nom concludes a High School fails WP:SCHOOLS; high schools are basically assumed notable. And, just in case there's any issue over RS etc., the School News Archive has as it's first article a report on an event at the school where "Governor Marie Bashir" gave a speech. That's Governor of New South Wales, by the way, not a school governor. I think if the head of state of an administrative region with a population of nearly seven million bothers to attend a school's flag day, that school probably is notable. MadScot (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide this information in the article. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It'd be nice to have the 2008 version reported of course .... but that should do for now. MadScot (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously; not only a high school but sources are available that meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see that Michellecrisp had just removed a sourced contribution. Incidents are perfectly valid additions to a school page. If concerned take it to the school talk page. TerriersFan (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is appalling; Michellecrisp has just removed the preceding comment; the status of the sources is entirely relevant to the deletion discussion. Sourced content should remain until evaluated by other editors. TerriersFan (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

simply being sourced content is not sufficient enough a reason for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. see WP:NOT#NEWS. otherwise every incident, like a train delay or every crime. reported in the media would be up on Wikipedia. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the purpose of an AfD is to enable the broadest discussion; removing comments as here, because that you consider them insufficiently relevant, is not the way to go. Secondly, because you consider sourced content is inappropriate is not a reason to delete; it should remain for evaluation by uninvolved editors. This is particularly important when you have AfD'd a page. TerriersFan (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the incident is not the reason to delete this page. far from it, I'm disputing the inclusion and notability of that incident. Please respond to my query on the talk page. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not referring to your wish to delete the page but your removal of sourced content here. TerriersFan (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided my justification of that edit on the Talk Page. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and on this we must agree to differ. Naturally, to AGF I accept your reasons for the content removal. However, the point that I am making is that it is not good practice to AfD a page on the grounds of lack of sources and then remove sources on a narrow interpretation of policy. TerriersFan (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google news search reveals very limited coverage in the media. If this is a notable school it would have some degree of third party coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MadScot and Terriers Fan. The reference found by MadScot definitely shows that this high school is notable. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty well all High Schools will have references that meet out notability guideline and this certainly does. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This will almost certainly be kept per precedent but I share Michelle's general concern about inserting any random mention found in google into school articles in an effort to meet the primary criterion of WP:N regardless of their appropriateness or non-encyclopedic nature. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG and WP:NOT#NEWS due to the lack of sources about the school having any particular significance - notability isn't inherited from the State's Governor visiting once (Australian state governors are unelected figureheads of little real importance, and spend most of their time visiting schools, opening festivals, presenting awards and the like) and the other news is totally routine and not sufficent to meet the guidelines. WP:SCHOOLS failed to obtain consensus and is a failed proposal by the way. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Major public educational institution. All enduring publicly-funded institutions are inherently verifiable and notable. The deletion of a cited reference from this article by Michellecrisp during the AfD process is deeply troubling. --Gene_poole (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see anything wrong with removing trivia and WP:NOT#NEWS violations at any time. The fact that some of the people in the schools project argue that stuff like that establishes the notability of schools demonstrates that they're on pretty shaky ground by arguing that high schools are automatically notable (a concept which has never won anything resembling consensus support). Nick Dowling (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gene Poole says "All enduring publicly-funded institutions are inherently verifiable and notable". That is not what WP:ORG says. And I've participated in many deletion discussions where school articles have been deleted, so the argument doesn't stack up. Also there is no evidence that this is a "Major public educational institution", if it was a Google news search would have revealed much more. Michellecrisp (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although it seems this article was made by a student of the school, this article shows heaps of potential. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 08:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article is missing principle's last name. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a secondary school, there are a number of alternatives to deletion, including expansion, tagging the article for improvement, or at least redirecting to its school district. In my opinion, the deletion of reliably sourced material is a problem in a deletion discussion because Wikipedia:Reliable sources is one of the primary reasons for deletion. Whether or not that material is random, appropriate, or non-encyclopedic should be left for editors at an Afd to decide for themselves. WP:ORG and WP:NOT#NEWS are listed, but I do not see where it says high schools do not meet those guidelines, or that a high school must be listed a certain number of times at Google News. Simply put, I believe the article can be fixed through normal editing, and is therefore not a good candidate for deletion. --Jh12 (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#NEWS was listed in response to the inclusion of one news article which reported that molotov cocktails were once found at the school. I don't believe this was worthy of inclusion in a school article and did not add to the notability of the subject. Other more appropriate material has been added since I nominated this article. Also, there is of course no rule about number of times it comes up in Google news search, but it indicates this school has received very limited coverage in third party reporting.Michellecrisp (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, regarding single incidences which occur, there is a duty for us as editors to be responsible in our coverage, as Wikipedia is a top-10 website. Orderinchaos 01:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know that some people don't like it, but darn it high schools are notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Bad Faith Nomination Nominating user is censoring and removing comments[34] in the AFD that don't go his/her way in an effort to skew this AFD's discussion in their favor. The nomination has an extremely weak rationale. Notability of subject has been established. An administrator needs to get this user in check immediately. SashaNein (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, I only see one removal of content by the nom (this), which was clearly marked with an edit summary, and was justified in my view. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is a bad faith nom, and I would suggest that if you're going to make such claims in the future that you bring some actual evidence to the table. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per MadScot and others.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schools are notable. WP:SCHOOLS is a failed proposal. SunCreator (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm aware that WP:SCHOOLS is a failed proposal but it gives some indication of what makes a school notable. Schools are not automatically notable, as I've seen a number of school articles deleted in recent months on WP. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of WP:SCHOOLS (which failed to gain endorsement for, among other reasons, strong opposition to repeated attempts to include a statement that high schools are automatically notable) WP:ORG applies to school articles, so the nomination is OK. It would be helpful if the editors supporting keeping the article would explain how it meets the criteria at WP:ORG rather than just state that they happen to think that high schools are notable. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much the first three keep !votes pointed to sources to secondary coverage of a non-trivial nature - the school is the subject of the articles in question - which would appear to pretty much meet WP:ORG even if no credit is given for being a high school. MadScot (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you please link to the AfD discussions where high schools have been deleted in recent months? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was not a bad faith nomination (I'm totally in disagreement with one or two above on this) and schools are not inherently notable - however, in Australia independent and reliable sources exist which would, on the basis of WP:N, give public high schools in metropolitan areas sufficient notability to pass AfD. (The same does not usually apply to public primary schools, where non-self-published sources may simply tell us it exists and little else.) Editors should be careful to avoid crufting up such articles and any editor can remove unsourced content, original research or unencyclopaedic content, but that is a matter for maintenance, not deletion. Orderinchaos 01:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with this; the nomination was definitely made in good faith, and I may have even supported a merge/redirect. However, the material removed was nothing resembling the list found at Wikipedia:SCFT#Ways_to_spot_Schoolcruft. This was a security incident that was reported in the The Daily Telegraph (Australia). While on follow-up research, the incident appears to be minor and removal is appropriate, removing that information in the middle of a deletion discussion by the nominator is not the best way to go about doing things. A single brief mention of a security upgrade at Jakarta International School led me to a multitude of sources describing the history and security of the school. While the section I wrote at Jakarta_International_School#Threats_and_security is far from high quality, I believe it is certainly appropriate information for any article about the school. There isn't anyway to tell unless the proper research is done. --Jh12 (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that incident because it in itself does not add to the notability of the school or the removal of this info was intended to further my case for deletion. Definitely not true. It seemed to me that someone in trying to find some sources for the school, did a google search and added (in good faith) the first newspaper article they saw. My own search of news articles revealed it was only reported once in the Telegraph article, so it did not get substantial media coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my essay: Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are adequate secondary sources for a WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR article and those are the content policies. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Nick Dowling's reasoning above - no indication that this school is any more notable than any other high school. While secondary coverage exists, it all seems to be routine sort of stuff, nothing that in my mind establishes notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. There is no requirement in policy or guidelines that article subjects should be more notable than others of their type. Notability is decided on the subject's own merits, not by comparison with others. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, there is a requirement however that the coverage be nontrivial. As pointed out above, having a figurehead like Marie Bashir visit the school once is hardly something that confers notability. Indeed, I doubt there are very many schools in Australia that haven't been visited by a state governor at some point. Show me some non-trivial, non-routine coverage, and I'll retract the above statement. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

reply Non trivial relates to coverage not being a passing mention, or being extremely thin. So, for example, had the article been about the Governor's daily routine, and the school was just listed as a place she went - that's trivial. Instead, the article is about the school, and the coverage is trivial with respect to the governor, not the school. MadScot (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I still believe practically any of the alternatives to deletion for a school article would be superior, particularly merge/redirect. Having said that, I have added some of the research I have found on this school, including a special commendation from the New South Wales Department of Education and Training, a mention of its Intensive English Centre, and significant security upgrades to the institution. --Jh12 (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be a well written and encyclopedic article to me that meets WP:N in citing multiple independent sources appropriately. While I respect that the nomination was in good faith; I really don't see the need for deletion. At the absolute worse a merge and re-direct could occur - but I don't see the need for that either. WP:NOTNEWS is important, but it is pretty clear in the article with the sources used that security deserves at least a mention. WP:NNC means that WP:N is mostly irrelevant to individual sections or sentences of an article (though WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR e.t.c are not), and content can be added which does not directly add to notability such as primary sources to add context. Only the article as a whole usually needs to meet WP:N, and I am quite confident this article does, like most high school articles should do. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond The Hunter[edit]

This sounds like an article for a book that hasn't been published, possibly written by the author of said book. Mblumber (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I doubt that the entry was written by the author, as the grammar used in this article renders it almost incomprehensible. That said, the book has yet to be published and no notability has been established. It may even be a hoax, given the way the article was written.--Daviddavey (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BOOK and WP:CRYSTAL. A Google News Archive search (including the author's name: Niels Blote) returns no results. It's probably a hoax so I've tagged the article as such. Cunard (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. My searches only find the Wikipedia article. • Gene93k (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - the infobox shows too many redlinks, the article is not formatted correctly, fails WP:BOOK, wp:v and wp:crystal. Looks like a hoax, vanity, Myspace/Facebook profile, something made up one day at school/work and more like a story itself than an article about the story (WIkipedia is not a webhost). Delete per all nominations above. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 08:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Looking up the author (with quotation marks) shows only the Wikipedia article. There's no evidence the book will be published any time soon, so there's no reason to have the article since it is not verifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BK#Not yet published books. JohnCD (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Reiner[edit]

Article has been tagged as unsourced for months. No reliable source provided to support claim of notability. Evb-wiki (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gotta be something more notable to qualify for WP:BIO or I'd have a page here (I don't). --Kickstart70TC 04:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BIO. Shot info (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Non-notable, editing tests, redlink and autobiography. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 09:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Game Informer unless more sources can be found. The references are a problem, but being the executive editor for a magazine that is verifiably notable, means this guy is notable himself (just like academics who are editors at major journals). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Home Soil[edit]

Plot summary lifted wholesale from an episode of a television program. Article is totally unsourced and there’s no indication of independent notability whatsoever. Delete HiDrNick! 02:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Every Next Gen episode has it's own article. This one needs an overhaul but shouldn't be deleted completely. Cyberia23 (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: This is just silliness. Just go fix the article instead, if you see such problems. --Kickstart70TC 04:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the article means writing from a real-world perspective based on comment, analysis, and criticism from WP:Reliable sources. My initial search didn't find any. The article in its current state fails WP:N and is an egregious violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. • Gene93k (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I once had the time and motivation to upkeep these articles since I started most of them and resurrected others that were trashed, but overtime no one else stepped up to lend a hand, and further editing was just done by bizarre fanboys and anon noobs who had nothing constructive to contribute except unsourced trivia and original research. Plus a lot of the articles had their images deleted for no good reason except some random douche with no more authority around here than anyone else wanted them gone and got his way without question. Anyway it's gotten to the point where I really could care less anymore and apparently no one else does either. So, if it gets deleted, fine, but I ask why single this article out when there are like 7 seasons of other Next Gen trek episodes here that are probably as equally worthless. So, shall we have a debate on what articles to keep - What were the "cool" (ie notable) Next Gen episodes? Cyberia23 (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect At the very least, the basic information director/air date and the like can be confirmed (which makes merging a viable option). Would keep if the article also mentioned audience reception and critical reviews. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Azzara[edit]

An article on a photographer that's been vigorously edited by a couple of SPAs and an SPIP. "Azzara has worked with some notable personalties", which turns out to mean that he's photographed the Dalai Lama and some slebs (as have very many people). Nothing wrong with that, but the few photographs that we've been shown via links and notes strike me as very humdrum indeed. Now I'm a mere editor and my own reactions to Azzara's work are of no consequence; I should of course set them aside and instead see what "Reliable Sources" (including noteworthy critics) say. But alas they seem to say nothing. No reviews, no books (other than self-published), no awards. I can't see notability here, and I can't see backup for anything beyond the most minor assertions (e.g. that yes, this or that sleb was photographed by Azzara). Hoary (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established by any definition. Fails WP:BIO. --Daviddavey (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 04:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the detailed and careful nom. --Crusio (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inappropriate article, and includes a pornographic picture. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 08:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? I missed the pornographic picture, even when I went back to look for it. Maybe it's reduced to 1 pixel by 1 pixel or hidden from me by some other trick. -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey, what happened to your fantasy? :-D --Crusio (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, that's the same as it was. What with talk of Amber Lee Ettinger and nude photography, it's that the Obama Girl will phone me up ("Hey Hoary, it's me") and invite herself over for a session. My Fujica G690BL would be at the ready. Er, what was the question? -- Hoary (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Subsequent edits by "ÆÅM" to the article suggest that he wasn't joking above and truly thinks that one or other of the B/W images was pornographic. Bizarre, but there's no accounting for distaste. My apologies to Azzara about this: one of the images struck me as ho-hum but the other as good, and neither is to me even remotely pornographic. -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm assuming shooting a portrait of the Dalai Lama means he's got to pose. Surely he doesn't do that for just anybody? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't suppose he does, and I have not suggested that Azzara is just anybody. But I don't think that the notability bar is set so low that an article is allowed for anybody who isn't just anybody. The issue (or, if you prefer, non-issue) of notability aside, is there substantial discussion by disinterested third parties of Azzara's work? -- Hoary (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I think he does... the Dalai Lama often appears in public and I think, given the nice public person that he is, that he'll willingly pose even for amateur photographers at such occasions. But as Hoary says, this is not really important, because substantial discussion by independent sources is missing. --Crusio (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT I have read all your comments and it seems to me the non of you really have a really substantial reason for the deletion of this article beside your own very subjective opinions (are any of you photographers - let alone artists) , and that in itself should disqualify your statements altogether. I happen to be a photojournalist and have interviewed Mr. Azzara and can tell you he is a very well know photographer and is more then qualified to be an entry in Wikipedia. His work as a Celebrity Portrait photographer alone is enough to warrant his entry, for you don’t get to do Portraits, (and I emphasize PORTRAITS because of there very personal nature) of this type without being of some note and reputation in the industry. Also, regarding the use of the word pornographic to describing Azzara's nude work shows me that art is a subject you should consider some study in. Did any of you bother to go to the New York Academy of Art’s website and do a little reading? This is an institute in the business of promoting and educating in the arts. An establishment and its directors, who are experts in the field of ART, included Azzara’s work in an auction to promote there cause surely didn’t consider this work pornographic. Also, Azzara's work was selected because of its artistic merit , for he is not a student of this academy and was referred there (yes to Eileen Guggenheim) by the same celebrities who know him for his portrait work (they have a gala there every year) . And about references - what is there now is enough to consider him a viable entry, for I can run a list of current articles (in the photographer category and others - please don‘t make me list them) that don’t meet the requirements you are accusing this article of not meeting. So, I hope your reason will prevail and allow Steve Azzara’s article to remain. Wikipedia is supposed to be a place to contain the whole of human knowledge, and, is not, the photographic art of Steve Azzara part of that knowledge? Oh, I forgot, his tattoo is also an artistic expression. Why don’t you look up what it means? --LAntonio163 (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC) — LAntonio163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If, as you say, Azzara is a very well-known photographer, then I'd expect critical commentary on his work. Where is it? Also, awards, solo exhibitions, and conventionally published books. Where are they? I don't say that these don't exist; I'm open to evidence that they do exist. ¶ The charge of pornography was indeed a silly one. ¶ I'll happily concede that I have seen examples of Azzara's work that look good. But the photos of slebs that comes up when one types his name into the Corbis search engine seem utterly humdrum. Now, I'll concede that my own tastes seem to be out of synch with those of the tastemakers, as (for example) the majority of the work in the recent major ICP (New York) exhibition Heavy Light strikes me as vacuous. Writing about that exhibition not as a blogger but as a humble encyclopedist, I'd keep mum about my own reactions and defer to the curators and reviewers. But for Azzara, who are the curators and reviewers? ¶ You say "I can run a list of current articles (in the photographer category and others - please don‘t make me list them) that don’t meet the requirements you are accusing this article of not meeting". I don't think that anybody disputes that the very worst of Wikipedia is quite unbelievably bad. Thus for all but the very worst article (and this certainly isn't the worst), there's something worse out there. If you see something that's truly ghastly, please do fix it, encourage somebody else to fix it, or nominate it for deletion. ¶ Azzara's bicep says 撮影師 (the first character of which I've simplified), which is Chinese (but, if anyone's interested, not Japanese) for "photographer". Yes. And so? -- Hoary (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --Tom 19:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you look at the article now, I have included a reference for a published work Azzara was involved in as a collaborator. This entry does meet the basic criteria for Creative Professionals required by Wikipedia notability criteria WP:CREATIVE “the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work...". The work is of major significance and one we should all be aware of. If you don’t think so I think those who have, or deal with those with , HIV would have issue with that. If you truly have no bias toward this article or person, I would ask you as a reasonable individual to drop your deletion debate of this article. I will continue to build my case, either way, and continue to add citations to show the articles validity. --LAntonio163 (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second !vote by user stricken by Deor (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nom--I was a bit hesitant but it's clear to me now to which extent this is a vanity article for a not-notable enough person. And LAntonio, surely you want to rethink some of your word choices: if Azzara is a "collaborator" on that book (for which no independent third-party coverage is given, only unproven generalities), why isn't he mentioned even once in it? He took the picture on the cover, but "collaborated"? The subject of that book doesn't even thank him in her afterword. So, the WP:Creative criterion is NOT met, at least not that you can prove. Your sole assertion is not enough.

The charge remains: if he is notable, then prove it by showing the evidence (other editors have not been able to find it) that others beside you and his tattoo artist (and him, presumably) find him notable, notable enough to write about him. Until such evidence is produced, delete. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm sure I searched in all the same places, but other than blog mentions or credit statements to photos I can no actual mention of him as an artist. That seems to be what I'd expect for any working photographer, and doesn't justify notability. MadScot (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A photographer is an artist and a Creative Professional (if you have seen Azzara's amassed work on Corbis that alone is proof of creative professional work) WP:CREATIVE. PORTRAIT photography is a collaborative affort by its very nature. A portrait is a collaboration between artist and subject. The definition is rather simple and clear don't you think? Noted "thanks" is not a requirement to meet the collaborative criteria- just the publication, so the citations stands. I have even spoke to Marvelyn Brown (author of The Nake Truth) about it and she confirmed the collaboration. I'm willing to let that one go! As for the whole "vanity" claim, I am a neutral third-party so this claim is also invalid. I really hope you see the reason in this and discontinue this debate.--LAntonio163 (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC) — LAntonio163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment LAntonio, if you have addional contributions to this debate, it is custom to precede them by "Comment", not repeat your !vote (the exclamation mark means that this is actually not a vote, as it is the arguments that count, not the simple number of opinions expressed). Removing comments or tags placed by other editors is considered vandalism, I guess you're new here and don't know this, but you should not do this kind of things. Concerning possible WP:COI, the portrait that you uploaded from Steve Azzara has as copyright statement that you are the owner of the copyright and release it into the public domain. On Azzara's website the same photograph is posted, attributed to "Sanders McNew". If you're that person, there is no problem from a copyright point of view, however, McNew obviously has a close relationship with Azzara and this is indicative of a conflict of interest. As for the fact that Azzara has produced creative works, nobody is contesting that, but that is not enough to establish notability. Unless you can come up with independent verifiable secundary sources (see WP:RS), this article is going to be deleted. --Crusio (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any evidence of significant, independent coverage; Google News just brings up a press release and a handful of photo credits, Google Books likewise. Taking a photograph for a book's cover is not the same as being the author of that book, and even if it was, the claim that the book was of "major significance" would have to be backed up with something more than the assertion of a Wikipedia editor. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 18:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Azzara's portrait photo is credited to McNew; however, all photos are copywrited to Azzara so there is no confict of interest. So, you do believe in giving credit to the portrait photographer. To quote you (" As for the FACT that Azzara has produced creative works, nobody is contesting that...nobody is contesting that") tells me you do recognize , at least, that he is a CREATIVE PROFESSIONAL which meets one of the criteria. HarperCollins and Marvelyn Brown also thought his portrait work of significance and that is why they pubilished that book in collaboration with his work. There are no “number” of citations to meet to establish that requirement - just that they are significant. The HarperCollin citation is a fact and significant, so it stands. Azzara'a creative works are also a fact (as also stated by yourself). So , the matter of significance is now a matter of opinion. An encyclopedia is not a place for "opinion", but a place for fact. If you regard Azzarar's work as a major or minor contribution to the field of photography that is your opinion. However, Wikipedia is a place for facts (with more about Azzara to come) and the whole of human knowledge, and, just like a photograph, I have chosen to record these facts here. The debate continues...--LAntonio163 (talk) 13:46, 01 November 2008

I'm afraid that there are multiple issues here that you fail to understand. First about copyright. You say that all images are copyrighted to Azzara. If that is true, and you are not Azzara, then they should all be deleted speedily for copyright infringement, because then you have no right to release them into the public domain. Second, if you are Azzarra, or are somebody closely related to him (in whatever way, friend, client, family member, whatever), then you have a conflict of interest. Third, zhether or not Azzara is a creative professional or not is not the issue here, neither is it an issue what my opinion of him is. I have voted keep for people of whom I had a really low opinion and the reverse. The issue here is notability. You really have to read the pertinent policies (they have been linked to multiple times above). For most of his life, Vincent van Gigh himself was not notable, because his work was ignored. He would not have been included in WP if it had been around at that time. The same thing is the case here. It doesn't matter at all what any of the participants in this debate think about Azzara's work. What matters is whether there are independent reliable sources where people have discussed his work. That will establish notability, nothing else. Opinions do not enter in this discussion for a second. --Crusio (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"copyright infringement"? I'm was never worried about any copyright issues with this article and you shouldn't be either! I'm sure the artists involved would be more then happy with what I have done with their work, but, since you brought it up, a Free Art License should take care of it. As to your "Van Gogh" reference, most people (art lovers or not) know the story of Van Gogh's artistic struggles. Are you saying that Azzara's work should not be noticed because of what happen to Van Gogh? Does one really have to died before their work is noticed. There are many artist who were noticed before they died. So your Van Gogh statement is invalid! Also, your assumption that I have something other then an objective third-party relationship with the parties involved is just that - assumption. --LAntonio163 (talk) 17:36, 01 November 2008

I'm not a specialist on copyright issues, but if you are not the owner of the copyright of those pictures, then I don't think you have the right to post them on WP and simply state that a Free Art Licence applies. Only the copyright owner can do that and you cannot just assume that they'll be "more than happy". As for van Gogh, all I wanted to say is that as long as anyone is ignored by the outside world (i.e., no reliable sources), then they are not notable in the Wikipedia sense (even if this later turns out to have been wrong, as in van Gogh's case). But I'm afraid that you just don't want to understand me, so this is the end of this discussion as far as I am concerned. --Crusio (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wide search finds no third party sources which provide evidence of notability. Jenafalt (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD G11 and G12) by Orangemike. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 05:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making A Poem[edit]

Whatever can be said about the poem is already said on the page about the author, Vihang A Naik, which is also an AfD. Article as it stands is in no way objective and appears to be written by the author himself--and perhaps added to Wikipedia by author. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Wikipedia does not list books and this should be moved to Wikisource. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 08:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is one big POV violation and the subject is unlikely to be noteworthy to start with. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Seems non-notable and reads like an advertisement. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Poetry Delete the history as it fails WP:N and set it up as a redirect. It's a viable search term.
Delete Agreed that Vihang A Naik covers all that needs be said, and this reads like an ad. The redirect sounds like a good idea too. Firebat08 (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Piper PA 28 plane crash[edit]

Just another general aviation crash. While tragic, there is no indication that this rises to any level of encyclopedic notability. Yes, there are news sources cited, but these are today's news, not lasting notability-type refs. Fails WP:AIRCRASH. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete news story with no evidence of greater notability. JJL (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WikiNews if they don't have it already. The WP:AIRCRASH guideline seems acceptable and there's no indication this event will cause any real changes in aviation, so it doesn't belong here. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. An unfortunate accident, and while I sympathize with the person who created the article, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Mandsford (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Keep? As it has only recently happened references can only really be "today's news". After all it fits the bill of "aviation accidents resulting in loss of life". Unless I'm somehow mistaken? --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 22:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the loss of life criteria is for commercial aviation. It's different for GA. Loss of life GA crashes, like loss-of-life auto crashes, are almost a daily occurance (as can be seen by watching the NTSB briefs). AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from WP; by all means add to wikinews if you wish. This is a NN crash of a light aircraft. WE do not have articles on every fatal road crash; and WP does not need them on every single aviation incident. Is it the same person who keeps creating an article on every incident? if so, adminsitrative action against them is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete General aviation fatal crashes are all too common, alas, and there is nothing particularly significant about this one - fatalities limited to occupants, victims not notable, common aircraft type, etc. In addition, the types of sources cited are not generally to be treated as reliable in reporting news about aviation crashes - they simply do not have the specialist technical expertise that will be provided in the official report into the accident when it eventually appears, and which may then justify an article. Until then, this is simply a tranistory news story of no lasting significance.Emeraude (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, press coverage demonstrates notability. "All too common" is not an argument for non-notability; if people choose to pay particular attention to things, then those things are notable, regardless of how ordinary they may seem to individuals. Everyking (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any fatal accident is going to get press coverage. In fact, if the press paid no attention at all to a small plane crash, that would be extremely unusual. If the four people had died in an automobile accident, I imagine that it would have been reported by the press in Ireland as well. All accidents are tragic; I think what is saddest of all is that some parents let their 14 year old son travel with his friend's family, and lost their child. Assuming that you would agree that it would be impractical to have an article any time that there is a fatal accident, the question then comes down to how you would separate out those accidents you would think don't merit a separate article in an encyclopedia. I don't think anybody here is being callous. Mandsford (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think it is in any way reasonable to suggest similarities between air crashes and road crashes. That would be akin to equating a gust of wind with an earthquake. Road crashes are an all to common occurrence, especially in Ireland. Air crashes such as these are a less frequent occurrence, especially in Ireland. --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 00:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another point worth noting is that the story is still in the news. The BBC are an example of a non-Irish news organisation that reported on the funerals which took place today. [35] Numerous news sources cite the development of the story. These include Irish Independent, Evening Echo, Buckingham Today, The Irish Times Rye and Battle Observer, Irish News... etc, etc. Need I go on? There are a wealthy mix of Irish and non-Irish organisations. --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 00:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to this BBC source a full report is not expected for months, meaning this story will resurface again and again. --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 01:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I find most ironic of all is that this page has roughly the same amount of independent individual sources as this specimen, a case of an article I'm not entirely sure can conceivably exist and yet it continues to do so. Both use such a wide variety of sources but are treated in different ways by the media. This particular article is dealt with more respectfully and hasn't been hounded to death. The other has. Is Wikipedia to become a monster for tabloid fodder whilst consigning the real notable occurrences to the dump? I find a large number of inconsistencies and contradictions between the existence of an article on a real news story and an article on sensationalist hyperbole. Both have a large number of sources, both are mentioned again and again by the media, yet this one is threatened with deletion. --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 01:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable to me. Also, per Candlewicke. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that we're split on whether this accident is notable or not notable; the Wikipedia Aviation Project has proposed some rules about crashes, and these could be argued either way; the sticking point may be in defining "the immediate timeframe of the accident". The text WP:AVIMOS#DENTNOTE says "General aviation/corporate aviation/private aircraft accidents are generally notable only if: Unusual circumstances are involved; Notable people are involved; They result in downstream changes to the industry or procedures; or News coverage continues beyond the immediate timeframe of the accident." The accident happened on October 25, about nine days ago, so we may be outside the immediate timeframe by now. Thoughts, anyone? Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we're outside the immediate timeframe and the story is still ongoing then of course it's notable. I don't see what the argument is. --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 19:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete news story with no further notability asserted. I believe that we are cetainly in the immediate timeframe with articles of the funerals. If there are further articles with more information than just that it happened we *might* be pushing into notable coverage.Dimitrii (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Wagner (musician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kurt Wagner (musician)

no established notability. Extremely promotional in nature and should not be confused with the 2 other Kurt Wagners (the somewhat established German actor or the well referenced comic book character) Daviddavey (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Kurt Wagner (fl. c. 2000) is an American musician, and the singer and songwriter of the Nashville-based alternative-country band Lambchop". That is the only sentence of the main body of the article, and it does not seem promotional in nature to me, extreme or otherwise. I believe the article meets WP:NPOV standards. Daviddavey, why do you think the article is "extremely promotional in nature"? OpenSeven (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:MUSIC states:

"A musician...is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

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

I believe Kurt Wagner statisfies WP:MUSIC, since I have found multiple published works whose source is independent from the musician...itself and reliable, in which Wagner is the subject and is receiving non-trivial coverage:

[36] (Washington Post article) [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

Plus, I do not believe the article is promotional in nature at all, and I am convinced the article meets WP:NPOV standards.

OpenSeven (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thanks for the sources. However, the page as is offers nothing. It reads entirely promotional and is a disservice to Wikipedia, nor does it meet any guidelines (as is). Perhaps provide some biographical data and I'll find a way to include the above links. As it stands, the article should currently be deleted unless it is changed. --Daviddavey (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - - WP:RUBBISH clearly states that unless there's unsourced negative information in the article, the fact it is currently poorly written is not a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment If the article were extremely promotional in nature, it would read something like "Kurt Wagner is the most talented musician of all time, and his music is the greatest thing since sliced bread". Instead, the only line of the main body is "Kurt Wagner (fl. c. 2000) is an American musician, and the singer and songwriter of the Nashville-based alternative-country band Lambchop". That is a very neutral sentence, as it is stating a fact with bias. Daviddavey, how could you state that he is an American musician, and the singer and songwriter of Lambchop, in any more of a neutral way? As for the discography, it also meets WP:NPOV standards, as it is simply stating some of the music he has been behind, without bias. The article is in need of expansion, but it clearly meets WP:MUSIC and WP:NPOV guidelines. OpenSeven (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is certainly in need of expansion, but the sources adduced by OpenSeven (particularly WaPo and NPR) and the discography at Lambchop (band) clearly establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Deor (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:MUSIC#C1 easily. I have noooooooo idea how the nom thinks this is promotional in nature, but hey! The fact he's been here for only 20 days and has taken part in little else from AfD's could say something. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes many criteria of WP:N. Agreed, the article requires expansion. And people, AGF, please... sparkl_!sm ^hey! 01:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARX-02a[edit]

From PROD: Article (incorrectly titled) about a future racing car which, as of yet, does not exist. No establishment of notability as of yet. Article would be better suited to be created after the Acura ARX-02a has at least been unveiled, or at least competed. See WP:CRYSTAL Terrillja (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: Article is almost entirely speculative. --Falcadore (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Acura ARX-02a does not exist yet. It might pass notability once the car actually competes. The359 (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CRYSTAL, hoax, random-sounding article and hoax. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 09:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After a bit of Googling, I'm quite convinced this is not a hoax, but with a complete lack of technical details, this is about as crystal ball gazing as it gets. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per User:The359. Cs-wolves (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure) Nom a vandal Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arlesdale Railway[edit]

I am nominating Arlesdale Railway and other articles on Category:Railways of Sodor and Category:The Railway Series locations. These basically are in-universe with no independent sources per WP:FICT. Any notable information should be included on Sodor (fictional island) or The Railway Series. Formdog (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (deletion)/Keep (articles)-- although the location articles in Category:The Railway Series locations could be merged with the page that describes all the locations, all of the pages mentioned were created as a set of subarticles to describe the various aspects of The Railway Series (mostly by the members of WP:THOMAS),. There are three key reference books that describe matters relating to the stories (by the Rev Awdry, Christopher Awdry and Brian Sibley -- these are usually mentioned under 'sources') and as far as is known, all the information on all of the pages is covered puerly from text obtained from these books (or the stories themselves). As yet, few cited references have been provided, but these were being added as time permitted, there being 'no deadline'. Also, my understanding was that it was not normal policy to nominate mass deletions like this. EdJogg (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment just noticed that the nominator has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing and is a self-confessed sock/vandal (see his talk page). Therefore I would suggest that this AFD was raised with malicious intent. EdJogg (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close for procedural reasons There's nothing wrong with nominating multiple items in the same deletion listing, but simply saying that you're listing "other articles" in certain categories is wrong, as we need to have a specific listing of articles being nominated (after all, contents of categories can change easily). I have no opinion on deletion or keeping, and if the nominator wants to see these articles deleted, I have no opposition to them being relisted properly as soon as this is closed, but this nomination needs to be closed as confusing. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the major locations--the series is notable enough. The sources mentioned are sufficient for everything treated in any degree of detail there, which for purposes of sourcing I interpret as more than a name in a list. DGG (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nom a sock. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close for procedural reasons I agree with Nyttend's assessment. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Population_control#India. MBisanz ^talk 19:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We two, ours one[edit]

Requesting deletion per WP:DICDEF. This just provides little content on a non-notable phrase. Tavix (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF, if not for failing WP:N. A google search brings up nothing related, except for a flickr image. RockManQ ^(talk) 02:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC) _{Wouldn't really be fair if I didn't do a Tamil search of the phrase. I couldn't find any sort of free reliable translator although I could find one if I did enough searching...}[reply]
Of course you did a search in Tamil too, right? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending an evaluation by someone familiar with the quote and/or Tamil. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:10, 26 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) 00:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tamal phase or not, this is just an advertising slogan. The information should be included in an article about the campaign, or about birth control in India, or similar. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to Population_control#India, which is crying out for a little more content anyway. --Kickstart70TC 04:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crude transliteration of public interest slogan from Government of India issued in multiple languages as an awareness towards family planning. Has no notability for a standalone article. The campaign information may be included in the article suggested by Kickstart70 or a similar article here. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 12:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Kickstart70. This actually seems more relevant to Population control#India than what's already there. Phlyght (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Street Sounds[edit]

Claims to be notable with several international tours, but no sources were found in a search. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Searching for "Street Sounds" and "a cappella" I've found articles about this group in The Sacramento Bee ("Bay Area's Street Sounds Keep A Cappella Alive", January 19, 1996, p. TK16); in Spokesman Review ("Street Sounds Give Carnival Some Harmony", January 16, 1997, p. D3); in Portland Press Herald ("Street Sounds' Splendid Harmony", March 13, 1997, p. D15); in Anchorage Daily News ("Street Sounds Entices Audience to Sing Along", March 30, 1997; p. N4) ("Band Not Needed to Feel the Blues", March 28, 1997, p. H11); and Lincoln Journal Star ("Street Sounds singer uses her voice to reveal feelings about life", April 5, 1998; p. 5). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:27, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears notable with even a minor search, and I do remember this group mentioned in a documentary. However I realize that's original research, so I discounted that in my judgment. --Kickstart70TC 05:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LIFE is...[edit]

fails WP:MUSIC. Has no sources to prove notability. Beano (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is the fifth studio album of Ken Hirai I would disagree and say it was notable. According to that article it came first in some chart. That should be easy enough to reference for someone who can dig up the original Japanese sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan hoping someone will come along to provide the needed references. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article it hit first place on the charts (whatever chart that might be). I could agree to a sourcing issue, but how does the claim not meet the requirements? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources issue aside, just because it has charted doesn't automatically assure that an article can be created. WP:MUSIC states "album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article". This have got even less than that, hence my vote for delete. I'm not against recreation if more info comes to light mind you. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the #1 ranking can be verified here. Neier (talk) 22:12, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MacGyverMagic. Passes WP:MUSIC per Neier. DARTH PANDA^talk 00:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax, vanity, crystal ballery, non-notablilty, random-sounding article, resembles a fansite, miscellaneous list, Facebook/Myspace profile and amateurish language. Incorrect info, no infobox, bad grammar (how the hell can it be 'to be released' in the future if it says a remix was made a year later, and then four of the singles were released in 2002? No chronological order.) and randomly inserted info (who is this 'Ken' and what the heck is 'come back'?) No links and no research. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 09:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not crystal, [43] & [44], but it isn't notable per WP:Music, and it definitely does come across like someone did a cut 'n paste from Google translator though. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had bothered to click the link you'd know who Ken Hirai was and your comments completely ignore the given reference above. Bad grammar requires cleanup, not deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just because an article needs improvement does not qualify it for deletion. A notable miscellaneous list can still be fixed. DARTH PANDA ^duel 14:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a recreation of previously deleted content. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Praden (musical group)[edit]

Fails to come anywhere near WP:MUSIC. Essentially an advert for some kids band. No notability, no reliable sources. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete longer and better-formatted than your average generic speedy-bait garage band article, but no more notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article has also been created and deleted four times at Praden (band). Nouse4aname (talk) 10:34, 28 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) 00:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--an enormous amount of words for a band that has no notability. Besides, parts of it are all-too POV, and one phrase even seems to be a stab at a former band member. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Fails to even approach any criterion at WP:MUSIC. Maralia (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt non notable band, uses only myspace as a source. In addition to the above mentioned Praden (band) article has also existed at Praden. Has a large number of SPA accounts involved in editing (Shume 007, Praden4life, Gert167, 82.3.152.191, Humey101, Prrraden). Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rastaman[edit]

This article is a blatant WP:POVFORK of Rastafari. It synthesizes sources to suggest the argument that "modern" Rastas around the world, only understand the movement in external terms of ganja, dreadlocks, and reggae, and are unaware or indifferent to any other Rastafarian doctrines, co-opting the term 'Rastaman' in the process. This happens to be the same description as those whom the actual movement derides as "wolves in sheeps clothes". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:POVFORK like Eulenspiegel said --Numyht (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator seems to be POV-forking himself, trying to conservatively prohibit the broader understanding of the cultural phenomenon that grew out worldwide from the originating movement (and supported by sources mentioned in the article). He could expand the article to mention his opinion, but instead tries to destroy it attaching artistic comparisons. Not to mention that those "external terms" helped greatly through the times to spread knowledge about the movement to reach its modern popularity. The nominator may see the situation only from the country where he lives and may be unwilling to accept views from different countries (Russian Rastas, observing whom made me write the article, are noticeable phenomenon in Russia, but the nominator is unaware of that, and doesn't want to believe in them because he never seen them). It's not "synthesizing sources", it's truth. --ssr (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not sure what "POV-forking" means, please read WP:POVFORK, that well summarizes the nature of this article. I am not forking anything at all, and it would be beyond ridiculous to claim the established, multi-editor article is a "fork" of the brand-new, single-editor one. There is nothing in your new article scope that could not be better addressed in the old one, but with proper reliable sources being required, and NOT a synthesis (please read that link too) of totally off-topic blogs... like, the op-ed for a US political candidate that merely mentions offhand a comedian putting on a "Rasta hat" [sic], being used somehow to back up any kind of scholarly observation about contemporary Rastafarians!!! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry, you're not "POV-forking", but POV-pushing. The hat story shows us that the symbolism is used outside primary context — the article is about that, too. I wanted to gather (multi-editor) information on international developments on the subject in a separate article — just to keep the original article out of information on who you call "wolves". That's, in my view, expanding of the subject, not "forking". But they exist, and you can't get rid of them by deleting an article. Particularly, they exist because Rastafarians, let's say, "monopolised" culture of cannabis smoking and the leaf image and attracted many people to their culture via that, who may not truly understand the religion (it's very diverse anyway) but still like reggae and some pieces of philosophy — and now you call the attracted newcomers a "wolves". No, they are not wolves, but peaceful people who want to be united through some common symbols that let them recognise each other (in the name of Jah). --ssr (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that you have not used any WP:RSS that argue your basic introductory premise, just cites to Urban Dictionary (open-source, meaning anyone can write it), and a couple of European editorials mentioning a guy wearing a Marley shirt and a comedian putting a "Rasta hat" on a puppet for political satire! It seems like an article for a novel (SYNTH) argument. A notable phenomenon that is reliably sourced may certainly have a dedicated article, though - perhaps a properly done article on the 'Rastamany' would be in order. And note, I did not call them 'wolves', but pointed out that is how some who don't go in for the doctrines or are 'wannabe's', are indeed viewed within the original Rastafari movement. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite tricky asking for scholarly researches: there are very little, if any, of them (at least non-English countries), because we deal with culture of drug usage which is underground and may be poorly noticed by scholars, but well noticed by general public who write about them in sources such as Urban Dictionary, Guardian and, finally, Wikipedia. Please express your concerns in the article, but don't try to destroy it! --ssr (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - In a nutshell: by the doctrine, a non-black person can't be a "rastaman". My article says that, if there are so many non-black people that call themselves "rasta men", so that it can be. You can't delete them attributing a "fork". --ssr (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is 100% wrong, the distinction made is not in skin color, but in profession or adherence to certain doctrines, which no longer necessarily include racial exclusion or supremacy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"No longer"? So you recognise the conception is evolving. So, my article is exactly about that. --ssr (talk) 12:54, 25 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) 00:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--not just because it seems redundant, but also because its vagueness and editorial problems make it really confusing. The opening sentence already is missing a crucial comma, the lack of which contradicts the actual point of the article (it states that the Rastaman hails from Jamaica...). The section "Local Developments" opens with a statement in passive voice that refuses to make clear what 'local' means. The note on the UK Rastafari church, does that have anything to do with 'Rastaman' as opposed to Rastafari? And doesn't the note on Black Rastafarians in Canada obfuscate the point there also? Now, if this really is about Rastafari movements in Russia, why not have that as the focus of the article, rather than attempt to make it broader (and thereby more important?) than it really is? Drmies (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Local Developments" is almost entirely based on the Rastafari movement#Rastafari today, you can also address your criticism in that part to the corresponding authors (and ask for extra sources there in the same manner you did here). Besides, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and Urban Dictionary can be a reliable source in some cases (too bad you've removed a reference to it; see below my answer to Steve Dufour about scholarly sources). --ssr (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and write an article on Russian Rastamen. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be done (will get deleted in the same way) because Russian aspect appeared as a result of the global process (on which this article starts). There are alike developments in, say, Argentina. Anyway, there poorly can be found sources on Russian or Argentinian or Polinesian developments that meet mentioned requirements — people here ask for scholarly researches, and scholarly researches are offspring of the babylon system which is unwilling to notice such subcultures which may be in opposition to them (and who are now "wolves in sheeps clothes"?). --ssr (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wikipedia is part of the babylon system too. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's neutral free encyclopedia for everyone. If it wasn't, Larry Sanger, the scientist, wouldn't leave the project. --ssr (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. If the Russian Rasta movement is significant in its own right, it perhaps ought to get a standalone article. The instant page might be best as a disambiguation page between Rastafari movement and the Bob Marley album Rastaman Vibration - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Street Karachi[edit]

No claim or indication of notability for a street. Wikipedia:Notability (streets and roads). —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:37, 26 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) 00:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination, nothing in the article that indicates that this street is notable. Karachi, like New York, has lots of streets. Mandsford (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - vanity and miscellaneous info. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 09:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romesh Dodangoda[edit]

Single line bio for a record producer, who has been involved with notable bands, but is not notable himself. Fails WP:BIO and specifically WP:CREATIVE Nouse4aname (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant coverage. Jeremiah (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:37, 26 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) 00:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find any significant coverage to establish notability. Maralia (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete because it has very little info - there's only a list apart from the one-line intro. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 09:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Rossi[edit]

I had nominated this for a speedy, and another editor declined, pointing out that there was an assertion of notability in the statement that the subject was "best known for his recurring role in . . . Sons of Anarchy. Duly chastised, I found that in IMDB he is indeed one of the only two actors listed as being in 14 episodes (presumably all of them to date).

Then I thought he must be referenced in reviews of the series. However, after a review of the top several pages of hits generated by a Google search for "Sons of Anarchy" review, I found that the subject was not mentioned in any of the reviews (he is mentioned on the cast list appended to one of them).

With respect to the subject's other roles, some of them have been in notable productions. However, none of these roles has been at all notable:

Boston Public: In two episodes out of 81 total episodes.
American Dreams: In two episodes out of 63 total episodes.
Heist: In two episodes out of seven total episodes.
Las Vegas: In two episodes out of 98 total episodes.
Grey's Anatomy: In two (not recent) episodes out of 83 total episodes (to date), hence no expectation of further appearances.
The Challenge: Rossi not mentioned in either of the two (non-notable) external reviews mentioned on IMDB.
Code Breakers: Rossi mentioned in the crew list in Variety, but not in the only other external review mentioned in IMDB.
Cloverfield: In a spot check of several external reviews (NY Times, Roger Ebert, BBCi, Guardian/Observer) listed in IMDB, neither Rossi nor his character name is mentioned.

If his performance or character in his upcoming movies proves to be notable, then he will be ripe for an article then. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

In the meanwhile, the subject fails both the profession-specific criterion of "sgnificant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions", as well as the general notability guideline. I have been unable to locate one single word of editorial commentary on the subject in even the most comprehensive of inclusive fansites, such as tvguide.com, tv.com, sidereel.com, etc., despite his filmography or roles being mentioned.

Bongomatic (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If "Sons of Anarchy" was his entire body of work, I might have said weak delete. But there are some roles in notable films (Cloverfield) as well as TV work (Lost, Grey's Anatomy, Bones, Jericho, etc), and I think he's safely above the bar of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see update to nomination to address your points. Bongomatic (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and agree that taken individually, nothing he's done is truly notable or article-worthy. I would say, however, that taken as a body of work there is enough collective notability here to sustain an article. I acknowledge that there is room for disagreement, but that's what AfD is all about. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm an inclusionist when it comes to Wikipedia and I was under the impression that an actor needs a minimum of three credits to be considered for an article. Theo Rossi has several credits, in episodic television, on Sons of Anarchy and in films. To me, this is a keep. Also, with all due respect, and I do mean that, and don't mean to offend in any way, you seem to have gone to some trouble in an effort to get this deleted. I, for one, think it's not very productive. Just something to think about. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the criterion (to be found here) is "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions," which is not claimed and would not seem accurate. But as you surely know, consensus often diverges from stated policy. Bongomatic (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The CV of a working but not noteworthy actor. Wikipedia is not an arm of the IMDB. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - his IMDB credit list establishes him as a working actor, but as there are no articles written about him or his performance, nor any evidence of awards for his work, notability is not established. -- Whpq (talk) 18:33, 27 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) 00:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Haven't heard of him before, plus vanity. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 09:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTKNOWIT is specifically mentioned as a line of reasoning to avoid in deletion debates. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not the number of episodes that matter when it comes to his TV roles, but the kind of role he had. He can be in one single episode, but when the entire episode revolves around the regular cast responding to his character or his character having some major impact on them, the character he played is still important. At the moment, I do not have no idea on whether his roles in Sons of Anarchy and Cloverfield are main characters, if they are, keep. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kamran Jawaid[edit]

Fails Notability and the sources is questionable. SkyWalker (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Jeremiah (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:41, 26 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) 00:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Smacks of vanity, and these sources are indeed, well, not really sources in the proper sense of the word. No notability, in short. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:HOAX, WP:VANITY and non-notable. All of the external links are either blogs, social-networking sites and random sites and the picture os of some random guy in the street. Article itself maybe arranged like a Myspace/Facebook page. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 09:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Azeem Ahmed[edit]

Fails Notability. SkyWalker (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY. You are supposed to explain how someone fails to meet notability guidelines. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:43, 26 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) 00:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is too short, not much progress since 2007 and non-notable. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 09:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of WP:NOEFFORT. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect He is the Executive of popular Pakistani television channel. That is notable. There is however a reference problem, so I suggest merging anything relevant. You need independant sources to establish notability, but it's quite acceptable to use a dependant one to show who is in charge of the channel. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koko B[edit]

No notability asserted. Article should have been speedied, but it was tagged with ((prod)) instead. Since that has been removed, we move to AfD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I put in the PROD, fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:Music. I didn't speedy it as there was an assertion of notability ('well-known'). This was speedied earlier today, but I didn't see that version so I'm not sure if this version contains more info or not, but regardless, delete. --Ged UK (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author seems belligerently unwilling to abide by WP policies, as he has continually removed the AfD notice from this page (for which he has been reported on WP:AIV). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:48, 26 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) 00:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Non-notable, too many redlinks, non-notable, miscellaneous 'Interests' section and resembles a Facebook/Myspace page. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 09:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annual Assault 2008[edit]

Apparently non-notable compilation album. Meets no WP:MUSIC criteria. Vianello (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable per nomination. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 20:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non-notable per WP:MUSIC, and no references. macy 03:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ad, too little content and miscellaneous list. - Not worthy of an AfD - should be speedied. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 09:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Miller (writer, director)[edit]

This article on Scott Miller was written entirely by Scott Miller. Mr. Miller admitted that he was Newchaz64 (talk · contribs) on Talk:Johnny Appleweed - [45].

Mr. Miller was advised on the 22nd October 2008 of WP:COI. His response was to pen this hagiography on 27th October 2008.

My view is that such blatant disregard for wikipedia policy and guidelines should be met with blatant disregard for Mr. Miller, by way of the deletion of his article. If & when someone other than Mr. Miller thinks he is notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article, I have no objection to such a thing being created. Tagishsimon (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether he's notable enough or not is debatable, but this is not encyclopedia material. It's a little too self-promotional. The fact that he's not mentioned in the New Line Theatre article also lends its weight.

By the way, I think it might have been better to use a bit more of a civil tone in your argument; it doesn't seem to me like you're assuming good faith.Planninefromouterspace (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am no longer assuming good faith, after checking all of his work on wikipedia (not good - serial plugs for his IRL work), and in light of his posting an article on himself five days after being advised on his talk page that there is a COI policy. That's the way good faith is lost: one would not be rational to continue to assume it in the face of overwhelming evidence. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough--sorry if I offended you. Planninefromouterspace (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And considering the circumstances (and the tone of Newchaz64's remark), I don't see how nom. was being inappropriate. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:CREATIVE. Bonfire of vanities (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our notability criteria, and obvious WP:COI. I find myself asking again and again, What makes presumably respectable people write about themselves in such an embarassing manner? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - despite the COI, there are some good references in the stub and some evidence of WP:notability. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see that someone has also tried to delete the article on New Line Theatre, which Mr. Miller works for. Will it help if I resubmit this article myself to avoid the COI? This article has legitimate information about a noted theatre artist and scholar, and it looks like it's all well footnoted. As someone living in St. Louis, where Mr. Miller works, I can vouch for the "notability" argument -- he has published many books, lectures, and is known nationally as a theatre scholar. I am new to contributing to Wikipedia, but I have used it for years and I don't understand the upset here... It seems Tagishsimon wants to delete this over an email s/he didn't like...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlottaACT (talk • contribs) 17:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. CarlottaACT (talk · contribs) is almost certainly a sockpuppet of User:Newchaz64, who is in turn Scott Miller. I'm baffled by the comment about an email but if Scott would care to explain, that would be great. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a circus this has become! If this article is deleted despite its facts, its various sources, and its relevance, then so be it. It seems to me Wikipedia would want to list an author and scholar with five books puiblished in his field (the first in its eighth printing), but if not, okay. But why does it seem that information is less important to Wikipedia than the personalities and power plays (and personal attacks) of its gatekeepers...? Newchaz64 (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Budziszewski[edit]

fails, WP:BIO non notable 15-year old fighter, most of the 30 hits under the name are not him TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare) _]} 00:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 so tagged. This autobiography doesn't assert any notability. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Spam, ad, non-notable, no formatting. Looks amateurish, like a Myspace/Facebook profile and has vanity. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 09:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE. I declined the speedy deletion request as notability is asserted ("considered to be one of the most feared and respected amateur fighters in the state of Wisconsin"). Yes, it's very weak, but it is asserted, which is sufficient to escape speedy deletion, by policy. Frank | talk 10:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the listed references mention the kid or actually point to a page within the domain that is relevant to the article. What we're left with is something that looks like a copy-paste job that is not verifiable or objective. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete utterly non-notable, and strongly sounds like it was copy-pasted from something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notabilty claims not supported by WP:RS. It reads like MySpace, because it apparently came from there. His page is friends only, so I can't prove copyvio, but searching from various phrases in the wiki keep matching there. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. JJL (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some assertions of notability like his upcoming appearance on ESPN is enough for me to require a full AFD discussion. Doesn't appear to be at the highest level in amateur. Could become notable if professional, but shouldn't be notable enough to have an article yet. It would need a nearly-complete rewrite anyhow. Royal broil 14:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE, no assertion of notability. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hint of meeting WP:BIO or WP:Athlete. Dlohcierekim 00:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 19:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirated movie release types[edit]

Article does not contain any reliable sources and my searches failed to locate any to back up the information within. Wikipedia is not a guide to choosing the quality of your pirated film releases either. -- Longhair\^talk 01:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Longhair\^talk 12:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, although somewhat interesting. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I think this is not categorized entirely correctly. Does anyone know how to contact the Wikipedia:WikiProject Movies. They could be able to help reference this. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films perhaps? I'm convinced the categories of Category:Copyright infringement and Category:Warez are suitable. The remaining category is a matter of opinion. -- Longhair\^talk 12:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But still of course the article needs citation. But I don't think it's right to go straight to AfD. Guy0307 (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC). Guy0307 (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Longhair\^talk 12:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete seems legitimate, but nontheless unsourced original research. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Legitimate and viable topic; I say keep it but put the call out to the Films Wikiproject, etc. to add sources. Most of these formats have been referenced in news coverage of this issue. 23skidoo (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs citations, but material is worthwhile and structured well. Article is used for law enforcement and network security reference. Rurik (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References to these formats can be found at http://www.latinodivx.com and many other places. 30 October 2008
Merge into digital piracy, which for some reason is now redirected into a rather poor article on copyright infringement. Information on the means of piracy is notable. I agree that the article could be pared down a lot. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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