< September 10	September 12 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper ǀ 76 22:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jha Jha[edit]

Contested prod. Her 3.8 GPA aside, I don't believe this artist meets WP:MUSIC despite her loose affiliation with Dipset. JBsupreme (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Central member of highly notable group. Nominator has not done enough research; a two-second Google search would clearly indicate at least a base level of importance and surely contains some decent sources that could be used. GlassCobra 05:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if http://www.sixshot.com is a reliable source then it has more than enough sourcing to establish notability. Many substantial mentions in this rap-oriented magazine.[1] - Wikidemon (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in a several magazine articles. This is enough to establish notability. Apart from several on sixshot, she is also mentioned here and here lk (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability guidelines for musicians --T-rex 18:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:RS beside her website. We66er (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:17, 13 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) 08:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRrelevant Astronomy[edit]

Non-notable podcast. Doesn't even appear to be linked from any NASA locations. Only 98 Ghits, and none of them is reliable. My speedy tag was removed. Corvus cornix_talk 23:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might merit an external link at Spitzer Space Telescope, but no more is possible without non-trivial independent coverage. As a side note, what kind of public outreach team calls astronomy irrelevant? Did basic science suddenly get too much funding and public interest? Were they trying for IRreverant? - Eldereft (cont.) 16:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "IR" probably refers to infrared. Corvus cornix_talk 22:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I expect that it does, but I think that that particular IR word was a poor choice for the pun. Not that that influenced my !vote, of course. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Spitzer Space Telescope, it's a plausible search term if people are looking for that and a sentence or two mentioning it would seem to be appropriate in the telescope's article. That said, the lack of sources mean a stand-alone article certainly fails WP:WEB. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 19:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major NASA project. This is not the typical podcast. Multiple reviews on google. The standard RS guideline is intended to be adapted to the subject. DGG (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, although you and I are usually diametrically opposed on AfDs, I respect your work, but I couldn't find any reliable sources. You say there are multiple reviews, but none of them is from a reliable site, that I could find, they were all in blogs and forums. Can you provide links to reliable sites, please? Corvus cornix_talk 20:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for topics of this sort, dealing with scientific communication, the blogs and forums are the main information venues. We appply our requirements according to what is relevant to the subject. They are sufficiently reliable to write a descriptive article. (incidentally, we're not diametrically opposed of most AfDs. I don';t find it necessary to comment on all, especially when I agree with you. DGG (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. We66er (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with User:DGG, it is not the typical podcast and a major NASA project. AdjustShift (talk) 05:17, 16 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. Keeper ǀ 76 19:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastwood City[edit]

Completely FAILS wp:n .....the article was a branch of a promotional article from the parent company.... benjicharlton (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THIS AFD was created incorrectly - the page creator removed a CSD tag without reason....I didnt notice it was the creator and afd'd the article, when I realized I removed theao) AFD template and readded the CSD with a hang on tag to give the creator a chance to give reason for the contesting...I dont think this article needs to take up time with the AFD process...benjicharlton (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've replaced the AfD tag in the article and removed the speedy. It's stretch to call a geographical place an organization, even if it's a commercial development.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is the subject of in-depth reliable sources like the Manila Bulletin [2] and even the non-Philippine San Diego Union Tribune [3], the core criteria of WP:N. --Oakshade (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quite notable, though it is a commercial location. --seav (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, keep a la TriBeCa. –Howard the Duck 03:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete geographical place or not the article is at present a blatant advertisement. Business parks are geographical places in the strictest sense of the word but, that doesn't make them notable. At best if consensus is that this counts as an actual "city/town/village" whatever it should be stubbified and written properly from a neutral standpoint. I fail to see any comparison between this article and TriBeCa so can Duck please explain what his point is. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable because it passes the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. You are making a good argument for article improvement, but not deletion. I never subscribed to the "We must kill this article in order to save it" mentality. --Oakshade (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found establishing notability, and I also fail to see how this article is blatant advertising. -- Whpq (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a project of this size will generally be notable. DGG (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The Eastwood area is frequently attributed to the larger district of Libis in Quezon City, and is considered by some as one of Quezon City's two CBDs (the other being Araneta Center in Cubao), similar to Ortigas Center and the Makati City Central Business District. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:57, 13 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. Keeper ǀ 76 19:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NBA: Featuring the Life[edit]

I think this article is redundant to other existing articles such as NBA 06 and NBA 07. The creator essentially copy info from those articles and paste it here. —Chris! _ct 23:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, inappropriate tone, and essentially a duplicate of NBA 07. I originally tagged this for speedy, which the original author removed in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete duplicate or not the article is just an advert and doesn't belong here. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Insufficient unique info to warrant a Keep. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:47, 12 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) 08:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Rush[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Rush doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO. Though he has written quite some number of books, I can't find sources that are about him himself. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The contact details at the end make this look like an autobio. No independent refs. (Correction: probably written by a very close female friend of his.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation why this article should be kept KittyAsia (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC) — KittyAsia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

1. Notability: Mr Rush is a respected authority on Kuwait and the Hashimite dynasty, and merits greater presence on the internet.

2. Contact details: removed.

3. Independent reference: one of Mr Rush's own articles on The Independent and one third party link have been added. There will be more to come.

Comment I believe it was Tom Cruise who said, Show me the sources. If he's notable, needs sources, and Alan Rushs own article is hardly independent of him. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, non-notable Author. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to proposed deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INSPECTOR

KittyAsia (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More sources are appearing. Seems like a man of some (albeit modest) importance in a specialised field. Perhaps just about notable enough to meet criteria of WP:BIO. Airborne64 — Airborne64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- what sources? Corvus cornix_talk 23:47, 11 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable author without significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Whether he "merits greater presence on the internet" or not he still has to meet the criteria to be included within this project. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anyone can publish a book. The question is whether he is someone who is cited. It doesn't seem that he is that big in the field. SpeechFreedom (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rush appears to be an editor, not an author. Edward321 (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The distinction between an editor and an author for complex works of the sort is sometimes rather thin. I think it's sufficient to pass, considering the expected major libraries seem to have the books. DGG (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets Movie[edit]

Proposed movie that has not began filming yet. WP:Crystal. Does not meet notability requirements, and is not likely to, until after its theatrical release. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: shooting hasn't started. Cliff smith ^talk 22:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Google reveals only two hits. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Crystal. Even the article itself says its a rumour. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and propose that identical article 100 Bullets Movie be added to this AfD (same user, same content) nneonneo ^talk 20:35, 12 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 IRrelevant Astronomy. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Astronomy Talk Show[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources for this podcast. Schuym1 (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:WEB. particularly given that the parent show IRrelevant Astronomy itself is also AfD nominated at the moment. I can't see any sources for this either. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IRrelevant Astronomy. It's a NASA program. We66er (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to IRrelevant Astronomy, assuminga sensible decision to keep that article. There's no reason to have a separate article for this. DGG (talk) 18:22, 13 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) 08:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Dimension[edit]

Not notable, no sources, disputed prod Richard Pinch (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. The article does not assert notability, and has remained unreferenced for a couple of months. (A PROD was deleted with a bare assertion of notability.) Richard Pinch (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One word: Macross. Need we go on? If you want sourcing, the production history of the entire Super Dimension series is discussed, in some length, in Robotech Art 1 and/or 3. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Big West Advertising or Macross. I was going to suggest to merge it to Robotech, but the series which compose Robotech don't exactly correspond with Big West's Super Dimension trilogy (since Mospeda was chosen over Orguss). Jonny2x4 (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Big West Advertising, clean up the merged article, and see if it sinks or swims. Gelmax (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a commonly accepted principle that TV series "broadcast nationally by a major network" (like the Super Dimension series) are notable. So I don't see notability being an issue.--Nohansen (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From WP:N If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic. None are cited or asserted to exist. There is no mention of any broadcast anywhere or at any time. For all I can see, the whole article might be WP:OR or just nonsense. But the issue is notability, according to Wikipedia standards. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: You didn't bother to run a simple google search before nominating for afd. Doing so would have clearly demonstrated series existence, as well as any broadcast information. Plus I've already asserted the existence of sources in my "keep" vote. See also WP:PROBLEM. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evident of broadcast? I take it you didn't follow the links to the articles on the individual series the trilogy comprises? —Quasirandom (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

76.116.247.15, don't put words into my mouth. Of course existence is not the issue, notability is, as I clearly stated. WP:BURDEN puts the onus on those seeking to include content to provide sources. It was tagged for sources in June and since then nobody has "bothered" to do so. If you would care to do so now, please do so. And no, I didn't follow those links. It is this article we're discussing, and this article which needs those references. Richard Pinch (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that per WP:OUTCOMES, any nationally broadcast television series is considered notable. At that point, all that needs to be done is verify that it's been nationally broadcast. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Big West, as it's a sponsorship naming thing. 70.55.200.51 (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to see a source that substantiates that either the producers or critics actually use the name Super Dimension for the trilogy. According to comments above, that should be easy. If one can be found, then keep; withholding !vote for now. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ANN trivia (Link) calls Orguss the "second part of The Super Dimension trilogy from Big West"; as does this review from Mania.com (Link), noting that Orguss is "the second of Studio Nue's three Super Dimension shows." A news article on ImaginAsian's weekday morning anime block (Link) mentions the "Super Dimension trilogy" and notes the shared staff between the first two installments. The FAQ at "Macross Compendium" makes the same case (Link).--Nohansen (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thankee. In that case, keep as, essentially, a sort of explanitory disambiguation of the series. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to add to the above: See http://www.otakubell.com/LDs/picture.php?/46/category/31 - that's a scan of my Macross movie LD box (an old blurry version, I'm sure I could redo it better). Feel free to use that image, BTW. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And on the subject of broadcast: the three series aired back-to-back-to-back from October 3, 1982 to September 30, 1984.--Nohansen (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that — do you have sources, and would you like to add the information to the article? Richard Pinch (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Super Dimension Fortress Macross, The Super Dimension Century Orguss, and The Super Dimension Cavalry Southern Cross already have the relevant info. You could duplicate it I guess, but I don't see the point. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 04:01, 16 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. Cirt (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Web 2.0 squared[edit]

Not notable neologism. Failed prod. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 21:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this fairly obvious neologism per WP:NOTE and WP:NOT. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 21:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only one hit from Google. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a pretty blatant, and borderline promotional neologism with no evidence of widespread use or coverage in reliable sources. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 12:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per mazca; looks like something the article's creator Mikek201 (talk · contribs) made up. Cliff smith ^talk 19:12, 13 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 and tagged for merge to Geography of London, nom withdrawn anyway. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 00:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture in London[edit]

This article has seen virtually no development in over two years, and remains both a stub and an orphan. It has no information that could not be merged elsewhere; I've saved the article, and will have a look for a larger article it might be worth supplementing. There are no corresponding articles for other major cities. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No proper reason to delete is provided. The nominator makes vague promises to do something with this material but does not explain how deletion will assist in this. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is notable. The fact that it lacks development is not a proper reason for deletion.—Chris! _ct 23:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article is notable doesn't mean it deserves an article. All I'm saying is that I think this article was created in error - merge this into Geography of London, if it becomes too unwieldy, then give it its own article: see Geography of London, Geography of New York City, but no corresponding articles for Los Angeles, Paris, or Mexico City because it served no utility in breaking them off. The London and NYC examples are justified under WP:SIZE; this one wouldn't be, presuming it had been added to Geography of London in the first place. Topics of such a specific nature as this don't warrant creation when the information could be found in a more comprehensive article - it doesn't help the reader or the editor. As for the lack of development, I brought attention to that because I feel it just confirms that it should have been integrated in to GoL in the first place. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you really believe it should be merged into Geography of London, you could start that discussion. Merging issue shouldn't be handle through AfD.—Chris! _ct 18:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll withdraw this nomination and set a tag to merge. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia has no deadline, and being a stub is in no way a reason to delete. Admittedly it's of rather limited scope, and merging in to an article such as Agriculture in the United Kingdom/Agriculture in England would be preferable, but since they don't exist, it should be kept, really. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason why this couldn't be expanded into an interesting short article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is limited, but what it really needs is a rescue tag. It needs some work, but could be a fascinating, multi-layered article, particularly if anyone wants to edit to include ag. groups to which farmers in London join, markets, etc. It's quirky, but a keeper in my opinion.Yachtsman1 (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen something on this, and found it. I made some changes to the article. Urban farming has become a hot topic, for the simple reason that the closer the food is to urban areas, the lower the transportation costs are, and the lower the cost of food becomes. I would definitely consider keeping this article as is.Yachtsman1 (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator makes no case. JASpencer (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this is a perfectly legitmate article. It just is that the subject is a small one, because London is so heavily built up. I regard allotments as a variety of horticulture, rather than agriculture, but that would not be sufficient even to delete that section of it. I would oppose merging it with a wider article, because the subject would be ignored by it, as so many other counties are far more engaged in agriculture. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:25, 14 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 as G4 and G11, and salt. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eliteanswers.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Was G11'd several times and recreated. After the nominator asked why it kept getting deleted, I took a look and decided that it is quite spammy but not worthy of a G11 in my opinion. ~~Weak~~ delete because it might be notable, mainly listing for consensus. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a huge problem with sources. All the sources are from marketing oriented sites. Its showing its notability using sites like prweb.com. eliteanswers is not a reliable source, that is the site itself. See our guideline on reliable sources.
- It also has phrases like "partner to protect American children from adult targeted emails", which are there to promote the company. —— nix eagle 20:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see one of the sources is http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/sellinggame/video.html which is being used to show that the owner of the company was on tv, but the problem is that the link there does not say that. :(. —— nix eagle 20:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Meh. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under CSD G4 - this article has already beed deleted via an AfD discussion this week, it still appears to be as spammy. – Toon ^(talk) 20:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as G4 if substantially the same as the one from earlier. It was spam then and it is spam now. Good intentions of the original author or not they need to go back and follow the advise that people gave them about the article in userspace until it is properly notable, properly verifiable, an no longer an attempt to "sell" stuff. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4. Advertising for NN site. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are all from the same website and ad portals. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G4 perhaps with a pinch of salt – Zedla (talk) 12:28, 13 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 05:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday MLB on TBS results[edit]

Wikipedia is not TV Guide, or a collection of results of non-notable MLB games. ViperSnake151 20:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia isn't indiscriminate, and quite frankly, not-notable. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not for TV listings. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unimportant and unnotable scores that are only related by being part of one TV rights package. Nate • (chatter) 23:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that there's nothing notable about these games. If this were a prime time event, or if it weren't for the fact that MLB plays lots of games on weekend afternoons, or that ball games on a weekend afternoon have been on television for decades, I might see a point to this. Author has a knack for organizing information, and there are plenty of other topics upon which to concentrate. Mandsford (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the same reason I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ESPN Sunday Night Baseball games. Dave28540 (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't for news coverage (past or present). The results of notable games will be covered in the articles on those games. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I'm the creator of the article. I essentially echo my comments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ESPN Sunday Night Baseball games. I admit notability isn't as substantial for this program as for Sunday Night Baseball, but still, it's a nationally televised weekly game, and it's a television series in the same respect as those scripted shows. --Highway99 (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable article about the show itself is a fine goal unfortunately, this "article" makes no attempt to be one with encyclopedic information about the show itself and serves only as a chart to "host" results. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from a similar deletion discussion: Strong delete — I suppose Ugh! is not a valid argument, but Ugh! A list of games is acceptable within each team's season articles (e.g. 2008 Pittsburgh Pirates season), but not specifically games on one network. Ugh! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is simply a directory listing of games that are not individually notable. An article on the show itself exists, Major League Baseball on TBS and is not at issue here. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:01, 16 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. Cirt (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interpersonal (Aliana Lohan Album)[edit]

Also Close That Door (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Crystal ball violation. No sources referenced in article. Can't find any confimation myself of release date or tracklist, and the sources for the title all look to be blogs, Wikipedia mirrors, and whatnot. "Cover art" is a copyright violation of a Vogue magazine article, used because the creator of the article couldn't find a cover image. Kww (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added single, Close That Door, for the same reasons. Note the Vogue article image used again as a fake cover.Kww (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'album' should begin with a lowercase 'a' in any case. PTOmac (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it should be Ali Lohan, not Aliana Lohan, but that doesn't matter since this is more hoaxing from this same editor. Corvus cornix_talk 22:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both No reliable sources, WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both since they're both speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 20:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, make-believe album invented by user with overactive imagination. Everyking (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per the reasons given above. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:31, 12 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 close Wrong venue. I don't see how this is POV, so I won't even bother moving it to MFD anyway. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Disavian/Userboxes/No Evil Boxes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/User:Disavian/Userboxes/No Evil Boxes

Userbox with POV. Delete. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 19:28, 11 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 merge to cataphract. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Cataphract[edit]

Non-notable military weapon, see Google. Delete. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All this page does is assert that the Persians used cataphracts. It asserts no claim of notability to Persian cataphracts in contrast to any other cataphract. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to cataphract A cataphract is a military formation, not a weapon. That Google search includes Googlebooks hits for reliable sources about Persian cataphracts. As the article cataphract shows, the Persians successfully used the type of unit for hundreds of years and inspired the Greeks, Romans, and Byzantines to create their own cataphract units. Edward321 (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested.DGG (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The Persians were the par excellence users of cataphract cavalry. What applies to them applies largely to cataphract cavalry in general. There is no reason to have a separate article. Constantine ✍ 18:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little curious about the Merge recommendations because I don't see that the article has anything that can be merged! It's got a five-line quote that could be useful except for the fact that there isn't any indication where it came from, and the few other assertions it makes aren't referenced either. —Largo Plazo (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey, Largo, I've found the quote in a reliable source called Wikipedia! Oh yeah... take a look at Clibanarii. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storkynoob (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia isn't a valid source. How can you think that it is when anything can be written in it by just anybody? Besides, that quote isn't referenced in the Clibanarii article either and ought to be deleted if no one can cite a source for it. Besides that, the fact that the quotation is already on Wikipedia means another article whose primary purpose is to present the same quotation is redundant and should be eliminated on those grounds. That truly leaves nothing to merge. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:35, 15 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 03:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Food Safety Network[edit]

The article is a blatant advertisement for the group created by the group itself. Beside the significant COI problems, the citations provided fail to establish notability about the subject. None of the five citations in the article are about the group, and the one citation that does mention the group is just a quote from an employee of the organization about a subject that has little or no relation to the organization itself. Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The International Food Safety Network is basically the lab of Dr. Doug Powell. Dr. Doug Powell used to be a stand-alone article, but it was changed to a redirect to International Food Safety Network. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Doug_Powell&direction=prev&oldid=118649039 the last version of the Dr. Doug Powell article before it can replaced by a redirect. Notability is established by the claim "Powell and the International Food Safety Network are a primary source for food safety information during outbreaks and are often quoted in mainstream media reports.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]" See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Doug_Powell&direction=prev&oldid=118649039 the last version of the Dr. Doug Powell article before it can replaced by a redirect to this article. Powell is notable in his own right, but there are multiple media references to the network at this Google News archive search. --Eastmain (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is not about Dr. Powell, and references about him do not establish notability of the organization. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Google News items listed above are sufficient to show notability--the article merely needs expansion. DGG (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - the Google search that eastmain posted a link to is not about the institute, it is about Dr. Powell and does not establish notability for the institute.

Keep. The sources presented are mostly about both Dr Powell and the network, so they are enough to demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 13 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 A7 as afd opened. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maghsoudlou[edit]

Whilst it is claimed the subject has written reviews and books and documentaries, no sources are referenced. AfD tagged as it's possible the author is going to add further detail. Ormers (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Already deleted. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 19:29, 11 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) 08:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russ castella[edit]

There are a lot of claims in this article of notability, but I can't find any reliable sources for any of them. The only possible reliable source is to the LA Watts Times, and that's just a blub about an upcoming, unreleased album by a person who is a redlink. There are only 310 Ghits, and not one of them is a reliable source. BTW, the link to Swamp Zombies in the article goes to a band's article, not to an article about the direct-to-video film that is his only claim to fame on imdb. Also, the Pink Album link goes to the Wikipedia article on They Might Be Giants, not to the unreleased album by O'so Krispie, who was apparently the winner of some reality show. Corvus cornix_talk 05:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. She apparently won R U the Girl, in which she got to be a backup singer for a TLC single. Corvus cornix_talk 06:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She wasn't a "backup". she was featured as a rapper. Google it.. "TLC featuring O'so Krispie" (officially released under LaFace records ang G hits for "Russ Castella" are over 50K

Both Watkins and Thomas stated several times that the winner of the contest would not be joining TLC full-time or in any way, shape or form be a "replacement" for Lisa; the winner would only provide guest vocals on a new single by the duo Note that the creator of this article has now created an article on O'so Krispie, which I have also nominated for deletion. Corvus cornix_talk 07:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghits are over 50k if you count every single time his name is mentioned on every page in which it appears, but if you look at the link that I provided, there are only 310 unique pages where he is mentioned, and you haven't addressed the reliability of the sources. Corvus cornix_talk 07:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay added more sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamTam (talk • contribs) 07:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC) — WilliamTam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Russ appears in a few news articles, but only in passing. Only claim to notability is a soundtrack for a non-notable film. Therefore fails WP:BIO. Wronkiew (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discog confirms appearances on Rihanna's S.O.S. and Jennifer Lopez "Control Yourself". Also Def Jam Recordings and LaFace are major record label. As per bio:mus, musicians on major labels are allowed to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbag215 (talk • contribs) — Dbag215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't think I agree with that because he was a producer on those recordings, not technically a band member. Wronkiew (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:25, 9 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, Black Kite 18:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources for verifiability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well as the more general WP:N Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per WP:MUSIC

"Criteria for composers and lyricists For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists: Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.128.185 (talk • contribs) — 68.46.128.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- What notable composition? Corvus cornix_talk 23:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:14, 13 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 Snowball keep. Community consensus is quite clear that this game and its related controversy meets notability standards. Rerunning the debate at a later point when it can be free of editorial scrying and recentism might be advisable, but for now at least, it stays, and the most productive move is to end the discussion so our editors can spend their energy more beneficially. (Non-admin closure.) --erachima talk 09:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide[edit]

This topic is verifiable, but not notable. It's just a trivial news item; you can't write much about it apart from the current two lines. Definitely not encyclopedic enough. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a trivial incident, or attempt to attract attention. Anyone could put together this kind of thing, and of course concerned groups would protest and get media coverage. Borock (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone could be a serial killer and get themselves another coverage for an article. Ease of doing something is not a deletion criteria.Geni 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks any lasting impact. Unless there is an appropriate larger topic or list it can be put in, of course. --erachima talk 18:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know?Geni 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep There appears to be a fair bit of coverage[4].Geni 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Seriously? This article was created a day before the AfD was opened. That is hardly appropriate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even bearing in mind WP:NOT#NEWS, there are already multiple reliable news sources reporting on the item (reception/controversy), and it's being picked up by sites like Kotaku and Game Politics which indicates that more game sites will follow and provide gameplay/reception/development details. Ironically, I noticed this AFD just as I was working on a list of controversial games, this looks like another good candidate. It's disappointing that the article was put up for deletion without the creator being contacted first - sources are appearing literally now, instead of catching them and building an article we're wasting time talking about deleting it. If when all is said and done it is just controversy rather than any actual gameplay information, then it would be a merge candidate rather than deletion anyway, but there's no reason to even have that discussion now, details of this game are ending up on WP in one form or another. If the general media go to town with a particular game, then it's very unlikely that the gaming media will not explore it anyway. Someone another 19:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I get where you're coming from by calling this too trivial or transitory, but that's still an assumption with some evidence (the Google news link) against it. Since neither the situation or the article have had the chance to develop much, we cannot make an informed decision in the space of this AfD. Any that we would make would be inapplicable by the end of it. --Kiz o r 19:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable for its name only, hence unworthy of an article. To keep one containing no information on the game itself is pure spam. MickMacNee (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just curious, but how often do you make articles that you complete in only a few edits in one day? My best guess is "zero". On what grounds do you say it should be deleted after a single day with barely ANY time provided to let it grow? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I create articles with enough content to provide evidence of notability, on topics with clear merit. MickMacNee (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems that the basis for choosing deletion is that it's a stub, not that it has insufficient notability. It's not as if there is no information on the game. And are you implying that Super Columbine RPG! and V-Tech Massacre are notable for reasons other than the name? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you seriously trying to apply other stuff exists here here? The key difference of course is that those two games recreate specific notable events. This article isn't even comparable, not that other articles are the yardstick for whether to delete something or not. I didn't vote delete because it's a stub, I voted delete because the article only exists because of it's name, it has established no notability except in the minds of those who know think we now need a Category:Massacre reenactment video games that generate controversy. Patently not worthy of an article. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I doubt that they were considered notable because of what they covered. V-Tech was a Newgrounds flash game that got strong media attention. Hint: It wasn't because of its gameplay. Wanna guess why? Well, perhaps it's because of the name? None of these articles would be notable if it wasn't for the subjects they focus on, they're ALL notable because of the name. There's also a game putting the KKK in a positive light that's considered notable. And how can you vote delete after one day? The game is receiving extra media attention day after day after day, and there's no indication that it's any less notable than Super Columbine RPG! (which is notable because of its name). - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also, there are several long articles about the game, one appearing on the Guardian's web site. Your first complaint was that there was no gameplay content, a shocker for an article that was made just yesterday. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I can easily vote delete after a day, because 'omg its only been a day' is not a valid rationale in an Afd. Neither is it's in the newspapers. If the only argument you have is other stuff exists, that's pretty weak too. No gameplay reviews? Well delete it until there are, this isn't a holding pen for non-notable articles until they become worthy. If this is going to be a ground breaking game for years to come, then where's the harm in waiting until a proper notable article can be written? I'll tell you what, the loss of the potential to use wikipedia as a vehicle for self promotion. As the sources point out, nobody in the news sources you are so confident establish notability for this game, gave a crap about the game when it was released, it was only until the 9/11 anniversary it became notable as, and I quote, a "tedious and desperate to drum-up-controversy [game]" - techradar.com. As far as newsworthy video games, its as lame as they come. And lastly to humour the other stuff argument, what notable event such as Columbine is this game re-enacting anyway? I see no wtc tower in the screenshots. MickMacNee (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, lay off the article author for not describing the game contents - spam is a serious charge. You know we're not required to get things right the first time. If you want game contents, let me try. --Kizor 21:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read the notability guidelines, then the deletion criteria. The only outcome of keeping a non-notable article about a game evidently created to court attention would be to violate the spam policy. If that turns into an allegation against the creator of this article, so be it, he has the opportunity to comply with the policies, as do you. I don't need clearance from you as to whether to make that point or not in an Afd, when it clearly has merit, judged on the state of the article as found. MickMacNee (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You claim the right to make allegations of spamming against other editors in order to uphold the rules. Noted. --Kiz o r 21:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article is not an advertisement and the external links appear to be relivant. Quite hard to argue that it qualifies as spam. Accuseing longstanding wikipedians of spaming wikipedia does however run into issues with WP:AGF.Geni 22:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Spam does not necessarily take the form of blatant commercialism. When the ghits in google news die down, which they will and quickly, then wikipedia will be right here preserving this historic game's bio for all time. MickMacNee (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Spam isn't someone making an article you disagree with. The only way this article is spam is if the article exists to advertise it. The article exists because it received notable controversy in the media. That much is obvious. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That is a completely simplistic and quite naive interpretation of the principle of the no self promotion policy. MickMacNee (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already notable. No sane person would ever assert that V-Tech Massacre was notable for its gameplay, it was a free-to-download flash game on Newgrounds. The one and only reason it's notable is the subject. Even E.T. is notable mostly because of it being one of the contributing factors to the video game crash of 1983. There ARE games that are notable without having their gameplay be notable, and it's already been established that reliable sources have covered the controversy of this game. And an article being nominated after one day is an excellent reason to speedy keep - an incomplete article is a reason to expand. NOT delete. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not repeating the same replies I have already made, you are merely restating the same invalid arguments. MickMacNee (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not about its name, you are utterly wrong. Also on memorability, I remember the game 'Pakibash', which caused similar controversy back in the 90s, due to its media coverage at the time. But you know so much better, don't you, wise one? 79.64.63.145 (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — (edit conflict) there is substantial coverage here, not to mention the verifiable (within WPVG, that is) Kotaku source. Combine that with controversy and the fact this article was started one day before 9/11 gives it a very strong case for notability. If it is unencyclopedic, it can be rewritten and cleaned up. MuZemike (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:VG: Kotaku:A blog network; use of this site and its affiliates should be carefully considered. Often, it is best to demonstrate the reliability of the individual authors sourced.. So, to establish notability for the game as a game, as opposed to notability in the news, it appears the reputation of their contributor Michael McWhertor is key. I am presuming that notability as a groundbreaking piece of amateur video game technology, is not discussed in the Telegraph, techrader or UPI sources. MickMacNee (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It need not be a "groundbreaking piece of technology" to gain notability as a game. Bubble Bath Babes wasn't very groundbreaking as a video game, but gained notability because of its pornography — the same with other similar ones like Custer's Revenge and Beat 'em and Eat 'em. They all sparked controversy, especially in the American media. The same applies here, especially with a name such as "Muslim Massacre." MuZemike (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - For a start, this is just another other stuff exists argument. It is well recognised that nothing could ever get deleted if that was a policy. I have no clue what those games have sourced to establish their notability as part of a wider controversy, but out of 3 articles, one doesn't even exist, and one is tagged for need sources and other multiple issues, the other, despite being such a notable game for 20 years, still only has 6 references, only one of which appears to be an analysis of its impact in that topic in a wider context. It is also not hard to argue that attempts to push the decency laws in 80s is quite different from this game. What important impact is this game having on the general theme of muslim discrimination, or on law, right now?. I'll tell you what, nothing. And 'but, wait and see' is another invalid argument. MickMacNee (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The news sources presented cut it for me, I don't think this is just a "trivial news item" as the nominator suggests. User:Krator (t c) 22:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Normally I'd say delete, because as Wikipedia:N says, Wikipedia does not speculate on how many sources COULD be found or become available. However, there are also a decent amount of sources already and at the very least it should be merged into a controversial games category or something similar. --Banime (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the claim to notability is to be controversy (which some of the sources actualy mock as a false controversy), then I would also point out the real world 'objectors' noted in the article giving the controversy legitimacy, are not even notable enough to warrant an article themselves. Planting the article squarely into the not news category. MickMacNee (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, I'm roughly 110% sure "being notable enough to have an article" and "being reliable" are two completely different things entirely. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps you're right MickMacNee. But again since I see many sources already I still have to maintain my weak keep. Yeah it seems like a slightly obscure game, but the fact that so many news sources are talking about it does make it notable I believe.--Banime (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the Muslim Council of Britain, who made a statement reported in the third day of news (see the ABC News link), are very notable and have a Wikipedia page 79.64.63.145 (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Verifiable and notable 79.64.63.145 (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the following list is unsigned so that anyone should feel free to maintain - not delete - it

and now picked up internationally (which of course means it's 'just trivial'):

- And? What are you proving with these sources? That if someone makes a cynical attempt to grab headlines and it works, then they deserve a wikipedia article for time immemorial? The game is crap, the press coverage is temporary. The article is unwarranted. It makes the whole project look ridiculous, as it shows just how easy it is for the notability principle of the encyclopoedia to be misunderstood/missapplied, and frankly abused for the purpose of amateur game developers to get free self promotion of the level they frankly wouldn't get anywhere else in their lives if this game was the sum contribution of their life to the world. The game author has no article, the organisations claiming to be offended have no article, yet through this article describing a non-notable game, they both get one. This is a perfect example of the trend of turning wikipedia into a steaming pile of tabloid junk, because people honeslty do not understand the basic principle of the essay WP:NOTNEWS, and wrongly focus on the 'trivial' coverage aspect of the policy WP:NOT#NEWS: our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. If people are honestly saying that in years or even months time that coverage of the Muslim Massacre game controversy will extend beyond these current event news articles (which belong on Wikinews) into proper documented analysis of it in the wider context of another topic, muslim persecution in video games? / list of amatuer game developers seeking attention?, then they are seriously wrong in their perception of what wikipedia actualy is. It's frankly just part of the general dumbing down trend of the practice of google news source counting in an Afd, in place of any serious intellectual argument. MickMacNee (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again ease with which something can be done is not deletion criteria and we have articles on some exteamly poor computer games such as Superman 64.Geni 12:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is hardly my main point. And why are other stuff exists defences becoming the only running theme here? That is a sure fire sign that nobody can actually defend this in context of the purpose of wikipedia or rigorous application of its policies. MickMacNee (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy based defence? There are enough reliable sources about the subject to write a NPOV article without resorting to original research.Geni 13:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you just ignore the fact all you are doing is turning wikipedia into a newspaper. But I'm getting the impression that you seriously wouldn't have a problem if we did that and shut wikinews down. NPOV and OR are quite irrelevant as they only apply once you have justified the content belongs here, and as such, along with the comments about effort to make the game and other stuff exists arguments, are simply a diversion from the main issue. MickMacNee (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So there should be no coverage of the US 2008 election because the media coverage is 'temporary'? You don't seem to know how the media work. You also don't know what 'tabloid' means. As above, yes, I'm claiming (based on example) precisely that this game might well be notable even in years to come. You're just thowing words like 'spam', 'temporary' and 'trivial' around because you've taken offence. 79.64.63.145 (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per above. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I likewise heard about the game in my local newspaper's article about it. While Mick's hatred for the subject is palpable - and increasingly uncivil; there is no need to link believing this subject meets WP:V/WP:N with a desire to shut Wikinews down - one need go no further for an applicable policy than WP:V: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." These exist. Or WP:N: "f a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic." This is apparent. "The key difference of course is that those two games recreate specific notable events." Yes, and so what - what about recreating a specific event makes a tie-in article viable, where not doing so does not? I see nothing in either policy or guideline on that issue, never mind on disqualifying a subject from an article because "it is crap" or because it is offensive to an ethnic or religious group. RGTraynor 14:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't misrepresent my views, I do not oppose this article because I find it offensive. What I find offensive is statements like " I likewise heard about the game in my local newspaper's article about it" leading to junk articles like this one, due to a complete misconception of what wikipedia is. This game is not worthy of an article right now, and likely never will be. It barely warrants an article titled Muslim Massacre video game controversy, which, by policy acording to the sources, it should currently be named. To answer the other stuff exists crowd, who seem insistent this is a valid arguement, if you actually look at the content of video game controversy, you would see that this article based on the sources, barely warrants one or two lines in there compared to other 'controversial games', let alone its own article masquerading as being about the game and not the press attention. Also, an attempt to make a list of controversial video games based on controversy reflected in 'media sources' has been merged. I suggest if the people voting based on notability here realy know what they are arguing for, then I suggest they all try to go and get that list resurrected and fleshed out, rather than making their general points in here. The 'examples' of controversial games above (all released titles), are currently hiding in Video games notable for negative reception, in an article that is actually supposed to be about games that got bad reviews for the gameplay. MickMacNee (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will, I hope, forgive me for the characterization when I read lines like "junk articles like this one," "This game is not worthy of an article right now, and likely never will be," "unworthy of an article," "I create articles ... on topics with clear merit," "[p]atently not worthy of an article," "its as lame as they come," "planting the article squarely into the not news category" ... I strongly recommend you dial the venom down a good bit if the impression you want people to take from your remarks is a cool, dispassionate policy debate. RGTraynor 15:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument appears to biold down to other stuff doesn't exist.Geni 15:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am just pointing out the flaws in your other stuff arguments. If you point me to a policy that states media controversy guarantees the subject of any news subject gets automatic rights to an article, such that you wouldn't have to use such flawed positions to justify turning wikipedia into what it is not, then I'm all ears.MickMacNee (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media controversy is one of the things that definitively establishes notability, just as much as media reception/acknowledgment does. It's common sense. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense. I can open tomorrows newspaper and find 50 "controversial" subjects. You frankly do not know what an encyclopoedia is, that is the be all and end all of the issue. I am sad that you don't even understand this basic concept, and even more sad that you honestly seem to need a specific policy regarding video games to be written for you before you will even begin to understand it. But if you think you are right, which you sadly do, then I look forward to you resurrecting the CONTROVERSIAL VIDEO GAMES list that I linked to above. Somehow, I doubt you will, because I think you and I know, in the grand scheme of things, you are defending a steaming pile of shite of an article that does not belong here. MickMacNee (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err. WP:CIVIL, please. It isn't merely that the consensus is running heavily to keep, and it isn't that we don't understand: we just don't agree with you. RGTraynor 00:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, who ever said consensus was right? There is an essay here somewhere that says if a hundred people talk absolute shite and one doesn't, then per policy, it's still shite. Well, that's what is happening here, although its only about 5 users who are peddling the shite. I can't stop you all if you think wikipedia is Google news, but I will try. MickMacNee (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you would have a hard time decideing to what level of controversy would be required for something to be included on the list. For much the same reason List of dictatorships doesn't exist any more.Geni 00:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So let's just ignore it and let little bits of crap exist, because you can't get consensus for a proper list to exist. I think this fits your tactic perfectly. Junk additions, little by little, chipping away at the notability guideline until it means nothing at all, bar "Google news rules". 00:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't get consensus that List of dictatorships should exist but we have an article on Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus. Heh Junk additions, little by little, chipping away at the notability guideline until it means nothing at all, bar "Roman Antiquities rules".Geni 00:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. A few observations:
- Something notable for its name is still notable. (Without saying whether that is the case here or not.)
- An AFD started one day after article creation is not per se a bad thing. In this case, the AFD was the wrong decision, but not because of the timing. Had this truly been not notable, the AFD would have been completely warranted.
- Notability is not temporary. Yes, media coverage will eventually blow over, but the source material will still be there a year from now.
- We are not providing notoriety to this game or the creator. The media may have done that, but we are summarizing that coverage. That is the job of an encyclopedia.

Pagra shtak 20:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - When the 'coverage' amounts to a couple of days worth of news, you FAIL not news. I'm not going to repeat the points made above, but that is the be all and end all of the issue. Granted you might not care, but I doubt you will be here in 2 years time still arguing that this article is notable, despite there having been not a single source added since today. If you think controversial names are notable, then god help us. MickMacNee (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You seriously need to step back and take a deep breath, MickMacNee. There are plenty of reliable sources, and there's no expiration date on notability, so it doesn't matter if it's not notable in the present day two years from now. What I have to wonder is why this is less notable than Super Columbine Massacre RPG!. You say it's notable for its name, but if Columbine Massacre were something else, would it be notable? Not in the slightest. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't need to take a step back, you need to take a critical look at the difference between these two games, one an official title about a controversial incident, the other an amateur pile of crap about a rather obvious topic designed to casue 'media hype' and the subsequent defence as such in this Afd as if this was a seminal piece of work. Please, just try to add this as a paragraph in video game controversy, be a man about it, put your "notability" where your mouth is, rather than coming up with the same tiresome other stuff exists arguments, which don't apply as you haven't even been smart enough to compare like for like. MickMacNee (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to think that because the creator wanted to create controversy, it can't be notable. If that were true, even being covered by the biggest news media wouldn't be enough. No matter what the intentions are for WHY the game exists, even if it's JUST to get an article on Wikipedia, that's not a reason to say it's not notable. You say it's only notable because of its name, and Super Columbine Massacre RPG! is only notable because of its name. V-Tech Massacre was a Newgrounds flash game made by an amateur developer. Are you implying that the latter was created for reasons other than to create controversy? And for future reference, please don't vandalize the article in order to limit its content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Without comment on the rest, please just educate yourself as to what vandalism is, and don't wrongly accuse people of doing it just because they are editing your pet article in a way you don't like. Once you grasp the basics, the finer nuances of policy come naturally, such as 'other stuff exits' and 'self promotion' and 'undue weight' and 'article naming' and 'logical fallacies' etc etc. MickMacNee (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you please act like an adult if you want to participate in this discussion? Thank you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Asking you to understand the most basic of policies like vandalism is extremely adult. If I wanted to be childish I would plead for an admin to look into your blatant misapplication of the policy, despite being informed. MickMacNee (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And that administrator would notice that you're actively trying to reduce the content of the article. And that no amount of news coverage seems to be acceptable to assert notability for you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You are arguing that that was reducing content? Seriously, can your reasoning get any worse here? The empty (bar the obvious) infobox was longer than the article. I know they didn't specify this kind of thing in the manual of style, because frankly, it is so blindingly obvious. MickMacNee (talk) 03:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could an administrator please deal with MickMacNee? He's basically been attacking anyone who votes keep or disagrees with him in the slightest, and has resorted to attacking the page by removing the infobox. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agh, MickMacNee is one of the most uncooperative editors I've ever seen. I suggest everyone just not fuel his trolling, since all he seems to do is respond by calling everyone's differing opinions dumb (since apparently, he's the last word in everything). - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you think that co-operation is accepting that this as a worthy article based on numerous flawed and uneducated arguments then by all means consider me highly uncooperative. I will not ever accept that an empty infobox is a valid addition to a 2 paragraph stub. Such nonsense should be stamped out immediately. MickMacNee (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Silly me, I guess the fact that all video game articles are encouraged to have an infobox is irrelevant because you magicked it away. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can you honestly not see how wrong you are? Do you even know what a style guide is or when it applies? Do you not have the first clue about what an infobox is actualy for and when it should be used? No, you do not. And your childish responses only prove that. MickMacNee (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and [5]. No news since the first day? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow. Truly an epic event. Seriously, take a look at what you are trying to prove here. MickMacNee (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The notability of an article? Wow, what a monster I am. I bet there are even more monsters, since I'm guessing a lot of people actively try to assert an article's notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do you honestly think that a not news argument is negated by an extra day of coverage. To justify having an article for ever? Seriously, look at what you are trying to argue here, I seriously don't think you have ever done that yet. MickMacNee (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Um, how about the fact that it's consistently gaining new coverage from several notable news sources? If it was only gaining one news source per day, you'd have a point, but it's still fresh in the news. Super Columbine Massacre RPG! and V-Tech Rampage had tons of coverage, were controversial because of their subjects, and are amateur games made by one person (the former made in RPG Maker, and the latter in Adobe). And pray tell, do you mean the subject, or why it's notable? Because if it's the latter, it explains your fervor against the article. Wikipedia is not censored, and the fact that he's just trying to piss people off doesn't equal "it can't become notable". If it's the latter, news coverage is an adequate source for any article. How about you explain what you need to be convinced that it's notable? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        How about you explain why you are making repeated accusations against my motives. I have made it perfectly clear what my opposition to this article is, if you can't counter that, that's fine, but if you want to start making other accusations against me as you have done already, you had damn well better back them up. As for news coverage and what constitues proper notability, I'm done trying to get it through to you, you obviously won't get it in a million years, even if you you were spoon fed the policy with prompt cards and pictures. Sadly, such simplistic interpretations by people like you look to be the death of what is supposed to be an encyclopoedia. MickMacNee (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Give me one reason why PC World, The Guardian, Game Politics, Arab News, Fox News, The Independent, and other reliable sources of information are not reliable enough to assert notability? What, exactly, does this fail? What notability does it fail in? "im not going to deal with u" is usually a sign that you HAVE no example of why it fails notability. It's been covered in Russian media, American media, Australian media, UK media, Italian media, French media, German media, Belgian media, Romanian media, Bulgarian media, Norwegian media, and more. I am at a loss of how this fails any notability standard, and you seem to be too. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        What not news actually says about events is that "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." This is not an announcement (despite your lie that this is self-promotion of an announcement), it is not sport-related and it is not (despite your lie) tabloid journalism. Everything else there is about a person. No one has made an article (to the best of my knowledge) about the game's author. The game has now gathered three days worth of coverage in non-tabloid sources. It's time for you to back down. 79.64.63.145 (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note — Dispute resolution via third opinion, los!!!! MuZemike (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. XF Law (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Clearly notable Madlobster (talk) 08:16, 13 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 Power Glove. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Powerglove[edit]

Subject fails WP:BAND. No major label releases. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Power Glove, potential search term for notable product after which the band is named. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable", and it says any one of the following criteria. It has some sources (could use more still), but still, a major label release is not SPECIFICALLY a requirement. ViperSnake151 22:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Power Glove per Explodicle. Can find nothing that passes any of the 12 criteria of WP:MUSIC. Of the 2 refs on the article, 1 is just a reprint of the details of one of their album. While proving verifiability, it does not prove notability. WP:MUSIC#C1 calls for multiple non-trivial published works, and only finding the one, it just doesn't quite pass yet. Willing to change vote if more are found mind you. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:29, 12 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, many issues--Salix alba (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannis Galidakis[edit]

Violates guidelines for neutral point of view WP:NPOV, conflict of interest WP:CONFLICT and no original research WP:OR. The article was written by the subject of this biography. The subject himself wanted to delete this article on 02 May 2008 (see discussion page). On top of that I must admit I have done extensive web search but have not found an independent article on a famous/well-known/marginal mathematician (or human for that matter) named Ioannis Galidakis. Tedblack (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote YES, delete me. This article is more trouble than what is worth. Galidakis (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Author of the article and apparently subject of the bio requests deletion. Fails WP:LIVE most likely as well. Equendil Talk 17:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete Creator of his own biography blanked and requested deletion of this page. This should be CSD and not in an AfD. BMW(drive) 16:24, 12 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. Synergy 00:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Toplinsky[edit]

Delete not notable - went to jail for poisoning horses, stealing drugs Mynameisstanley (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor criminal Peoplearecool2008 (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Peoplearecool2008 Indef blocked sockpuppet of User:Mynameisstanley. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep ~~Non notable and unsourcable.~~ All right, i suggest that the article be kept, and expanded if there are more sources. Joyson Noel (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not only sourceable, but is sourced. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 13 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. BJ^Talk 00:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primordiax[edit]

Non-notable future game. Fails WP:N/WP:WEB as its only mentions in independent references are cursory (e.g. this). It also fails WP:PRODUCT for similar reasons. Total ghits (excl. Wikipedia and mirrors) are about 63. Article itself fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — nn MMORPG. 'nuff said. MuZemike (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability.--SkyWalker (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely non notable + WP:NOTCRYSTAL Equendil Talk 17:37, 11 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, redirect Puakenikeni. Daniel (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puakenikeni[edit]

This songs isn't notable, is poorly charted and referenced, was only released on iTunes, there's no music video or other notable things to keep it.

I am also nominating the following related page because the same reasons above

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Voices4ever (talk • contribs) 2008/09/10 18:00:33

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable fancruft, also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (future album release). Equendil Talk 17:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the former, which at least charted. Delete the latter, as it didnt' chart and is an unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect first one, and delete second one, per TPH. I'm willing to change my vote to a keep on "Puakenikeni" if anyone can find references to back up the chart position. I'm unable to find any. If so, then it will pass WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Maybe leave redirects (anyone think they will be search terms for anyone except fans?). Also, even if it did chart in one place, this article gives no info that wouldn't be easily (and better) included in the album/artist page.Yobmod (talk) 10:49, 16 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Innovation and Entrepreneurship[edit]

Just a degree - master's degrees come in ever so many names and shapes, and there is no indication that this particular degree is important or notable. Punkmorten (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we can't have an article on every possible flavor of Master's degree in the world. While for instance a Master in Business Administration is quite notable, no attempt to prove notability of this particular degree at all. Also, the article seems to be unfocused and rely on original research. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with all comments above; also a non-notable neologism that apparently seeks to embellish the prosaic MBA degree with glittering generalities for extra salesmanship. Thinking this up ought to have qualified the originator for an honorary degree, at minimum, though. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism. We66er (talk) 19:39, 13 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lad lit[edit]

Non-notable and poorly-defined neologism. Please also see discussion on "Fratire" Barton Foley (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NEO. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 17:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Down with home made neologisms, variations are infinite. Equendil Talk 18:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism, and even if had some notability, any mention could be made on the more marginally notable Fratire page. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:19, 14 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shilai Devi[edit]

Although there are claims of notability in the article (goddess with huge festival), there are no sources to back this up. Gseach gives just 8 non-wiki ghits, none of which are showing notability; no hits in gnews, gscholar, or gbooks. Because there may be transcription issues from a non-western alphabet, I'm bringing this to AfD instead of prodding. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails Wikipedia:Verifiability entirely. Equendil Talk 18:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:30, 13 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Bolt[edit]

Unsourced and no Google hits. Also see Special:Undelete/Alexey Windiz (admins only), which was the same content. howcheng {chat} 16:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless referenced properly. See WP:V WP:LIVE. Equendil Talk 18:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that Autoconfirmed users cannot see Special:Undelete/Alexey Windiz. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what "Alexey Windiz" is, so id appreciate if someone would copy + paste it. Also rude of you to put a prod tag on my article without warning me.Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 21:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did warn you. As for Alexey Windiz, it's the same content as the this version of the Donald Bolt article, just replace "Donald Chester Bolt" with "Alexey Windiz". howcheng {chat} 23:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

then someone copied it, I never created "Alexey Windiz" and have no idea who did. Also, this is referenced from a music textbook i have. not a hoax at all. Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 00:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please give us a citation. What is the title of the textbook, the author(s), the publisher, the year, the ISBN, the page number(s)? Why is there no existence of "Donald Bolt" the pianist or "East Coast Music Hall of Fame" or "Idaho State Musician Organization" anywhere on the Internet? Let's say Bolt was active too long ago to get a mention now, but the latter two organizations should exist, right? Why don't they, even in Google Maps which has a business directory? howcheng {chat} 02:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The organizations foiled. and I must find the book :) Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 12:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if referenced, isn't notable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the total absence of anything claimed in this article smacks of hoax. Even if the Idaho State Musician Organization had folded as claimed there would be some trace left, the award was allegedly in 1999 so well within the internet era. Nuttah (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't treat me like a criminal. Bolt is real and all of this came from a music text book I have on a one page article about him. Apparently he wasn't THAT popular but I thought being inducted into HOF and getting national awards is pretty notable. Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 04:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is treating you like a criminal. If you got this from a book, just find the book and provide the citation (which you should have done in the first place when you created the article). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be, if you could cite it. howcheng {chat} 04:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:17, 13 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. Synergy 01:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries in chronological order of achieving statehood[edit]

This article has the same aim and theme as List of sovereign states by formation date which has had several copies before. A consencus should be reached on one article. We should not have one article for each opinion on this subject. Inge (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is what List of sovereign states by formation date should have been. This list actually does list the nations "by formation date", and does so in a plausible fashion. Certainly, this is not a case of one list being similar to the other, but rather the information being presented differently. To some extent, different arrangements of the same data is tolerable, particularly on core subjects such as information about the nations of the world. The "other" list is arranged geographically, while this list is arranged historically. I think the older list is misnamed, but that by itself is not a reason to delete one and keep the other. Mandsford (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a worthwhile list, although it may not be perfect and complete. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be nothing wrong with that list as such, this merging issue should not be handled through AfD. Equendil Talk 18:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The difference between the two lists isn't one of point of views but of seemingly unreconcilable formats. The problem is of a technical nature: how to present data sorted and grouped according to multiple criteria. Having two lists presenting the same data in different ways is, in essence, a technical solution (albeit a bad one, as data is duplicated). Equendil Talk 18:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because of a revert war, this is not a single article but two different articles. Depending on which one is current when you view it, you might come to different conclusions. A recent example of what I'll call the IP article is here and an example of what I'll call the Alternative article is here. I know that AfD is not the place to settle revert wars, but I do ask people to be aware of that when you express an opinion about the article it's important to say which version you mean. Also, there's information on the discussion page that people may find relevant. Fg2 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the same info is presented in two different format, I think we should keep this list. Agree with the above editor that the merging issue should not be handled through AFD.—Chris! _ct 23:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one actually lists states chronologically, unlike the other one which only claims to in its title. More importantly, this list includes states no longer existent/independent today, something of great historical importance. LordAmeth (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is very similar to List of sovereign states by formation date, but does, as has been noted, list by date and includes soverign states which no longer exist. Unfortunately, it's also subject to vastly erroneous edits by various IPs. Ideally, this should be merged with List of sovereign states by formation date, such that the data may be sorted either alphabetically or chronologically, and still including ex-states. --Cooper-42 (talk) 14:33, 12 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle Friday[edit]

Non-notable segment on a cable music countdown show (106 & Park). Tagged for dubious notability and lack of references for over 4 months with zero improvement. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Equendil Talk 18:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, every show has to have a gimmick and this is an advertisement for this one. Simesa (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable segment on the show -- many watch it for expressly this segment. Furthermore, notable musicians such as Jin (rapper) and Immortal Technique have come to fame after segments on the show. Lastly, the page provides for a record of Hall of Fame winners, not found elsewhere on the web. (Sorry, I don't know the proper way to add a comment to this page so I edited it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.152.51 (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --T-rex 18:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable segment of show, with interest to a varied audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.79.41 (talk) 19:31, 13 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cyprus[edit]

the article is about an artist that fails the notability and verifiability criteria. PROD tag was removed by the one and only contributor without any attempt to explain why the person would meet the criteria and no significant improvements were made to the article Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: obviously non-notable. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 14:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bios need reliable sources. WP:LIVE. Equendil Talk 18:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Everyone has a story and there's nothing especially significant about this one so far. Simesa (talk) 22:37, 11 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 G7 by Orangemike. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mage Wars[edit]

"Fantasy Literature" series that appears to consist of stories posted on Geocities website by article creator [6]. A7 (web) speedy removed by IP. Fails WP:N, WP:NOR, and has WP:COI issues. Note that searching for "The Mage Wars" also gathers hits to an unrelated PC game and a Mercedes Lackey book series, as well as other references, since it's a relatively common fantasy phrase. gnfnrf (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For reasons of notability/verifiability. Equendil Talk 18:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The original author blanked the page, which I reverted, since he isn't the only contributor to the page. Since the work's author appears to be the original athor of the page, this seems to be WP:OR. Not to mention the lack of notability. -Brougham96 (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The IP that has also made substantive edits has now also blanked the page and posted an explicit deletion request under the creators name, so I think they are the same person. Thus, I have tagged the article G7. gnfnrf (talk) 15:28, 12 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie Broadband[edit]

The article has no sources and reads like an advertisement. I tagged the article as CSD 11[7] but was removed by an IP[8]. Fails notability has no reliable sources. This ISP isn't notable unlike Bigpond, iiNet/Westnet, Internode ect which are major ISP's that also have there own infrastructure where as Aussie Broadband is only a small ISP that resells. Bidgee (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also as a note "Aussie Broadband" on Google shows up some news stories which are not related with the company/article as it's about Australian (Aussie in short) Broadband. Bidgee (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- without third party sources this is mere advertising. - Longhair\^talk 11:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie Broadband is one of only a half-dozen satellite ISP's operating under the Australian Government Broadband Guarantee [9], which allows rural users access to broadband at semi-equivalent metro rates. This (in my humble opinion) makes it notable. It does read a bit ad-like though. 119.17.135.14 (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it has funding from the Australian Government Broadband Guarantee doesn't make it notable and all it does is resell a product. Bidgee (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. There are only (counts) 12 ISP's in Australia that currently qualify for the AGBG, which helps drop the install costs of Australian satellite internet by $2500, and lowers the ongoing costs significantly. In AussieBroadband's case, it also delivers a product (the IPStar platform) which is not available directly from IPStar to the average Australian internet user. This makes them (and certainly, the other 11 ISP's on the list) more notable over the other few hundred ISP's in Australia 119.17.135.14 (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So? having AGBG funding so rural Australian's payless for broadband and as a company that resells a product, doesn't make it notable. Bidgee (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - They are about as notable as the other 26 ISP's listed on ISP's of Australia. I don't see any great amount of difference between those ISP pages and this one. Except for the lack of decent third-party sources.119.17.135.14 (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. -- Longhair\^talk 00:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aussie Broadband does own a lot of network infrusture in regional Victoria including a large Last Mile Wireless network and ADSL2+ DSLAM's. While this is not directly visable on the Aussie Broadband site, if you reference its two holly owned companies Wideband Networks [10] and Westvic Broadband [11] it will be there. Also if you search the Australian Google site for Aussie Broadband, it comes up as the first result. I agree the current page does read like an add and should be ammended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.130.130 (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Third party sources to prove that they own infrastructure like those of other ISP's? Any company can make such claims including those that are not well known and just because the site for the company shows up as first result doesn't make it notable. Bidgee (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: blatant adverting. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 14:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Secondary sources lacking, notability issue. Equendil Talk 18:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-Notable. Company was only founded this year, make this article again when you can get some 3rd party sources that can secure it's notability -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 17:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh.. No, you'll find that the two companies which merged date back to 2003 and 2001. And what the hell do you mean "third party sources?" the fact that i am typing this message now eems to prove they are an ISP. I think you'll find that [This link] proves that. If i were to apply your rationale to other entries from the likes of Internode, Tel$tra and Optus, they should also be deleted. ABB happens to have the largest satellite network in Australia and are actually a wholesaler with their own infrastructure and high-capacity links from Brisbane to Sydney to Melbourne. Perhaps you should actually do some research before making assumptions...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.17.131.53 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evil and rude[edit]

Consists solely of a definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Somno (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability and it appears to be WP:OR. Quid Pro Quo²³ 11:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --T-rex 13:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Look at the history: this article began in 2002. It started as a part of the Jargon File, a public domain source of old-timey hacker terminology that was made into some of the earliest articles of the project. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in six years, the article has not been expanded at all beyond what was imported from the Jargon File - a dictionary definition. :) Somno (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, and no indication in the article about whether this is notable even in the world of computer programming. Mandsford (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At most it is a dictionary item. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the Jargon File is an interesting and amusing read (if you're an aging geek), individual entries need not find their way here unless somewhat notable (like foo, bar foobar, flame, bug, kludge, etc). Equendil Talk 18:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I made it a stub, but it would be easier just to kill this thing off. PhishRCool ^{Talk / Contribs / Secret Page} 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But expand!--Ret.Prof (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Do you know how it could be expanded? Somno (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see what more could be added, this wasn't even part of the original jargon file. That kind of semi slang is highly volative, that particular expression has probably never been in much use in the first place, and in any case, there isn't much to say about most of the entries in the jargon file beyond dictionary definitions that don't belong here. Equendil Talk 04:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my stance in nominating one of the sister articles Good Thing and Bad Thing. These three articles (this one, Good Thing and Bad Thing, and Bad and Wrong) basically restate the title and then ramble for a bit about the supposed significance of using these words with capital letters. It's late, and I'm not particularly strong with policy anyway, so I'm not going to try to cite anything, but there has come a point where I'm just throwing up my hands and saying "What the hell is this?" Is an article like Tremendous (currently a redirect to a boat with that name) going to spring up, saying "Tremendous is a really good thing to say about something" which goes on to talk about a book that used that word a lot? Would that be a good article? Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 07:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The phrase is too obscure for an encyclopedia. GregorB (talk) 20:02, 14 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad and Wrong[edit]

Consists solely of a definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Somno (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability and it appears to be WP:OR. Quid Pro Quo²³ 12:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not really original research, the jargon file comes as close as you can get to being a reliable source as far as "hacker" jargon goes, not really a notable expression though. Equendil Talk 19:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia has elected to be an encyclopedia and not a dictionary/usage guide. So let's keep it that way. --Rividian (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, and no indication in the article about whether this is notable even in the world of computer programming. Mandsford (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the Jargon File is an interesting and amusing read (if you're an aging geek), individual entries need not find their way here unless somewhat notable (like foo, bar foobar, flame, bug, kludge, etc). Equendil Talk 19:00, 11 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 deleted. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 12:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fibonacci numbers and Fractals[edit]

Original research that - if worthwhile - can be incorporated into the various articles linked to in this article. Booglamay (talk) - 10:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR as per nom. CultureDrone (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Notability, WP:OR, and it's just not encyclopedic. Quid Pro Quo²³ 11:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, unsourced, not notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. OR. Has been to AfD before with delete decisions. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Unsourced, unnotable, OR, the text is barely coherent. Nsk92 (talk) 12:56, 11 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meltdown (Band)[edit]

Contested prod. Musical group that does not assert notability per WP:BAND - no coverage, no albums released yet, no charting songs. CultureDrone (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to assert notability. Seems to be a local band; re-add if or when they obtain larger (or any) coverage. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 12:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, the band fall a long way short of WP:MUSIC. Nuttah (talk) 08:33, 13 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of manufacturers of solar powered vaccine refrigerators[edit]

Delete - An example of pushing the lists phenomenon too far. "Manufacturers of solar powered vaccine refrigerators"? I completely fail to see the point of having this article. ~~SIS~~ 10:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created it to avoid embedding the list inside the main vaccine refrigerator article, as it's possible that more manufacturers will be added and it will become quite long. Would it be better in the main article? AshdenAwards (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a link to the WHO document that lists approved manufacturers in the Vaccine_refrigerators article. No need to double (or triple) that information, I think. Besides, other articles about appliances/machines don't list manufacturers at all. See, for example Refrigerator, Drill and Microwave oven. ~~SIS~~ 10:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was worth it for the vaccine refrigerator article because it's a somewhat rare appliance (many people don't even know they exist), and it took me a while to track down the websites of some of the manufacturers listed in the WHO document (which is nearly 300 pages long), so I'd like to save other people the time by giving the list of names and external links.AshdenAwards (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not a directory and the majority of these "lists" seem to only exist as directories (despite the obviously good intentions of the majority of contributors). Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is just a link farm with no encyclopedic content --T-rex 13:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to vaccine refrigerator, but as part of a sentence, not a list. Mandsford (talk) 13:28, 11 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. Eluchil404 03:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Heldsinger[edit]

This rugby league player is not notable in terms of rugby league. He plays solely in a second division youth competition, which is not considered worthy of an article by the Rugby league WikiProject (of which I am a active member). Normally we allow articles for players which play in the top competition. If and when this player enters a fully fledging top level playing career, we recommend an article on Wikipedia, until and only if then, this article won't go beyond the simple sentence which dosen't/wouldn't explain anything. There would be hardly any third party sources on this player. The Windler talk 09:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced: wp:v, wp:blp. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-11t09:41z
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified information. Notability not proven.--Lester 10:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, might have a great career ahead of him, but hasn't crossed the notability line yet. No significant third-party coverage that I could find. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Lower grade and NYC player only. He gets around on facebook though. •Florrie•leave a note• 15:05, 15 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 National Rugby League season 2008. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 NRL Finals series[edit]

The 2008 NRL Finals series (starting 12 September) will already be detailed in the National Rugby League season 2008 and 2008 NRL season results articles. Jeff79 (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, I would simply redirect it back to the page where the finals info would be. The Windler talk 09:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. After deletion.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - doesn't require deletion first (unless there is some actual policy reason for deletion the nom hasn't pointed out yet). 11:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh. Well yeah, I was more concerned with the unnecessary duplication of content (this is my first nom). I'm happy for "2008 NRL Finals series" to direct us elsewhere, but I'm not happy for the tables of results appearing in three places on Wikipedia. So instead of doing this I just should have blanked the page and put a re-direct to 2008 NRL season results#Finals? Oops.--Jeff79 (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that yeah. And for what it's worth I agree duplication of the same charts over and over isn't going to help. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A useful and comprehensive overview of the finals series. Also see last year's article and the year before that. WWGB (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accept that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason to keep or delete articles. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accept that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (which is an essay and neither a policy nor a guideline) acknowledges that "comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". WWGB (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There's an apparent consensus for them to be merged too as per Talk:2005_NRL_Finals_Series#Merge and Talk:2002_NRL_Finals_Series#Merger discussion.--Jeff79 (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Putting aside that this should be a merge discussion rather than an AfD, merging the information will make the main article far less readable. A separate page is justified under WP:SPINOUT.Assize (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't see any problem with the same info being presented in three different articles? Or are you suggesting finals be separated from regular season results? I really don't think there's so much information about a season of football that it can't all be covered in only two articles.--Jeff79 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if this specific article should be deleted or kept, but a structure should be decided upon for sports season articles (for all sports). In some cases there are separate pre-season, season, finals series and grand final articles, for every season, which is a bit over the top. -- Chuq (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is usual for sports realted articles to have a separate 'Finals' article. Far Canal (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge There are now four articles. Two covering exactly the same subject but with different names. NRL 2008 Finals Series and 2008 NRL Finals series. One should go and the other merge with 2008 NRL season results. •Florrie•leave a note• 14:57, 15 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) 08:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brewno[edit]

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

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

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

An article about a drinking game that has been deleted twice (and prodded again). The rationale is that this is a non notable game with no sources provided thus failing WP:V and WP:N. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only mentions of this I can find in Google are in a few blogs, forums, and websites with user-submitted content. These are not reliable sources (and descriptions of the game vary between them anyway), therefore the info is unverifiable and the article should be deleted. Somno (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable drinking game. the external links section (which I can only assume is supposed to be a stand in for references) doesn't even really lend any verifiability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination (disclosure: I believe I was the person who nominated it for deletion both previous times, and had prodded it again). I don't think it's necessary yet, but if the article continues to be re-recreated, salting should be considered. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 12:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This article should stay. There are several mentions of this game on the internet. The fact that there are not many major references to this game in either popular culture or academia is not a direct indicator of it's level of notability. Due to the inherit nature of a drinking game (the environment, and behaviors connected therein), notability, under the personal definitions of those who wish to remove this entry is impossible. It is obvious why most of the places where you would find a drinking game are on a user-submitted basis, because like ALL drinking games they are made up mostly by a small group of people, and spread through word of mouth. If you would rather, view it in a anthropological sense as to the spread of, and favoritism to drinking games within the context of spoken word in the unique setting of college towns. Although if I cannot sway your opinion to the side of keeping this game due to notability then I urge you to delete EVERY drinking game article be removed, because with the exception of the historical references to drinking games as to their invention, all of the latter content and pages therein should be removed. For instance, Fuck the Dealer, Beer pong, and a very similar game to which this game was most likely developed from Pyramid(which only has one reference to another drinking game website). I don't know why this game has exception to these other pages, but if you feel it necessary to delete this page, for a reason that I believe is hypocritical, then you should remove all the other articles as well. Gumbyfly00-- — Gumbyfly00 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 71.228.73.181 (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with WP:IAR I second the above contributor's motion to delete all articles about specific drinking games (especially those which conflict with not a game guide) like this one and propose that only those REALLY REALLY notable ones are included in short form within one article on the topic. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I agree, that should be done as a separate AFD. This AFD is about the Brewno article - the notability of the other articles isn't really relevant. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 12:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

" I have heard of this game multiple times through friends and family, but we were never able develop an accurate source of rules. I found these rules to be accurate with what I originally learned. I believe the article is very informative and should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.201.166 (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC) — 128.227.201.166 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep-I have been playing this game for about twenty years now and is very well known throughout my town. I highly recommend you keep this article. Surprisingly the rules here are exactly the way we all play it, however I have heard of a few variations, however this is the original version.Condor85 (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)— Condor85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete in its current form. Will reconsider if reliable sources establishing notability are added. Nuttah (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When did it become proper and acceptable behavior to delete material because you haven't heard of it or seen it? I have personally seen this game being played on the following campuses: Emory University, Georgia Tech, University of Florida, University of South Florida, Florida State University, University of North Florida. The original purpose of Wikipedia was to provide information on every imaginable topic to individuals with no charge. The only items that were to be deleted are the items that are obviously incorrect or false. As no one proposing to delete this article has actually managed to prove it's illegitimacy (other than the fact that they've never played it), perhaps they should instead try playing the game instead of jerking off to their own supposed Wikisuperiority. P.S. When I read the phrase "I don't think it's necessary yet, but if the article continues to be re-recreated, salting should be considered," the word wanker immediately came to mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.36.27 (talk • contribs) 18:15, September 14, 2008 — 24.136.36.27 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please feel free to read WP:CIVIL as soon as possible. You may also wish to have a look at the policies and guidelines around notability, verifiability, and reliable sources as well as the various helpful pages on what arguments to avoid at this particular venue. Your comments do not seem to be based in policy in anyway and you do Wikipedia and yourself a disservice with them. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The main reason why mostly any subject can be found in Wikipedia is because anyone who has knowledge of it can bring it to the encyclopedia. Which is what makes Wikipedia a place to search the topics that would NOT be found on google yet, or academic sources. Brewno is actually a game that is rapidly growing in many college campuses, for those of you who haven’t been in college in the past 5 years. If this article is deleted, Wikipedia would be failing to serve one of it’s main purposes. It would not be the leader provider of information that’s relevant to cultural and social issues, not just our textbooks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.166.157 (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC) — 64.238.166.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Actually, Wikipedia requires verifiable sources for articles. If Brewno does not appear in such sources, we cannot establish its notability, and it should not be included in Wikipedia. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 17:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Here are just a few-
*http://www.realbeer.com/fun/games/games-243.php
*http://www.idrink.com/displaygame.html?gamename=fuckyou
*http://www.powerhourvx.com/free_games_online_games_free_online_games_play_addicting_poker_fun_cards/fuck_you_cards_drinking_games.htm
*http://www.barmeister.com/games/by_category/2/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.73.181 (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2008 — 71.228.73.181 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thanks, but none of those are reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. Somno (talk) 00:46, 16 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. Daniel (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Rho Zeta[edit]

Puff piece on non-notable local frat, deleted by prod and brought back. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this fraternity non-notable? There are plenty of articles on wikipdiea about local fraternaties. --light darkness^(talk) 00:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fraternity article is rated as Mid importance level on the Quality Scale of the Fraternities and Sororities Project and contributes to the understanding on the issue of Local Fraternities. AcriAL (talk) 05:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-arguments. This frat has 44 Google hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Phlegm Rooster's argument is not valid because 'Google Hits' are not perpetual, they can change from computer to computer, day to day.AcriAL (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A one-college fraternity would have to do something really notable, and the minor local activities are not anywhere near enough, as is shown by the fact that nobody outside the college has bothered to write anything about them. DGG (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the Project Description: "...the Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject, (is) an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Greek Life on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to International social societies, local organizations, honor societies, and their members.AcriAL (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of significant, independent coverage provided and none found in a search so fails WP:ORG. The interest and scope of a WikiProject is irrelevant to the notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason the scope was cited is by the definition of a local organization (e.g. a fraternity encompassing one or two schools), they are bound to be smaller in scope. As per the notability guidelines, notability is not fame, merely "worthy of notice". If there are problems with the article itself, any competent editing help can ensure it is consistent with guidelines. AcriAL (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to improve an article if there are no sources for anything notable to write about. DGG (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well if the consensus turns out to be that this article is not notable enough for inclusion, is there anything precluding the expansion of the sub-article "Alfred State College" to include additional information about constituent organizations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.20.169 (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No there is not, and I'll be delighted to provide the content of this article on request to a registered user who plans on incorporating it. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. Wikiprojects do not get to set binding inclusion standards for articles in their purview. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 16 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tessarine[edit]

Apparently do not exist outside of the references given (I checked Google Scholar and Google Books). I've left a note at the mathematics wikiproject. Ben (talk) 08:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found a few reference so far [12] seems to be broken google cache is better. Also [13], [14]. --Salix alba (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's this 2006 conference proceedings paper too [15] – the top hit on Google Scholar (same author as Salix alba's [3] above). Mentions tessarines in the abstract. I think this shows tessarines have a life beyond one author's works around 1850. Apparently they, or related things, might even find some use in digital signal processing. Qwfp (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as mildly notable in itself, see above, but also to allow a thorough review of this and related articles such as Biquaternion and Split-complex number. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as historical pivot from ii=−1 to other complex planes including dual numbers. In this case James Cockle went out on a limb writing about at 4-D algebra that includes a "new imaginary" j satisfying jj=+1. Compare imaginary number#history.Rgdboer (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs inline cites. We66er (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete. The algebraic construction here seems to be a special case of the quaternions or more generally clifford algebras. I haven't checked the dates but if it turns out that their inventor preceded Hamilton's quaternions, that might be a notable fact that would be in favor of keeping it. The fact that the bibliography contains nothing but the works by their creator should have been a sure sign of a speedy deletion. I am a little puzzled by the unanimity above. If there are indeed some applications they should be documented. If this is to be included as a footnote on the history of the quaternions, well, this should be researched and documented. Without SOME relation to what is going on elsewhere in algebra, I don't see how this could interest anyone except their creator and his descendants. If there are any applications, there is certainly precious little information about them in the article. The only reason my "delete" is "conditional" is because I noticed that the article has been edited by editors whose opinion is not be be discounted, but I fail to follow as per the current state of the article, which has been around 4 years (!) Katzmik (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetorical question Which speedy deletion criterion would apply here? --H.G. 15:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must have meant "rapid deletion" rather than "speedy deletion". What do you think of the substance of my remarks? Katzmik (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Hamilton published his quaternions five years before Cockle's first paper. These tessarines are most likely an imitation of Hamilton's work. Katzmik (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My understanding (this is way outside my field) is that tessarines are a special case of biquaternions, not quaternions. From the dates on the refs in the three articles it appears that tessarines were proposed after quaternions but before biquaternions. The title of Cockle's first paper makes it clear that he was aware of Hamilton's work on quaternions, while Hamilton's mentions Cockle and tessarines in a footnote on p64 of his 1853 lecture that introduced biquaternions. --Qwfp (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep because it is reasonable for Wikipedia's inclusion standards to be very different from those of, e.g. research journals. Katzmik's objection to this article seems to be that it is non-notable because no good research came of this and no prospect of such a thing is in sight, so it's not notable. But it sometimes happens that things like this get neglected for a long time before someone working in some off-beat area of research notices that something can be done that was never noticed before. A web search will turn up previous work because it's in a Wikipedia article far more surely than looking through old (19th-century in this case) journals will do. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, let's keep it then. I do think there is a guideline that a page must have actual, rather than merely potential, relevance. Katzmik (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just wondering if tesarines, triplets, octaves, pluquaternion might be better treated in an article on the history of quaternion and related structures. Perhaphs merge into History of quaternions. --Salix alba (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Qwfp pointed out that tessarines were mentioned in an address of Hamilton's. This would lend support to including all this material in a historical section. Katzmik (talk) 10:27, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Blondel[edit]

notability not asserted in article; no citations; only external links are to a MySpace profile and the artist's site ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 06:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. This person is a non-notable singer. A Google News Archive search returns zero results. The subject of this article has not received any reliable, third-party coverage. Cunard (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor Chad has no notability! --Lester 22:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to meet any of the 12 notability criteria at WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as not passing any of the big 12, sorry. tomasz. 11:52, 15 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 deleted by Lectonar. CSD G12, blatant copyright violation. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-Faded[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The 2 references cited were combined to produce this article in a blatant copyright violation. Now tagged as such. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:30, 11 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) 08:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Thing and Bad Thing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This has been marked with ((unreferenced)) for nearly two years, and seems aside from one sentence to be patent original research and just plain...well...stupid, to quote User:SeizureDog from the first AFD. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 06:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reason these phrases need an encyclopedia entry. Somno (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article seems to be substantially copied from an entry in the New Hacker's Dictionary, alias the Jargon File; the usage is arguably highly notable, and it's one of the expressions from 1066 and All That that has caught on most lastingly. However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so the article should probably be deleted, even though I'm sure it can be better referenced than this. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not much has changed since the last time this was nominated. The "unreferenced" tag is in fact inappropriate here; the article mentions several sources in its text. The history of the page goes back to 2002, revealing that this was in fact a part of the Jargon File information that was added to the encyclopedia at the dawn of the project. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It mentioned one at the time I nominated this, and it still mentions one (it's just that it's now an inline). I know WP:NOEFFORT is supposedly a bad argument, but it's true in this case, and I just don't see the point of this article in the slightest (not even how other people might find a point in it). Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 07:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination is a Bad Thing. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to cite any policy as to why, or to further improve the article? Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 07:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant policy is WP:IMPERFECT. I have already improved the article and might do more. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic. So Good Thing means a good thing, and Bad Thing means a bad thing. May be worth a mention in Wiktionary if capitalising letters for emphasis is really all that remarkable, but doesn't merit an encyclopedia article.--Michig (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently unencyclopiedic. A ni Mate 03:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is my least favorite article on Wikipedia. I absolutely hate it. I wish we could fill it with natural gas and float it over a lit candle. And if we couldn't do that, then maybe we could get Gallagher to bring his big ol' watermelon-smashing hammer and smash it. So, basically, I just don't like it, and that's a bad thing. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:42, 16 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal actions filed against the McCain/Palin campaign[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Legal actions filed against the McCain/Palin campaign

List fork composed of speculative information that seems better handled in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. -- Suntag (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. I was expecting a much larger article when I clicked on it. The campaign articles are already mammoth, so if there aren't a lot more content forks to ease the page size, this isn't necessary. Given its small size, it probably wouldn't be anyway. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 06:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not worth merging. People get sued everyday without being notable. Notable people get sued everyday without the individual case being notable. article is POV in its very essense. I've removed 2 items that don't fit the "legal actions" reason for inclusion and have formatted the references for what is left. I don't believe p2pnet is a particularly reliable source for verifiability.Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of claimed notability --T-rex 13:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like Nosleep, I was expecting more of an article than this. Three musical performers (Jackson Browne, Heart, Frankie Valli) have asked the McCain campaign to not sue their songs anymore. Note to author: A "cease and desist" letter is not the filing of a legal action. Mandsford (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the reasons cited above. The three cease and desist orders are nothing. What's next: parking citations? Besides, a little-watched fork like this is more prone to pro- or anti-McCain POV mischief than a bigger article on many watchlists. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Nothing outstandingly notable about any of the lawsuits. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 16:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial. If you want to help Obama get out and volunteer for his campaign. :-) Borock (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, not enough here to even be worth merging. Edward321 (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are 404 errors, and these are more 'please use another song' requests more than demands that they will sue the campaign into oblivion if they keep using them. Nate • (chatter) 23:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, as suggested above, though mentioning that they're mere COD orders, not lawsuits. Also, the 404s were due to someone (likely the original author) adding "|", between the URL and the description, which is a no-no in Wiki linking rules. -- azumanga (talk) 02:30, 12 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) 08:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kikuo Harigaya[edit]

No references to indicate that subject meets notability criteria as set forth in WP:PROF. Article most probably created by subject. Speedy tag removed by anon editor, possibly the same as article creator, but as there is no way to prove this short of checkuser, Afd is the only possible route to deletion. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:34, 11 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 per nom. Fails WP:PROF. The subject of this article has no extraordinary accomplishments. Neither are there reliable, third-party sources about this individual. Cunard (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar Die Streichung empfohlen wird. --124.144.195.175 (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 124.144.195.175 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

コメント 即刻削除の蓋然性が高い。--I 2008 (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— I 2008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

translation comment: The needness for the prompt deletion is high enough. --Joyful 08 (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He actually has a number of papers that appear to be reasonably well-cited. GoogleScholar[16] gives an h-index of about 13 with top citation hits of 77, 58 and 43. That is OK but for a field like physics not enough to demonstrate notability. The three publications listed as "books" in the articles are actually book chapters/articles in books, as his own website shows[17]. No significant awards or honors mentioned either in the article or in the CV[18]. Not enough here to pass WP:PROF, in my opinion. Nsk92 (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm totally stumped as to why the AfD template in the Bio article has a redlink to this page, something seems subtly broken. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nsk92. The link here is not red for me.... I am puzzled by the two foreign language comments above. I cannot read the Japanese (?) one, but the German one (from a Japanese IP) is apparently recommending deletion in fake German. --Crusio (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how totally bizzare, it's still red, even after I force a re-load... Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link also shows as red for me, but when I click on it, it does give an editing window for this AfD page. Nsk92 (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's the behaviour I get... Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete he is an author on all 121 papers listed here? World of Science turns up a lot of hits for "Harigaya K" in medical journals that I assume are other authors. I'm not sure how he stacks up against the typical physicist, 121 papers seems decent, but h-index of 13 seems pretty modest, some awards or honours would be convincing. I'm inclined to agree with Crusio & Nsk92, that notability hasn't been demonstrated, but am prepared for more evidence should it come in. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I did some work on this subject last night, but I didn't get the chance to post. Basically, the Science Citation Index lists nothing for Kikuo Harigaya. At first I wasn't surprised by that result considering the index looks for mostly English-language publications and their citations. However, I also checked Google Scholar. I found a few citations here and there and verification of his English-language publications. For me, it becomes a tough call because I don't want to be unfair to Dr. Harigaya's work and impact. WP:PROF lists several notability criteria that don't seem to apply to Hiragaya. That leaves us with #1 and #4 -- The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources and The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Based on what we have, I'm leaning towards delete. I speak and read Japanese, but I'm not aware of a Japanese-language search engine similar to the Science Citation Index. For me, that index is probably what we should be consulting. If new information arises that he's significantly cited in the Japanese-language community, I'll change my opinion for sure. J Readings (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I wondered why the Japanese version is not considered for deletion. That Japanese article lacks much more than this English version. --Joyful 08 (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Harigaya works in physics where everybody publishes in English. Only in some humanities -and not even all there either- do people publish in their native languages, most of science nowadays is published in English. If he isn't cited in WoS or GS, then that's a good indication of no notability. As for the existence of an article on the Japanese WP, I think that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS goes for a different WP even more than for other articles on the English version. --Crusio (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I consider the publication record sufficient. h-index is a crude attempt to combine number and citations into a single metric, and the subsequent literature since its introduction has mainly been devoted to finding something better. It is not sensistive to people with a few highly cited papers-- the h=13 can mean 13 papers each cited 13 times, or 12 papers cited 200 times and 1 cited 13 times. In this case, looking at Scopus, slightly more sensitive than WoS for non-europeans, the two most cited papers have 64 and 60 citations (both with him senior author). l. Such a publication record is not enough in some fields of physics, but in solid state, where publications are much more diffuse than, say, nuclear physics, I think its significant enough. I put considerable weight on that a number of his publications, including the most cited, are published in Physical Review B, the top solid-state journal. DGG (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Looking at http://www.researcherid.com/rid/C-1079-2008, his publication number is 121, and the h-index is 18, more than that found in google scholar. That is enough. --Yoshio 2003 (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Yoshio 2003 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep Look at the reference, as of September 13, 2008. Highly cited papers are:

1. Title: LATTICE DISTORTION AND ENERGY-LEVEL STRUCTURES IN DOPED C-60 AND C-70 MOLECULES STUDIED WITH THE EXTENDED SU-SCHRIEFFER-HEEGER MODEL - POLARON EXCITATIONS AND OPTICAL-ABSORPTION Author(s): HARIGAYA, K Source: PHYSICAL REVIEW B Volume: 45 Issue: 23 Pages: 13676-13684 Year: JUN 15 1992 Times Cited: 115

2. Title: FROM C-60 TO A FULLERENE TUBE - SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS OF LATTICE AND ELECTRONIC-STRUCTURES BY THE EXTENDED SU-SCHRIEFFER-HEEGER MODEL Author(s): HARIGAYA, K Source: PHYSICAL REVIEW B Volume: 45 Issue: 20 Pages: 12071-12076 Year: MAY 15 1992 Times Cited: 85

3. Title: LATTICE AND ELECTRONIC-STRUCTURES OF UNDOPED AND DOPED C60 MOLECULES BY THE EXTENDED SU-SCHRIEFFER-HEEGER MODEL Author(s): HARIGAYA, K Source: JOURNAL OF THE PHYSICAL SOCIETY OF JAPAN Volume: 60 Issue: 12 Pages: 4001-4004 Year: DEC 1991 Times Cited: 63

4. Title: OPTICAL-ABSORPTION SPECTRA IN FULLERENES C(60) AND C(70) - EFFECTS OF COULOMB INTERACTIONS, LATTICE FLUCTUATIONS, AND ANISOTROPY Author(s): HARIGAYA, K; ABE, S Source: PHYSICAL REVIEW B Volume: 49 Issue: 23 Pages: 16746-16752 Year: JUN 15 1994 Times Cited: 60

5. Title: DIMERIZATION STRUCTURES OF METALLIC AND SEMICONDUCTING FULLERENE TUBULES Author(s): HARIGAYA, K; FUJITA, M Source: PHYSICAL REVIEW B Volume: 47 Issue: 24 Pages: 16563-16569 Year: JUN 15 1993 Times Cited: 50 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyful 08 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Joyful 08 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep He is a famous reseacher in Japan. And, he has had the well known contribution for the web technogy development (Japanese page). This should be one of the third party evidence. --I 2008 (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC) — I 2008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 03:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northfield Information Services[edit]

Non-notable company, cannot find multiple mentions in independent, reliable sources. Somno (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article about the company's founder just showed up, so I'm adding that too: (02:33, 12 September 2008)

Article should not be deleted for reasons given. Company is well-known within field of investment risk management, portfolio optimization, multi-factor equity risk models. Multi-mentions in independent, reliable sources available at:

http://www.bobsguide.com/guide/vend/Northfield_Information_Services.html,
Stochastic beta, you say? Sport of kings.(Frontlines)(Northfield Information Services takes clients to tennis tournament at International Tennis Hall of Fame in Newport, R.I)(Brief Article), Pensions & Investments, June, 2003 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5266/is_200306/ai_n20448127
http://artmam.net/Investment_Tools-7.htm
Go to Pensions & Investments newspaper website, a leading industry publication at pionline.com and type in "Northfield Information Services" in the search box and you will see 14 article listed.
Article from Businesswire, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2000_June_9/ai_62637038
"FactSet Announces Its Release of Northfield Optimizer at Northfield Annual Conference"Jamesw01 (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of many companies in this field. Links given above mainly lead to press releases. As per WP:SOURCES unless it is cited in a major newspaper (NYT, WSJ, etc), major magazine or on other major media, it is not notable. lk (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a non-consumer investment consulting business that fits the profile; "referenced" chiefly to press releases, and reads like a press release itself. The elaborate but unreferenced biographies of the proprietors strongly suggest conflict of interest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 11 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Rotation (Anastacia album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Heavy Rotation (Anastacia album)

Page was previously deleted [19]. As stated before, there is simply not enough information at this stage to dedicate an article to. No sources. A direct copy/paste from the artist's website. Alkclark (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 Recreation of deleted material. To early for it's own article, but not to early for a Hammer. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't fall under Hammer as album name is confirmed on artist's website. lk (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP Very notable upcoming album by a very popular artist. Couldn't you just use Google to find enough sources to keep it rather than just throw it up for AfD? That comes off as being kind of lazy. -The Bitch You Love (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Striked out editor's opinion as they have been block indefinitely . Alkclark (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - future album without tracklisting --T-rex 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Album will probably be notable in 1 month's time after it is released. Why bother to delete just to recreate again. lk (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Different sources confirm the album title, tracks have been confirmed, reviews have been done. Why delete it? Brianentrop (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Nothing is "official" about this album beyond a title, release date (for EU, with other territories to be released later). The single is barely making an impact on radio (at this point) yet alone sales. When Universal (or Anastacia herself) releases more details of the album then the article can be recreate but to have it sit there as a stub for six weeks is practically pointless. Alkclark (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice: (as I said in the previous AfD discussion) until the track list is confirmed and there are more reliable sources on the album, I don't see why this can't be in the artist's article (per WP:MUSIC). Cliff smith ^talk 19:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:45, 11 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) 08:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Thomas O'Higgins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Christopher Thomas O'Higgins

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). There are no independent, published sources about the subject of this article.

The first paragraph is about his supposed genealogy. The only references in the entire article appear in this paragraph. The references do not deal with the "Honoury Chieftain of the O'Higgins" at all. The first is that the name O'Higgins is a sept (followers) of the Uí Néill. The rest seem to be about the O'Higgins' in general, and not about "Honoury Chieftain of the O'Higgins".

The second and third paragraphs are a bio on the guy, there are no refs, and nothing listed shows his notability. In the third paragraph there are wiki-links to two societies: Manorial Society of Great Britain & Noble Society of Celts which seem to be an attempt to show this man is notable without having to prove it through references & sources. Both of these two articles are un-referenced stubs, and also created by the same user who created this article: Jamesnorman (talk · contribs).

The second section of the article is not about the "Honoury Chieftain of the O'Higgins", but about how the Irish government does not recognise even recognise chiefs. The government ceased "courtesy recognitions" in 2003 following scandals dealing with bogus chiefs. This webpage, written by one those who first exposed bogus chiefs in 1999, shows that there has never been a O'Higgins "chief" recognised by the modern Irish government. So basically, this guy's claim to fame is he is pretending to be a "Honoury Chieftain" and joining two "societies" listed on wikipedia.

The article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people): There are no independent, published sources about this guy. If you do some googling you get 6 hits on for "Christopher Thomas O'Higgins" -wikipedia. Four of them a mirrors of wikipedia, another is a blurb contributed to a website by a "Dr. James O'Higgins-Norman". I get 10 hits on google for "Thomas O'Higgins" Ballynary -wikipedia. Pretty much the same mirrors of wikipedia and the 'contribution' shown above. Nothing comes up on GoogleBookSearch for "Thomas O'Higgins" Ballynary & "Christopher O'Higgins" Ballynary & "Christopher Thomas O'Higgins" Ballynary. I doubt anything reliable has been written about this person. Celtus (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you address the concerns you have over the reliability and independence of the sources the article currently uses more fully? Geo Swan (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was an AfD in September 2007 about a relative of this person which resulted in a delete. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James O'Higgins-Norman. Cunard (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject of the article does not establish notability. Much of the article isn't even about him. It looks like an autobiography or a hoax. Cunard (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as notability is not established. But I am actually less concerned about the notability of this person than I am about the veracity of this article. Those familiar with the topic of Gaelic nobility know of the dodgy claims and outright hoaxes that have gone on this past two decades. In light of that, anything less than clearly made, well-substantiated claims and full disclosure is unacceptable. It seems this article may have been an attempt to add weight to O'Higgins' claim, even more so before I added the blabber about what the Chief Herald's role. That was a long time ago, I was a newer Wikipedian then and not so bold. I ranted about this article on another editor's talk page but I should have done more and proposed it for deletion then. Boston (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you responsible for some or all of the background material on minor irish nobility? If so, congratulations. I found it quite interesting. Please consider whether it merits being in a standalone article on Irish minor nobility, or reasonable equivalent. If this article had the specific information about Christopher Thomas O'Higgins trimmed, it could include the existing material on the minor nobility, and additional material on the controversy over the veracity of those claiming to be hereditary Chieftains, without taking a stand on that veracity. Cheer! Geo Swan (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably speedy, in fact, for lack of notability, and lack of authenticated sources. Yachtsman1 (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of order -- The criteria for speedy deletion authorize the deletion of articles that lack an "assertion of notability". But the criteria do not authorize the deletion of articles based on a concern that the assertions of notability are not credible. My understanding of the deletion policies is that there is no speedy close for deletion, based on notability, when an article asserts notability. FWIW if the assertion of notability is patently incredible then it would qualify for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense", not non-notability. Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question -- WRT "authenticated sources" -- sources do not have to be online to be considered WP:RS. There are sources where there is a formal or informal consensus that they are not WP:RS, even though they have a surface appearance of being legitimate news organizations. In this particular case I don't see anyone offering a reason why we should not consider the references this article uses to be WP:RS. This is the first time, in my four years on the wikipedia, I have seen the term "authenticated sources" used. I'd welcome an explanation of what respondent thinks this term means, and who they think we should count on for that authentication? Who do they propose would have the responsibility to initiate this authentication? Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I looked for policy of persons who are members of the nobility. There is a WP:Notability (Royalty), which also addresses the nobility, minor nobility, and landed gentry. The essay (did not/has not) acheived consensus. I thought it was worth mention, nevertheless. Off the top of my head I think all British peers merit coverage, there aren't that many of them. It sounds like this guy is "minor nobility/landed gentry", who I agree do not automatically merit coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Offline references continue to be WP:RS, since readers can go to a library and request a paper copy. I am sorry to report I did not fully understand this for a long time, and I used to remove "dead links". This is counter-policy, when the reference includes sufficient information for a dubious reader to hunt down a paper copy. Geo Swan (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If the relatively brief portion of the article devoted to Christopher Thomas O'Higgins is insufficient for a stand alone article, why shouldn't the bulk of the article be used to start an article on Irish minor nobility -- or added to an article on that topic, if one exists. (I am not sure if it would belong in Irish peerage, however.) Geo Swan (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Thank you for your thoughts. The term "authenticated" goes to the claim made, not the citations provided in support of the article. As such, the individual is not "notable". Please note that the individual has been named the "honorary" chief of the clan in question, which means that as a de facto matter, he is not a clannal chief, much less "noble". In order for the title of hereditary chief to be bestowed, one must "authenticate" one's claims of lineage before a title can be properly "recognized" and "bestowed", and as reflected in the article, this has not been accomplished. It should further be pointed out that this has been the subject of scandal within Ireland itself over the past few years, as properly stated by a former poster. Many of the aristocratic titles of the native Irish nobility are also difficult to authenticate as a matter of course as a result of the Flight of the Earls to Europe in the early 1600's. If you would like to learn more about the subject of establishing clannal chief title, I have provided the following link. ^[1]

Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:24, 14 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. Mr.Z-man 03:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As My Eye Sinks Into My Head EP[edit]

Non-notable future album fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. No substantial coverage for band or album found outside the band's related MySpace pages. Tracklist TBA. Band was speedily deleted per CSD#A7. There is obvious COI. Prod was disputed by author. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: deletion rationale amended. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just not notable. Yes, I know this argument is on WP:AADD but it applies in this situation. - Icewedge (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable album by a non-notable red linked band. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, obvious attempt at self-promotion. Isn't there a speedy type that can cover this? Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 06:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - future album by a non-notable band --T-rex 13:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Unreleased music by non-notable (and speedy deleted) band. ~~SIS~~ 11:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is keeping this from being deleted? It's clearly WP:SNOWing, and if this isn't actually speedy material, it certainly should be. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 07:02, 13 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. Synergy 00:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Week Cleveland[edit]

User:KittenBabyCat tried to afd this with an edit summary of "irrevelant entry; exaggerated/false information. a county-fair type event for Cleveland Ohio, but could be merged with other Cleveland article, with accurate info/editing.", but didn't do the afd right. No opinion, procedural listing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources such as WWD (which I added) seem to make this legit. Also 3rd largest in the country in pretty notable. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found several sources, enough to establish notability per WP:GNG.[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] - Icewedge (talk) 04:51, 12 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario for MegaZeux[edit]

Contested WP:PROD. Article fails both WP:V (No verifiable, third-party sources are listed that can establish any hint of notability.) and various aspects of WP:NOT, including Wikipedia is not your own web host and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There is also a conflict of interest with the creator and main editor of this article, as he/she is also the game's creator (see game's description. MuZemike (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable game. This game was released in June 2008, so it has not been around long enough to become real popular. It isn't a PS3 or Wii either. It fails WP:RS and a Google search returns only eight results. Cunard (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — reported to WP:COIN. MuZemike (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlicenced copyvio clone of Nintendo game, not notable. Nate • (chatter) 05:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --T-rex 13:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This game was not released in June 2008., that was an error. It is playable on the Wii and other popular platforms with the use of the program mentioned in the article Teabonesix (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any reliable 3rd party sources. Dlohcierekim 19:59, 12 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. Mr.Z-man 02:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urbana sistem[edit]

Non-notable new art, advertising tone. = JJL (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- JJL (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable self-defense system. According to their website (in the Crotian language) so I used Google Translate, urbana sistem has "5 teams in four cities in Croatia". That's not notable enough to satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Cunard (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Urbana Sistem claims via Kevin Pell to be part of Ishin Ryu Ju-jitsu [25] which has 13,000 students in 5 countries. Urbana Sistem would better be a parapraph in an article about Ishin Ryu Ju-jitsu. jmcw (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as said above, NN martial art RogueNinja_talk 11:13, 11 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) 08:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Current Newsround Presenters[edit]

This is something of a laundrey list for Newsround presenters. Knowing about which presenters do/did what to this degree of accuracy is not notable, and the whole list could be condensed and placed in the parent article, Newsround. _Talk Islander 09:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:34, 2 September 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} 13:34, 2 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 04:12, 7 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, TravellingCari 03:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how many times does a AfD get relisted to generate more discussion? IMO, if there have been no comments for deletion after the first relisting, the second should default to keep. Lugnuts (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's hardly consensus to keep, though, just as there's no consensus to delete. Relisting is the only option. _Talk Islander 08:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Newsround or rertitle to list of Newsround presenters. Current is something which entrenches recentism. Hiding T 10:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See I tend to think just the opposite of talk. If people can't be bothered to comment than the nomination itself suggests "consensus" to delete. Either way as fat as this particular one goes and having only seen it Merge to appropriate section at Newsround. No need to spinout an article when the section within the main article will never grow "out of control" and is relatively easy to maintain. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a suitable encyclopedia article on it's own. Not against a merge either. --HighKing (talk) 12:02, 13 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) 08:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Newsround Specials[edit]

Non-notable list of special 'Newsround' episodes. Any info that is notable could easily be gleened and placed in the parent article, Newsround. _Talk Islander 09:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:48, 2 September 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} 13:48, 2 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 04:12, 7 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, TravellingCari 03:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how many times does a AfD get relisted to generate more discussion? IMO, if there have been no comments for deletion after the first relisting, the second should default to keep. Lugnuts (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's hardly consensus to keep, though, just as there's no consensus to delete. Relisting is the only option. _Talk Islander 08:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Megre to Newsround or delete. It's not something easily quantified. I remember "specials" back in the 70's. Hiding T 10:58, 11 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 ~~relist~~ delete and redirect :) Daniel (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsround Specials[edit]

This is already covered to a great enough depth in the parent article, Newsround. _Talk Islander 09:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:33, 2 September 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} 13:33, 2 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 04:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted, recreate as anchored redirect to Newsround#Nesround Specials as plausible search term. I have no stance on the actual deletion or otherwise of this article. -- saberwyn 04:35, 7 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, TravellingCari 03:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how many times does a AfD get relisted to generate more discussion? IMO, if there have been no comments for deletion after the first relisting, the second should default to keep. Lugnuts (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's hardly consensus to keep, though, just as there's no consensus to delete. Relisting is the only option. _Talk Islander 08:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Newsround#Nesround Specials - no need for this to have it's own article --T-rex 18:17, 13 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss (Korn song)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:14, 9 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, TravellingCari 03:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't chart, unlikely search term for a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Non-plausible search term. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - single from a well know band that recieved significant airplay --T-rex 13:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Any song can get "significant airplay" and still fail WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This makes the song notable --T-rex 00:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't an AfD about the band but one of their song. As the article states ""The song is Korn's most unsuccessful single to date". Too bad. Equendil Talk 19:13, 11 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. TravellingCari 02:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWOL (rap group)[edit]

Rap group which fails to meet WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N by not being notable and WP:V by not being covered in reliable 3rd party sources in a non-trivial manner (or something like that). Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:15, 9 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, TravellingCari 03:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm finding plenty to prove WP:V, but nothing for notability. Delete per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only notability for this subject seems to be some obscure compilation album. ~ NossB (talk) 08:18, 11 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 12:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of male theater actors[edit]

Per WP:LISTCRUFT; this list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, as half the actors in the world should be on it. — TAnthony^Talk 02:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT, just as nominator says. If the list is restricted to notable actors, then a Category is the correct way of supporting the list. —SlamDiego_←T 08:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "notable" is assumed--such lists are limited to the people with WP articles, as is obvious--with probably a few red links where articles are needed. Browsing is a legitimate function of an encyclopedia--as basic as looking up defined topics. These all of them, given those as general as this, are better as a list, in addition to a category--the list offers the opportunity of providing context such as dates, thus assisting navigation. There is no such thing as too broad a list if it is being properly maintained, as this one seems to be. There are of course people for whom all lists are listcruft. Nobody is forcing them to read or work on them, and they should find better things to do than delete navigational devices that other people find useful. DGG (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete both this and List of female theater actors (you got one, why not the other?). Not quite convinced that we could get a definitive criterion here, as many have been in theatre at one point but aren't necessarily known for it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TPH, the criterion is having a WP article. The others should be removed, and we do not need AfD to do that. DGG (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is what categories are for. This is a list of Wikipedia articles about stage performers, but as the nominator points out, it could encompass any "male theater actor". Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it couldn't, because if editors added names without articles, we would quickly remove them as we do with all such lists. I watchlist a few myself for the purpose, and so do many others. DGG (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a unmaintainable and useless list. Will never be complete or well referenced. Furthermore there is no feasible way to restrict the list without making it something else completely --T-rex 13:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful navigational aid capable of being more informative than a category, per DGG.John Z (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the category is fine. We66er (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 3, 6, and 7. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 16 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for Whatever[edit]

Apart that it fails WP:MUSIC#Songs, there really is nothing to be mentioned about this song. Everything in this article can already be found in the Paper Trail article. —Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 08:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The single hasn't been released yet and I don't think it's an official single for the album. It'll be a promotional single. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 23:55, 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 16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Definitely fails WP:MUSIC. Quid Pro Quo²³ 03:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, ya. What they said PhishRCool ^{Talk / Contribs / Secret Page} 00:40, 12 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 as he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Grocott[edit]

Contested speedy. Footballer who is yet to play a game in a fully professional league, thus failing the established consensus on notability for footballers. Nuttah (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Premiership footballer, made BBC News etc.--EchetusXe (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (probably speedy) per EchetusXe. Premiere League football player. --Oakshade (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He's not a Premier League footballer yet. Currently he is a player just out of the academy who has not played a game in a fully professional league (WP:ATHLETE) or even for the Conference North team he has been sent out on loan to. He may one day make the grade (but that is crystal balling), but just as likely he could be one of the 50% who never play a game in a fully professional league. Nuttah (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Long-standing consensus is that footballers are not notable until they have made a first team appearance in a notable competition. Just being on the books of Stoke is insufficient. --Dweller (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Quid Pro Quo²³ 02:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and recreate if and when he makes his professional debut. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 08:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability at WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league/competition. --Jimbo^[online] 08:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played at the highest level, i.e. in a fully professional league, per WP:Athlete. Also lacking in the significant coverage in reliable, third-party publications per WP:N. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't satisfy requirements of WP:ATHLETE or WP:NOTE - ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero appearances shoots down any claim to notability --T-rex 13:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - recreate if and when he meets criteria.--ClubOranje^Talk 11:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and per WP:SNOW. Undead Warrior (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:17, 13 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False Fiction[edit]

Non-notable band. The only sources are Facebook and Myspace, and a Google search doesn't yield much more than that. I was sorely tempted to whack a ((db-band)) on it, but the article mentions an album and an upcoming tour which, in all fairness, I have to regard as an assertion of notability. So here we are. Reyk _YO! 10:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as falling a long way short of the notability required, let alone being able to verify it. Nuttah (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nuttah.Quid Pro Quo²³ 02:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Nuttah summed it up well. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page is false and fiction. PhishRCool ^{Talk / Contribs / Secret Page} 00:45, 12 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biracial American[edit]

There are articles such as Multiracial which explains and includes American people who are mixed. Fclass (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dictionary entry. Even if expanded, i don't think any reliable sources would discuss biracial-ness outside the broader context of multiracial-ness - it is clearly a sub topic and any specific info (if any is found) can go to into a section in Multiracial (or MR american?). We don't need articles on each possible proportion of racial mixture. And did the creator miss the memo that race doesn't really exist except as a social construct? Socialy, bi- tri- multi- racial people are the same.Yobmod (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Is this an official US census catergory? Why a biracial American article, and not all the other nationalities? Biracial Canadians? Tri-racial mexicans? Hexa-racial micronesian? Article seems to exist only to fill in a gap in a "series" of articles about race in the US - seems unencylopedic to do this to me.Yobmod (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not an official American category (whatever that means). Fclass (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Yobmod. I think "Biracial American" is a neologism as well. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is also the possibility of merging the article with multiracial, but I really don't think that will happen. Quid Pro Quo²³ 03:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think there is potential in this subject that can be expanded beyond what's in the Multiracial article specific to the U.S.; however, as it stands right now, it is only a dictionary entry. Unless someone can come up with significant sourced material that differentiates it from the other broad article, it is redundant. Right now, there is only one sentence and some pictures. Kman543210 (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. "Biracial American is a term that refers to an American who has parents of two different races." Wow, thank you for that insight. Mandsford (talk) 13:42, 11 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, nominator withdrawn (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Money No Enough 2[edit]

No more than a plot synopsis and perhaps recapitulation of info at the movie's webpage. Not even an assertion of being notable. Bringing it here to avoid systemic bias. Dlohcierekim 14:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn per Michael Q. Dlohcierekim 03:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. When the Malaysian Prime Minister himself comes forward to speak about the film, its notable. Found a bunch of sources and added the ELs to the article. It can definitely prove notability and can be improved per Asiaone.com, channelnewsasia.com, youth.sg, moviexclusive.com, fridae.com, vimeo.com, and others. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per MQS. Schuym1 (talk) 03:11, 11 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 Wintel. MBisanz ^talk 18:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lintel (Linux)[edit]

I'm placing this up for nomination for AfD's secondary reasons, to force some discussion. I do believe in it's deletion but unfortunately with such little activity there was no chance of debate on it's talk page. While i'd love this term to see widespread use, the article as it stands is more of an attempt to bring about that notability than to represent it. There are no sources and I've been unable to find any non-trivial ones, or mentions that don't source back to wikipedia. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral FaceCook (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wintel other than the fact it is commercially expedient and that one can coin a word, the term is not really significant, as majority of the Linux applications can be ported to non-Intel architectures without much trouble, in fact majority of those applications can be ported to non-Linux Unices without much trouble. --Voidvector (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:48, 11 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. seicer | talk | contribs 03:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olav Basoski[edit]

Fails WP:BLP as an unsourced biographical article. Due to the lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications this also fails WP:MUSIC as well. JBsupreme (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:12, 3 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, Jamie^☆S93 13:46, 6 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, TravellingCari 02:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No third-pary sources. Looks like promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Achieves notability through the Michie One duet, which I can confirm through the Guinness Book Of British Hit Singles, ed. 19, charted at #45 in the UK (plus "Opium Scumbagz", #56 UK), therefore meeting criterion #2 of WP:MUSIC, although they have failed to mention this in the article. Released one single on Defected Records, and another on Positiva Records, therefore half-meeting #5. Plus the collaborations with Erick E and DJ Zki. Unsourced doesn't mean delete (there's an inclusionist statement for you). Say what you think, but it's notable. I'm going to make improvements to the article now. Spec ial K 15:55, 11 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. TravellingCari 02:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Skooners[edit]

Article about a band, I have concerns about notability. Tbsdy lives (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:22, 9 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, TravellingCari 02:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:24, 11 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. Mr.Z-man 01:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaysploitation[edit]

Neologism, unreferenced and OR tag on there since Jan 2007. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be original research; I don't find any reliable sources on a Google search. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 21:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A google search does throw up a couple of sites. I agree that they don't necessarily look mainstream but I notice that the term is included in the 'Urban Dictionary' and is also used in articles cited in the Telegraph (British establishment newspaper), the NY Times, and Time Out magazine. A parallel is drawn with "blaxploitation". I suspect this is an emerging theme that will grow in interest in years to come - seems a shame to remove it completely from wikipedia when it raises some interesting points. Perhaps better to argue that contributors find some sensible sources for it if they want it to stay. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:24, 9 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, TravellingCari 02:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologisms come and go, article can be revived if it sticks in the mainstream. Equendil Talk 19:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:30, 13 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. Mr.Z-man 01:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saguaro Road Records[edit]

The label has at least three notable acts signed (Edwin McCain, Patty Loveless and Rebecca Lynn Howard), but I'm finding no real sources pertaining to the label itself. The only sources I'm finding are things like this that are about the album, and not the label it was released on. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator admits on the talk to being an employee. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I caught that. The initial draft was very spammy, and I whacked it down. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems the only thing supporting notability is the roster of artists. Perhaps in the future there would be enough material on the label itself to warrant notability, but as it is I'm not sure the artists alone can support it. Jeremiah (talk) 03:05, 6 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, TravellingCari 02:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ^^^ agree. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:16, 13 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 Cenarium ^Talk 12:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the DC Universe[edit]

In-universe fictional timeline with precious little real-world context and a lot of original research. Given DC Comics constantly revises its timeline, any attempt to create a cohesive timeline of the millieu would be original research and fan-fiction. Definitely not of encyclopedic merit. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article for similar reasons:

Oppose - The information can be presented based upon primary and other sources. Such sources are indeed allowed, within specific guidelines. See WP:OR##Primary, secondary, and tertiary_sources. AFD isn't cleanup. - jc37 03:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the primary sources is that they are fictional and contradictory. These lists are essentially plot summary gone mad. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that these are actually not a plot summary. As I noted in the other discussion, each of these events can (and should) be sourced. However, demanding such sources now, seems rather contrary to the "wiki-way".

Also, to make a judgement of whether the information is "contradictory", you have to be applying WP:OR yourself. - jc37 11:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how original research works. As for contradiction, check out the section on the Big Bang. There's four different explanations. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works? Last I recall, making a "judgement" about any information is not what we do here. To re-state: Your analysis that the information is contradictory requires a source, else it's not valid.

In other words, it seems the the problem is that you appear focused on the "in-universe" continuity, and it may be biasing your opinion. - jc37 09:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original research primarily refers to synthesizing sources to forward your own, original viewpoint, or doing your own research (interviewing people, performing your own experiments, etc.). We have to make judgement calls on sources all the time, in every field, because some are just bad research or totally worthless. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That might be all well and food, except that my comments were responding to: "The problem with the primary sources is that they are fictional and contradictory. These lists are essentially plot summary gone mad."

Which is subjectively your opinion. Indeed, I think you'd have a hard sell to suggest that the primary sources in this case (the comics themselves), as "totally worthless". - jc37 00:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And do you not see the irony of (para-phrasing): "The information is clearly in-universe. Also, the in-universe information presented contradicts itself." - jc37 09:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no contradiction. It's all fictional, but this article is trying to present it as clearly defined fact. I was pointing out why it cannot be considered clearly defined fact. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the section you note, that's an excellent example of how the list is not quite "in-universe", listing several of the presentations of the "beginning". - jc37 09:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it demonstrates the flaw in trying to create a ficitonal timeline in a medium where people change things all the time. Hell, DC itself didn't care about cross-title continuity for the longest time, and to this day they ignore continuity if it suits them. There's a quote from Dennis O'Neil that I cited in the Batman article where he notes that in the 1970s he was not expected to coordinated with authors and editors on other Batman titles and certainly didn't go out of his way to do so himself. I mean, try working Bob Haney's Brave & the Bold run into the timeline (y'know, the one where he had Batman teaming up with a World War II hero and heroes established as being from parallel Earths with no explanation, and where he decided that Batman and Superman each had full-grown sons that they just had never bothered to mention before). WesleyDodds (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your post above illustrates where I think you are confusing/conflating several things.

All of those things should indeed be noted on the page (though possibly as footnotes?).

You're so focued on the idea of this being an current timeline of current continuity, that you're not seeing how this can be (and is being) developed. See the discussion with Hiding, below.

Not to be too glib, but "can't see the forest for the trees", really seems to apply in this case. You see these extant trees, and you don't see how they can make up a great forest, and how further pruning and planting could potentially help develop the forest even more. - jc37 00:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete In-universe, contradictory, no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards deletion for the reasons expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batman's career timeline, although they tend to apply differently here. This article is written from an in-universe perspective for starters, and places primacy upon current continuity rather than previous continuities. It's also still in part original research. Where do you draw the line on what to include? There's no self-selection criteria. I've been thinking about this, and I think better ways of doing this is listing first appearances by order of first publication, like List of comic book supervillain debuts. That's self-selecting, and doesn't entail original research or point of view advancement. Maybe the best way to write about this is to have an article on the way the timeline has been shaped and distorted through events, citing reliable sources. Hiding T 10:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"and places primacy upon current continuity rather than previous continuities" - I agree that it needs cleanup along these lines. But as I mentioned before, I don't think deleting it is the solution to cleanup. - jc37 11:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict> I'm leaning towards keeping, although I agree that the article needs work. Big time. It's been pointed out the fallacy in my argument for self-selection, which is that it applies to all plot summary on Wikipedia. Squaring the circle of summarising plot within WP:NOR is a greater debate than should be had here. Hiding T 11:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep rewrite to incorporate real world impact/retcons/etc and try to find additional references focused on these changes (for instance when DC retcon something, find a source that gives a reason and include it in the article). Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Superman was sent to earth "58 years ago"? He looks pretty good for an old geezer. Mandsford (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with changes -It is precisely because DC has reinvented its continuity wholesale so often that an article like this is needed by those who are curious as to what applies (or doesn't anymore.) However I do agree that too much speculation has been added to the page; perhaps it should be limited to quotes from direct timelines offered by DC (such as the one from DC Universe Secret Files.) - Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a guide to help you read comics. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's what was being said above. The suggestion would seem to be that this encylopedia entry might shed light on the history of DC's constantly updating/merging universe (Started even before All Star Comics #3). - jc37 11:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't shed light on DC's constantly changing fictional history. It's a bullet point list of in-universe information pared down to represent a cohesive, logical timeline, when the in-universe timelines is anything but cohesive or logical. This sort of thing is more acceptable for a fan-site. And I've seen several fansites with timelines like these; I in fact enjoy reading them. But it's not the sort of thing that acceptable for an out-of-universe general encyclopedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my response above. - jc37 09:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep something of this nature is important to the understanding of the DC Universe, though it does need to be cleaned up... especially since DC rebooted several times. 70.55.89.214 (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the DC/Marvel universes are notable, their history must be as well. These articles would be invaluable to anyone seeking a basic knowledge of the universes, without having to sift through endless pages of character-specific bios. Strongest Possible Keep. Vrefron (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's very flawed logic. DC Comics and Marvel comics are notable, definitely. Their fictional universes? maybe. A timeline listing fictional events? No. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that stance is subjective, and has nothing to do with logic, except by being a logical fallacy. - jc37 09:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based upon the fact that the DC Universe (and this goes for the Marvel Universe, too) does not maintain a consistent chronology, and even though this is well sourced with the fictional matter used to establish these dates, the fact is tomorrow DC could release a comic that reboots everything. At this moment, in fact, there are at least 2 separate Batman continuities underway (the basic one and Batman Confidential which has Barbara Gordon as Batgirl in the modern day, even while Birds of Prey has wheelchair bound Gordon/Batgirl in the present day). Superman has about 3. And don't even get me started on the Legion of Superheroes. This list is impossible to maintain without going into WP:NOR or copyvio of some of the published chronologies that do exist. Now, an article that might be viable is one that discusses the ever-changing chronologies of the DCU. But a list like this just does not work for me. This isn't a case of notability, it's a case of VIABILITY. This article does not have it. In addition this topic is so potentially detailed that it would truly be more appropriate for a Wikia site dedicated to DC. 23skidoo (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm encouraged by the fact that so many of the listed items (on both pages) are blue links. The events themselves are notable, so an attempt (backed by sources, which surely must exist) to list them in chronological order is worthwhile. I think these articles can be cleaned up to comply with policy, and that will involve some trimming - but it's much preferable to deletion, and this is the sort of article that will likely be recreated repeatedly if there's nothing here. Even if it's a reduced list, surely there's something here that can be kept. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're assuming too much. Regardless of the items are notable, virtually everything in this list is fictional, and is lacking a real-world context. As I've pointed out before, some of the items listed in the timeline contradict or are contradicted by other events in the comics, but those aren't acknowledged. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the sort of article necessary for the non expert to make sense of the material. Everything in a list of fictional being fictional is not a reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) has not been established in this article, so yes there is a reason to delete. And I would argue that this timeline is not at all helpful to the casual reader, since it assumes a good deal of familiarity with the subject matter. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is currently under constant debate/discussion, and is not consistant practice, so you may wish to be wary quoting it as your rationale. - jc37 09:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True.. It would be nice if there were any agreement there, but so far there has been no stable compromise. As for usefulness, I can only say that as a person unfamiliar with many of the games being discussed, I often find the plot articles incomprehensible for lack of context with regard to the other parts, especially when the chronological order is complicated, and presentations like this are what puts things into place. Even DGG (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I"m referring the basic tenent of notability, in that it needs to be discussed by secondary sources. We need secondary sources that establish that the topic of this article, a timeline of the DC Universe (how is that being defined by the way? All the comcis ever published by DC?), is a notable topic of research and critical commentary by reliable sources. Remember, notability is not inherited. Just because DC Comics and the Justice League are notable does not mean a fictional timeline of events in the stories is notable. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, topic-related lists are, per WP:Summary style. Page length is an issue, and so it's preferred to have lists on their own pages, rather than having the main article being lengthy. - jc37 00:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:SYNTH applies. Even if it did not, the content is of a nature that would be suitable to a specialist wiki, rather than Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 16 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. Mr.Z-man 01:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows of Lylat[edit]

An in development fan-game whose only claim to fame is that Nintendo said they wouldn't shut it down. Most of the content isn't even worth including. A Link to the Past (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability apparently nil, no reliable sources. Equendil Talk 19:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks sources. Nifboy (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of IPs/new users defending this game as very notable is pretty surprising. I guess it doesn't have the forum fan-base that other fan-games have. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:47, 13 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. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Javier ideami[edit]

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

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

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

Weak delete. I had originally written a much longer writeup on this, but since Javier wrote on this page before I had finished I lost all my work, so I'll make it quick(er). As stated by Ideami below, he wrote an article about himself although in his defense maybe he wasn't aware of the rules. I don't know. Either way, looking through Google (and I admit I am not well-versed in this subject) Although there a quite a few Google links that reference him, it was hard to say how many were reliable third party links or ones that were affiliated with the subject. Either way, maybe a neutral third party (I.E. not some newly registered user whose sole edit count is for Ideami) can assess as to whether or not he's notable.

~~I'm also nominating Ideami studios for deletion. Notability is hard to assess as well as there's only 15 hits on Google.~~

I'm withdrawing my deletion nom. I admit now that I was overzealous in nominating it for deletion, because the main reason was of the possible COI which in this case was mistaken because there was an already existing article on the subject's operations. After seeing dozens of no-notability celebs trying to start their own page, I have become suspicious in a lot of cases and I am more prone in jumping the gun but I think in this one I acted too soon. At the very least, no one's been responding to any of Ideami's arguments, so I don't think it would be fair of me to keep this going.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dear Editor, if you are referring to 15 google links to www.ideami.com, lets please write the information complete, if you go to http://tools.marketleap.com/publinkpop for example, indeed there are 13 google links to my web but there are also 325 Yahoo links to my web, so to be fair maybe it would be fair to say that there are 13 google and 325 yahoo links to my web? apart from that there are hundreds of references in google about me and my work searching for ideami, javier ideami, or javier gonzalez bernardo. Direct links to the website indexed by google are not very relevant because i never , repeat, never update my metatags and keywords and therefore my website is being very poorly indexed by google; what is very relevant is that searching for ideami, javier ideami or javier gonzalez bernardo you get hundreds of references from valid sources unconnected to me and it would be fair that you stated that; so im just asking for fairness, its not fair to say that there are 15 google links, you have to explain that those are links to my website just of google (there are 325 of yahoo which indexes in a different way!) and they are dependent only on search indexing and my website promotion efforts are Zero, so you have to add that there are 325 Yahoo links to my website, because i guess Yahoo is also relevant, isnt it? , apart from that what is truly relevant here i repeat is that searching for me in google gives tons of results that state that im a notable artist , results from sources that are not be connected to me, thank you for your attention and im just trying to help and contribute as much as i can , and to explain all you want me to explain thanks for your attention Ideami (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Javier Ideami[reply]

hi this is Javier Ideami, i just wanted to explain why i created the page; I did it because i was told by an architecture and design group unconnected to me that a page about Ideami studios which i founded was soon going to be created, i guess i should have left the same people write a page about my work if they wanted, instead of doing it myself, so i acknowledge that was probably a mistake, well, we could maybe delete this page and the same people that are creating the Ideami page could create the page about me, thats a possibility, i certainly welcome the discussion and if you need any information i am here to answer any questions Ideami (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Javier Ideami[reply]

I really wish you had waited until I finished my original discussion. Now I have to start all over again.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that, let me know what you think, im going to sleep in a minute but i will be back in the morning in a few hours Ideami (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Javier Ideami[reply]

It's alright, it happens a lot on Wikipedia. I should have been quicker anyway. Anyway, if this can be proven to be notable I won't object.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both per nom. Quid Pro Quo²³ 01:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi and thank you for your comment, i would like to say that yes if you search in google for Ideami or Javier Ideami or Javier Gonzalez Bernardo which is my birth´s name before i changed it to Javier Ideami, you will find many many references, and most of them , coming from the London Academy of Media, Film & TV, the Spiegel Magazine in Germany, The university of Rome, The Laboral Museum of Art and Technology in Spain , different newspapers etc etc etc , can obviously not be affiliated with me, i am very tranquil about this , anybody who does a serious research around the web about me will be able to check this, i already wrote a few links in the references of the article as a beginning ; yes for sure i should have left others to create the page instead of doing it myself , that was a mistake, but as for the notability of my work there is good feedback about that around the web no doubts, thank you for your comment again Ideami (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Javier Ideami[reply]

I entered Javier Ideami in Google and received 1,670 results, even with the first 100 being fully relevent on quick scan. It is possible that such a rapid putdown of genuine articles appears to be unfair. Regarding notability there are many references available from several sources even in the first 100 Google hits. I think there are two issues here, one is the fact that the subject entered primary data in ignorance of the policy for which a sincere apology has been offered in good faith. The second of notability can be satisfied in the first instance by a review of Googled articles. For further evidence generated by evolution of the wikipage I think a reasonable suggestion would be to allow time for its development on this subject of a notable artist and his work. In context of a genuine policy misunderstanding, better to advise than to penalise. Regards Callycrane (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)— Callycrane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

At this point I really don't know what to say but...A.) If Ideami is notable (and he may very well be), him writing an autobiography isn't going to affect it being kept or not and B.) Having a single-purpose account (all of your edits thus far about Ideami) really isn't going to help matters much.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise that my comments relate to this issue. One has to start somewhere. I'm sure you'll make the appropriate and balanced decision. Regards Callycrane (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one making the consensus.--CyberGhostface (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider Javier ideami a notable artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArturoVittori (talk • contribs) 04:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC) — ArturoVittori (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And yet another new user, this one whose sole edit is this page.--CyberGhostface (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but i cant control who writes what online, i certainly would ask people who join wikipedia for the first time not to write anything in my favour here as editors are simply not going to take that into account, its clear that only people who have been for a long time in wikipedia should write here, i have understood this; i add here yet more links from news sources/institutions that are obviously not affiliated with me and which clearly state that im a notable artist, in the first one itself i appear alongside other professionals who are in wikipedia (such as Eric and Brian deacon, Peter Purves, Sally Gray and others), i wrote from the beginning lots more in the references area of the article and i could keep adding more and more, i think there are enough totally unconnected sources to me online that state that im a notable artist, if you decide to delete the article no problems go ahead, i am not going to fight this forever, but i can assure you that if i wasnt being told every few days that im a notable artist i wouldnt have put myself into this mess in the first place, i totally agree that only notable artists should appear in wikipedia, i couldnt agree more, therefore whatever you decide i respect it

http://www.media-courses.com/miscpages/tutors.asp
http://www.emediawire.com/news/20070321/index.htm (search for ideami within the text)
http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/13632/masterclass_photography/ (search for ideami)
http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/2007/events/reviews11.html
http://www.myartfling.com/artists/fj.html
etc

thank you for your attention, Ideami (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Javier Ideami[reply]

user arturovittori is indeed Arturo Vittori , who is in wikipedia , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arturo_Vittori , he is a notable artist and architect and he considers me a notable artist, he certainly tried to help because he does consider me a notable artist and i thank him, obviously he came here to say that and you wont take it into account because he created a new user to do that, i understand , its no problem, i just wanted to say , he is indeed a strong reference, and you can contact him and ask him about me anytime , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arturo_Vittori

Ideami (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Javier Ideami[reply]

Twenty bucks says that's a load of bollocks. PhishRCool ^{Talk / Contribs / Secret Page} 00:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi, I subscribed wikipedia 9-10 months ago, but I am a good google user since a longer period. Actually, I know Javier, he is a good artist indeed etc., but besides that I cannot see why this page should be deleted. Ok, he admitted he did a mistake in starting it, but informations given are essential and refer to his real artistic work. It is not my intention to criticize google's policy, not at all, but I can tell from my experience there are excellent living artists and authors about whom you still find not so much through web research (google links). So, maybe, some editing with the help of the administrator could be enough to keep this wiki page on, according to google's policy. I am writing the same also for Ideami studio's page Maddamura (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Maddamura[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTOBIO and WP:SOAP. PhishRCool ^{Talk / Contribs / Secret Page} 00:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look:

Is it coincidence that all of these users, all of whom have only been in existence within the last 3 days, have virtually editted only pages related to Javier Ideami or Arturo Vittori? I think not. Also, I think it is clear from the last contributions page that Maddamura has not been around for 9-10 months as they claim; nor do I think that it is coincidence that Maddamura just so happens to be the one who created the page on Arturo Vittori. There's definitely something fishy going on here, I think it can be best described as sock puppetry. 70.19.191.130 (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should assume good faith. The most I suspected was that Arturo Vittori was friends with Javier Ideami.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, is this the supposed to exist - good faith - of wikipedia editors?? im insulted by the comments of PhishRCool, i surely respect him , he is an editor of wikipedia which for me is a very important position, but he is utterly wrong; those 3 users are Three different persons, the three know my work and the three think im a notable artist, is it so rare that they decide to come to the discussion and say so???? one of them has indeed been in wikipedia 10 months, maddalena, the other two had never been users and of course they had to create a user to come here; one of those is Arturo Vittori and yes there is an article in wikipedia about him, , and what? isnt it important that a person that has an article in wikipedia comes and says that yes im a notable artist? i thought that was what i was supposed to bring to the discussion, evidence of notability; there is no good faith here, there is negativism and nothing else; i do not need those 3 users; I repeat for the last time, go to Google and search for Ideami, Javier Ideami , and Javier Gonzalez Bernardo , you will get hundreds of results linked to me, many many of them from completely unconnected sources to me and many stating that im a notable artist, for gods sake isnt that enough??? i do not need the help of any of those 3 users who wrote things, the evidence is there in google for all of you to see, for gods sake is it so difficult that you go and check it out there? how on earth can i be affiliated or linked with the spiegel magazine, the london academy, the laboral museum of modern art, the exibart most important art newspaper in italy, the dozens of art newspapers announcing my exhibits that appear in google, the dozens of news pages that say that renown photographer and artist javier etc etc , the film festival pages that talk about my international festival prize etc etc etc , go ahead and delete the page if you like, it doesnt matter next month or next year or whenever somebody else is going to create a page about ideami because he is a notable artist already and more so every month and every year and certainly next time if this happens again i will not be here in this discussion, seeing the attitude of most wikipedia editors is simple absurd to be in these discussions, i have only seen one person here that i can consider a true and fair wikipedia editor, which is CyberGhostface , he could propose to delete my page but in his comments you can see thinking, reasoning and at least effort to consider pros and cons and to reach a conclussion, which is absolutely absent from the rest of opinions written here, thanks very much Ideami (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Javier Ideami[reply]

Delete - there's a massive conflict of interest here, and if these subjects are notable, they should be added back at some other point by someone unconnected. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dear all, as the subject of the page i would like to request that a final decision is taken please as soon as possible, as having the page in this state is no good for me really; so whatever decision is taken, deleting or keeping, lets take it please, thanks so much Ideami (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Javier Ideami[reply]

I agree. Someone close this already. "It's COI" is not per se a reason to delete. The person appears at least marginally notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:29, 16 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 02:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fear Before (album)[edit]

Unreleased album WP:Crystal. No notability yet. I am also not sure the band itself is notable. Only references are self-referential/ myspace-type stuff. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Non-plausible search term. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, according to WP:NM#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, the band itself follows several of the criteria of which it only needs one to be considered notable. Although some of these are not stated, the band does meet the following criteria: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 10. And later in the same article at WP:NM#Albums it states "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia," and goes on to state that "Once the artist or their record label has publicly confirmed the title, track listing and release date, an article about the album is not a WP:CRYSTAL violation." I would like to note that before this article was nominated, the article had two sources containing the press release about the album, but a reference section was not yet included to present the article sources. Also, the article was nominated for deletion only minutes after its creation, and is still in progress. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a full length album by a notable band. No crystal issues found --T-rex 18:21, 13 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. Mr.Z-man 01:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Rathman[edit]

No reliable sources, was only a minor character in one film. Created by a spa. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While it is plausible that he will become a more notable actor in the future, as it is now this article just doesn't have sufficient notability. Quid Pro Quo²³ 01:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one minor role in an unsuccessful film two years ago and nothing since = fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Somno (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One role in one B movie; nothing since. Leave this subject to the database sites like IMDB. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:51, 14 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. Snow in September?? seicer | talk | contribs 14:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guessology[edit]

What seems to be a made up and unknown term. Notability, hasn't been editted in nearly a year, lack of any form of references or citations, as well as links to the rest of Wikipedia. Quid Pro Quo²³ 01:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this made up term. Cliff smith ^talk 01:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cliff Smith. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references, seems to be made up. Guesstimate covers this subject. ~ NossB (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See, well, the same stuff as nearly everybody else above me. It's an absolute load of BOLLOCKS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhishRCool (talk • contribs) 11:48, 11 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. Mr.Z-man 01:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Paciello[edit]

Delete not notable, nightclub promoter/ partner who may have been involved in 1 crime Mynameisstanley (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Quid Pro Quo²³ 01:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pleading guilty to a crime and being friends with Madonna does not make someone notable. (Someone's deleted WP:ONEEVENT, else I'd refer to that.) Somno (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is this a criminal database ? I don't think so. Equendil Talk 19:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 15 minutes of fame are way gone Peoplearecool2008 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Peoplearecool2008 Indef blocked sockpuppet of User:Mynameisstanley. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 22:06, 12 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. Canley (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified[edit]

Quite obscure film, doesn't seem to meet WP:MOVIE. It did receive a review at Variety, but that's it. —Chowbok ☠ 01:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wholly agree. I can't find anything on this anywhere except the review you mentioned, and it was difficult to even find that. miquonranger03 (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Many hits on google, and the Variety review is something. P.B. Pilhet 20:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there was a whole lot more on the web besides Variety. I added the links to the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:20, 9 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, — Coren ^(talk) 00:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:WING, notability. Quid Pro Quo²³ 01:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Variety review alone satisifies film notability, and it's not the only source. Verifiability is the basis of Wikipedia, and this article provides that. 23skidoo (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, isn't it notability? Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's incorrect. WP:N is a "guideline" that depends on the policy WP:V ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability"). So we use WP:V to find WP:RS ("Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources.") in order to show WP:N ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic"). These items work together to establish WP:NF ("Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a film meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources."). User:23skidoo has it exactly correct. And the claims have been sunstantiated per the proper criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Update: Cleaned up per style guidelines, wikified, and sourced. Notabilty established per WP:NF and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still doesn't establish notability despite the review and sources. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to a link at Identification could also be an option, not sure which one, though. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your suggestion that the film "Unidentified" be redirected to a disambiguation page for the word "Identification" confuses me. Can you explain your reasoning? And further, with the multiple reviews, and coverage in multiple independent sources, WP:NF has definitely most been established per WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:RS. Since you feel differently, please, tell me specifically what you think is not notable and it can be addressed. Is it that the film did not go to Caan? Is it that the film did not win an Oscar? Is it the fact that it is a Christian film and has a smaller viewer base than Ghost Busters? What more do you feel it requires? Please. Tell me so it might be addressed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it meets any of the five numbered attributes listed in WP:NF#General principles. Aside from the Variety review, all of the external links posted are trivial (please note that the New York Times link is just a reprint of the All Movie Guide review).—Chowbok ☠ 21:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, that is an incorrect interpretation of that section of WP:NF. The sentence that preceeds those 5 attibutes is "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist.." It is a statement and list that only seeks to indicate that if these attributes are present, then reliable sources are likely to exist... as an encouragement to editors to seek out those sources. It does not say these attributes must exist, only that if they do, then an editor will likely find reliable sources. And please, and with greater respects, I do not think any Christian review of a Christian film is 'trivial", and I included a number of them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:32, 11 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 fact that he's a canadian politician likely explains the snow in September. TravellingCari 03:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Sowden[edit]

Former Canadian politician. Lost federal election in 2006, and is not running in current politics. Page has not been edited in over a year, and I don't think that he is going to be heading back into politics anytime soon. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - technically, as only a candidate and not a Member of Parliament, he was never notable in the first place (WP:BIO states member of legislature, not candidate) so the fact he isn't standing now is somewhat irrelevant. Had he been a former MP now not standing he'd still be notable, I believe. But if you weren't notable to start with ....MadScot666 (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, WTH just happened? This was in the September 10 AfD list, I replied, now it's in September 11 instead ??? MadScot666 (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The AfD was listed on September 11 (UTC), so it belongs on the September 11 AfD log. Its initial listing on the September 10 AfD log was probably an accident. (I didn't move it here, but I just thought I'd explain anyway.) Cliff smith ^talk 00:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would probably be my fault. It's still Sep. 10 where I am (western Canada), and I haven't nominated many AfD's. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Don't worry about it, it happens every now and then. Not a big deal. Cliff smith ^talk 01:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The English Wikipedia runs on Coordinated Universal Time, so a new day starts at 00:00 UTC, which is 8 p.m. EDT and 5 p.m. PDT. --Eastmain (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn; two gnews hits. JJL (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering he didn't get elected, there's no real need to have him on Wikipedia. PhishRCool ^{Talk / Contribs / Secret Page} 00:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability Quid Pro Quo²³ 00:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-notable politician. Cliff smith ^talk 01:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sometimes unsuccessful candidates are notable for their other accomplishments, but in this case, there is no evidence that he is notable as a pastor, either. --Eastmain (talk) 01:56, 11 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.