< August 31	September 2 >

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

King Bees[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page I created was in error, article contains untruths and gibberish much of which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Herrick (broadcaster)[edit]

This article is written about me, it is innaccurate and I don't think I meet the criteria for being notable enough, especially seen as seasoned reporters who work for my company aren't on Wikipedia, when I am, after a year of regional reporting. Seems to be an inconsistency, please delete it RobHerrick (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is unreferenced and appears to fail WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems no more notable than most regional media presenters and as WWGB points out, entirely unreferenced. (OT Interesting, and somehow appropriate, that journalists are classed as Creative professionals in WP:BIO. A ring of truth there! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I support the subject's claim that he's not (yet) notable. The 'quotes' section is extremely quotidian. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When the subject himself says that the article fails WP:NOTABILITY it should not be staying on wikipedia. It should be deleted without further nominations of any sort. Kalivd (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm inclined to agree with the nominator on this one; Maybe an article will be warranted in the future? Delete per WP:N. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on notability grounds (not because the subject of the article has requested it), would not seem to meet WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:MUSIC#Songs, though I will create a new redirect to the film Black Kite 13:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, You're the Leader[edit]

There are no reliable third-party references to support this article, and thus the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Also, why should this specific song have an article when none of the others in the Thomas and Friends series do? What makes this specific song notable? _Skeletal SLJCOAAATR ^{Soul teh Hedgie} 16:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree. this seems to be only release reviews, YouTube, download this song websites, etc. 20:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete -- Not notable. Could be incorporated into a page describing the music used within the Thomas & Friends productions, if there is reference support for such an article, but not kept on its own. EdJogg (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is notable as it is the first song in the Thomas series (outside of TATMR) to be performed by a real music band. ZEM a.k.a. Hankengine (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that suggests it may be notable enough for inclusion in a WP article, but probably need a lot more for a stand-alone article (eg has it won a Grammy Award?) EdJogg (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Maideyi Muvirimi[edit]

Non-notable person. Article is written by it's subject. All of the sources (all three of them) are written about the contest she is part of. A google search for her returns only twelve results. CyberGhostface (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per this source. The subject of this article will be representing Zimbabwe in Miss World 2008. Surely that establishes some notability. Cunard (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think we have a specific guideline for beauty pageant contestants, but by analogy with WP:ATHLETE I would regard verified Miss World contestants as notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Due to the lack of reliable sources for verification and notability. Davewild (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Kamar[edit]

This is a non-notable religion, and the page itself gives no indication of notability, just a description of the religion and its principles. Google turns up no relevant hits for "Kamar religion" besides the Wikipedia article. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article is probably a hoax. Even if it wasn't, it would be a non-notable religion. In the opening line of the article, the creator says, "There are very few followers of this religion." Furthermore, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Cunard (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it could be a hoax; I figured that it seemed a bit too generic of a religion to be a hoax, but it is possible that it's just a non-creative hoax, in which case this should definitely be deleted. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, possible hoax given total lack of sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja-Blade[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The creator even says "No release date or any other information has been released yet". Cunard (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystalballery. JuJube (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Horselover Frost (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL Schuym1 (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Basement12 (T.C) 00:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MuZemike (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just noticed Ninja Blade. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article WP:PRODded. MuZemike (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why must the article should be deleted when the game is official confirmed?. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gametrailers is not considered a verifable source as far as video games are concerned. See WP:VG/S as well as the tirade at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 52#Angry video game nerd spam. MuZemike (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was not talking about Gametrailers. I was talking about this, this and this.--SkyWalker (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:SOFIXIT. Add them into the article. MuZemike (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remain at delete — The new sources seem to indicate that this is not crystalballing. However, said sources only provide trivial coverage at best and, in my view, does not meet the general notability guideline, so I cannot vouch to keep the article as a result. MuZemike (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Diplomatic missions in Salvador, Bahia[edit]

Contested prod. Article is exactly what the title says it is: a list of consulates in Salvador, Bahia. If all of the directory info was removed, there would be nothing left here. TN‑X-Man 22:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the epitome of what WP:NOTDIRECTORY proscribes. ~ 66.81.246.226 (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Lehoiberri (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DITO to all the above reasons. --Floridianed (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Kobrak[edit]

Script supervisors are an important part of any production, but they are not inherently notable. None of this woman's accomplishments, good though they are, elevate her to encyclopedic notability. A ni Mate 22:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's nothing in WP:N which suggests that certain activities or occupations are "not inherently notable", and I don't think any such list will be attempted. I suppose it comes down to the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and what is meant by it. As "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is defined there, the sources for this person seem to me to meet the criteria, if only just. Xn4 (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An important issue is significance of coverage. The sources cited (IMDb, alumni directory, etc.) are directory and database entries, which are considered trivial and insufficient to establish notability. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in what you say. IMDb clearly is a database, but do we state anywhere as a policy that database sources are inherently trivial? We have an awful lot of articles which rely on IMDb, in particular, as a source. Xn4 (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO#Basic criteria has footnote #6 attached, which describes depth of coverage in general and specifically mentions IMDb. Nearly everybody who works in film gets an IMDb listing. IMDb "biographies" are user submitted. Their use in Wikipedia is controversial at best. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though private citizens might submit to IMDB, most enties are submitted by productions companies, publicists, and agents. There is some small editorial control, but not as much as Wikipedia would hope or expect, and such is thus colored by industry hype. IMDB as a source, specially where it relates to cast and crew, is acceptable as a tertiary source and should be supported by other sources. Inclusion in IMDB might be used to further confirm an actors or cast work history, but simply being a part of a project... any project... does not create a notability. Being a script supervisor on a film, or a hundred films, as important to the pordction as that job is, does not create a notability. Even were these films all academy award winners... being script supervisor is not notable, as notability is not inherited. If you were anble to say something like... Louise Kobrak was the first woman to script supervisor in space, and could document this statement with a review or article in the New York Times.... THEN you'd have a notabilty. What you have been able to show is that Louise Kobrak has been a script supervisor for lots of films. What you have to do is show why that makes her more notable than the hundred/thousands of others who have been scipt supervisors on hundreds of films. Basically, what you have to show is exactly what makes this fact about her so notable. Its existance is not in doubt... its notability is. Has she won awards? Has she been in public office? Has her name been in the headlines? What makes her unique... special... memorable... notable? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Significant WP:RS not found. RS critical coverage of this person's work neither cited nor found for WP:CREATIVE. Also, the script supervisor job description is more managerial than creative. This article is a resume. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If she had been involved with some well-known productions, she still wouldn't qualify for inclusion. As it is, none of her credits are particularly notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Maralia (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did some searches[1][2][3][4] after writing my comment (above). Nearly every link simply gives a short filmology... such as do The New York Times and Hollywood.com. Interesting that TV.com gives her a 1996 writing credit for season 2, episode 17 of the TV series "High Tide" but IMDB does not. Pretty much, these searches could do no more than confirm her existance under several AKA's and confirm that she did indeed work in all those films and many more. However, none showed her being a script supervisor as having any special notability. And again, her working with notables does not make her notable, as notabilty is not inherited. The Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline indeed asks for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". And yes, those sources exist... but all they do is confirm she has been a script supervisor on many films. Period. That was never in doubt. But not one of those sources say anything about the woman or her skills or her contributions. When dealing with the notability of persons, one must refer to WP:BIO. One must pay close attention to its very first paragraph: "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Once that basic concern is addressed, then one may address the sources that support the assertion... not before. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete she fails the notability and verifiability criteria. No doubt that she exists but, she doesn't seem to meet the importance/significance for notability nor the significant coverage from multiple reliable 3rd party sources for verifiability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Claus is Happy Again[edit]

No assertion or evidence of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. PROD contested by the author. Ros0709 (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The singer does not seem to be notable (there are no hits on Google with her name), so her song's notability is doubtful. Bláthnaid ^talk 22:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the artist isn't notable enough to deserve an article (or even a Google hit) the song sure isn't. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable song, from a non-notable album by a non-notable artist. Fails to meet any of the relevant sections of WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely non-notable; any chance it's just a hoax? Brammarb (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sufficient sources have been found during the AFD to persuade a weak consensus that the subject of this article is sufficiently notable. Davewild (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sauerländer Heimatbund[edit]

acc. to WP:GROUP. This is a local non commercial ngo in Germany without any national or worldwide notability. Notability is tagged since 14 August 2008 (The editor creating the article is busy on other pages during this week). Sebastian scha. (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Sebastian scha. (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article only has three references, none of which appear to be reliable sources. Fails WP:V and WP:N. --JD554 (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs more reliable sources. --Erdwerkel (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user is a sockpuppet of User:Weissmann. Kevin (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article needs expansion and better sourcing, but not deletion. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination is not about sourcing (although this fails WP:V too). It's because this organisation fails WP:N (here national notability), if you can prove its notability, I'll be happy to keep it. The fact that there is a German article, claims not that this assocciation is notable enough for the English wiki (and for the German wiki, but this would be their problem). Sebastian scha. (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, an organization with 80+ years of history and 3000 members at present is notable enough to have a wiki article. --Soman (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My local working men's club has about 1000 members and has been going since 1922, but it isn't worthy enough for an article. --JD554 (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts and sheets published by the Sauerländer Heimatbund (SHB) itself are not a reliable and independent secondary sources, IMHO. The inline references are A) one published by SHB B) a blog [5] C) a website [6] of the publisher of the scripts and sheets of the SHB and the first one [7] is even not about the SHB at all (or broken in firefox and safari). Sebastian scha. (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "Sauerländer Heimatbund" gives quite a few hits. Not overwhelming, but still notable. Some mentions, [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], . The organization also has a publishing activity ([13]). --Soman (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability" WP:GROUP. We can discuss now if this google hits are incidental or if the SHB is the main subject. (I think JD554's working men's club will get a few google hits too. :-) Serious, I still believe this fails notability, even it's founded in the 1920s and have 3000 members and get some google hits. I can't see the national (or even state wide) notability. It is a local organisation, with local goals, local activity and local publications. Greetings (please excuse my bad English, I'm not a native speaker ans don't want to sound rude) Sebastian scha. (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google Books search finds sources such as these that demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, this need be included in the article. In the current status the artcle still shows no notability. Sebastian scha. (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless cleaned up with proper citations to reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim (☎) 22:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs a few more days to see how the article's going to shape up and some more comments would be nice. Maxim (☎) 22:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the references provided by Phil Bridger indicate sufficient coverage of this organization in third-party reliable sources to establish its notability per the general notability guideline. Stifle's "Delete unless cleaned up" essay advocates a position directly contrary to our deletion policy which expressly provides that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." John254 00:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I think Stifle is right, this article will be a mess and sink into the eternal wiki ... you get my point? It is not notable now and I think never will be. (And I like this essay.) Sebastian scha. (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, per Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, a clearly counter-policy essay, and subjective assertions of non-notability contradicted by objective evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, carry no weight in AFD discussions: "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." John254 02:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was - Delete - recreating as a redirect per Richfife. Clear biography notable for a single event - Peripitus (Talk) 07:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polyvios Kossivas[edit]

Not Notable CapnZapp (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim (☎) 21:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:BLP1E, which is a policy designed for this particular situation. The subject is not a notable person; he was a bystander involved momentarily in a newsworthy event, which received short-lived media attention and brief honors. --MCB (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vanderlei de Lima. - Richfife (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A7) and salt; no sources, no assertions of notability, no article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coren (talk • contribs)

Issakar[edit]

Fails to show notability per WP:BAND, although it tries which is why I am afding instead of speeding it. Even the intro states that it is "band that is just beginning to emerge in the world." mboverload @ 21:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC) It is notable, look at all the links and references and stuff like that. I even put in one of those special tables, if you can, we should go to my talk page and discuss it.His warrior (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It tries, but with no reliable sources at all and meets no criteria in WP:BAND, speedily deleted A7 and salted since this is the fourth creation. — Coren ^(talk) 22:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable, look at all the links and references and stuff like that. I even put in one of those special tables, if you can, we should go to my talk page and discuss it.His warrior (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No independent notability shown Black Kite 15:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Spence[edit]

Notability is not inherited. There seems to be none here except by association with his late father Skip Spence and his father's band Moby Grape. JohnCD (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim (☎) 21:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of meeting WP:N; the references don't add up to significant coverage. Maralia (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, no notability himself. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Notability is not inherited. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Ljungman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No reliable English language references to support notability for inclusion in English Wikipedia. The best references that contributors have come up with since the last AfD discussion are all blogs and LinkedIn pages. The last AfD ~~concluded that references were available to support Wikipedia's rather low bar of notability, but~~ failed to reach a conclusion due to withdrawal of nomination. I have to question the value of having a biographical article for every patent submission (before approval) or person to come before the courts for tax fraud. Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - for reference, this is the article including all the more dubious sources. Despite them, I still can't tell how we came up with Ljungman's birthday or his four children. Ljungman is claimed to work for Media Power Inc (and he did a few months ago), but they removed his bio from their website. In Fugu Alienking's preferred version, the article is a stub with hardly a claim for notability, unless tax fraud reported in newspapers counts. In the extended version, there's more stuff, but most of it with dubious sources, some of which aren't even about Ljungman and don't mention him. Huon (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after reading the Swedish language references and the English translations and Blog cover the articles, it seems clear that they meet WP:BIO. Neither provides mere trivial coverage. Both are reliable, third-party sources independent of the subject. Linkedin may be a weak source; it’s not in itself dubious though. The source substantiate several articles relate to Ljungmans business background. With cross-reference to his partner Carl Freer s Linkedin page you could also find information about current occupation and involvement in Media Power Inc. Articles about the company do also make it notable whisch should reflect on Ljungmans bio. There are several cross-references about the technique and systems Ljungman seems to work with that also could be found in the patent applications presented. The applications also refer to mobile applications in a field rapidly growing. From a notability point there is more value in information that headlights more than one angle. Gizmondo and Media Power are not a Swedish product or entity. The patent applications is in UK and USA, Ljungmans early connection with Gizmondo Europe ltd is also an English and US connection, inclusion in English Wikipedia seems therefore natural. Sorry to say I find Fugu Alienking :s contribution more as a personal vendetta against Ljungman and Freer. It’s becomes more obvious reading his/hers contribution on Ljungmans partners Wiki as well.--Needlepinch (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't researched this enough yet to make a recommendation, but I would like to point out that there is no requirement for sources to be in English, or for article subjects to have a connection with an anglophone country. The "English" in "English Wikipedia" refers only to the language in which it is written. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While it may be acceptable to base parts of the article on Swedish sources, I think that there need to be some English secondary sources to support notability, otherwise the barrier to editing by English speakers is too high. I'm not sure that even the Swedish sources count as reliable secondary sources, as they are uncritical interviews in online-only business publications. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim (☎) 21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~,The main issue seems to be if you could allow a weak reference such as LinkedIn together with other sources. To my knowledge a weak reference could be used if not the whole article is based on that reference or similar references. In this case the source doesn’t contradict the other references in the article. The source substantiates several other articles. The secondary issue seems to be if Ljungman is a part of Media Power or not. It was established that Ljungman was one of the founders. Even if the company web site substantially has changed you can’t erase the fact he was a founder. There have been no other information sources, other than speculations by contributors, substantiate that Ljungman is not a part of the founding company. Instead we can find, from alternative weak sources that both Ljungman and his partner Carl Freer is still with the company. The third issue seems to be if a Ljungman founded company should be mentioned in the article. It seems natural to mention a company where the patent applications, mentioned in the article, plays a central role. The company is also notable because of the collaboration and donations with and to several universities. It doesn’t matter if Ljungman is mentioned or not in this article. The company is a product of Ljungman. The article about Ljungman in a whole, do not preponderance the company against the other sections.--Needlepinch (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd ask you not to add multiple "keep" comments; only one !vote per person. And while the article has severe issues, this is not the place to reach consensus on them. This discussion should determine whether Ljungman is a fitting subject for an article at all, something I doubt. All the most reliable sources but one mention him only in connection with tax fraud and bankruptcy (and in effect only in connection with one event, which doesn't bestow notability per WP:BLP1E). If we were to reflect that focus in the article, it'd have to start with "Mikael Ljungman is a failed businessman and a convicted tax fraudster." If we don't reflect that in the article, we're using a mix of self-published material, sources which don't mention Ljungman at all, and the one positive newspaper article to paint a rosy picture of Ljungman. You say Fugu Alienking has an agenda, but just as well one might say that you have an agenda, too. Huon (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The main issue is not whether you can include Linked in along with other sources, but whether those other sources are of sufficient quality and coverage to support notability. I'm not sure that an uncritical interview and several mentions in passing is enough, especially when they are all in Swedish (some with unofficial translations available on a blog). --Fugu Alienking (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Off course I have an agenda Huon. I declared early in this so called debate, after I have noticed a clear “blackwash” of Ljungman and other related parties, to try to be the other part and contribute with some kind of balance. My intention is not to “whitewash” or Rosy Ljungman, and I have several times changed my initial statement towards your contribution and Fugu Alienking. Fugu Alienkings “blackwash” and reluctant to contribute anything in the article that could consider to be or be interpreted as a positive was also the reason why I’m in the first AfD also brought up Keep or Delete. I have followed Fugu Alienking comments on Ljungman, his partner and other related sites and its more than obvious that he or she have an agenda, and the agenda is to “blackwash” or have the page deleted. You are entitled to your opinion of course Huon and could argue that Ljungman is a failed businessman. I do think that this opinion should be handover to the reader. The other sources are sufficient to support notability. Neither provides mere trivial coverage, and the one in Realtid is almost solely about Ljungman. All are reliable, third-party sources independent of the subject. How can Fugu Alienking or any, including myself, know or argue about if the articles are uncritical or not? The "English" in "English Wikipedia" refers only to the language in which it is written.--Needlepinch (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the supporting references are not substantially about this individual and the ones that do address don't seem to really meet WP:RS. Note that I read some Danish so managed to follow some of the text but by no means all. The real need in this discussion is to establish the reliability of realtid.se as a useful sources. Editors more familiar with this source them I am would help by commenting specifically on that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of proper sources; such sources as there are don't establish any real notability. Brammarb (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere are several sources, newspapers, online news and business magazines and journalist blogs. All sources mentioned are 3rd party sources. The sources cover the subject in general, partly and by notice, they seems to meet WP:BIO.--Riverside blue (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete sources provided do not meet RS. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Matinee[edit]

In my opinion, this article does not meet the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator, who added some sources but not sources that demonstrated notability. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a fan of this show i think its a bit harsh to add a deletion notice within minitues of it going live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengarrion (talk • contribs) 22:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Don't worry; this discussion will last for enough time for you to read the notability criteria and decide whether this article meets them. Then you'll know what kind of reliable sources to add to show that notability. It's a shame you removed the {prod} tag; that would have given you a full five days before anyone even looked at the article, which was even more time for you to do that, but you made a choice for us to bring it to AFD by removing that tag. It's okay with me either way. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was removed purley by error As a newbie to wikipedia i am still getting used to the technology I didnt even see the main page before deleting it just looked at the coding and thought.. I didnt add that.. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengarrion (talk • contribs) 22:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's no big deal; you still have plenty of time to add sources, and thanks to a deletion discussion, other users will be looking for sources, too. We're very careful in these discussions to avoid deleting articles on notable topics. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see notability in this program. --Winger84 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 there is sufficient coverage here for notability. Davewild (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essl Social Prize[edit]

Business prize - notability not asserted - may be an advert Editor437 (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The prize is notable as it was covered by major media. Austrian national TV station ORF reports about it on its website and the prize was awarded by an EC Commissioner. Furthermore, I think that a prize with a value of 1 million € is pretty notable as such. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim (☎) 21:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see indepedent mention of the prize by the EU [14], and Austrian news sites [15] and USA Today (via REUTERS) [16]. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be enough coverage in reliable sources to meet notability. RMHED (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator and editor who took it to DRV). Nomination withdrawn as it would appear that the majority don't agree with my arguement and it's starting to get snowy. Dpmuk (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C9orf3[edit]

Totally unnotable human gene. Could find no references outside scientific literature. Had removed speedy as not applicable so prodded instead. Prod was removed by author. Dpmuk (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a human gene with known function with citations in the peer reviewed literature and therefore is by definition notable. Boghog2 (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable gene. --Arcadian (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this is a disruptive, anti-science AFD nomination. The nominator's claim that the gene is non-notable because he "Could find no references outside scientific literature" is directly contrary to our general notability guideline, which expressly provides that

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship clearly states that

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science...

Thus, his argument that subjects which have received no coverage "outside [of] scientific literature" are non-notable is directly contrary to policy, which provides that significant coverage in scientific literature establishes a presumption of notability. His argument is also unsupported by practice on Wikipedia -- claims that subjects which meet the general notability guideline still aren't "notable in a wider sense"[17] are almost never levied against math, natural science, engineering, and social science articles. John254 01:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well sourced article, definitely notable. Horselover Frost (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets Wikipedia's notability standards, as well-explained by John254. --Stormie (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Following is a slightly modified arguement I gave at DRV which I did not give in the original nomination through niavity.

This article comes very close to meeting notability guidelines - many will think it does. However I'd source one is clearly trivial coverage while source three is verging on it (search several thousand genes and this is one that correlates) which leaves just source two which is not enough, IMO, to establish notability. If you feel it meets the notability guidelines I think we need to apply a little bit of WP:Common Sense when considering genes. There are somewhere in the region of 25,000 human genes - if were to have an article on each one that would be 1% of all articles, and that's not to mention non-human genes. The structure, function snd other basic properties of all the human genes and many genes for many other species (especially 'model' species) is likely to be discovered in an attempt to understand the genome and what each gene does and these will undoubtly be published in peer-reviewed journals. To me this does not make an individual gene notable as even those in the field may pay it little attention to it. Therefore I think genes should only be included when they have wider notability for example mention in the popular press or non-trivial mention in the scientific literature beyond it's form and function, e.g. it's the target for a succesful drug and there are studies on it as a drug target. Else I think we run the danger of wikipedia becoming a directory and duplicating the many scientific databases that already hold this data. I would argue that even if the gene meets general notabilty guidelines (which I don't think it does) this gene falls in to this category and so should be considered un-notable. In summary I suppose what I'm trying to say is that people will research genes and publish papers on them purely because they exist not becuase they think they're notable. They may turn out to be of little interest even to other scientists and so we need to remember that WP:N "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Dpmuk (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument that "the structure, function snd other basic properties of all the human genes... is likely to be discovered... and... will undoubtly be published in peer-reviewed journals" is based on bare, unsupported conjecture as to the number of human genes which have been the subject of extensive investigation. Even if a large portion of genes do meet our general notability guideline, this would be a reason to provide comprehensive coverage of this subject, not to eliminate our coverage -- please see WP:NOT#PAPER. Deletions on "notability" grounds are primarily employed to remove articles which cannot be rendered in acceptable form due to a lack of coverage in third-party reliable sources with which to write a good article: we should hardly destroy this article simply because the nominator regards the subject matter as unimportant. The argument that this article should be deleted to avoid "the danger of wikipedia becoming a directory and duplicating the many scientific databases that already hold this data" is specious, since for genes that meet our general notability guideline, we will have sufficient source material to write articles far more expansive than mere directory entries. Furthermore, the argument that articles should be deleted to avoid the duplication of existing resources would, if accepted, justify the deletion of any article which does not contain original research, since it would necessarily restate information obtained from other sources. While our notability guideline should indeed "be treated with common sense and the occasional exception", the deletion of articles concerning genes meeting our general notability guideline simply because the nominator fails to appreciate their importance isn't common sense -- it's common nonsense. John254 11:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have informed the editors who have already contributed to this page that I've added the above comment using the text "I thought you might be interested to know that I have posted a longer reason as to why I think this gene should be deleted which I did not, through niavity, include in my original arguement". I have read WP:CANVASS and believe that this is allowable under that policy. I have not posted on Stormie's or John254's talk pages as it's clear that they've read the DRV and thus aware of my arguement. Dpmuk (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable and relevant. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I find it hard to understand how someone could even consider nominating for deletion a page about a gene which has multiple references in the scientific literature and codes for a protein with a defined and important function in the body! Meodipt (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought, and still do, that it sets a dangerous precedent. An article on the type of gene I'd have less problem with as then we wouldn't need one article for each gene of each species but rather one article per gene type. I also queried whether the gene had 'non-trivial' coverage in more than one reference. That said it would appear I'm in the minority on this so am withdrawing the nomination. I'd still argue that starting to set a precedent on this has been helpful as I suspect genes will be nominated again.

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin John Callanan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article has numerous references, but leaving aside the self-authored sources and the blog posts, the primary sources listed fall short of the requirements of WP:CREATIVE. The artist has participated in open-submission competitions and group exhibitions, and has produced a book for Bookworks. He has not been invited to participate in international festivals such as the Moscow and Seoul film festivals, as implied by the article text. In addition, there are no secondary sources (press reviews, books etc.) to support the notability of the subject per WP:BIO. Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, & as recreation of deleted article - he may become notable, but has not done so yet. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here (if you're an admin) is the article in the form in which it was served with its first AfD. During the course of that AfD it did not improve, and I think its deletion was entirely correct. The article that you now see may or may not merit deletion, but it is not a mere recreation of the deleted article. Let's judge it on its merits -- or judge the article-worthiness of its subject by the evidence presented in the article as it is now. -- Hoary (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC) ..... PS and if you're not an admin, you can see the old article here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why is this still here? Modernist (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean "Why is this re-creation of a deleted article still here?"? If so, well, it's not a re-creation of a deleted article. If you mean something else, what is it that you mean? (I really am interested, as I'm trying to make up my own mind about this article.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little of both above comments, needs more time, IMHO....although it is an improvement from the first article.Modernist (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [Thanks for letting everyone know about this page]. The is no clear justification for deletion of the article. The article is objective. The references are of high quality of you are familiar with the field in which Callanan works. I have just found out he is to be Artist-in-Residence ar UCL's Environmental Institute for a year from October 2008. Perhaps the article needs slight revision by someone familiar with this area of practice, the references are highly valued in this field and are certainly peer. Even this nominated feels against the ethos of WP. Artlondon (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having been published by Bookworks is enough to merit an entry alone. Artlondon (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per as blatant advertising. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 14:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K A S Designs[edit]

Advertising for non-notable corporation. Spam has been here for over a month with no improvement. A spokesperson for the company specifically said on the Help Desk that they are using the page for advertising purposes. ([18]) Corvus cornix_talk 21:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- having read that post on the Help Desk, I agree wholeheartedly that it's just an advert. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 21:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. This is an advertisement. WP:RS coverage found is narrow and fairly trivial, not enough to support a NPOV article. I tagged the article for issues. Additional evidence in nom erases all doubts. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising. The help desk post only confirms this. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11, so nominated ukexpat (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G10 — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 05:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putzman[edit]

Article fails notability and WP:RS IndulgentReader (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. This appears to be an inside joke writ large on Wikipedia. D. Brodale (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as attack page. So tagged. I note previous ((db-bio)) tag was removed by creator. Maralia (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zainurin Kadir[edit]

Non notable athlete DimaG (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there is evidence that he plays for Selangor FA, then he meets the football standards, and therefore, keep. Corvus cornix_talk 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 20:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Selangor FA website does mention him, but I don't know if he's played for them or not...Giant Snowman 15:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if he had played for Selangor FA he doesn't meet notability at WP:ATHLETE, as the league they play in is not fully-professional. --Jimbo^[online] 15:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the top league in Malaysia, doesn't that qualify for playing in the top level of his profession? Corvus cornix_talk 19:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:FOOTYN requirements. -- Alexf⁴² 19:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article confers no consensus of notability. Peanut4 (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. And there is no text in the article. lol. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Classified (album). Black Kite 15:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to Be Me[edit]

Non-notable song, didn't chart. If deleted, please also move Trying to Be Me (Laura Bryna album) to this title. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trying to Be Me (Laura Bryna album), article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 15:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Test matches (1918–1939)[edit]

Delete. Undeveloped and superfluous list that adds nothing to the project as nearly all the series it lists have their own articles. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to me that this is a useful summary list, even if most of the series included have their own articles (and I am sure that there are quite a few that do not). Admittedly it could do with some work; i particular it needs an introduction. JH (talk page) 15:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified wikiproject cricket of this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep. Section summaries/lists leading to the more detailed articles could be a really useful way of navigating round the cricket pages but the page looks like its been lifted straight from Wisden. I'd be interested in the views from the wikiproject on whether these lists are useful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems a useful overview. If readers find it helpful they will consult it; if not they won't. Also, no valid deletion reason has been given. TerriersFan (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Largely duplicates the information in [Category:International_cricket_competitions_from_1918-19_to_1945] without providing useful links to the articles on the individual series. The History of Test cricket series (which seems to have stalled around 1900) might usefully have an article covering this period, but this article isn't it. Johnlp (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry, it clearly provides information not in the category since the category is just a list of pages. This article avoids having to consult each page individually in order to obtain an overview. I agree with you, though, that linking to the individual test articles would be useful but that is a straightforward editorial task not a reason for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply comment. Yes, but this would also be pretty much "just a list of pages" if it had the links that it probably ought to have. Of course, someone could add more information, and turn it into a real contribution, perhaps in the History of Test cricket series. But that would be a substantially different article from this one, and my suspicion is that it'd be better to scrap this one and start again. Johnlp (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - only if some work is done to actually link to the series elsewhere, and it should probably be renamed [[Test cricket series (1918-1939)]] otherwise it could be Test rugby, or anything else. Also, why 1918-1939 as cut off dates. Obviously it is between the wars, but does that have any particular significance for cricket? I know why those dates have been chosen, but do others? I know that an article in poor shape is no reason to delete it (there is no deadline after all), but in its present state it is pretty poor and needs some linking, proper references and a general cleanup. I'm not convinced about the format of the article either with new sections for every series. A summary table may suffice (Series, between x and y, home wins, away wins) etc which could be grouped by year or season.–MDCollins (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic is notable. Cricket historians often divide cricket history using the World Wars, so it's a notable subdivision too. Fact that it is underdeveloped is irrelevant - 99% of our articles are underdeveloped. It can be developed into something far more detailed than a Cat and knowing JHall, I guess it probably will be eventually. --Dweller (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for the compliment. I have to confess that, though I have voted "Keep", improving this article is pretty low down on my priority list (except that, if no-one else does so, I might add an introductory paragraph). JH (talk page) 17:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If not you, someone else. I seem to remember there's no deadline. --Dweller (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear example of BLP1E Black Kite 16:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayala Abukasis[edit]

Classic WP:BLP1E, fails WP:N outside her unfortunate death, and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Previous Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tali Hatuel. Filed at request of User:Osm agha Rodhull andemu 20:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:BLP#1E --Osm agha (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She didn't became famous like Shalhevet Pass. Sorry. --Qwerty1234 (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 16:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yummy (Gwen Stefani song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Only released as a promotional single. Was not promoted at all, so there are only some blog sources for track listings and mentions of the song in reviews of the album. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep Yes, better sources are needed but they can be found. As the song was released and is from a major album, it is notable. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 12:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole reason a song released from an album is notable though is because the song gets promoted. There's no music video for this, it didn't chart on any official charts, and it wasn't actively promoted, so the only difference between this and an album track is the presence of track listings. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, delete. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 20:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasoning. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass song notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable song. A section in the album article would be fine if this is important info, but not a seperate article.Yobmod (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I redirected this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped in a Box[edit]

Non-notable single. Failed to chart anywhere. All info on it is included in its album's article, No Doubt (No Doubt album). Very little info on it anywhere. _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It was the debut single for a very popular band. Possibly merge and redirect the info into No Doubt (No Doubt album), but seems far too important (it also appeared on their singles compelation) and the only reason for nom is "didn't chart" (and the video only got airplay on one channel), but its important to the history of No Doubt, which leaves the possibly of my vote leaning towards a keep. I'm really unsure here now. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I rewrote the album's article. Believe me, there is little available info on the single. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 22:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there really is nothing else, then maybe a merge and redirect into the album would suffice. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there are sources from which this article can be expanded, it seems much more useful for this to be deleted, and the info to be in the album article.Yobmod (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Insufficient notability for a seperate article but seems to be a good redirect candidate. Davewild (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Due to the lack of reliable sources for verification and notability. Davewild (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing Action[edit]

Seems to be non-existant video game. I can't get any google hits and a comment on the talk page tells that this is a tentative title for Victorious Boxers: Revolution. Don't know if that is true or not. Mika1h (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Mika1h (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:N and WP:V – the only link provided doesn't confirm the game's existence, there is no mention of the game on amazon, and I can't find any mention of the game on the web at all. Possible (if uninteresting) hoax. – Toon ^(talk) 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — Complete and utter WP:BOLLOCKS. MuZemike (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Royle[edit]

Biography/CV of newsreader on a British local TV station, listing her previous jobs. References are a list of presenters and a news report from a year ago of an occasion when her colleague was sick, on air but not on camera, and she had to take over from him. I don't think notability is established to the standard that WP:ENTERTAINER requires for "television personalities." JohnCD (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:N and WP:ENTERTAINER. How exciting, an AfD from my area! But yeah, this article does sell her quite well, but there aren't any reliable sources which cover her in-depth (and she really isn't very big). A non-notable local news presenter. – Toon ^(talk) 20:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep - as Smile a While has demonstrated at least some significant coverage, and Wikipedia is not paper - I think this article is a positive. Nice work Smile. – Toon ^(talk) 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; multiple, non-trivial coverage, for example [19], [20], [21]. Also quoted in her union role [22]. As a regional TV celeb and deputy Lieutenant of County Durham [23], its probably just enough. Smile a While (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - is source 1 a reliable source, as required by WP:N? It's impossible to even assert whether source 3 is even talking about wor Pam - the fact that it's title is Pam Royle (Business) indicates that it's not - all the content I can see is "Pam Royle, who often filled ..." - and the fourth source is definitely a trivial mention - only one sentence in a decent-sized article. I'm unsure as to whether she is notable enough, but I'll strike my "delete" until I'm sure. – Toon ^(talk) 19:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - source 3 is certainly about this Pam Royle as you can see from here, 7th item down. Smile a While (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment apologies, but the 7th item down for me is this one - which is different from source three above, and I can't find that article anywhere on the list... :S – Toon ^(talk) 18:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - G pages are dynamic - at the moment it is here, item 8. But you may need to go back or forward a page if it moves again.

This is the G content;

" Pam Royle.(Business) - The Journal (Newcastle, England) - HighBeam... Subscription - The Journal - HighBeam Research - May 27, 2004 Pam Royle, who often filled in for Mike Neville on North-East Tonight in the late 90s, could also be seen on Tyne Tees in the early 80s, ... " Smile a While (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No non-trivial RS coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry, but I beg to differ - Transdiffusion is both reliable and the article is non-trivial. Smile a While (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think sufficient coverage in reliable sources has been shown to exist above to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage in reliable secondary sources [24] to establish notability. RMHED (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Clique (novel)[edit]

Non notable book by non notable author, tagged with multiple issues none of which have been adressed since. No references/third party citations to establish notability. Suspect it has been created due to a film adaptation of the book (another uncited claim). Mfield (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to The Clique series, along with the other articles for novels in the series. The series itself seems to pass WP:BK on a basic level, but I agree that none of the individual books are particularly notable enough to have their own articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's incredibly difficult to find articles specifically about this book as it shares the name of the series and so you have to wade through pages and pages of stuff to find anything relevant. That said, according to Amazon's product description page, this particular book in the series was reviewed by both School Library Journal and Booklist. A Publishers Weekly article about the second book in the series quotes from their own review of the first one, the original copy of which I can't find (I suspect it's too old to appear in the archives), but it clearly exists. Also, this book was selected as a "Quick Pick For Reluctant Young Adult Readers" by the American Library Association. So I think it passes WP:BK.
-- KittyRainbow (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: It seems to be true that the book is being adapted into a film, but apparently it will be a direct-to-DVD thing. (Or so says Variety)

Actually, as noted on the main series page, the entire series is supposedly being adapted into direct to DVD films, so that doesn't really add much to any particular book. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point was more that as a direct-to-DVD production the film(s) don't really add much to anything at all. ;) Hence being stuck in a postscript... -- KittyRainbow (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reviews show the notability--an ALA quick pick is a selected highly important book recommendation by an authoritative source. DGG (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 16:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasuredome Series[edit]

Non-notable amateur film trilogy. Ros0709 (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I originally tagged this for speedy deletion per this guideline: Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. JNW (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly non-notable. JuJube (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable amateur films. SkierRMH (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable film series, lacking in significant coverage from reliable 3rd party sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
very weak delete as a search shows 3rd party sources do exist... sort of... [25], but they do not address the trilogy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and Redirect. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie and Ashley[edit]

I assume that these characters are non-notable because of the sentence, They are minor characters and are rivals to the character of Kristi Cavanaugh. Schuym1 (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Saddle Club#Characters where there exists a more detailed description of them. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flamboyant bella[edit]

Aparrently a non-notable band, although the article claims (but does not substantiate) airplay on BBC Radio 1 so not a speedy candidate. Delete; fails WP:MUSIC. Ros0709 (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Tag- Looking up refs, I've found several hits here, here, and here. The last link indicating that the band played at a festival of some sorts and had some connection with BBC. ~ Bella Swan^? 19:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - probably borderline notability, but there has been coverage of the band in the links provided above. Not a garage band (any more). – Toon ^(talk) 20:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the references provided by Bella Swan indicate sufficient coverage of this band in third-party reliable sources to establish its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 00:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks multiple non trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. No releases, no awards, minimal airplay. Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Those who know mer of AfD know I don't vote to Delete many band articles, but they don't pass WP:MUSIC yet. ("Yet", being the operative word). They're unsigned, and haven't even released a record. All the references found above are local papers noting local gigs. Using those criteria one could establish notability for any band that's ever made the listing pages in your local newspaper. This is one for "bring back when they've established themselves". Black Kite 16:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any of WP:MUSIC, end of story. As entry stands no general notability, either. Brammarb (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:NMG from the evidence provided. Stifle (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hameed Shahid[edit]

This is an autobiography of an author of Urdu literature. Articles about the author's works (again, written by the subject) have previously been discussed at AfD and deleted, primarily because they were presented as spam. In this case this is not so much of an issue (especially as it has been copyedited by several authors) but there are still two primary issues with the article: firstly it is in clear violation of WP:AB (and the author's WP:COI is clear from his edit history) and the second is the failure to determine WP:N (and WP:V) - the only online references I can find are either self-published or mirrors of the Wikipedia article. This appears to be self-publicity and regrettably I believe the article should be deleted and only recreated if notability is established and it is done by a neutral editor. Ros0709 (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Author appears to not be notable as per WP:CREATIVE; he does have a list of awards, but the notability and standards for those awards are unknown. RayAYang (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author of this autobio has at several occasions removed "autobio" and "COI" tags from the article. He seems to be unfamiliar with most Wikipedia guidelines and policies. He has also created other articles (some since deleted), which were purportedly about other Urdu authors but carried his own photo and mostly talked about himself anyway... I have been working on and off on this article (mainly cleaning up and such), but as I don't know anything about Urdu literature, there was not much more that I could do and I don't feel competent to vote in this AfD, so this is just for information. --Crusio (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Captain-tucker (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeGawl (talk • contribs) 23:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Consensus is that both articles fail the notability guidelines due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haabiil[edit]

While there is a claim of notability there are no sources. I don't think the young man meets Wikipedia:Notability. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources, no ghits for either, searching "Mohammed Jamac Habiil" -wikipedia, and "Mohammed Jamac Haabiil" -wikipedia. Calor (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I can find no sources. Reyk _YO! 06:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Igorevich Yakovlev[edit]

The subject of this article appears to lack sufficient notability for inclusion: the subject does not seem to have received non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. No such sources are given in the article and an online search for sources (including a standard web search and Google News and Books searches) does not yield a single useful non-mirror hit. The article has been tagged for notability and lack of sources since June 2007, and the only reason I did not PROD it is that a Russian-language version of the article exists (link). While that does not prove notability by itself, the Russian-language article contains quite a bit of content (but, unfortunately, no real sources) which could possibly give an indication of the subject's notability. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was both not listed by the nom and missed by DumbBot. It has been listed. Wizardman 22:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable Novosibirsk musician.DonaldDuck (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability requires objective evidence. Can you offer proof of notability, i.e. that the subject of the article has received substantial coverage in reliable sources? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 13:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, G12. All the substantive content has been taken from here and elsewhere on the site. This school contains a high school so I am creating a redirect to the locality and this deletion is without prejudice to the creation of a neutral, independently sourced version. TerriersFan (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veritas classical christian school[edit]

Not notable Crowsnest (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: It's an advertisement. Schuym1 (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G11. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After the rewrite consensus is that the article is valid and notable enough for an article. Davewild (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese pudding[edit]

Delete per "Wikipedia is not a how-to" NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: apart from being a how-to guide, the bullet points are copied from the url in the lone footnote. Cliff smith ^talk 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tasty Delete. Although the creator did try to give a historical background, the substance of the article is a how-to. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks much better, but still a how-to recipe-article beneath it all. Existence is shown, as it was previously, but I can not see notability. There are four references to cookbooks/newspaper columns, which is basically what the article was originally just now with four different peoples opinions hidden away on other sites. There doesn't appear to be anything special about those particular recipes (being American-old is not terribly relevant unless it was invented in America). Also the journal article which is linked is quite incidental - that article is about fructose, and they just happened to used cheese pudding, amongst other things, as a delivery method. It would be a good reference for the fructose article. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#HOWTO. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks - it could have some use there though. Green caterpillar (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Oh dear Lord, do I have to do what I did to Macaroni soup? If you don't like the tone of an article or the content is not appropriate, fix it. This is a notable subject with many WP:RS- with 509 google news references, [26] 625 google books references, [27] with 89 references on google scholar, [28] which indicates discussions in more depth. See the first edit to macaroni soup for an even worse initial article. We have numerous food stubs, so this is an acceptable topic which needn't even be much longer, see Verrine and Caraway seed cake. Give me half an hour at least to reemove dodgy content. Sticky Parkin 22:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite Sticky Parkin's assertion, Google hits do not make a subject notable. Most of the hits you got were most likely recipes or cookbooks. There isn't enough to suggest that the subject is actually notable. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think most people at AfD sometimes realise, that may be true for a basic google search that brings up all websites, this is why people think something like this isn't notable and a google search doesn't count, but if you use google news, books and scholar, the result is most of the WP:RS for decades or even centuries, including the New York Times, mentions from the 1930s and so on, and google scholars gives you all the mentions such as by a dietetics association, and medical stuudies. That's what we mean by notability when it comes to anything or particularly a food, as with all the dozens or hundreds of food stubs we have. Anyway it now has six references, and is concentrating on the sweet dish with this name. Someone else can go through the hundreds of references which are left to be read through and add other information if you want, I think I've done my bit lol:) Although I may do more tomorrow. Sticky Parkin 23:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has an article in both The New York Times and The Los Angles Times. These are very reliable sources, and are independent of the subject. The article does seem to focus on the composition of the dish, but it is a food article, after all. In any case, this isn't a problem that is drastic enough to require deletion. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 01:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Horselover Frost (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think enough of an effort is being put in now to prove notability doktorb _words^deeds 06:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WB - The cookery section there would be MORE than happy to have this listing. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Sticky Parkin made a good case about data mining on google and has found enough mentions to make it noteworthy. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment give me a few days and I'll try and make one of these puddings so the article has a pic:) I hope you all have looked at the article and think its a bit better than how it began. It's a food stub, with several refs more than they normally have lol:) Sticky Parkin 00:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pic is up:) Sticky Parkin 01:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rewritten version. Aecis·(away) ^talk 09:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well referenced article which, in its current condition, is nothing like a "how-to guide". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yum, keep! This article is in fine condition, is not especially how-toish and has a good picture and historical background. Yummy! BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 17:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and Redirect. I've noticed that there is others so I will redirect those also. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Day in the Deep Sea[edit]

I can't find reliable sources that show the book's notability. The book being part of a popular series does not make it notable. Schuym1 (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magic Tree House series as this book on its own does not meet WP:BK. There is already a short plot summary in the series article, so merging this book article is not needed. Bláthnaid ^talk 22:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines Davewild (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Matchett[edit]

Notability problem. With all due respect to the late Edward Matchett, this article does not meet our notability criteria. The stub makes no assertion of sufficient notability and it lacks any supporting citations or reliable sources. Existing content does not suggest notability either, I'm afraid. Best wishes, HG | Talk 17:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC) HG | Talk 17:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This may even qualify under Speedy deletion under A7. -Brougham96 (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes, I agree. But it was my first day with using WP:TW and engineering is not my field, so I erred on the side of caution. Sorry. HG | Talk 02:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to pass either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. After reading his detailed bio at a somebody's personal aol website[29] I did not see much there that may indicate possible notability. Very little in GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar. The book mentioned in the article, "Journeys of nothing in the land of everything" is held only by a very small number of libraries in the U.S.[30]. GoogleNews returns a few hits[31] but on closer inspection they all appear to be false positives. Nsk92 (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Sydney Library. Consensus is that it is not notable for a seperate article but am redirecting as it is a possible redirect. Davewild (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney digital library[edit]

Notability problem. With all due respect, the various services offered by university libraries do not each merit an encyclopedia article. This stub lacks reliable sources (or any citations) and makes no assertion of notability. It is similar to a promotional info brochure. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 19:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There're a number of sources on the internet that prove the subject's existance, but not it's notability. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. I just did some searches across the mainstream media, and found nothing, proving it's non-notable activity of the university.--Lester 08:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and no reliable sources. Bidgee (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please redirect to University of Sydney Library which already has a notable enough article. Your searches above weren't good enough obviously to find that. JRG (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are allowed to make the page a redirect during the AfD, as long as you revert if you get reasonable objections. As nom, I would not object to the redirect. (It may be unnecessary if very few people are searching for it, but if you think it would be useful, that's fine with me.) Thanks. HG | Talk 17:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. Consensus is that this page is not notable but should be redirected to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters Davewild (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Star (character)[edit]

Not necessary (nor does the character warrant its own article), since the content therein does not differentiate from the SpongeBob characters page, and is completely in-universe and badly written to boot. Beemer69 ^chitchat 17:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've tried in the past to find sources but there's not anything useful around. It's highly unlikely that this article will be anything other than a description of the character based on what is seen on the show, which can just be summarised in the List of characters article. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As much I love the character, nom' is right. Leonard^(Bloom) 17:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters--You don't need an AfD to do that. Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The article simply restates what's already in the main article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is what, the third title for this page? It's getting ridiculous tracking all of them. The article should be merged and redirected, but there is no need for an AfD to do so. seresin ( ¡? ) 19:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be redirected. There are no particular rules restricting redirection pages that I know of. Somebody started this spinoff article back in May, but there doesn't seem to be anything in it that's not already in the main article. If I'm feeling sufficiently bold, I might just go ahead and do it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I redirected the page when it was ressurrected, but the editor who recreated it disagreed that there was a consensus that it should be a redirect. I think it's clear now one way or the other that there's a consensus that there shouldn't be an article. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Especially as he hasn't bothered to weigh in on this discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The only reason I haven't weighed in is because it would've been a useless attempt to save the page.--Degenerate-Y (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        How about making your case for it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question hasn't this discussion been had already at a previous AfD? I seem to remember one but, it isn't linked to this. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One editor says this is possibly the third time. Is there an index of the items nominated for deletion? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Beemer probably didn't catch the AFD as the article is using a different name, but there's an AFD for Patrick (SpongeBob SquarePants). There was also a full article (not just a redirect) at Patrick Star. So that's 2 more articles on Patrick other than this one being discussed. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Previously on "Deleting SpongeBob Characters"... this happened on the 17th June 2008 followed by this on the 10th July 2008. As for an index to AfD, all I did was search for the title of this AfD, when you do an AfD if the AfD already exists you will see it, but the name would have to be an exact match. In essence the article was made on 26 June 2003 [32] then recreated on 21 June 2008, after the original has been redirected, then the new page was moved to Patrick Star, then on the 6th August the page Patrick Star was redirected, in the mean time this page was created and [33] then redirected to Partrick (SpongeBob Squarepants) [34] on the same day as the other redirect. So now we have four pages for Patrick (Two redirects, Patrick (SpongeBob SquarePants), Patrick Star, and the page they redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters) including this page. I would say that overwhelming consensus based on previous actions is to redirect, and keep all information on that redirected page. This is the third creation of this page, as well as the three redirects I suggest someone thinks of all other search possibilities and sets up redirects. In case you didn't know Redirect. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrust[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. Supposedly going to be at metalmania, but nothing confirmed. No reliable sources at all. No citations to back up claims of notability. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While, understandably, there aren't many "proper" sources, the existing ones are enough to prove its notability, for example [35][36]. The group was eventually not able to go to Metalmania festival, but it should be noted that no nonnotable band from as far as Gaborone would not be invited by a such large metal festival in Europe. Julius Sahara (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That does not pass WP:RS. There must be multiple reliable third party sources. This band is relatively unknown. Undead Warrior (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this band is relatively popular. Julius Sahara (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then there would be more sources to claim this. No sources proves the non notability. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blogs and Myspace are nowhere near enough to establish notability. Green caterpillar (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GC. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 18:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Due to the lack of reliable sources for verification or notability. Davewild (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High school variations[edit]

I originally PRODed this as an unreleased film with no notability/verifiability. An IP removed the PROD tag, and also changed the article indicating that it has in fact been released. Even if the article isn't a hoax, it is not notable. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as there isn't even proof it exists, most definitly not notable enough. ~ Bella Swan^? 19:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no WP:V to prove any assertion of notability or of claimed festival release. Nothing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article is not notable. Davewild (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

92 (Chorley) Squadron[edit]

A local branch of a national organisation. The article offers nothing to indicate notability and fails WP:ORG Nuttah (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATC squadrons have tended to be deleted in the past, as I recall (see eg/ here), and there's nothing remarkable about this one. Shimgray | talk | 19:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local branches such as this are almost invariably nn, and I see nothing unusual here. Mayalld (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete hate to say it, but I can't see a reason why ATC squadrons should be de facto notable (Notable exceptions obviously welcome). I'd love to see a list article for them all and most of the content here deserves to be somewhere (but just the once) as a description of ATC squadrons in general. Otherwise this is somwhere between WP:NN and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Sorry. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just one of many hundred of Air Training Corps squadrons none are really notable. Lot of the content is described at Air Training Corps. MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DHPOS[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete - the software is not notable. ZeroP^~(talk) 14:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Tag it as it seems there's some people who think it's notable and there's some basis for that (like independent reviews, a bunch of references including recent ones, an active developer and forum, local support volunteers in tens of countries, etc.). WikiScrubber (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WikiScrubber's sources have seemed to fix the notability issue. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 16:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why is this being raised again? In use around the world by hundreds, if not thousands of stores and has an active user community. Evidence on their website, including photos of it in use in various locations. Bewareofcabbage (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per WikiScrubber's refs, and there aren't any other problems significant enough in the article to delete it. ~ Bella Swan^?
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamersley Rovers[edit]

Delete. Amateur football club in local district competition. Notability not established. WWGB (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 15:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Quentin X (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, according to this page, they are currently competing in the "Loans Café Amateur Premier League", which doesn't exactly scream "notability!". Was not able to find any independent coverage of the club or its activities. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Test tube humans[edit]

In my opinion, this article, which does not include any reliable sources, is a clear violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The creator disagrees, and removed the prod with the comment, 'this is an important theory all people should know.' By my understanding of WP:CSD, this article is not a candidate for speedy deletion, so here it is for a discussion of its merits. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is vague, speculative, and unsourced. Reads like WP:OR. Isn't this already covered under In vitro fertilisation? JNW (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the part about test-tube humans living their livespans enclosed under the iron-fisted rule of world-governing computers isn't in In vitro fertilisation. Though I suppose we could add it... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that hasn't happened already? JNW (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per WP:CRYSTAL and all above. If there's anything that's not WP:NOR and can be sourced, it could be included at In vitro fertilisation. justinfr (talk/contribs) 13:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pretty much patent nonsense. WikiScrubber (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author will someday take some writing classes and publish a short story or a novel. But not here. Mandsford (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. Basement12 (T.C) 14:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that I've already supported deletion, I want to pose a hypothetical: Is it possible to construct such an article based on fictional and popular cultural references to this subject, much as this [37] or this [38] have made their way into widespread vernacular? Might still be nonsense, but I'm wondering if there is enough material in pop culture to support the kind of thing the author seems to have in mind. JNW (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure. It might, possibly, be possible to cover this in terms of the ways that this idea has been in used various science fiction films and books- The Matrix springs to my mind, and the creator mentions Brave New World. But unless other sources have written about this trope- outside of those works of fiction- then a better-written article would still run afoul of WP:OR for being a theory based on the writer's synthesis of unrelated works of fiction. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. As you describe it, this would still constitute an act of original research. JNW (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was surprised to see this, as I saw a record in Guinness World Records called Largest Gap Between Test-Tube Births. Also, see [39], [40], [41], etc. ~~Those are reliable sources that demonstrate its notability.~~ Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 17:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, those articles refer to the In vitro fertilisation stuff. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 17:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SOAP. This is patent nonsense. All relevent info is in the IVF article. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 19:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A prediction of the future. The one good thing was the expression: "... many sci-fi writers and normal people" Northwestgnome (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hello this is the author all that i said was true and the reason why put up the vitro...o well *sighs* look, if u want to argue about this please do it on the discussion page for test tube humans ok??Anole23 (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I think we'll continue talking about the deletion on the deletion discussion page, in accordance with Wikipedia practices. That's what the deletion discussion page is for. -11:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Maybe we can close/delete as per WP:SNOW? Over the course of this discussion the author has been banned twice for personal attacks and getting rid of this discussion might avoid antagonizing them further--WP:RBI. justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any non-speculative scientific information in this article is already covered in the IVF article, in a much more encyclopedic manner, with proper sourcing. Ariel♥Gold 00:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G3 speedy. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 14:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David And Kyle Radio Show![edit]

As said in the article, an unsuccessful radio show. Possible COI too. StaticGull Talk 12:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well, it was unsuccessful, and has COI. Per nom. Green caterpillar (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:Alexf as G12 copyright infringement. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 16:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosso The Crimson[edit]

Fictional character not notable enough for own article. Merge with appropriate Final Fantasy article. StaticGull Talk 12:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Blatantly copied from this site Hitro 12:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)hitrohit2001[reply]
Comment - tagged as G12. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Due to the lack of reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sohal[edit]

Entire content unreferenced (and Google gives roughly as many hits for the fish as for people named Sohal, none of the latter looking like reliable sources), no indication of notability, partly bordering on attack, partly indiscriminate collection of information (There's a similar name in Germany? So what?). Even if the surname Sohal could be shown to be notable, the article would have to be rewritten completely. Huon (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Keep Has notability been checked in English only, as this deals with a non-English population, English language links will be less than its true notability. Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is the English Wikipedia. Don't worry about WP:BIAS, all articles must be sourced. All the "prominent" Sohals are kids proclaiming their love for Harry Potter or similar. Wikipedia is not Facebook. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of references. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Supposing notability of such tribe or clan were established, an article on it would have to be completely rewritten. Not useful as a surname disambiguation page either. (Prominent persons section is the object of ongoing vandalism). ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this is a worthwhile article Davewild (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Svendborg Rabbits[edit]

Delete non notable sports team Mayalld (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be a professional team competeing in a continent wide competition. - Basement12 (T.C) 14:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the professional sports club, although I must say when I saw this entry (misreading the title) I thought it was something having to do with The New Church. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - team belongs to the professional Canal Digital league (Denmark's highest level equivalent to the NBA) and employs international players on the roster CactusWriter 09:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —PrimeHunter (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Polytekhnika-Halychyna Lviv[edit]

Delete non notable sports team Mayalld (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Participation in the EuroChallenge 2008-09 certifies its notability. —dima /talk/ 03:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per —dima. Ceriy (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a club of upper basketball league in Ukraine. Ans-mo (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The team plays Ukrainian Basketball Super League. - Darwinek (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Greg Nelson (producer)[edit]

Bio by spa Nelgreg suggests autobio to me. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Looking at google news, he might be, but all the reliable sources there require me to pay or have a subscription. This one is free, but not exactly an independant source. I'm still unsure how involved he was in the songs that won those Grammies. The grammy award website gives me nothing, but that's not surprising, since it wasn't awarded to him personally. There is another name drop here, but I can't see significant coverage in multiple sources, which makes this a
~~Weak Delete~~, unless someone with better google mojo comes along. --Amalthea^Talk 12:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article probably has COI, but COI isn't a reason for deletion. However, a Dove Award winner passes WP:MUSIC as "Has won or been nominated for a major music award" Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, we even linked a Greg Nelson at Dove Awards of 1999. Well, I had never heard of the Dove Award before, but it seems notable enough, and although I'm not sure if it counts as a major music award it all sums up to a
  Keep for me now. --Amalthea^Talk 19:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Seems he's been nommed for quite a few awards, even getting a few.[42] and has sold, in some way millions of records. His credits is a who who of the CCM scene. Banjeboi 02:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article as it currently exists makes claims of notability supported by reliable sources. Alansohn (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alansohn and I mist have looked at the same sources. Notability has been established. Article needs cleanup is all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added multiple references to the article, and there are many more to go. I have also corrected and sourced Refuge Records to show Nelson as a co-founder of the label. Notability seems clear now. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines at this time. Davewild (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Holt[edit]

This is an artist's autobiographical article that presents no real evidence of notability, except a link to his website. No independent sources. Grahame (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not demonstrated. No reliable references. The subject's own website address in the lead sentence looks like a self-promotion exercise.--Lester 12:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For now. However, article can be re-created if subject wins the William and Winifred Bowness Photography Prize that is mentioned. Until then, does not appear to be notable. TN‑X-Man 13:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yongsan Buddhism[edit]

Contested prod. Article fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:ESSAY and WP:NPOV Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete par being the nominator Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No context, no refs, no notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete because no independent third party sources have been proffered. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moonpod[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Already a non-notable company, but they haven't produced anything new in one and a half years. Definitely non-encyclopaedic. Lughguy (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I'm a very dedicated games player and I've never heard of Moonpod. I buy lots of different games magazines and I've never seen one of their games mentioned. Non-notable. Mr.bonus (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the two games produced by this company (Mr. Robot and Starscape) both got a number of independent (positive) reviews. --T-rex 15:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nowhere near a notable company to be featured on an encyclopedia. Dan Lander (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[subst:ab))

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

The result was Boldly redirected. Yes, there are arguments for keeping, but what the "keep" !voters fail to realize is not all chart singles are notable. WP:MUSIC even says that permanent stubs should be redirected, which is exactly what I did, as this seemed to have no hope for expansion. I decided to redirect as a.) I can imagine someone using this capitalization to search for the song, and b.) it's in line with WP:MUSIC. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fly On The Wall[edit]

This page should be redirected to it's parent page because it isn't a noticeable song. Plain and simple. Dontyoudare (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you've started an AfD but aren't actually asking for the article to be deleted......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be delete~ Cheetahbrian (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You may want to have a quick look at the requirements of WP:MUSIC#Songs. The song has charted, and the article is referenced. Plain and simple. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to satisfy WP:MUSIC#Songs. - Basement12 (T.C) 14:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Passes WP:MUSIC, has charted on national musical charts. Article cites sufficient references. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 07:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has charted on charts. 219.78.62.164 (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to patent album. Insufficient information, the song charted didn't charted on Billboard Hot 100 or another official chart. There's no music video, no cover art, any reference about the official release of this song, poorly referenced, a very short article...Should I continue?Voices4ever talk 14:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It charted on Billboard Hot 100 (106), it has a music video (live), it has a art cover, and it has enough information.Brianyau323 (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The song charted on Bubbling Under Hot 100, not on Hot 100 chart. There's no music video for this song and the cover art is a fake. I checked Amazon and iTunes and I didn't find this cover anywhere. Voices4ever talk 17:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC#Songs indicates that songs should not receive their own article unless there is enough information to form a detailed article. In all other cases, the information should be a part of the parent article, such as for the artist or the album. This is a 4 sentence article about a single released only for airplay. What on earth is going to constitute the "detailed article"? Now, people will start arguing "Well, it's a valid redirect", and the answer is "No, it's not", because the only way this article is here is as an improper title. It should be Fly on the Wall, which is already taken in name space, so this is going to wind up being pointed to by a disambiguation page, and we would have to name this Fly one the Wall (non notable Miley Cyrus single that doesn't have enough information to have it's own page) or maybe something a little shorter if people want. That would get pointed to by the disambiguation, which would then redirect to the parent article. Cut the process short: delete the article, install a link to the appropriate section of the parent article in the disambiguation page, and don't clutter up then namespace for a common name with an article that shouldn't exist at all.Kww (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Young (footballer)[edit]

Question of notability. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Did not appear in fully professional league game or represent full national team per notability criteria specified by WikiProject Football: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. PROD was removed with edit summary of perfectly true information which it no doubt is, but the issue is notability, not accuracy ClubOranje^Talk 08:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ClubOranje^Talk 08:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the same reasons presented by the nominator. No references, pictures, info boxes or anything. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 10:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league; NZFC is semi-pro. Giant Snowman 12:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, never played in a fully-pro league. --Jimbo^[online] 12:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Quentin X (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable by WP:ATHLETE standards. Basement12 (T.C) 14:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:FOOTY (no international games or such), no sources to prove notability, no infobox, no pictures, only one sentence. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 15:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He might meet WP:FOOTY if he played for the side during its run to the FIFA Club World Championship 2006 - that would get him over the hump with the second criterion in WP:FOOTY.Similarly, if [[Auckland City F.C.] played in those Oceania and World Championships then they probably fulfil (the second sentence of) the first criterion in WP:FOOTY]. However, as entry stands, would have to say delete. Brammarb (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listsomething[edit]

A website. Searching for RS at a glance appears to turn up nothing, unfortunately. I'm not sure if it meets our notability requirements. rootology (C)(T) 06:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Definitly not notable, as even Google News shows nothing on the subject. ~ Bella Swan^? 19:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is also ranked as 612,424 on Alexa. Schuym1 (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Basement12 (T.C) 00:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete " WikiScrubber (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to Keep. Some arguments for keeping are pretty weak but even then there is no consensus here on whether the article is notable or not. Davewild (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VeggieBoards[edit]

A message board. Searching for RS at a glance appears to turn up nothing, unfortunately. rootology (C)(T) 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I know VeggieBoards was reviewed in the cookbook Vegan with a Vengance. Would that be considered a reliable source? I think I will try and include it in the article in any case. Also, VeggieBoards has previously been nominated by VegNews as "best website" in their annual Veggie Awards. This year they have nominated it again, but now in the category "Best Veg Forum". The results are to appear in the next edition of the magazine (November). The winners will receive a feature in the magazine and press coverage. As VeggieBoards is probably the largest such forum, they are likely to win. Although I agree that the amount of reliable sources is rather thin, I think it makes sense to not delete, or at least wait and see if they win a Veggie Award. TheLastNinja (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a complete lack of wide independent sourcing. rootology (C)(T) 13:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is true. There are several sources in the article that are independent of the subject, and some are even critical of it. TheLastNinja (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real independent sources. Also 30,000 registered is not really all that much for a message board --T-rex 15:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, a decent source exists, and more is likely to be printed by November. Also, 30,000 registered members (actually 35,000 at the moment) might not be a lot compared to the largest Internet forums, but it is a lot (in fact, the highest number) within its category. Or do only the largest of the largest forums qualify for encyclopedic notability? TheLastNinja (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said it best, that "only the largest of the largest forums qualify for encyclopedic notability", quite honestly a current forum is going to need around 100,000 to be able to claim notability. Furthermore any future sources that may turn up in November certainly do not count. --T-rex 16:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about notability. There's no Wikipedia policy that says a "forum is going to need around 100,000 to be able to claim notability". Also, there is a bunch of articles on forums with far less members than that. Besides, some forums delete unused accounts, while others don't, so comparing size and activity of web forums is not as straightforward as one might think.

I have to agree that a future source doesn't count. Just saying that maybe you'd want to give it the benefit of the doubt, hold your horses, then delete it if nothing turns up. TheLastNinja (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as 30,000 registered means 30,000 interested. WikiScrubber (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know if that's 30,000 unique people, and even so that's not a qualifier under WP:N. 30k people may see any website, that doesn't make it notable. rootology (C)(T) 13:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the rules of that website, a member will be banned for having multiple accounts. And those 35k people are not just people who saw the website, but people who saw the website and then took the trouble of signing up. But yes, I agree that number of members alone is not very relevant w.r.t. notability. However, I would argue that being the largest that targets a certain segment of the population could be an indicator of notability. TheLastNinja (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since a concern has also been raise w.r.t. notability, I've been reading the fine print on WP:WEB. Footnote 6 says: [...] Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability. I understand that this is only an indicator, but still ... TheLastNinja (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with TheLastNinja.--Sugarcubez (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have made some attempts to address the concerns raised above, so the article is hopefully in a better shape now than it was at the time it was suggested for deletion. (However, should the decision still be deletion, I would like to ask that the article is moved to my user space for userfication.) TheLastNinja (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are still no multiple independent sources. rootology (C)(T) 13:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, to which policy are you referring? I believe the article has multiple independent sources. TheLastNinja (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but can someone please tell us who 'Michael' is? BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 17:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. However is a plausible redirect of Criticism of libertarianism so will recreate as a redirect after deletion. Davewild (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critiques of Libertarianism[edit]

A website, not even on a top-level domain name, that doesn't appear particularly notable. rootology (C)(T) 06:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be a personal website, does not meet WP:WEB. TN‑X-Man 13:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete " WikiScrubber (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable personal website. The name should probably be a redirect to Criticism of libertarianism though, as a reasonable alternate spelling. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Cenarium ^Talk 02:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max Gore[edit]

Apparent hoax, and if not, fails WP:N as notability is asserted but no coverage in reliable secondary sources (or any sources at all). Unlikely given the 100-person death tally which would rank him second on the US serial killers list, and includes a fictional Supreme Court Judge. The deaths were via "death traps" in a small-town hotel which unaccountably continued to receive guests. The name "Max Gore" is also something of a giveaway. Euryalus (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax and horribly written to boot. Movingboxes (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Google hits + No references + made up names = Hoax. --Eastlaw (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant vandalism. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In a way, it feels as the article has been written almost like a story. No references for any of the claims, and one is left to conclude that this 'Max Gore' is indeed fictional. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 10:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stab it with a pitchfork and put the hoaxster on trial for this utter piece of tripe. Nerdluck34 (torque) 12:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly a hoax. Basement12 (T.C) 14:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax --Numyht (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious, poorly done hoax. Edward321 (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. However it is a plausible redirect so will recreate the redirect after deleting the article. Davewild (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Purdy[edit]

I am not convinced that this gentleman's achievements meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline(WP:N) or the notability guideline for biographies (WP:BIO). His naval career was fairly insignificant, with command of only three minor warships and a sail training ship, and no senior positions. Of the two sailing competitions the article claims he has entered, he appears to have failed to win or place in either. I cannot find major reference to or use of the papers mentioned in the article ([43] [44])

Of the sources currently in the article (I stripped out a few that were basically "external wikilinks" or deadlinks - see [45] for the changes I've made to the artcle prior to nominating), one is a primary source (a scan of orders for the yacht Nirimba), while the other links directly to a discussion paper the article claims was influenced by him. Two of the deadlinks I've removed from the article also appeared to be primary sources: one to a conference that one of his papers was published at, the other to his "current" postion as head of the RAN's website team. Google Scholar searches for works by him is inconclusive... my search for the name plus a series of optional terms related to patrol boats or the navy comes up with 19 hits, but all of these appear to belong to G. Michael Purdy, a British oceanographer. Vanilla Google brings up a lot of hits for the name in quotemarks [46], but the name is common and none of the top 30 results appear to be this gentleman. Same reults for filtering Australia-only results, or with additional qualifiers like navy, Australia, or Armidale (the patrol boats he wrote about).

He looks like a man who does his job, and does his job well, but I'm not sure he meets the notability inclusion guidelines for Wikipedia. -- saberwyn 04:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.
Comment: If deleted, I would support a recreation as redirect to G. Michael Purdy as a plausibe search term. -- saberwyn 04:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable per nom. Not sure why anyone would think this person is more notable than any other officer in the RAN.--Celtus (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to G. Michael Purdy as above. While it appears he has conducted his duties during his career admirably, there is nothing to suggest that he's a particularly notable military officer. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete non-notable --Lester 12:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus is that this article is unencyclopedic. Davewild (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billboards of Lahore[edit]

Not quite sure what to say about this one - a couple of sentences plus a gallery...of billboards! Surely this is unencyclopedic. Grutness...wha? 04:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I see this has been on AfD before... long ago, back when it was VfD. Record of the debate (no-co0nsensus outcome) is on the article's talk page. Grutness...wha? 04:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This would make a great series of blog posts. It doesn't look much like an encyclopedia article, however. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it used to be a lot longer[47] but in either version there are two problems. First, its a coatrack - its not really about the billboards of Lahore but about the culture and cost of living in the city. The material would more appropriately be included in the Lahore article. Second and more important, it makes no assertion of notability other than via unreferenced original research (eg a cellphone is a major status symbol, and disposable nappy use is a sign of a rising middle class). These things might be true but without sources its just one person's opinion. Remove the original research and we simply have a gallery of non-notable images showing products for sale the world over. The idea that billboards reflect a city's cultural identity is interesting but without reliable sources this is essentially a pictorial essay. Euryalus (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. Why not have a Billboards of Coos Bay,Oregon article? Could also be WP:SPAM for the corporations mentioned. Nerdluck34 (talk)12:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a textbook case of something that is interesting, but not really encyclopædic. Would not be opposed to userifying it if anybody would like to post it elsewhere. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Euryalus. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines Davewild (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Jones (soccer)[edit]

Player does not sufficiently satisfy WP:ATHLETE in that they have not played a game for a fully professional league, noting that soccer is a professional sport. In addition, player does not sufficiently satisfy the notability criteria guidelines as outlined by WP:FOOTY in that they do not play for a professional team, have played in a competitive fixture, or have senior international caps/Olympics caps. GauchoDude (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GauchoDude (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 12:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Quentin X (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Basement12 (T.C) 14:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even close to the first tier in the United States --T-rex 15:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete not only as non-notable, but no sources. And, even though soccer is the right title (in my opinion at least), shouldn't it be Brandon Jones (footballer)? Mm40 (talk | contribs) 15:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No criteria for notability met or even indicated --ClubOranje^Talk 03:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete absent reliable sourcing this article does not demonstrate notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Oates Palmer[edit]

Subject fails Wikipedia:Notability, as there is little to no coverage, let alone significant coverage. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

DELETE Not sure why this entry is notable. Bonzaibandit (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Bonzaibandit — Bonzaibandit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - As co-producer of a TV show and writer for a notable TV show. I have added some sources and am sure there are more to be found. TN‑X-Man 13:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the whole point -- the co-producer/writer for a notable show is not automatically notable -- he or she must demonstrate notability separate and distinct from the show itself being notable, or they are merely entitled to a mention within that article. It's like the Park East Synagogue being notable, but Evan Hoffman, the assistant rabbi, not being notable. He is indeed mentioned within the article, but does not merit an article himself based solely on that criterion. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. However, I feel the two claims, taken together, do push him just past the notability threshold. If the consensus does not support keeping the article, I would like to suggest redirecting the article to either the Shark (TV show) article or the West Wing article. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 19:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it pushes him past the notability threshhold, it pushes every producer and writer, and why not director and editor and manager for that matter, of every successful show. Then we make articles for every producer, writer, director and every other top job on every successful motion picture. We'd have a lot of articles about people no one has ever heard of, the majority of which will probably remain that way for the rest of their career and even after they are dead. This is similar to sports -- just because someone plays right wing for the Timberwolves doesn't make him notable if no one even knows his name. If I were you, I'd modify my keep vote to a merge/redirect vote. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hang on a second. I don't mean to imply that every single person that works on a TV show is notable. That would open the door to things I'd rather not think about. :-) I just feel that this person, as both a writer and producer, meets the notability criteria. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear earlier. TN‑X-Man 22:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you make his article look like that of Shawn Ryan or Shonda Rimes, I don't see any reason why it can't remain. But one citation -- and it being from IMDb (!!!) -- is quite ridiculous. If we go by IMDb, there would be articles for the guy who played Princess Vespa's stunt double on Spaceballs and the 6th captive standing to the left of Mark Wahlberg in Planet of the Apes. All the best! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very stubby but a significant claim to notability. Needs Reliable Sources, but no doubt that they can be found --T-rex 15:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please demonstrate this alleged "significant claim to notability." Everything requires reliable sources, but the lack of reliable sources does not indicate that there are reliable sources that are merely absent -- this guy just isn't notable (and I possess doubt). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete -- The guy co-produced a couple of episodes of the show, not the show. His only claim to fame is a famous relative, but that should be addressed on the Schrum page, not as its own entry. Classic vanity page. Santura (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Santura — Santura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sayonara Minimal hits in mainstream media. One interview does not Elia Kazan make.DeGawl (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Following the rewrite, consensus amongst those who contributed then, was that this is a valid article. Davewild (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electro Homeopathy[edit]

So that is how colour television works - it uses Debasish Kundu's red, green and blue electricity! Science which is extremely dubious to put it mildly but presented as though it was well established. Of the external links, two are sites associated with Debasish Kundu and one does not work. Essentially it is advertising. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Advertising. Schuym1 (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to Keep because of the rewrite. Schuym1 (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Snake oil. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep. Now it's an article about the snake oil, which doesn't attempt to give its subject any legitimacy. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Weak Delete ~~nonsense, advertising~~ much improved (thanks) but might still be better merged--perhaps to a Count Cesare Mattei article.. JJL (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other comments. PhGustaf (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Weak Delete The editor has done a fine job improving the article, but I'm still not convinced the subject wouldn't be better as a topic within Homeopathy, or in an article about the Count. (Curious that the map on the Count's web page shows that I'm somewhere around Walvis Bay. I'm not.) PhGustaf (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep and congratulations to Brammarb for his work. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~Weak Delete per JJL. also multiple issues (eg essay, citations). WikiScrubber (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete nonsense and spam. Doesn't even make WP:FRINGE. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC) see below[reply]

Speedy Delete - Copyvio of [48]. Also per nom plus other deletes. Verbal chat 14:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assuming that the notice for copyright is ok, then I still think this should be deleted as advertising, the same as ELECTRO HOMEOPATHY, and because it fails notability. Verbal chat 17:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Watch out for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm sure this is total bollocks, but it's also quite likely to be notable bollocks (as for homeopathy itself), in which case it does belong here (if only for the first objective commentary it has ever seen). Investigation is required before one could comment as to whether it is notable bollocks (I'm short on time so guidance is welcome) but we shouldn't be too hasty. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a clear copyvio it should probably be tagged, so I'll do this now. But the AfD should continue. Verbal chat
Actually this article claims it has permission on the talk page - I was looking at the delete for the same article when added as ELECTRO HOMEOPATHY, see here. Verbal chat 17:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the citations establish neither factuality nor notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note While I definitely lean towards delete, the founder of this pseudoscience appears to have plenty of refs (and his own museum [49]!) so there may be an article struggling to get out here, although this probably isn't it. A major rewrite with WP:NPOV might save the day. Brammarb (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have done a fairly substantial rewrite that might save it. Brammarb (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had another look. The external link is not in English. Yes the first site provides a definition but is it notable outside the article on Homeopathy? The second link crashed my internet so forgive me if I won't try exploring more of the links. Your rewrite was good but I would recommend that the info is merged with the homeopathy article. It's simply not notable to stand alone but might warrant a mention in its parent article. So merge, then delete. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 20:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced that the references added to the article establish notability.

1 is a dictionary definition.
2 isn't about electro-homeopathy
3 is unclear what the subject is, "mountain herbs" seems closer to herbalism than homeopathy.
4 not a source independent of the subject.

I'm still going with delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's only an initial go at finding a few things. The Electro Homeopaths themselves seem to be adamant that they are not (in the ordinary sense of the word) homeopaths. There seems to be more info out there, but just pulled together what I could find in a few minutes. Too true about the references - used them to show that there was (a) possible controversy over what it is, (b)&(c) some substance to Count Massei himself (the third reference deals with Massei's 19th century claims he could cure cancer-you might need to scroll down). Absolutely right about the 4th ref, but as I say, there's something to it (even if it's not a science) Certainly not going to scrap too hard over this one, but suspect that a more experienced editor than I could knock this into shape. I'll be happy to do some more work on it but not for a couple of days. Would now say keep but needs more work, which I'll apply to it tomorrow (or possibly this evening), if it survives that long. Brammarb (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a notable piece of pseudo-science and deserves its place in the record. I'm glad to see the first copyvio-riddled article replaced. Although the current article still has many issues (it lists key principles, but fails to explain them) it's certainly worth keeping and improving. Any merge to either homeopathy or mesmerism would be wrong - it isn't a branch of either of them. It has almost nothing in common with the practice of homeopathy either, no more than a shared belief in a few of the same axiomatic principles. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - I'm going to delete this piece of content. It may be a hoax, and it contains no references. Additionally, not enough information has really emerged for commentary, and we aren't a crystal ball. Creation may later be justified, but we'll see. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GEOINT Online[edit]

Possible hoax/phishing attack; WHOIS results indicate a private/anonymous registration, strange for a government agency. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Probably not phishing. Go to the NGA website www.nga.mil, click GEOINT Online (at the top of the page), and you'll see that the link "Request an account" is to the domain geoint-online.net. In fact, the first part of the second paragraph of the article is directly copied from that page. I don't know what to do about the actual article, though. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 00:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't provide any references or external links. However, that is certainly not a criteria for deletion. By reading the article, it does appear that this may contain information that is somewhat sensitive, or possibly secret/top secret. If classified information pops up in a stub like this one, then it's going to result in an office action, and the idea is to minimize office actions. Any non-sensitive information should be able to be merged into some other article; this does not appear to need its own article at this time. Also note that Earthlink Scam Blocker traces the URL that was removed traces to "Dauphin Telecom" in "French Southern Territories." It traces www.nga.mil to the same provider. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be an internal government project whose naming, existence, etc., is subject to change at any time. In addition, it appears to be at least partially secret, so it will be difficult (if not impossible) to come up with reliable sources independent of the subject (what I've been able to find on Lexis reads like a parroting of internal advertising for the project, occasionally an actual press release -- why secret government agencies issue press releases for projects they intend to keep secret is beyond me). Information about the scale and scope of the project (to determine its notability) will naturally be hard to come by. RayAYang (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines Davewild (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outburst UK[edit]

Selfpub / Vanity article - see the comment on the talk page. Contested prod. Organization is non-notable, no WP:RS. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: OutburstUK Black Pride Festival is somewhat related to this. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 06:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article looks like SPAM. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable article created by someone with a conflict of interest with the subject. Maybe in a few years. I've also left a note on the author's talk page about our COI guideline. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 06:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable organization, with some advertising thrown in. TN‑X-Man 13:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - the creator's been indeffed as a sock, as per Doc Strange below, and teh article's pretty much bollocks. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Twinn[edit]

Non-notable rapper. The article has been speedied three times in the past three days. I brought it here so that it can be salted as well. Delete and salt. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Before Death, a discussion about another article created by a suspected sock of whoever created this article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salt the Earth At least until the album comes out. Beeblbrox (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt of course, per nom. -Brougham96 (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recreation of previously speedied material. Fails WP:MUSIC. A copy of the article on another rapper, inserting the authors' name in place of the more famous rapper. So it's also pure vandalism and a vanity page. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second.... this page is about a Troy Rodriguez....it's not him again is it? Again, I continue my theory that someone has merely cut and pasted their name into the article of a popular rapper (and not doing a good job at it either), but its a well known vandalizer and sockpuppeteer. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin & Will[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Caitlin & Will

Claims to have a chart single, but as of the most recent Billboard/R&R chart, they don't. No reliable sources found whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Apparantly won Can You Duet and got a Sony BMG contract, but I can only find one single on Amazon, and I don't think Can You Duet is a major music competition. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 06:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutly no hits on Google News. If they don't have a chart single, they definitly aren't covered under notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bella Swan (talk • contribs)
Delete - No doubt about it! Nothing proves they have a charting single, no sources, no references! Delete! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until more sources can be found and when their single really charts. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per fast consensus and lack of a reason to delete. Synergy 07:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland County Schools[edit]

I added a "cleanup-rewrite" tag in April, and this article barely changed since. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - under what grounds are you requesting a deletion of the article? You haven't made yourself clear. Turlo Lomon (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the page for a rewrite, and it remains unchanged.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no valid reason for deletion given. See WP:DEL. Hobit (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated, no reason given for deletion. Turlo Lomon (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- no real rationale for deletion provided, and i see no reason to delete it myself. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The lead paragraph is a valid stub worth preserving. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As no valid reason for nomination. While cleanup issues are a problem, they are not grounds for deletion. -Brougham96 (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. School articles are generally kept, and not being cleaned up in a timely manner is by no means a reason for deletion. Calor (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep School district articles are generally always considered notable. If the United States article needed clean up, then would we delete it? The answer is no, and the answer shouldn't be any different here; articles about notable subjects need to be kept and cleaned up. Close this per WP:SNOW. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, there was another deletion debate closed in the same day, and its review said it was closed too soon.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I've seen other AfDs similar to this one, and there's not a snowball's chance in hell that this is going to be deleted for the given reason. If it is deleted, then someone will probably take it to deletion review, and it will probably get undeleted. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wondering , the review is archived at User:Balloonman/afd/Jim Jagielski .Bettering the Wiki (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article not being changed since it has been tagged as needing cleanup is not a reason for it to be deleted. And School district articles usually meet WP:NOTE. Coffee // talk // ark // 03:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AFD is not clean-up. The information in the article remains valid and even if it's messy it is still of benefit to the reader. Subject is a large school district which concerns many people and has almost surely been covered in the local (Fayetteville, NC) press many times. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines Davewild (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Duarte and Colin Grafton[edit]

Promotional page for non-notable athletes. They are last season's US intermediate national champions (see http://web.icenetwork.com/events/detail.jsp?id=34518 for results). This is three levels below the "highest level" of competition in the US (the levels are juvenile, intermediate, novice, junior, senior/championship). They haven't qualified to represent the US in international competition, either. They're no doubt very talented kids -- just not notable by Wikipedia standards. Dr.frog (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable per WP:ATHLETE. Basement12 (T.C) 14:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Their awards are in Junior competition so far and are currently on 'developmental' teams. —Borgarde^talk 18:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Intermediate skaters are not notable. Kolindigo (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guideilines Davewild (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Flea Market[edit]

Article with no notability, and unlikely to be important outside the local area. Harro5 00:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was requested of me by a client, Harro5. Admin UltraExactZZ helped me with it so that it would be correctly encyclopedic.

Please do not delete.

Thank you,

Melissa Mjpeanut26 (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjpeanut26 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of notability can be provided. Do you have some news stories on it you can cite, say? JJL (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added several links to the page that reference other Websites, as well as paper publications, in which the flea market is listed.

The references include the State of South Carolina's official tourism site, two flea market directories, the flea market's Chamber of Commerce listing, and the official tourism guide published by the city.

Please let me know if anything else needs to be done in order to make this article worthy of keeping.

Thanks for the help given thus far.

Melissa Mjpeanut26 (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I indicated to Mjpeanut26, we're going to need some sort of news coverage to show that the site is notable. Visitor's guides can prove that the site exists, which is OK as far as it goes, but we need to show that the market is actually notable - which we don't, currently. In userfying the article, I was hoping that we could take some additional time to find those sources and add them; this version of the article seems premature. I'll see if I can find anything. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 01:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment A news search turns up a bit, and there is at least a passing mention in "Romanticism and Behavior: Collected Essays II". But the local news site doesn't seem to get any hits on this and everything I find in the news is from 1975 and seem to be in passing (can't tell: behind pay walls). I tend to think flea markets that have a long history are notable, but I can't find enough to prove this is that. Hobit (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)*[reply]
comment I did find two articles that covered a raid on counterfeit goods. Websites below:

SC Secretary of State article
2007 NewsObserver article
Will this suffice? I'm sure it's not what my client wants mentioned, but if it will keep the article online, so be it. Melissa Mjpeanut26 (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment those seem like passing mentions. Is there something that focuses on just this flea market, so as to indicate why it is more noteworthy than others? Bear in mind that once it's up your client will have no control over what's posted there--good, bad, or indifferent. JJL (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far, those are unfortunately the only news articles referencing it. I've let my client know about the situation, and he is trying to come up with something more direct.

Mjpeanut26 (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence of notability in the article and comments suggest that the originator is unable to find the "significant coverage in secondary sources", which are "reliable, and independent of the subject". A news story that a crime was committed there once is surely "trivial or incidental coverage", "not sufficient to establish notability". Quotes from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

In addition I'm concerned to hear that the originator has a "client", suggesting a clear conflict of interest. This is "very strongly" discouraged. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Looking it up, it is merely listed as a flea market on several sites without saying much about it aside from its phone number and location. As for the other articles, it focuses more on the counterfeiting than the flea market itself. ~ Bella Swan^? 19:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:RS. This flea market is not notable. Cunard (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it meets verifiability just fine but strongly appears to fail notability. - Dravecky (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - is anyone able to get ahold of a copy of this document ? It might have possibilities. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Csutoras[edit]

Non-notable person. Article is written by it's subject. Although his name pulls up quite a few google searches (and I don't have time to go through all of them) a lot of them don't seem to be that notable. CyberGhostface (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look.. If you guys want to delete this page, then be my guest.. It serves no purpose other than existing.

I mentioned over and over that the article was sent to me when the author didn't want to register with Wikipedia to make the page. I cut the article down and spent a few hours looking at numerous other people profile pages on Wikipedia, and there are hundreds if not thousands.

I followed every rule and example out there to make it work compared to the original version, which had too many out links and no references.

Someone mentioned SEO and it being a reason for instant guilt. If you want to hate on SEOs fine, but at least understand what it is before throwing it out there. Wikipedia nofollows their links, which means it has no SEO value AT ALL... It has spam value to people who dont rank or have legit pages, like selling insurance leads but search engines are not even going to rank Wikipedia over the source .com site.

I followed your rules to try to make the page better and less spammy and you all give me total crap for it. I only played along this long to get enough documentation to do a good blog post about it.

Delete this page if you like but it follows all your rules and examples and is no different than anyone on this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_bloggers. Half the people on that page have almost no references and no standing other than owning a blog.

So if following your rules and spending hours to make sure it works the way it should is not what you want then i can do no more.

I don't know what standards you have for notable but if you review the individuals pages on half the marketers, bloggers, and technology figures on Wikipedia.. half dont have references from sources like Forbes, Entrepreneur, or speaker credentials at all the top conferences.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Csutoras (talk • contribs) 00:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Author needs to read WP:WAX, WP:COI, WP:N and WP:NOHARM. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops forgot to vote. Delete per my rationale above and WP:VSCA Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i wrote the article and think it is deserved and properly placed in wiki.. just cause your admin dont know people who are someone within an industry doesn't mean they are not.. It means you cannot know everything and thus should not allow a small handful of people make the decision on who is popular or known to them.

You cannot read a conversation today about social media without seeing Brent's name.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Muimui69 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 1 September 2008 UTC

Speedy delete (G11) WP:COI, WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. Hús ö nd 01:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Húsönd. This is clearly an autobiography. Furthermore, the subject is not notable. He receives some Google News hits, but most of the articles are either blogs or articles consulting Brent Csutoras about Twitter spam. Being a consultant does not confer notability. Cunard (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, also per my rationale on the article's talk page for why it should have been speedied when I nominated it the first time. Themfromspace (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not currently satisfy criteria for Biographies on Wikipedia. Also... all the COI issues. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As for the other articles on unreferenced non-notable blogger, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was RECREATION MARK THREE. If any admin wants to check my work, this was deleted at AFD here, and I G4 speedied it this time. Again, what matters when it comes to notability is reliable sources, and this still ain't got none. I'd be happy to userfy this (or any previous iteration) for anyone who wants to address the issues raised here or in the original AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Money Inc (professional wrestling)[edit]

Two variations of this article were previously deleted: see here and here. The team holds the TNA World Tag Team Championship and would therefore seem notable to me; iMatthew has requested speedy for recreation and wants to stop further recreation. Open for voting about the best course of action. Harro5 00:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Harro5 00:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They are not notable yet. Not every tag team that's held championships together is notable. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, as of yet. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 02:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - D.M.N. (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Darrenhusted (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - As a recreation of deleted material. See this discussion and this discussion. TN‑X-Man 13:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Roode and Storm have been tagging on and off since last year. They just recently called themselves Beer Money, Inc. I believe enough info can be placed in the article that it can be fairly well written and notable. Also they have had three shots at the belts and finally won them. I don't see TNA breaking this team up anytime in the near future.--WillC 21:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are beep great, must keep this important article!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youpi-youpi (talk • contribs) 03:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC) — Youpi-youpi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep They are a permanent tag team now with their official tron and team music. JakeDHS07 01:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A1. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scissor Sisters Day[edit]

Only 4 Google hits and none related to such a day on August 31. Hoax or "made up in school one day" Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated same article for speedy deletion a minute earlier. Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is a lack of reliable sources to meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Dimension (Ace Lightning)[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article lacks sources because there are very few sources. Most of the information comes from observing the video games and episodes. Can episodes be used as sources? Evilgidgit (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely plot summary and in-universe detail with no real-world content. Google search turned up fansites and passing mentions which indicates the notability requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject cannot be satisfied. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 05:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As the author states in his own Keep comment, "The article lacks sources because there are very few sources." Enough said. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Copyright issues and fails the notability guidelines Davewild (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BCompile[edit]

Lack of sources and of Google hits make me assume, that this article is a hoax. --Pjacobi (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added link to official site. WikiScrubber (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me, that both of these sites, are just part of the hoax. --Pjacobi (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, not a hoax, but not notable either. Doesnt' help that it's a copyvio either. WikiScrubber (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I rather wonder whether this site may be related? Richard Pinch (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Castle[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete- Definitly no notability at all whatsoever. ~ Bella Swan^? 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and set a Redirect to My Little Pony. Has no notability outside that world. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor fictional setting, completely non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some capacity, maybe as a disambugation, as "Dream Castle" is also the NAME of a book. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Cirt (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mission: Impossible III (album)[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs expansion, but this is an album released on a major label by a major composer which relates to a major film. Notability is satisfied. 23skidoo (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:INHERITED.--PhilKnight (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per User:23skidoo, claim to notability is not exactly lacking. --T-rex 15:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. --T-rex 17:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for example this search confirms the musical score was composed by Michael Giacchino, however none of the results even confirm the album's existence. Conversely, this search does at least confirm the album's existence, but there isn't any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of false positives certainly is not any proof that better sources do not exist. --T-rex 19:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The album clearly exists (as it can be purchased [50]). It needs some improvement but, as the soundtrack for a major film, is certainly notable. Sources about Michael Giacchino's scoring of the film are readily available with a simple internet search. Basement12 (T.C) 20:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Must keep, will be a very good album, all the previous soundtracks were beep great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youpi-youpi (talk • contribs) 03:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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