< September 1	September 3 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - childish nonsense scarcely even worthy of the name hoax. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King grundle[edit]

Hoax. - Icewedge (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here's a link to the Urban Dictionary, which might be instructive http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=grundle. Oh, someone push the speedy delete button. JNW (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice against recreation. It is a longstanding tradition that all hamlets are notable. Notability is not in question here though, verifiability is. We can't seem to find any proof, in census or otherwise, that this hamlet does exist. We have no other choice but to delete, and hoping sources turn up which show that the place does exist. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aldarno[edit]

This article seems to be unverifiable -- I did a search on Google for the name of this place along with the name of the island that it is on, and nothing except Wikipedia came up. Maybe it is noted in books but I cannot find that. Ink mathematics (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V and WP:N, and a search will bring up pretty much nothing. RockManQ (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently unverifiable. I've tried Google earth map, calling a travel agent friend familiar with Funchal, and a few other spelling variations. Maybe its the name of a new planning project...? Let's hope someone on the Portugese/Madeira wiki can help out. Plutonium27 (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The article does not provide encyclopedic content. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Degree Programs at Bowling Green State University[edit]

Wikipedia is not a course catalog. ElKevbo (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my opinion the article does not resemble a course catalog, but instead an article that highlights the many programs offered by the university. There are five other pages (1 2 3 4 5) that highlight courses and degrees offered which resembles that used by this article. My goal for creating this article was to heighten the understanding of academics offered at the main campus of Bowling Green State University and because of this I think the article should be kept. Rik (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - much more than a course catalogue since it contains a great deal of prosed information. There are still unsourced parts but that needs to be fixed as an editorial matter as does some necessary cleaning up. TerriersFan (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, and this is not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. AndyJones (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale provided by AndyJones.--Daysleeper47 (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTDIRECTORY is a policy statement, not an editorial style guideline. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Pending the outcome of this discussion, the five others mentioned above may also need to be considered for deletion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. Those articles appear to be even "worse" than this one, IMHO. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I actually wouldn't argue about the deletion of the other five which are simply directories. In view of the above comments, I have cleaned out the list of courses, which is the directory content. What we are left with is some encyclopaedic information worth keeping. TerriersFan (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's definitely an improvement but I still don't think the material warrants an encyclopedia article. If still reads much like a listing of dry facts that could easily be put into a series of tables (and thus would be very similar to what was just removed from the article). I would be swayed if the article were changed from a dry description of the programs to describing interesting information about them such as histories, significant and interesting accomplishments, and similarly compelling materials. Right now it's still academic directory/course catalog material, IMHO. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Bowling Green State University. If the others come to AfD I will !vote to likewise remove them. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a laundry list of programs (a directory) and wikipedia isn't a directory -- Whpq (talk) 14:38, 7 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 The result was delete per notability rationales. Furthermore, EricDiesel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been recreating these articles under various titles, and this is a continuation of that. It has a snowball's chance in hell of keeping with any clear consensus. seicer | talk | contribs 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)))[reply]

Amended rationale: Restored page histories and performed a redirect to Sarah Palin. seicer | talk | contribs 02:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Kalnins[edit]

I'm worried this is a BLP issue. There is so much controversy surrounding Palin and those close to her, and this article is almost entirely unsourced. I'm tempted to just speedy the entire thing under G10, but because of the controversy I thought I'd better bring it here. Basically, it's unsourced and I don't honestly think it can be anything other than a WP:COAT. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 23:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one rather partisan source does not evidence any notability.--Troikoalogo (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any assertion or evidence of notability that is not linked to another person, and as I understand it, it's a basic principle that people don't gain notability from their personal or familial relationships; as remarked above, this also might be a coatrack for attempts to discredit the politician in question. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excellent deletion rationale totally on the mark. I wouldn't oppose a CSD A7. The author also wrote an attack article same subject different title. No assertion of notability and from a google search complicated by different Ed Kalnins notablity couldn't be proven. Simply being a famous person's pastor doesn't make one notable either as Accounting4Taste pointed out. — Ѕandahl ♥ 00:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in fact that article was deleted and recreated twice before I deleted it and salted the final time. The fact that the OP posted it after being warned multiple times makes it difficult to agf. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 00:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree 100% with nom. I actually considered speedy-ing it, but I decided against it. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and non-verifiable Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure we could verify that this person exists, sure, but notable? No evidence suggests that. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 11:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GRBerry 13:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete if there's an article about Jeremiah Wright controversy, concerning the polemical declarations of Obama longtime pastor, Jeremiah Wright, then there should be an article about Ed Kalnins controversy, concerning the polemical declarations of Sarah Palin longtime pastor, Ed Kalnins. -Hgfernan (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that saying that an article should be kept or deleted simply because others of a similar nature have or haven't been in the past is according to our guidelines an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Do you have a reason based in policy/guidelines to keep the article? Perhaps some proof of notability or verifiability that we have not yet found? Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jasynnash2, thanks for the information. But i think i'm not partial when i state that certainly the two items can be easily proved by simply googling the names of the main involved in the controversy. While most references are for blogs or periodicals committed to contrary political visions, it is possible to find many respectable, non-committed periodicals, like Huffington Post, that published the same stories. Certainly the big newspapers are not into the stories, but that's a known pattern for news: they come from the country to the capital. All the best, --Hgfernan (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I recollect the AFD for Otis Moss III. There, I was able to demonstrate notability by completely rewriting the article, largely from sources predating the current presidential campaign and putting the campaign stuff in reasonable weight. Here, I can not find any sources that are about Kalnins and predate the campaign. Thus I don't think a biography of is possible. GRBerry 14:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I personally don't like the way the media try to find controversy, but we at WP can't ignore it just because it's awkward, or we would also have Jeremiah Wright at AfD. There is a danger in saying, "This is controversial and WP:COAT so we can't write anything about it" and then saying "Because we can't write about this, it is a stub with no references" and therefore it should be deleted. Based on that, we'd never get articles written about Monica Lewinsky. Let's remember, people aren't Googling Ed Kalnins because they want to write a high school essay about his childhood. I added a fairly neutral sentence to the Kalnins article, with a citation (from the Huffington Post) indicating that Ed Kalnins has come into the spotlight recently. I think that if Ed Kalnins importance fades away, and Palin isn't elected to VP, then maybe I'd support deletion. But for now, we need to have this article in place, in case the news story really takes off. Walkerma (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP and IMPROVE I am working on the improvement. Within the last hour, ABC News is reporting that the church had removed Kalin's sermons from its web site. This is notable, as per Walkerma. Note also that the article on Palin's other pastor, Larry Kroon was deleted in a Speefdy Delete despite a hangon This is a violation of Wikipedia policy. See:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 3Elan26 (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

Actually, no it is not. An administrator can still decide to speedily delete a page if the hang on rationale is not satisfactory: adding a hang on template is not a guarantee that your page will not be deleted unless you can prove using that hang-on that the article doesn't meet deletion criteria or that you will improve it very quickly. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but in this case the article was sourced to a long list of major newspapers and magazines, and had articles that focused on Kroon before Palin ran for Governor.Elan26 (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

Delete. Association with a notable figure does not in itself confer notability. Notability should be long-term, not today's news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ros0709 (talk • contribs)
Delete notability is not inherited by association, and so far as I can tell this guy has had his 5 minutes of media attention for a single event. Mayalld (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale. Could easily be a G10 (negatively sourced BLP) - all the sources, as far as I can tell, are blogs and unreliable. Keeper ǀ 76 20:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G10. The sources all seem to be unreliable. Kelly ^hi! 21:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Huffington Post is (according to Wikipedia) the most linked-to blog (Technorati), the most most visited news weblog (Alexa) and the "most influential blog in the world" (Guardian) - this is a liberal blog, but it is not a source to be dismissed lightly. Just appearing as a main subject on that blog makes someone notable. Walkerma (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a big blog, but its still a blog. As soon as they develop a journalist, NPOV stance, they'll be accepted as a source for Wikipedian purposes. They are a blog, with a declared bias, with very little oversight and virtually no fact-checking, therefore unreliable. Keeper ǀ 76 22:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No indication of notability, sourcing consists of one heavily POV blog. Edward321 (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP The article is now sourced by the

CHICAGO TRIBUNE and the

New Jersey TIMES OF TRENTON.EricDiesel (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There is more discussion of the Palin pages on the Wikipedia:Notability policy page.

Notability is not transferable, but being an acknowledged teacher from which notable ideas come transfers notability. Palin’s quotes on the religeous basis of the Iraq War being identical in theological reasoning to that taught at her church or school and of those of her teacher or pastor makes her teacher notable as the progenitor or that reaoning. EricDiesel (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent notability. rootology (C)(T) 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as only having inherited notability. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as obvious POV and original research, created by an SPA to create a negative impression concerning a particular political candidate. The linkage of an obscure "Alaska independence" movement to support for secession during the American Civil War constitutes advocacy inappropriate for Wikipedia. Relevant information concerning Ms. Palin's alleged support for Alaska secession, reliably sourced, may be included in the article concerning her or other appropriate articles, subject to the avoidance of undue weight on this or any other matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of candidates for Vice President Who Have Favored The Dissolution Of The United States[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion by another editor as an attack page and suspiciously declined w/o explanation by an anon IP. I have to agree with the nomination: "List of Candidates for Vice President" is so tenuous it is obviously designed to include Sarah Palin, conveniently on the list. Speedy Delete as an attack page, per the original nomination. Ros0709 (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save. Well-sourced (now) and timely. It is factual information, if probably politically unfortunate. If Wikipedia were trying to avoid politically-damaging information why is McCain's correct age still listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.82.0 (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save. Article is clearly of interest to readers and contains factual information -- POV violations do not cover facts. There is nothing "convenient" about the inclusion of Sarah Palin, save the fact that she ought to be on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nexttolibertymostdear (talk • contribs) 23:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and therefore OR. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save. The sources are coming. Unfortunately, in trying to write an article designed to answer a question wikipedia didn't currently answer about what Vice Presidental nominees had favored the secession of one or several states, people are imagining non-existent political motives in an attempt to assemble a list of Vice Presidential nominees who have favored the dissolution of the Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucabrasi12 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious point of view pushing. Where is Aaron Burr or doesn't he count? Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per previous 'no source' point. --Non-dropframe (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The inclusion of Sarah Palin makes the irredeemably a POV piece and without a source it should be speedied as WP:BLP violation. 23skidoo (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as total POV pushing. This list has one very obvious purpose, and from what I understand of the sourcing, she at most argued for a vote on the issue. It's a Democracy, voting is okay. --Rividian (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save. Rividian, the Confederate States had "votes" on the issue. The traditional view is that United States of America cannot be dissolved and that no state can ever secede. Jefferson Davis just wanted a vote too —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucabrasi12 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please only !vote once. Edward321 (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My apologies.. I didn't mean to stuff the ballot box. I just made a mistake trying to illustrate my point about the shared ideological similarities of those on the list. Lucabrasi12 (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious original research and POV-pushing, using obvious conclusions to throw Palin into a negative list intended to slander her. Nate • (chatter) 23:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization if nothing else. This mix of apples and oranges reeks of POV pushing. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious original research and POV pushing, especially as the alleged source for Palin having this view leads to a blank page. Edward321 (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Unsourced, Indescriminate POV attack page. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant overcategorization, exists only to make a point about something in Sarah Palin's past. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty obvious attack page, may satisfy CSD. RockManQ (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a list of non notable people, based on the fact that they are not notable enough for an article. If the creator would like to use the article as a starting point for articles that could have their own articles, contact me or another admin to userfy this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swim ~ artists[edit]

Largely reliant on a single source, currently a link defunct since July 2008 and therefore fails WP:N and WP:RS. None pass WP:BAND and thus having a list of them is debatable. At best, source and merge to Swim ~. Also borderline WP:BLP problems Rodhull andemu 21:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - not sure what to do with this one. List could be debatable, but I think the best option would be either to delete or merge to Swim ~. RockManQ (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If they're notable enough to have their own pages, they don't need to be in this page. If they're not notable enough to have their own pages, we don't create a page about non-notable people. Corvus cornix_talk 03:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the notable information is already contained in the Swim ~ article. Lugnuts (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this article winds up being kept, it should be renamed List of Swim ~ artists.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Celebrity Big Brother 2009 (UK)[edit]

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CRYSTAL, way too early, no new information and AfD'd less than a month. Rodhull andemu 22:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

SPEEDY DELETE! WP:CRYSTAL, and re-creation of deleted content from under a month ago. Dalejenkins | 21:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdraw. Schuym1 (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've Got to Walk It Like You Talk It or You'll Lose That Beat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/You've Got to Walk It Like You Talk It or You'll Lose That Beat

I could only find one reliable source for this which was a movie quotes page. Schuym1 (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Sources are available e.g. here is a review from the NY Times. Basement12 (T.C) 00:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a plot summary. The plot summary is not even from NYT. Schuym1 (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a "Review summary", however there is an option to go to "Full New York Times Review »", which, although not free to view content, is a RS. There is also a page dealing with credits for the movie. I'm sure additional sources could also be found. Basement12 (T.C) 00:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NYT movie pages exist for every movie. The full NYT review might show notability though. Schuym1 (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, It may say review summary, but it is still a plot summary and it comes from All Movie Guide. Schuym1 (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can read that review fine, must be a firewall difference. It is by A. H. Weiler, dated September 20, 1971, and is a full length review. I'd be willing to believe that an offline search of other major newpapers of that time would add further sources. The review is particularly complimentary of the performance of Richard Pryor, who is not mentioned in the Wiki article but probably should be. Tassedethe (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can read that review too. Notability is established. I suppose one needs to try various search parameters or these things can be missed... so I'm very glad Basement12 took the time to be thourough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Does not pass the various sports-related notability guidelines. TravellingCari 04:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig King[edit]

No content contained in the article and no proof he passes notability standards Skitzo (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is notable as he was in the Western Australian U19 team, is/was the captain of his team, etc. Seems pretty notable for me. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is no information in the article though saying that, if you have the info with the source you should add it, as it stands the article isn't worth keeping. Skitzo (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, a former Western Australia U-19 player (6 years ago) who has never appeared in a first class game isn't notable. He does not captain the Western Warriors as claimed in the article. Basement12 (T.C) 21:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons given by User:Basement12. King has never played for Western Australia above Under-19 level, let alone captained them. Crickettragic (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not played in any major cricket match therefore fails WP:CRIN and WP:ATHLETE. Andrew nixon (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His Cricinfo profile shows that he has never played in a first-class or List A match. Therefore, as others have said, he fails the notability requirement. JH (talk page) 17:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, hasn't reached notability yet - he may do, but not yet. Also, the article is misleading as he doesn't captain the Western Warriors first XI, rather a lower-division side.–MDCollins (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, and wrong in one of the few facts it contains. Johnlp (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 06:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Phripp[edit]

Self created biography, fails WP:Note Blowdart | ^talk 19:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's self created at all. Sam Phripp is a potential representative of the UK at the Eurovision song contest. He surely deserves a wiki page as he will soon be more well known than he is now. He is currently working with channel 4. One of the biggest channels in the UK. It shouldn't be deleted. Terrazio (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this deletion at all. Sam Phripp has been an internet sensation since the Yeardot project began on June 30th. His star is only set to rise. As for not being notable enough, tell that to the thousands hitting yeardot.co.uk every day, a total so far of 134,000. Rest my case? Harrietsouth (talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)— Harrietsouth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I note strong similarities in language and style in the above posts by Users Terrazio and Harrietsouth. Plutonium27 (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - actual news coverage Terrazio (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - A single blog post on a eurovision blog web site is not notable. --Blowdart | ^talk 20:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - It was returned by Google news. Is therefore News. Meaning Sam is newsworthy..meaning he should have a wiki page Terrazio (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible logic. Google News is just a search engine. JuJube (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - It doesn't mean it is notable in terms of WP:NN. A single newspaper article is neither note-worthy nor does it provide evidence acceptable to WP:MUSIC unless it was one heck of an article, and it isn't. I have two myself for volunteer work, that doesn't mean I'm notable either fr33kman (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment - You need to understand that just because something makes the news does not mean it should be included in an encyclopedia. A pig falling into a well probably would make the news. That does not mean that the pig should get a page on Wikipedia, does it? Wait until he does something that is really note-worthy. fr33kman (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable autobiography - author is Samphripp (talk · contribs). Wikipedia is not here for self-promotion. If his claim to fame is appearing in a TV show, look at WP:ENTERTAINER for the notability threshold for a "TV personality". As far as the Eurovision song contest goes, it's easy to want to get on it - if he actually gets in, then he can have an article. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at this time. fails WP:MUSIC fr33kman (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. On top of the source already provided, and ignoring the usual bebo, youtube, myspace links, the only sources I've found are the following: ([1], [2], [3]). That is, an interview with, and press release published on, Oiko Times, and a message on a blog, which seems to incorporate much of the press release. I suspect Oiko Times isn't reliable, although it does have some editorial staff, and in any case, a claim to notability should be based on articles from more than one source. The other claim to notability, being on Year Dot, isn't enough to justify an article, although some mention should (and is) made on the Yeardot article. Silverfish (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable. As for the comments that he soon wil be: see WP:NOTCRYSTAL. --Crusio (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible WP:AUTO that anyway fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. If Sam does actually get to rep Eurovision UK, then by all means create a page then - and using the WP guidelines to article requirements. Plutonium27 (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
don't delete what about this???? http://www.moopy.org.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=54569! SEE he's well known 82.42.92.104 (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't think that this counts as a reliable source, even if it is verifiable....--Crusio (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, lacking real world notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bel-Korhadris[edit]

There are no sources independent of Games Workshop to demonstrate notability of this fictional character. Any information is solely a summary of primary sources. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not indicate any real-world significance of this fictional game element. It also appears to be original research based on primary source material. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serious question, how is it WP:OR if it's based on primary sources? Hobit (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good question. The two are not necessarily incompatible. Generally, things inferred or interpreted from examination of primary sources are original research, in contrast to things reported from those sources. In the absence of source citation, it is hard to say whether something is "just made up," or original research, or factual reportage. I am probably guilty of undue skepticism in this case, but the lack of references (and, to a lesser extent, the abandonment of real-world perspective after the first sentence) invites skepticism. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 06:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bald Eagles Fly High[edit]

AfDs for this article:

PROD and PROD2 removed by the author. Album with no confirmed title or release date fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. Article contains no content apart from a near-empty infobox and what little is in there is unreferenced. Probably a speedy deletion candidate (db-a1). Ros0709 (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, see also the first nomination, which I was not previously aware of. Speedy delete (db-g4) also applies. Ros0709 (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G4 does not apply, because the prior AfD was closed as Speedy, vs. a full deletion discussion. Still, I think it clear that this needs to be Deleted until it meets WP:MUSIC. Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no improvement since the last deletion. And since the outcome of that AFD was "speedy delete," I see no reason to not speedy delete again. I find no significant coverage by reliable, verifiable sources that suggest notability. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball- we cannot predict notability for an unreleased album. There is not even speculation about its content, let alone reliable sourcing for it. We don't even have a date certain for it's release. Amazingly, this was recreated with the AFD notice in place-- for a different article. Come to think of it, there is no assertion of notability here. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article was a speedy delete in the first nomination and it hasn't improved since. Schuym1 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL, based on the content before the author removed it. No WP:RS cited or found. Release date: TBA. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k. Basement12 (T.C) 00:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would not suggest having the outcome of this AfD as speedy deletion lest WP:CSD#G4 again be not applicable. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In Birdman (rapper), the album in his discography has a citation, but the link content has apparently changed from when it was originally placed; the current news target does not contain reference to the album. If the original news article could be found (I took a quick look), this might at least provide for WP:V if not WP:N. The album is not mentioned in the other artist's biography, Rick Ross (rapper). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NM and WP:CBALL. Unreleased album. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 00:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hardly any notability for the album and too soon to tell. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 21:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BJ^Talk 06:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Arthurs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A couple of years back there were unfounded internet rumours that this was one of the Jamie Bulger murderers. But he isn't. He's just another murderer. Not a mass murderer, just a murderer on a life sentence. If the crime is notable then we should have an article on that, not the individual, per WP:BLP1E (or I suppose in this case WP:BLP1E1UIR if we add the one unfounded internet rumour). Guy (Help!) 19:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although well sourced, the article still fails to assert any notability. It'd probably be best to delete considering BLP. John Reaves 19:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one-event murderer, BLP. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One time murderer. Schuym1 (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 01:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much more than WP:ONEEVENT. Aside from the actual murder there is the unusual decision to conduct a bench trial, the alleged 2003 assault that was not tested in court, the unfounded Bulger assertion. An article on Murder of Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu just becomes distressing for her family. WWGB (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I claim some authorship of this article and the article of the victim (Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu), which has now been deleted. BLP is not a reason to delete an article on this guy. The article does not violate the rights of living people, and does not violate any rights of Sofia (if she has any). If it does, then editing this article is the solution, not deletion. This guy is not just a one-off murderer. In addition to what WWGB has said, his former house was burned to the ground following media hysteria. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notorious criminals are notable. Other factors that influence notability (or notoriety in this case): British police investigation in 2001, a previous incident in 2003 where the Perth police bungled the investigation, and the fact he caused public hysteria across Australia as people thought he might be a Bulger killer. Yes, he's an odious creature, but he passes the Wikipedia test.--Lester 02:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These articles are always difficult to resolve by applying policy down the line. Certainly the subject meets the primary notability criterion in spades, but he is a living person and I have stood fairly strongly in the past about having articles for every rapist, murderer, armed robber etc bearing in mind BLP; criminals have rights too. It seems to come down to a "gut" decision, a mere opinion only, on the "notoriety" of the case. A High School teacher sleeping with his/her students; to be condemned but not notorious. Murdering a young child and the attendant blaze of publicity, well&nbsp,... it seems notorious enough for me, but I can't support it in policy. My opinion only. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WWGB, and the fact there have been 2 AfDs already which have tended towards keeping. No new evidence that the outcome has changed. Speedy close would be a better outcome. JRG (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's well sourced from various news sources, including national and international. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"keep" articles should be reformed, not deleted. This article is being repeatedly cited for deletion - it is obviously an abuse of process. Adding a delete tag is easier and more satisfying than suggesting improvements! Personally, I don't 'like' the article and I think it needs a lot of work. However, the general principle is clear, and with three deletion attempts already made, this article raises general 'procedural' issues which make it worth commenting. 90.62.150.248 (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC) (Martin Cohen)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as spam. Keeper ǀ 76 20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better Breakfast[edit]

User appears to be using wikipedia as a web page host; article promotes a programme rather than encyclopaedic knowledge. Breaks WP:NOTWEBHOST Blowdart | ^talk 19:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and also not notable. Bidgee (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Part of a related series of spammy articles, nomd for G11 speedy. ukexpat (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant failure of what Wikipedia is not; I declined the speedy because it seems simply to be advertising breakfast, which isn't really an "entity". A pity: I would rather speedy it, too. Nyttend (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can always speedy the others *duck* --Blowdart | ^talk 19:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You could have ignored all the rules and speedied it any way! – ukexpat (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simulations and games in economics education[edit]

Article is entirely a how-to on the subject of teaching and learning etc.: it completely fails what Wikipedia is not. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any relevant encyclopedic facts, merge them with Simulation Games. Delete the how-to. MatthewJ (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh LAWD. Um. Gee. Ok. Using games in economics classrooms (especially undergraduate courses on auction design and game theory) is an important part of explaining game theory and transmitting knowledge. Often the paradoxical conclusions of game theory (where users are assumed to be rational and acting on perfect information) can best be conveyed by actually playing a game. The Ultimatum game is best explained by playing it in the classroom. Same with Guess 2/3 of the average. "Games", as this article defines it, move past that and get into "ludic territory". Meaning that they mean games as in computer games rather than games played to illustrate "game theory". This, also, has some relevance to the discipline and education in general. The ideal article would summarize the views in the literature regarding both "cooperative and non-cooperative strategy experiments in the classroom" (the first kind of game I pointed out) and "computer simulations designed to generate contingent outcomes on the basis of user input" (the second kind of "game"). In order for this article to be that article, we would need to rename it, remove the self-refs, how-to content, and move the external links. that would leave us with a stub that perhaps can be built up properly. I'll take a look at this, but I may not have the heart to rescue it completely. Keep for now, as it has the potential to be improved. Protonk (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. ((under construction)) tag has been present from the first edit and article is only 2-3 days old. Allow time for the construction to take place. Banjeboi 04:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All that's been constructed to this point is totally unencyclopedic: why should we expect any further construction, at least on the part of the placer of the construction template, to be productive? Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The template itself states to allow a few days. Likely we're dealing with a newby that didn't realize they couldn't park an in-process article as such. We could AGF that they are working on it. The AfD process, IMHO, should not be the first step here; a prod, clean-up templates and dialog to sort out what's up would have likely been seen as less bitey to a newcomer. I suppose it's too late for a speedy close unless you'd be willing to withdraw AfD and try engaging them to see if they intend to fix this up. If they fail to communicate then prod to see if someone else will step up. A merge would also be workable since the parent is so stubbly. Banjeboi 05:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The article is obviously not entirely a how-to and the nomination is disruptive, as noted above. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this disruptive? I reject an accusation of bad faith: if this were bad faith, I would have speedy deleted it, as it was tagged before I discovered it. Nyttend (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption is not a matter of intent - it is a consequence or outcome. The nomination should be speedily closed to spare us further diversion from more useful work. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before we tar and feather the nominator, please look at the revision that was nominated. As I noted above, the article was almost completely a how-to. I think we should keep this article (hopefully the original editor will check back to work on it), but I can't at all feel that the nominator acted poorly. I don't see it as a "bad faith nomination" or an error in judgment. Protonk (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean to imply it was bad faith nom - just that it had the ((under construction)) tag in place and was only a day or two old. I feel there were multiple options available before the AfD process was utilized. Banjeboi 22:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Protonk. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On a path to a new name does Simulation games in understanding economics come close? Any other ideas? Banjeboi 22:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simulations and games in economics education As simulations (the computer whizz-bangery) should be topically distinct from games. I know that some of the literature speaks explicitly of "simulation games" (as in contrived situations with contingent outcomes based on user inputs that happen to be highly realistic or conform to a model of behavior) but for the purposes of a general encyclopedia, we should split the two. Protonk (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! Any objections? Banjeboi 00:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Protonk (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete lacking both notability and verifiability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Eason[edit]

Only assertations are a couple singles on the Texas charts (which are not a major music chart), that he's performed with various other country acts, and that he backs Star De Azlan. None of this is verified, and I can't find a single source to verify any of it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Having been the opening act at the 2008 Concert for the Cure doesn't say much of his album performance. If the subject is notable, there should be a lot more information available on his latest release considering all the artists listed as "upcoming" in the area only maintain their websites, and don't seem to promote themselves heavily, yet turn up far more results on google. Ottre (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any independent reliable sources to verify his biography. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:32, 7 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. Waggers (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Lattin[edit]

Biography probably written by someone at HarperCollins who publish the guy's work. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Optigan13 (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Proquest has 276 articles that mention him, the most substantive being book reviews. The books apear notable but their author may not be. If the article is kept it'll need work to reduce the promotional tone. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite If not deleted it needs a rewrite to remove the promotional tone and wikify. Mattie ^TK 12:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, while he talks about notable things, anyone can. Anyways, should it be kept, we ought to clean it up. Marlith (Talk) 16:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Rewrite - Per Will Beback (talk · contribs) and MattieTK (talk · contribs). Plenty of WP:RS/WP:V sources, notable journalist. Cirt (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. There may be a good article about this person, but this isn't it. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 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, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Article asserts notability. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails wp:bio. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Have to agree with Richard Pinch & Cirt. The article needs work but that is clearly not a reason to delete. The author has written several notable books with a quick glance over 30 reliable sources in the EBSCO database I looked in. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some references to the article that demonstrate notability as an author. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. GlassCobra 18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rakawa[edit]

nn website. alexa rank 19632542. Dow30down (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 06:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rightard (politics)[edit]

Non notable neologism. Urban dictionary is not a source. superβεεcat 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. sources are highly unconvincing. --Rividian (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator sums it up nicely. Edward321 (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another throw away neologism. ~ NossB (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 13:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. BJ^Talk 06:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convos[edit]

nn website, alexa rank has 1174129. Dow30down (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11 WikiScrubber (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 06:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EndOfThisWorld[edit]

nn website. alexa rank 5239394. Dow30down (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can find very little/no 3rd party RS. Basement12 (T.C) 00:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable site. Schuym1 (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete spammers of nn site. WikiScrubber (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —— RyanLupin • (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Smackdown[edit]

nn website, alexa rank 1169830. Dow30down (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- while the site itself may scrape by on notability, the concept is very much key to the Web 2.0 movement, and the article seems to be well researched with good sourcing and a neutral tone. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 22:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should mention that this was originally a CSD spam candidate, I declined it then and invited the author to add notability information, which (s)he did. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 22:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thank you for the chance to discuss this. While I believe strongly in Wikipedia's mission and support the concept of reducing overtly promotional material, I don't believe that is the case here. As a new user to Wiki, I've put a very substantial amount of work into this (particularly the idea of meeting the "notability" and other criteria) because this seems like a topic that is very much cutting edge. Based on the research quoted in this article (from the LA Times, Daily Variety, Hollywood Reporter, New York Times, etc.), the days of the print movie critic are fast coming to an end and this Movie Smackdown site seems to be quite representative of the counter-trend. I've been making (and will continue to make) efforts to clarify how this topic is newsworthy and emblematic of an entire trend in film reviews. I'd ask those who will make this decision to look at other Wiki articles for web reviews like "Rotten Tomatoes" and "Metacritic" by way of comparison. It seems that the Movie Smackdown page is at least equal and in many case better in a number of key ways. It is also unique: there are content aggregators like the former, and there are film collectives like Movie Smackdown, but in almost all cases they use the old formula of a critic (even if not a well-known print critic) talking about a single film. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the only film review site or concept where a collective of critics actually approach film criticism in a specific new way where they all adhere to a specific unique format and submit to editing. In any case, this article is meant to be thoughtful and neutral about the concept of the democratization of film reviews in the Internet age. Of course, it can be improved (and will be) as other voices join in the editing process. If this concept doesn't meet the standards, I'm sort of confused as I've seen dozens and dozens of Wiki articles that seem less-researched and clearly self-serving but, again, I'm new to Wiki and may not be understanding the entire picture. Anyway, thanks again for listening, and considering this point-of-view. Ablebaker2 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movies -- like popular culture -- make sense of a confusing world for me. In this regard Movie Smackdown! is especially effective, because it operates on a level that is easily accessible to all: The simple comparison. This format offers a helpful frame of reference for judging a new film by showing how it stacks up with a similar, earlier release known to most readers. This focus develops a better understanding of the film maker's intent. The Smackdown! structure transforms the movies into cinematic gladiators. Only one emerges the winner and this approach puts readers on a fun ride. It also provides insights into the critics' artistic vision. I'm a longtime visitor to this site and noticed how it has evolved into a unique and valuable resource for film audiences. By personal experience I've learned it's not necessary to see the films to enjoy Movie Smackdown! I'm not alone: The creator displays a site meter tracking unbroken growth in monthly visits. Pusster1 02:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pusster1 (talk • contribs)

Just saw this brouhaha, read the page, looked at the site. If something this well-researched and annotated doesn't qualify for a page, then you should be taking down all kinds of other ones. I actually enjoyed reading the articles it referred to, it hadn't fully occurred to me that film reviews were dying on the newspapers and migrating to the Web. Well, you're the experts, but I say KEEP IT. Chickflix (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is this site unique enough to warrant comment? Does it represent something worthy of comment? I'd have to say that, especially for film buffs and anybody on the Internet, you'd have to say "yes." So I'm thinking, yeah, it's a keeper. Plus, I agree with above. It's got some good info in it, arranged well and with all the footnote stuff. Loengard (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should not even be considered for deletion in my opinion. It clearly meets the "notability" criteria (the notability challenge was even met by the author). I checked the site out and it does generate a significant amount of repeat traffic. The reviews are well written, concise, and relevant. Just because they aren't written by celebrated critics (at least not yet) shouldn't render them not-noteworthy. Something that is considered note-worthy has to start somewhere and I truly believe that this website has met that mininum threshold. It can only grow from here and deserves an entry for the continuation of that journey. Also, as the referenced articles state, movie goers are shifting over to reading reviews on the web and Movie Smackdown is obviously a stopping point for many of these readers. The site meter shows this as the number of page views are dramatically on the rise. Lastly, this website offers reviews just as good as (if not better than) websites such as Rotten Tomatoes and does so in a unique and refreshing way. This, to me, is Movie Smackdown's main draw and I believe is sufficient in itself to warrant a Wiki mention.Walkingbillboard (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A large section of this article is an WP:OR essay on the nature and change of modern film criticism. While interesting it has no place in this article, which should be a well-sourced piece on the website in question. The only independent reference that makes specific mention of Movie Smackdown is as AMC site of the week which appeared on their blog. None of the 3 possible criteria to pass WP:WEB have been met, i.e. no multiple non-trivial references, no awards, no replication of content by respected 3rd parties. Tassedethe (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep looks encyclopaedic WikiScrubber (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the article is tagged as in "Expansion or revamping", I'm sure anything that seems like OR will be removed or properly cited. Nice article. Interesting. Informative. Glad that L'Aquatique encourgaed its author to improve it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Change is inevitable. When thinking about the current status of the motion picture industry, two changes that are occurring involve "who" is making the film and "who" is reviewing it.

Years ago Francis Ford Coppola was asked about the impact of high-quality, affordable digital cameras and what effect they would have on Hollywood. He responded by saying that some day, in the not too distant future, "Some little fat girl from Ohio" will win an Oscar. (This is probably not his exact words -- but it is awful close and it reflects accurately the point he was trying to make). Yes, films are now being made by a lot more people than just the established industry "names" and many are both excellent and commercially viable.

Likewise, film commentary, criticism and the old fashioned "movie review" are now available on websites and over the internet in great numbers. A few of these are truly unique, with Movie Smackdown being one of the most notable. Traditional newspaper and magazine reviews are still available, but, for the vast majority of film goers, they now get their information off the internet -- especially those of the MTV Generation (and younger) which constitutes by far the largest number of individuals who purchase theater tickets. And what they want when they read a review is intelligent discussion in a fun/entertaining format and they want a review that is reasonably short and to the point. That is exactly what Movie Smackdown does -- I am unaware of anyone else doing this in the same manner.

On occasion, Movie Smackdown will actually have two or maybe even three "Smackdowns" between a current release and a film classic it is being compared to that are written by different contributors. This, too, is unique, and it adds an additional layer not found elsewhere.

Clearly the changing landscape and the unique niche Movie Smackdown occupies within this arena should make it a worthy Wikipedia entry. Yes, I say "KEEP" -- and I do so without reservation.

--CineTex (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 06:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hammes Company[edit]

Non-notable company. Main contributor is User:Hammes, so conflict of interest is apparent as well. CyberGhostface (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:COI promotional material. While COI is not grounds for deletion in itself, it is grounds for skepticism or rebuttable presumption. In this case, the principle claim for notability ("ranked by Modern Healthcare...") is not specifically supported by the citation.[4] Searching this on-line magazine yields ten articles, none of which appears to be significant coverage or to substantiate the claim. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Needs more significant coverage to fulfill criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Seems to be some sockpuppetry going on, or at least somebody with interest in the company repeatedly visiting the page. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - As stated previously, article remains as purely educational and does not contain marketing, advertising or sales information. Purely information, resources, references and notability found on internet and firm's website. To address Ningauble's argument above regarding Modern Healthcare ranking/notability - Ranking/Notability can be found on reference #6 [5] on article - It can be edited according to match reference to ranking/notability if that would make Ningauble happy. Also, code and article seems to be based on other architecture/design firm's Wiki articles, including RTKL and CH2 M Hill. If these articles are deemed noteable and accepted, then this article should be able to remain on Wiki. To address IceCreamAntisocial's sockpupperty claim, while the article does appear to be written from a company representative, it was written as an informative and educational tool. Since then, the article has been scrubbed and edited from other users, as well. Sharnden (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. The alternate citation is a company profile at a trade association with which subject is affiliated. These are expressly not considered independent sources under the general notability guideline. To address the notability question, it would be much better to cite the article in which the magazine published its rankings and their rationale. (Fortunately for me, my happiness does not rest on the comings and goings of Wikipedia articles.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this spam. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hollo, Pennsylvania[edit]

This article is almost certainly a hoax. No town/township anywhere close to this size exists in Northampton County, Pennsylvania or anywhere in Pennsylvania for that matter. In particular, searches of the U.S. Census database, USPS website, and the Commerce Department website turn up nothing (all are referenced or mentioned in edit summaries). Google News finds nothing relevant, and google searches just come up with generic commercial sites with no information. Maps.google locates Hollo, but there is no indication of an organized community. Towns of 20,000 people in the U.S. appear on the radar screen; this community does not. Darkspots (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete USGS lists no such place in Northampton County and the source cited for the County's page lists no such such place either.[6] • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Delete vote struck per information from Nyttend. I thought the nominator's withdrawal would be the end of this. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To the contrary, Hollo is listed by the USGS database: see here. I've completely reworked the article, removing all unsourceable information and making it a stub of information that comes from reliable sources. It's a real populated place, and as it now exists the article is substantial and passes notability and verifiability criteria. Nyttend (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nom withdrawn Thanks for finding this source; I couldn't find anything, so that's a big help. Darkspots (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can a nomination be withdrawn if there's already a "Delete"? Nyttend (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My understanding of typical practice is that the nom can be withdrawn at any time but the delete vote(s) would have to change to keep to close the discussion as "nom withdrawn". Darkspots (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (ec) It appears on this map as the cluster of about 17 buildings SSE of Nazareth. FallingRain thinks there are 28,863 within 7 km. Perhaps the hoaxer is making some sort of comment on the dangers of using GNIS and FallingRain to base an article on. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Making a comment on FallingRain, eh? I'll check with you two the next time I have a question about a geography article. Darkspots (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've observed problems with Fallingrain (since it doesn't discriminate based on jurisdictions), but what's the problem with the GNIS? Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The policy at GNIS is they never delete an entry, so it is full of ghost towns. I have added a reference about that to the GNIS and GEOnet Names Server articles. I've started a discussion with Blofeld about this problem, if you are interested; there are hundreds of mistaken articles on Wikipedia that relied too heavily on GNS. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nyttend. Ottre (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per work done by Nyttend that established this as a real populated place and therefore notable. 23skidoo (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There was no deletion consensus here, so this defaults to keep. However, a merge outcome has been suggested and I encourage editors to discuss this on the talk page or boldly do the merge. (non-admin closure) NonvocalScream (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samba TNG[edit]

weak keep Found on PROD list and felt inappropriate as tag said no releases in three years, release of bug fixes was Jan 2008. Feel AfD more appropriate. Should perhaps be merged with Samba (software). If the concensus is to delete, then I'll merge the article fr33kman (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Samba. samj (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If I'd have come across this PROD, I would have just removed it. If I felt like either of you, I'd remove it & slap on merge tags. Either way, there seems to be no compelling reason to delete this. --Karnesky (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Agree mostly, I personally hate to remove ((prod)) tags rightout, I prefer to move them to AfD so that at least the person who put it there can have a say. To just remove it seems, to me, to remove democracy. :-) fr33kman (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but contesting by removing & commenting on the PRODers talk page (allowing them to AfD), as suggested by Wikipedia:PROD#Before_deletion, may also work. I've left the PRODer a note. As it stands now, we have no comments actually calling for deletion. --Karnesky (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much no-brain Merge. Forks aren't automatically notable enough for new articles, but should definitely be covered in the article for the original software. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep(non-admin closure) the nominator has changed his vote to 'keep' and there are no other delete votes. - Icewedge (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corneotherapy[edit]

Advertising of a dubious skin 'concept' of no clear notability, orphan article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 16:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: GoogleScholar shows adequate notability, but the current article is completely lacking in balance. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a bit perturbed to see just one guy's name on all the research, but the journals seem to be reputable.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite the entire thing from scratch RogueNinja_talk 17:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Six hits at PubMed (e.g., PMID 10894961). Probably "notable", which is different from "important". I'd also support merging it to another article, if a suitable candidate was proposed. It'd make a nice paragraph related to the mechanism of moisturizing dry skin. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 06:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Ramos[edit]

Article claims subject was featured in the National Gallery of Art, but I cannot find any sources to support this claim. Subject is non-notable beyond that claim. TN‑X-Man 16:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find sources for this guy on Google (first hits are facebook and friendster accounts, the rest are hits for nursing board exam passers or unrelated websites.) and the archive of Philippine Daily Inquirer.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 07:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all; 19 year-old here. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not ready for prime time...Modernist (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There is an almost unanimous consensus to delete, relisting is not appropriate. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smackdown vs Raw 2009 Roster[edit]

Resize and merge into WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009. No such article exists for the 2008 version. StaticGull Talk 13:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced character list. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Even though IGN has a roster update article [7], as you can see it's nothing compared to the article in question. The roster for the upcoming SVR09 seem to solely come from forum postings (such as here for example), none of which I can verify as being a reliable source. Hence, this article fails WP:CBALL. MuZemike (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Merge to WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009. Sources supporting some sort of roster seem to be found. However, this is not notable enough to have its own article; it can, though, fit perfectly in the main game article. I still support semi-protection due to the high volume of anon vandalism. MuZemike (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Xeron220 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note article has been vandalized frequently, removing the AfD tag among other things. JuJube (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anon has been reported to WP:AIV. MuZemike (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anon has been blocked for 31 hours (see block log). MuZemike (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh...why is this still here? It's obviously immature bullshit. 69.23.214.90 (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note — User has engaged in continuous vandalism of the article in question. MuZemike (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I didn't know trying to get rid of obviously false information was "vandalism." That's one example of why this site is a joke. You're letting 12 year olds who make shit up run it. hahaha 69.23.136.49 (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — Request for this article to be semi-protected has been made to WP:RPP. MuZemike (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has been semi-protected for two weeks (see log). MuZemike (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary and incorrectly vandalized page. Recommend speedy deletion. JakeDHS07 03:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it quite meets G3 criteria, as not all versions of the article (see early diffs and some non-vandalized diffs) are vandalism. MuZemike (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non-notable. -- iMatthew _T.C. 14:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - D.M.N. (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — article has been flagged for rescue. MuZemike (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's just a list.--Degenerate-Y (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence the reason for merging into the game's article, especially when verifiable sources such as IGN seems to be covering this game in detail. MuZemike (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely Pointless--Adam Penale (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WP:PW consensus was to wait for the entire roster list to be revealed before adding it to the article, so it shouldn't even be merged at this point either, let alone have it's own page. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My initial hunch would be to rename to WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009 roster and redirect to main article. It doesn't seem like there is an opposition to the material as much as am effort to let it grow organically from the main article. Having stated that the consensus to hold off could have been made a bit in a vacuum or simply ignored. The main article from the previous year seems to be able to contain all that year's roster so maybe letting it grow in the main article is a good idea. I suggest, though, that letting those interested in building content be encouraged and supported so maybe just moving this to a sandbox of the main might be a solution and direct those eager to play be encouraged to emulate good editing behaviour there where mistakes don't corrupt or offend as easily. Banjeboi 09:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you people serious? Why is this still here? It's so obviously kids making crap up. Way to encourage them by allowing them to make false articles and not deleting them. Maxwell7985 (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First, AfD discussions normally last for five days. Second, there are alternatives to deletion, such as merging or redirecting. Third, the article is semi-protected so only kids who know how to become a registered Wikipedia user can go on and "make crap up." MuZemike (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, please refrain from whining and incivility in this discussion. MuZemike (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to merge so Delete. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:13, 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, MuZemike (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin closure. Article was speedily deleted per A7. justinfr (talk/contribs) 15:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Jurek[edit]

Nothing to indicate notability as per WP:MUSIC, does not seem to satisfy WP:PROF either. justinfr (talk/contribs) 15:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taged for speedy Delete. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breakwater Marina[edit]

Delete part of a tranche of articles seeking to create a directory of largely nn marinas, contrary to WP:NOT Mayalld (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable per nom. Basement12 (T.C) 15:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WHSV in espanol[edit]

The result was Speedily deleted. Spanish language versions of articles already here in English should be deleted because they are unreadable to most of us, and we generally delete poorer duplicates of existing articles. Dlohcierekim 15:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Spanish-language translation of WHSV-TV. It is inappropriate for inclusion in the English language Wikipedia. It might be appropriate for transwiki to The Spanish language Wikipedia, but I do not know their notability guidelines or how they feel about hosting articles on TV stations in Virginia. The article was tagged for speedy deletion, but it does not precisely fit the criteria. It sat in the CAT:CSD list for over 24 hours, which suggests its deletion is not widely perceived as "uncontroversial" and it may merit discussion here. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy I'm going to put a tag on it. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 15:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 19:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Imbimbo[edit]

Non-notable person. --ApprenticeFan (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely non-notable. Mrh30 (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shows no signs of notablility, fails WP:ATHLETE as he isn't a pro, and ESPN profile has nothing. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 15:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google search comes up with nothing about a basketball player. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 15:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Unable to locate verifiable sources asserting notability. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. He's a college basketball player and is on a reality tv show but that's pretty much all that is published about him in RS. He may become notable later. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the Davis newspaper doesn't come up with him in a search. When the small town paper for the school you went to hasn't mentioned you once, notability isn't very likely.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete CSD G7 - No assertion of notability, just a self-made vanity article. --Angelo (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knowles Arms F.C.[edit]

Non-notable amateur football club, could find no non-trivial sourcing. Google search brings back more results for a pub than for the team. GlassCobra 15:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything of any global significance for this team. Mrh30 (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a pub team playing in a local rec league. probably could have been speedied -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hogtie bondage. Mr.Z-man 22:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretzel hogtie[edit]

Non-notable bondage term. Most of the article has been tagged as original research for a year and the only source is a passing mention in a bondage guide, which simply describes what a "pretzel hogtie" is but says nothing about it's significance (or even how widely used this term is). WJBscribe (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep Is notable, just barely. Merge with Bondage Atom (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent and reliable references mean that it fails WP:V verifiability. It is also a "how-to" and is thus inappropriate. Edison2 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hogtie bondage as it is a variant of this.--Whipmaster (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 06:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Clark (politician)[edit]

Non-notable wannabe politician. I'd bet the ranch that this was posted by the candidate himself, given that he graduated from Stanford University in 2005 and the original author's user ID is Cardinal05. (Coincidence? I think not.) Be that as it may, this guy is running for city council in Mountain View, California. That's it. Hasn't even won office yet, and even winning this election would not make him notable. Utterly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Declined speedy - the declining editor said that "Importance does seem to have been shown in this article." Where that importance lies is beyond me. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with the above assessment Mrh30 (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Tassedethe (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also agree the the nom. Failes everything with WP:POLITICIAN and source used is from the person's own site which is not a reliable source. Bidgee (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Not notable yet. GlassCobra 15:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rats All the good delete arguments have been taken already. City council candidates are not notable per se. Reallyhick makes no mention of subject's position as Senior Operations Manager at Loopt . I don't think that conveys sufficient notability either. I can't find 3rd party sources that say it does. The fact that the source is the subject's campaign web page suggests this is promotional in nature. Not sure I see the notability assertion either.Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that counts as a delete, huh? :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm not sure how notability per WP:BIO is even asserted. One mention of his candidacy found in the local press. Article is a watered-down version of his campaign bio. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Lady Galaxy 13:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep until November There are two real news articles from real papers about the race. why not keep it up and let the campaign develop. City council races are important. this is a democracy, you know, and having young people run for office is an important thing in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.45 (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage from just running for office does not establish notability. The Palo Alto Daily News coverage is trivial, too. Notability cannot be speculative. Even if he wins, local office holders are not automatically notable. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A cynic could see keeping till November as serving the purpose of providing the candidate with a valuable soapbox. And encouraging callow youth to sully themselves in politics is not Wikipedia's purpose. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This town/city is about the size of sleepy, li'l old Largo. Council members of such city/towns are not notable. Certainly, being a candidate in such a race does not meet WP:N. Dlohcierekim 00:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City council members in general are not notable. Only those who have been in office for a long time and have had some sort of significant impact on a medium-sized or larger community would possibly qualify as notable. This gentleman would not qualify even if he were elected. BTW, User:Dlohcierekim's comment was hilarious. A cynic might also think that the anon IP editor that placed that comment might be Clark himself, since we are pretty darn certain that Clark wrote this article in the first place. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really thw wikipedia position? City council members are not notable. But any idiot with a bit part in a movie is notable? sheeesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.45 (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Any idiot with a bit part is not notable. (If you see any such article, let me know. I'll have a look-see and take it form there.) Do read WP:BIO, the guideline for notability for articles about living people. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what Dlohcierekim said, you can also take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and actresses and see that there are plenty of bit part actors up for deletion because of lack of notability. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unnecessary pile-on delete per... well... everyone. – Toon ^(talk) 22:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the author and subject of the article, I'd like to plead my case and then will welcome whatever decision you make. I obviously feel that local candidates are important. As a young tech worker and avid Wikipedia user, I feel it's important for people in a Silicon Valley city (and the city that's home to Google) to be able to find information about local candidates for office from an online source such as Wikipedia. I'm aware that it's rarely a good idea for someone to post an article about themselves, but I sincerely tried to keep it as unbiased or self-promoting as possible and welcome any edits (positive or negative). I was actually hoping that by creating the article that others would edit it to remove any perceived bias. It's rare for someone under 30 to run for an office like city council, and I think that makes this candidacy unique. I also have reason to believe that there will be press in the next few weeks about this candidacy outside of the Bay Area, so it may be worth keeping for a few more weeks or at least through the election to see how things turn out. However, I value the judgement of the wikipedia community, and if you still feel this article should be deleted, moved, or otherwise modified, I will certainly accept that. Thanks for taking the time to review all of this. – --Cardinal05 (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have violated a major principle of Wikipedia — self-promotion. You simply can't do it, period. Moreover, we have already established over time that political candidates who have not yet actually been elected to office are not notable unless they qualify on other grounds, and you do not. Even if you do win, city councilors and their equivalents are not notable enough even when elected. A very few exceptions are made for councilors who have gained considerable fame in a large community due to longevity in office, significant impact on their community, or (often) misconduct in office. So even if you do win your election, you probably still won't be notable enough for an article. Additionally, it is not that unusual for a person aged 30 or younger to run for a city council. As a reporter, I've seen it quite a few times in cities small and large. But let's not kid ourselves here. You wrote an article to promote your own political campaign, pure and simple, and that's about as big a no-no as you can commit around here. So off you go, and please remember to remove all your campaign signs from the streets after the election. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:08, 7 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 Michael Jackson. Wizardman 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King of pop[edit]

There is no need for a disambiguate page for only two entries. This is unlikely to ever expand, unless Jackson releases even more King of Pop/King of pop albums, maybe a single called King of Pop/King of pop, a book called king of Pop/King of pop, maybe have a child called King of Pop/King of pop.... (all unlikely). For now at least there simply isn't a need.

I support returning things to how they were before this was set up. "King of pop" should redirect to Michael Jackson (King of Pop & "Wacko Jacko" redirect there). The "King of Pop" album is a greatest hits record that no-one will remember in a years time (thus I don't think it should redirect to the album).

Please also read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King of Pop.
Please also note that King of Pop already redirects to Michael Jackson. — Realist² 15:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael Jackson and put a redirect template on that article. Assuming noone argues for deletion this discussion can be speedy closed as keep. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect Useless dab page but useful search term for predominantely MS and not the compilation album. The IP who created this dab page a couple of days (in good faith) should have been reverted immediately. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, I've just remembered the existence of Honorific titles in popular music. Maybe a DAB page pointing to that, Michael Jackson and the album would be better? Olaf Davis | Talk 09:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 15:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lodge of Four Seasons Marina[edit]

Delete non-notable business created as part of a trance of articles by a user seeking to create a directory of marinas, in contravention of WP:NOT Mayalld (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:RS coverage found in searches is very thin. The EPA coverage is more of the routine regulatory nature. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable per nom. Basement12 (T.C) 15:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage, significant or otherwise, beyond information repeated from listed gov't/official sites. Flowanda | Talk 07:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found and added some references from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. --Eastmain (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. In addition to clear consensus, I was able to quite quickly find multiple book reviews and significant discussion in independent sources, as well as discussion in many additional sources which could be used in the article. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Politics in America[edit]

Non-notable book. Article is self-referencing, no independent sources of any kind whatsoever. Top three pages of Google hits are almost totally bookseller listings. Fails WP:BOOK. Contested PROD, removed by original author. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - published by University Press of Kansas, cited in other publications [8], has been reviewed in various academic journals [9], and The Journal of American History. Satisfies the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (books). Ostap 17:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While the existence of reviews on face is not sufficient to meet WP:NB, the number of or depth existing reviews can change things. The review in Environmental History is four pages long and delves into the book in a significant fashion. I wouldn't call the book widely cited, but it appears to have had some impact. as for the publisher, while publication by UK would easily make the work reliable, it doesn't make it notable. I am, however, inclined to offer the benefit of the doubt to the article. Protonk (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adequate stub. Johnfos (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Here is the specifics of the Journal of American History source mentioned by Ostap, I believe with what has been presented in this AfD that the book passes WP:BK
- Pope, Daniel. "Book Reviews." Journal of American History 85, no. 3 (December 1998): 1165-1166., Abstract: Reviews the book `Nuclear Politics in America: A History and Theory of Government Regulation,' by Robert J. Duffy. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New download metod[edit]

Advertising Graham Colm ^Talk 14:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmm?. The only author is you.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was deleted by an Admin while I was reporting it ;-) Graham Colm ^Talk 14:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Seems the job has already been done. Was blatant advertising ("Metod?"). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Non-notable CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kabooza[edit]

Notability issues:

This site is not known by alexa: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/kabooza.com

and google returns only 21 results:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=kabooza.com+-site%3Akabooza.com&btnG=Search Photoact (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non-notable website. Schuym1 (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spammish and hardly asserting notability.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete fails A7/web miserably, although the article is worth reading for the bizarre and poorly-written section where it tries to compare itself to an octopus (!?), including "Kabooza will survive all your mishaps!" which is my new phrase of the day. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All your base are belong to us, er, I mean delete as not asserting notability. No RS, No V. No significant media coverage. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have notified creator of this discussion. Dlohcierekim 16:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: A interesting website. I have been watching this area for a long time and when I found a new site on http://www.backupreview.info/directory/ that seemed interesting I thought it was worth adding. I am sure they will be getting alot of coverage soon. How much would be there need to be before you think its notable? I have done a lot work to find the material for this article. Photoman365 (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2008 (ECT)

Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. We cannot have articles on subjects that might one day be notable. See WP:WEB for notability requirements. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't satisfy Wiki's current notability criteria for websites. I might have just discovered a new favourite word, however... 23skidoo (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 WikiScrubber (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete: I understand what you are saying. I still feel that many Wikipedia readers can find this interesting and valuable. I have not found *any* other automatic backup services geared directly to photographers. I know many friends that have lost all their pictures when their computer broke. Tragic events that can be avoided. I consider this Public service. Photoman365 (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2008 (ECT)

Comment Sorry, only one !vote per editor. :)This issue is not interesting or useful content. The issue is whether or not subject meets notability guidelines. Cheers, 15:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. COOP redirected as per comment Black Kite 17:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ColdFusion 8 Developer Tutorial[edit]

This article is part of a walled garden surrounding John Farrar (developer). This includes COOP and Shared Open Source. I am nominating them for deletion as there is no assertion of notability outside of the self-references. TN‑X-Man 13:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominated articles COOP and Shared Open Source do not have the AFD notice. I will add it. justinfr (talk/contribs) 14:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, as per nominator. All created by one editor with, generally, no references thus fails WP:V. justinfr (talk/contribs) 14:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The software is all related to the company SOSensible, owned by John Farrar (developer), and same as the username of the creator of all these articles. I have warned them about WP:COI and WP:SPAM, and directed them to the business FAQ. justinfr (talk/contribs) 14:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all per WP:CSD#G5 and G12 -- User:Sosensible has been blocked indefinitely for spamming. justinfr (talk/contribs) 15:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weed the garden Don't see notability. Dlohcierekim 16:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. WP:SNOW. WikiScrubber (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect COOP to the disambiguation at Coop, which includes acronyms that match the term. No opinion on the other page nominated. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Seed Mama Jump[edit]

Speedy declined because there are apparently "plenty of assertions of notability". Though I don't see any according to WP:MUSIC. Not the subject of multiple published works, no charting songs/albums, no gold certified releases, no national/international tour, not on a major label or major indie label, no notable members, not a prominent act, no awards or nominations, no radio rotation and no TV coverage. The only slightly notable thing is having a song in a video game. Hardly justifies an article, does it? Nouse4aname (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, described by AllMusic as having "built a substantial following due to heavy gigging on the East Coast" and "all four of their releases have sold over 80,000 copies combined". Third-party coverage here and here. Plus, being the house band for the Washington Redskins has to be worth something. Possibly meets either criteria #1 or #10 of WP:MUSIC, but I'll wait to see what others turn up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral leaning toward keep. "have since performed on stage with many national acts and presently tour up and down the east coast of the United States" is certainly an indicator of notability, and if sources can be found to back it up, it's a keeper. If not, delete as unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 80,000 copies was already mentioned. This hardly meets WP:Music. did not top charts on BillBoard. I don't see a national tour. Dlohcierekim 16:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- has no refs. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 16:23, 7 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. Mr.Z-man 04:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SKYbrary[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article does not assert notability. Speedy deletion (recreation of deleted material) was declined. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 12:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why an aviation industry wide initiative may not be mentioned on wikipedia. People interested in aviation safety should be able to learn about this initiative and find it. It is not just another website, it is respected by the industry and authorative bodies like ICAO, FSF, ... Knowledge Hunter (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems notable, simply lacking in sources. Why would this be speedy deleted? It seems notability concerns do not fall under speedy delete criteria. Vrefron (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources were taken care of, thanks for the input. Knowledge Hunter (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability concerns are not one of the speedy deletion criteria recreation of deleted material is. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 15:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First deletion was based on the argument that it lacked sources. It was deleted before I could take care of that. So I needed to recreate what was deleted. This time I included sources. So I'm wondering what the arguments for the second deletion are? It seems other editors (Aktsu and Vrefron) do not agree with the submission for deletion, so what's next? Knowledge Hunter (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This discussion will run for five days, after which time an admin will consider the arguments and opinions that editors have made here, and weigh up whether they consider that consensus has been reached to delete the article, or whether it should remain. HAve a look at the main Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page for more information. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 16:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cheers Mr Lofty from Kent, Best wishes, Knowledge Hunter from Amsterdam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.109.79 (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but add article issues tag WikiScrubber (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why a "weak keep"? Until now I improved the article based on editors' arguments. What are the remaining issues? Thanks! Knowledge Hunter (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Forsyth County Schools - as agreed to by the nominator and with no outstanding delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Mill Middle School[edit]

Lack of notability per secondary sources, and in general, middle schools are not kept unless these and verifiability are provided. Synergy 12:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Forsyth County Schools. I'd recommend doing the same with Liberty Middle School (Georgia) and South Forsyth Middle School (Georgia), though the latter two articles may have a bit of material that is worth merging. Deor (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, I must have missed that one. I wouldn't have a problem with a speedy redirect. Synergy 13:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 00:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Witch Hunters[edit]

Fails WP:SOURCES by relying on primary sources. No real-world context -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 12:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be edited to be in line with Wikipedia guidelines. 40k has a broad appeal so why delete it?El Jorge (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editing it to be in line with our notability guidelines isn't possible, because independent third party sources for the material do not exist. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not and cannot be established by independent third party sources. The article consists purely of in-universe and gameguide material, and would remain that way as the subject lacks sufficient real-world notability for such material to have been written. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real world notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the running consensus on 40K articles. Sourcing is not independent from Games workshop and a brigade level organizational component of a sub-faction in a table-top miniatures game doesn't really assert notability otherwise. Protonk (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I fail to see where exactly "real world notability" plays into this. I do agree that the article needs an extensive overhaul but deleting it seems to be rather contrarian. If people are interested in this article; why delete it based on the fact that it represents fiction? El Jorge (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at WP:FICT - that says that, for an article to be notable it must: "contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot.", have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and that "reliable sources may cover such things as design, development, reception and cultural impact. This is real-world coverage because it describes the real-world aspects of the work." (not just "the work's fictional elements, such as the setting, characters, and story.") The article does not meet ANY of these criteria. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 10:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the 'real world notability' statement I made was in order to ensure that it was clear this article should be judged on the merits of the general notability guideline. In other words, the subject of the article doesn't present a compelling reason for us to ignore all rules and cover it. If, for example, Jedilofty were to nominate Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000), I would argue that the subject's status as a primary sub-faction in 40k meant that we should not delete it. Here, the important guideline covering this topic is notability. The subject isn't notable, as no third party sources cover it, so wikipedia probably shouldn't have an article on it. I'm afraid that this is much more the failure of Games Workshop than of Wikipedia. GW, as they profit from the publication of source material, guards their intellectual property jealously. This means that very few works exist which cover the fictional elements of the game that are not produced by games workshop. And things are probably going to get worse before they get better. There are roughly 110 articles under the purview of the Warhammer 40K wikiProject and the eventual number is likely to be ~60. We've lost a lot of members to the project because of these strings of deletions (I think the 40K project peaked at ~200 articles) and we need editors to help us build encyclopedic (Not exhaustive) coverage of these subject. Will you help us? Protonk (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some capacity per common sense. The phrase "witch hunters" is a legitimate search term as seen in a Google books search. Thus, this page should not just be outright redlinked. Plus, even as concerns Warhammer, the actual consensus based on article traffic and diversity of editors who edit those articles is that they are wikipedic regardless of snap shot in time AfDs. If editors do not think the warhammer topic is notable, then they hould be bold and use the sources indicated to make an article on a topic that is and discuss these revisions on the article's talk page, but outright deletion seems the wrong approach. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there are already a number of Witch hunter articles - this AfD is about the Witch Hunters article (note capitalisation).-- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 08:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then boldly redirect without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no references independent of Games Workshop to demonstrate notability of the article as it is currently written (i.e. the WH40k fictional army). There is, of course, no prejudice against an article about the non-fictional subject of "witch hunters" (suitably referenced using, say, those possibly relevant sources in the linked search given), but the fact that there might be another article about a notable subject unrelated to the focus of the current article (sharing only the name) should not derail the deletion of this article as written. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD is a total waste of time. We should be able to be bold and just redirect and at worst have a talk page discussion. There's no desperate need to have to delete the edit history in this case. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We've tried that. ArbCom told us it was the wrong way of going about it. So we use AfD instead because it's the only practical means of getting a merge to go through without risking a six-month restriction on fictional-subject articles. Nifboy (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no reason why Witch Hunters should be redlinked when there are historical Witch hunter articles that it unquestionably at worst should be redirected to. If this content is keepable it should be moved to Witch Hunters (Warhammer) even then at worst redirected somewhere as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't disagree, but starting an AfD by stating an intent to merge basically invites a swarm of procedural "keep, afd is not for merging" votes that ignores the reasons why articles that should be WP:BOLDly merged (and would have been merged in the past) are coming here in the first place. Nifboy (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's why we should have a merge discussion on the talk page of the article instead. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Except that isn't practical when there is any opposition at all because talk-page discussions can go on indefinitely (and, per ArbCom, depleting our finite patience is grounds for editing restrictions). It took the Poképrosal three years before going into effect, and that was with an initial consensus to merge. Nifboy (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia does not have a deadline. There's no pressing need to do much of anything on a volunteer project that intends to catalog human knowledge unless it is a hoax, libel, or copy vio. We cannot afford to take our time with those three kinds of problematic articles, but in a case like this one, there's no urgency. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There may not be a deadline, but that doesn't mean we should sit on our laurels and do nothing while the quality of the encyclopedia suffers due to filibuster. In the US Senate, the way to break a filibuster is through forcing a decision to be made. And I would not like to see Wikipedia's efforts to improve quality compare disfavorably to the US Senate. Nifboy (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, I have yet to see any valid reason why Witch Hunters should be outright redlinked. The idea that people looking for information on the historic witch hunters would not type in "witch hunters" as a search phrase is not a valid one. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In, unusually, total agreement with Le Grand Roi. This discussion is, unusually for Warhammer 40K AfDs, incredibly stupid. "dogs" redirects to "dog", "computers" redirects to "computer", "writers" redirects to "writer". Why wouldn't "witch hunters" redirect to "witch hunter"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.160.15.16 (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody has actually suggested that it shouldn't. A post-deletion redirect is perfectly fine. Arguing for one in an AfD is just a smokescreen. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, but all these are all in lower case. Capitals play an important part, which is why Witch Hunter (an article about an album) is a different article to witch hunter (a disambiguation page)! By all means delete, THEN redirect; there is no need to keep the history of the article - in fact leaving the history would invite reversion to an article with no reliable sources or real-world context. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 10:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 00:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail with very little real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that this topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As indicated above, there is real world informatin on the concept of witch hunters and thus this article should not be outright redlinked. Also, WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm beginning to think you don't understand what JNN means. Pagra shtak 17:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I cannot imagine any logical reason why anyone would NOT argue that at worst Witch Hunters should be redirected to Witch hunter and if people believe the Warhammer content to be worthwhile that wouldn't be in an article under Witch Hunters (Warhammer) we should not need an AfD to do this. It should be obvious that the real world notability topic would be a redirect to Witch hunter and then if people wanted to have an AfD over Witch Hunters (Warhammer), that is another story. As far as "jnn" goes. Given the RfC on notability for which many of the proposals are fairly even divided among supports and opposes, it is clear that the community just does not have a consensus on notability, i.e. it is subjective and when I see "non-notable" used by someone who has a "mission" to delete, it makes use of notability seem that much more nothing more than subjective opinion, i.e. a ten dollar way of saying "I don't like it." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you have issues with that mission, then fine—take that up with him (on his talk page, preferably). JNN says that one shouldn't merely state "not notable", but should explain why the subject is not notable. Doctorfluffy has done this. His reason for why he considers this subject not notable is a "[l]ack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Doctorfluffy is clearly not in violation of JNN here. It's too bad that you are disregarding an argument based on the speaker and not the argument itself. Pagra shtak 18:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Because the "argument" when used as part of a "mission" and when there simply is no logical reason why anyone would not at worst argue to redirect the page as without any doubt people are indeed realistically likely to search for witch hunters at least in the unquestionably verifiable historic context is one where I am not going to be naive about the arguer's actual intentions or honesty. I could see an argument to move this information to Witch Hunters (Warhammer) and maybe even have a deletion discussion on that as reasonable. I can not see any argument that does not at least say, "But hey, there have been real world historic witch hunters who have served as the focus of scholarly studies, so we at least need to redirect this page to Witch hunt or Witch hunting. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So create a redirect after the article is deleted then. It's simple enough. Why is it the "wrong approach", as you put it, to have an AFD for this article, but an AFD for the exact same content at another page title would be "reasonable"? Pagra shtak 13:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Because we can be bold and redirect when necessary and truth be told, I would rather Wikipedia be a compendium of topics of debatable notability than a compendium of AfDs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article about a subject nobody has seen fit to write third-party reliable sources about. Desist in disrupting AFD with the same old "We could put something completely unrelated here, so we cannot delete this unreferenced junk!" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this nomination is disruptive as there's no reason why a bold redirect couldn't have taken place instead. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - BTW, I'm talking about you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can lie about me all you want, but if you would rather do that than constructively discuss how best to cover the term "witch hunters", I guess that's your perogative, but why not step back from your stated dislike of me and actually consider why at worst a redirect of Witch Hunters as a legitimate search term for Witch hunter or Witch hunt would not be appropriate. Those topics already exist and to suggest other than that hey regardless of the notability of the current content of the article people might seriously search for the verifiable historical subject and thus at the very least the article is redirectable in that capacity just to yet again lob inaccurate and bad faith accusations against me defies understanding. You know, I don't start off arguments in these discussions accusing people of things... --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You want to keep this article because something completely unrelated can be put here. That isn't in any sense a misrepresentation of your stated goal.
        We don't do pure wiki deletion for reasons that have been explained to you, we don't keep unrelated article histories without good reason and this has been pointed out to you, and bringing up wholly unrelated subjects in AFDs is disruptive and this has been pointed out to you. Most of all, you haven't made any case that this is a special exception to any of those three general states; instead, you're simply campaigning for each of them, in Every. Single. AFD.
        If you want to put a redirect (or any other content unrelated to this WH40K subfaction) here, feel free to go ahead and do that after the AFD. Beyond that, keep the discussion on topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Great, more disruptive misrepresentation of my arguments. I am arguing that the acceptable spinoff content should be moved to Witch Hunters (Warhammer) and that Witch Hunters should be redirected to either Witch hunt or Witch hunting. I am NOT arguing that an all new article be written over the existing content as such articles already exist. As far as edit histories go, I am not persuaded that unless there's a copy vio or libel in them, it's any big deal keeping them. But in any case, I actually could understand arguments of "delete, but redirect", but omitting the "but redirect" just does not make sense and that is where I most take issue here, i.e. that this a deletion discussion and I am not convinced that the phrase "witch hunters" must be redlinked altogether. Making such suggestions is on topic, because we are not restricted to black and white, yes or no, vote style arguments. We consider merges, we consider redirects, we conisder renames, etc. Put simply, we consider how best to move ahead and in this case I think that the most logical and legitimate search for the phrase "witch hunters" is in the real world historical context and as such I am recommending that it be redirected. I see no pressing need to delete the edit history and as I believe that spinoff articles are acceptable this content can be moved elsewhere, but I'm no expert on Warhammer (I am a historian by contrast) and have no strong opinion one way or the other if an article called Witch Hunters (Warhammer) is kept, but I do just want to be sure that there is no opposition to appropriately enough redirecting Witch Hunters to one of the historic articles as suggested. I am making this suggestion as a means of being helpful and to be sure that we our considering all possibilities here and to add something original to the discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You're arguing that this title be about a subject completely unrelated to what it is about now. Whether you are persuaded that the history should be deleted merits one comment. "We should redirect this instead of deleting it" repeated over and over and over in the same single AFD is disruptive badgering. Currently, nobody has objected to redirecting this after it's deleted, and your opinion is clear. Now hush unless you have some new proposal, revelation, or other new insight. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems it has only proprietary linkage and no citations from independent sources. Let the discussion go the full term. If no such citation is added, delete, then create Witch hunter redirect to Witch hunter dab page; if sourcing arrives in time, reaname article per Le Grand Roi and create the redirect anyway. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real-world notability. More suitable to a specialist wiki, feel free to transwiki there. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Witch hunters has obvious real world notability at least in the context of a redirect as discussed above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Chummar[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)).

Article about a Canadian lawyer that does not seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Of the (currently) seven citations, two are network profiles, two are just fact sheets related to an unsuccessful selection, two are rather superficial and the one related to David Peterson doesn't mention him at all. A proposed deletion has been contested by the creator. Tikiwont (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Tikiwont (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he's a 'rising powerhouse' then he'll have many articles written about him soon. The article can be recreated at that point. At this point, he's just a young lawyer and would-be city counsellor who doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most significant accomplishment so far was apparently coming in 3rd in city council elections, and even if he'd won council people are only marginally notable anyway. Not a badly written article, but the subject just isn't notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the article is being edited, the sources are sufficient sources as they are third party sources, and prints in national newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infocentral2000 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fair attempt to use everything available but the time isn't ripe yet. If there are other references they are better be brought up now. This[10] isn't promising, though.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete; information added on achievements and board directors [[[User:Informative33|Informative33]] (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)][reply]

The attempts at sockpuppetry aren't helping your cause. I've reported this. justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - the world services reference is a legitimate, independant source, hence, information is valid Jacksonvaca (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Jacksonvaca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. justinfr (talk/contribs) 00:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A profile he probably wrote on the page of an organization he works for? Please read WP:RS again. Primary sources shouldn't be used to establish notability, only to provide non-controversial factual information once notability is already there. justinfr (talk/contribs) 11:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Justinfr please refer back to the sources in the article. You must have past the sources which clearly tie the candidate as a board member to various councils. Upon my search, I have also noticed a newspaper article tieing the candidate to Mr James Carville. From your comments, I assume it is of your interest to look at the full article as it is a mention of notability. Jacksonvaca (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You referred specifically to the wordservices bio[11], and so that's what I addressed. Being a board member or on a community council is not notable in itself; many people are on community boards. And I have reviewed the sources: 1 and 3 are self-generated, 4,5,7,8 list to his name only. 6 is a passing connection to Carville (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Source 2 might establish notability if it were longer. As is, it's a short mention on a lengthy list of people. justinfr (talk/contribs) 13:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent sources about him, not just mentioning him in passing, can be located. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still I do not feel ths article is worthy of deletion, there is too much information available on the candidate to deny the article's notability. I recall hearing something about him being a selected by the Canadian Government to moniter the orange revolution election in Ukraine. Jacksonvaca (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading about that as well in one of the references, however, as has been noted above by wikieditors, a different source is required Infocentral2000 (talk)

This source is sufficient to back up the above claim [12] Infocentral2000 (talk)

Just pointing out that Canada sent 500 observers there, so unless he was mentioned somewhere as a prominent member of the delegation, it's not notable in itself. justinfr (talk/contribs) 14:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no reliable sources covering this individual to establish notability. The sources provided in the article may establish he exists, but don't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 7 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 vandalism. Tikiwont (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 Elements and the revenge of Theo[edit]

Contested prod. This seems to be a blatant copy/paste of the Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone movie article. TN‑X-Man 11:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect as with any duplicate. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 12:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy) Delete as obvious and blatant misinformation and vandalism. I just tagged 5 Elements and the tower of secrets and it's already gone, so I'll tag this, and maybe we can skip the whole AfD. gnfnrf (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. This article is effectively about the first Harry Potter film, with some of the names changed. In fact i was toying with speedying this as vandalism, it being "blatant and obvious misinformation"... OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 12:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NonvocalScream (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland (Home Nation)[edit]

Content fork of History of Ireland (1801–1922) placed under what could be considered a controversial name by some. Anyway it's a duplicate of a pre-existing article that already seems to have a normal Wikipedia naming convention. Canterbury Tail talk 11:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I realise now I've misrepresented something. The article Ireland (Home Nation) was created as a duplicate of the other, and then the previous redirected to the new home nation one. I undid the redirection as I didn't see how it was useful, and why the article couldn't exist as is with a non-controversial name that matches normal conventions. Canterbury Tail talk 12:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful, sourced content not already mentioned at History or Ireland (1801 - 1922); we really don't need duplicate articles; duplicates tend to end up contradicting each other. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 12:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was an actual political entity, perhaps there is a case for having two article one on the history and one on the political entity that was the Home Nation of ireland; we do this for example for the UK, where there is a history of the UK from 1707 article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_Kingdom) and a history of the formation of the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_formation_of_the_United_Kingdom). In addition to the history of the UK as a whole, we have articles on the previous political entitys which existed.

Kingdom of Great Britain

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The Commonwealth formed by the three Kingdoms in Cromwell's time

We also have articles on

Scotland, which is the present day home nation and a seperate one on the political entity of the Kingdom of Scotland

England and the Kingdom of England

And also one on the Kingdom of Ireland

There seems to be a pretty consistant distiction drawn in wikipedia articles on the British Isles that political entitys should have a seperate existance. I think that is why this page should exist.

Sparten (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The argument that "'Ireland (home nation)' should exist as a separate article because it was a political entity that needs describing" is not one that I follow entirely. The Kingdom of Ireland (as a political entity) was succeeded by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (as a political entity). The whole point about Ireland as a "Home Nation" in this period is that it WASN'T a political entity. The Parliament of Ireland was abolished in 1801, and brought under the union. Comparing to present day Scotland is not a valid comparison because Scotland does have a national assembly, and therefore is a political entity with a measure of independence in governance. So, per my vote/recommendation below, I don't think this article is warranted. Certainly the history of the situations needs capturing and description. But the relevant/existing/duplicate History of Ireland (1801–1922) already does this. Guliolopez (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ireland. 121.96.123.226 (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect to History of Ireland (1801–1922)). Per nom and WP:REDUNDANT. Article represents significant duplicate content with History of Ireland (1801–1922), and (per GO-PCHS-NJROTC) will end up either contradicting the existing article(s), or imparting the same same data in a slightly different way, with no additional value added. Guliolopez (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland did not have a parliament till 1999! Irish legal system was seperate from that of the rest of GB, it has its own government institutions at Dublin castle, a flag, it had a Chief Secretary, it had a Lord Lieutanant and it had a Secretary of State responsible for it. We might as well not have an article on British India since it was a colony, or perhaps not have one on East Pakistan since it is now Bangladesh. Or maybe we should not have one on the Colony of Viginia as well since we have an article on Virginia!

Ireland was a home nation and a political entity and it should have a page of its own.

Sparten (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Scotland did not have a parliament till 1999". That's fine, but your comment was that Scotland has its own article now, and therefore Ireland should have it's own article to cover the "then" period. I was pointing out that the comparison wasn't like for like. That's all. Further, you point out that the reason for keeping "Ireland (Home nation)" is that it deals with the policial entity at the time. But it doesn't. It's a copy and paste of the History article. And as such doesn't add anything. Hence redirect. If the article in question actually dealt with the concept you describe, I would be voting on a different basis. (I may not be voting differently, but I would be voting on a different basis.) But for now, my vote remains "Delete as WP:REDUNDANT". Guliolopez (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Game On (exhibition)[edit]

Doesn't explain why it's notable, it seems to be more like a list then an article and is totally unsourced. Bidgee (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bidgee (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Keep - While the original state of the article left a little to be desired, the topic is clearly notable. It has been claimed that the exhibition has been seen by over 1 million people worldwide, including 117,000 in Melbourne alone[13]. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not demonstrated. The article could claim that it has been seen by a billion people, but without any reliable references that are independent of the exhibitors, the claim is meaningless.--Lester 18:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you seriously believe that an exhibition, seen worldwide, is less notable than most of the minor movies, albums, etc. that infest this place? That places such as ACMI, the Science Museum, the Barbican Art Gallery and the Museum of Science and Industry have invented the figures mentioned in the article demonstrated above or should we asking for independent audits? Its all very well to be sceptical, but some common sense is needed too. -- 20:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 20:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (reply to User:Mattinbgn) - First, regarding the claim in the article that it is "seen by over 1 million people worldwide", where did that claim come from? As I write this, there are 2 references at the end of the claim, both refs are from the exhibitors themselves, and I can't find any mention of "a million people". We don't need "independent audits", just reliable references for such claims. Second, there's not a lot of content in the article, apart from a list of dates, and a list of games seen on the exhibition floor. Third, regarding your comment about a past exhibition being more notable than many minor movies and albums: There is a certain transience about an exhibition in that it is not permanent and cannot be viewed after the exhibition has finished (unlike movies and albums). This may be emphasised by the fact that a newspaper may publish a pointer to the exhibition in the Entertainment / "What's on this week" section, but do they mention it ever again after the exhibition has closed? However, I'll leave it up to others to comment on whether past / closed exhibitions deserve the same status as albums and movies, as I don't know what the Wikipedia precedent is. --Lester 21:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to meet general notability standards - I've found a number of reliable sources independent of the exhibition. The BBC has a couple of articles ([14], [15]), a couple from The Independent ([16], [17]), a couple from The Guardian ([18], [19]), a couple from The Register ([20], [21]), as well as australian newspaper (which supports the claim about 1 million viewers): ([22]), and a couple of other sources: [23], [24]. Silverfish (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — it might need a bit of cleanup, but it certainly meets WP:GNG. MuZemike (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cleanup. samj (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Silverfish, there is ground for a section on its reception. Ottre (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 07:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prestige Academy of Motion Pictures[edit]

Unreferenced article. Would be expected to easily pass WP:N but fails WP:V. I suspect it is a hoax. No ghits other than Wiki-related, for searches such as "Prestige Academy" Virginia, Prestige "Excellence in motion pictures" or PAMP Awards. Not listed on IMDB's awards page. I am nominating the individual year pages as well. Tassedethe (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because if the main page goes then obviously these pages must go:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tassedethe (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I performed various searches myself, and was amazed how many sites refer to Wikipedia as the source for awards on different actors. This cleanup for this article, if they are deleted, will require a large scrubbing of Wikipedia to clean up all references on the actor pages. The article has a long history of being actively edited, yet I can't find a single source indicating the website of the Prestige Academy. Very strange stuff. Still looking. Turlo Lomon (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not being listed in IMDB's awards page is not a disqualifier, as IMDB does not list many verifiable current film awards per their own statement made when trying to submit an award not on their list: "Please note that we are not currently accepting new events, only awards for existing events." For instance, they won't accept "Webby Awards" even for very notable filmmakers... and the Webby definitely passes WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS. But that is a problem with IMDB and not Wiki. However, and that aside, There is absolutely no evidence that the Prestige Academy of Motion Pictures or the Prestige Academy of Motion Pictures Awards exist. Article created in January 2006 by one editor who then added the award to a number of other articles and who returned to wiki only 2 more times over the next 2 years to bombard the WikiBase with more similar wikilinks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY Delete and salt... with haste and with prejudice. This is a hoax that has finally come to light. The original article was created on January 2006. IF this award and institution were real, there would have been something written somewhere over the following 2 years that would have supported its existance. More investidgation of the wiki cross-links must be done to learn just what type of false notability Kyliecrazy12 was trying to prove and for whom. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are only 1 2 usernames associated with major contributions to these articles, as well as 4 anonymous IP's: ~~User:NWill, who has done a tremendous number of edits over the past 2 years, himself contributed to it in April of 2006 and created several of the false "awards pages".~~ User:Kyliecrazy12 has made no other edits except for contributions to the hoax articles. If not the same person, these ~~two~~ accounts are linked through actions.

Accounts contributory to the hoax:

~~User:Nwill~~

Kyliecrazy12

Supportive single-use anonymous IP's:

70.174.13.187 IP traces to Atlanta node

70.175.12.3 IP traces to Atlanta node

70.174.14.16 IP traces to Atlanta node

198.82.110.44 IP traces to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ.

One has to study the edit histories to see the connection, as the information is probably too old for a checkuser verification, but I believe the evidence is extremely compelling.

And I have to stress that User:NWill has made many contributions to Wikipedia both before and since his contributions to this possible fraud... so I do not know what an Admin might do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Had to stike User:NWill as complicit in this hoax. His additions to Wiki Film have beem exemplary. I believe any contributions he made toward Prestige Academy of Motion Pictures and its sister articles were made in the most absolute assumption of good faith. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further strike. Good faith edits do not make one culpable Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Further news: Because there are a number of sites that have copied this information from Wikipedia... Nationmaster.com, Answers.com, Powerset.com, Freebase.com, Bookrags.com, etc. The PAMP article is generating a false notability as its "awards" are being connected online with major stars and films that never received any such thing: Nicole Kidman, Youtube.com (in the Nicole Kidman honors section), Brokeback Mountain, Million Dollar Baby, Clint Eastwood, etc., etc., etc. It seems every time I check, some other otherwise WP:RS has included the informations as created on Wiki, with no proof that PAMP ever existed other than its article on Wiki as a WP:HOAX in violation of WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Total delete There is no supporting evidence to keep this here. MarnetteD | Talk 05:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is not a single news reference, address, website or outside source independent of the WP article. Complete hoax. All references to this page in other WP articles should be deleted as well. CactusWriter 06:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is just as unverifiable and as oft-quoted as United World Chart, which finally bit the dust (as far as Wikipedia is concerned) about five months ago. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wow, why isn't this SD? --Danorton (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE AND PAGE-PROTECT - AAH! Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 20:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Writing: A Practical Approach[edit]

Recent book. Reads like an advert. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I read the article and I don't see how the book's notable. I couldn't find any reliable sources for the book also. Schuym1 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is advert-like, no doubt -- but it does include all the relevant information about the publication. The book is notable since it is one of the bestsellers and includes some unique aspects which no similar book has ever tried to explore. Can anyone not rewrite it according to Wiki rules? Crtive writing is becoming popular here in India and this article will let the world know about the standard of study followed here regarding this extremely popular International interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiusernew (talk • contribs) 14:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I believe that it's a best seller since I barely found any sources for the book. Schuym1 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good and useful article. Needed for a detailed record of the book. Why it is advert-like - I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hi shakespeare (talk • contribs) — Hi shakespeare (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

But it's most likely not notable. Schuym1 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi_shakespeare may be a SOCK of WikiuserNews, who is alleged to be a sock of User:Kumkum creative. Hi Shakespeare has a total of 3 edits, two on this page and one on another paged up for AFD that WikiuserNews created.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability either in the article or in the search I conducted. Contains numerous unreferenced claims of importance for which I could find no evidence. I also question the notability claim of the book's author Suman Chakraborty. Basement12 (T.C) 00:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should be Speedy G11 - the article is a blatant advert for a self-published book by a person whose entry on Wiki also needs to be deleted as he has done nothing other than self-publish his own work. This is self-aggrandizement by an academic. Wikipedia should not be used to further someone's career. The claims made in the article are unsupported by investigation. The publisher of the book [25] has only published two books - both by Suman Chakraborty. The creator of this article may be using sockpuppets - User:Wikiusernew. A speedy tag was removed by an IP address located in India. The article itself states "the publisher of the book has been accused of not circulating and printing the title properly. The book is still not available in major Indian libraries and the Western world too is yet to be notified." I don't feel that Wikipedia is the appropriate venue for the ~~notification~~ advertising of this book. I'll put up another speedy tag and see if an admin can delete it before another IP removes the tag. SilkTork *^YES! 09:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is clearly advertising of a non-notable book.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this advert. And keep watching it, I bet it will be re-created soon after the AfD.... --Crusio (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 22:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet philosophy[edit]

Original research. StaticGull Talk 10:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, its unencyclopedic more so than anything. A personal reflection of the subject. All in all, doesn't belong Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 12:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, essay, original research, also appears to be an attempt to advertise something called ICT, though doesn't do quite well as i don't know what that is. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; purely WP:OR through and through. Only redeeming quality is that it makes me want to re-write my CV in a similar style: "he was not someone of fame or power or glamour , … , not yet!" OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 14:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Woah, like, deep thoughts, dude. Delete as unsalvagable (and nearly incoherent) essay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely OR Mrh30 (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SNOWBALL Delete as per nom. --triwbe (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I will vote keep for this article when the author publishes his philosophy from a reputed and academic publisher. We can certainly use his book as a reference for this article. But for that purpose the author should go to a publisher, not wikipedia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an encyclopedia article. JuJube (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR WikiScrubber (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Article isn't about anything; instead, it promotes a point of view on man's relation to the internet. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 15:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should have been speedy'd.--Buridan (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a personal essay. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 13:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Nowlin[edit]

Did the subject do the voice work credited to him in the article? Yes. However, he does not meet WP:BIO. I couldn't find anything beyond credits for the one or two video games that he's done. Movingboxes (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Voice actor with few or no notable contributions. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Ottre (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Basement12 (T.C) 22:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Allan Poe's Multiverse[edit]

Someone's own essay about the matter unconnected to the writer in question. Possibly Original research as well Skysmith (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have a pretty good article at Eureka: A Prose Poem. This is an original research/synthesis essay (for a school assignment?) that should go. Deor (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly original research. Edward321 (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research. Schuym1 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an encyclopedia article. JuJube (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author apparently is Mario Rabinowitz, and had a paper published in the IEEE Power Engineering Review ([26] (starting at page 24) on the Internet. While publication in an engineering association journal (cited in article) means that this is actually NOT original research, it may be a copyright violation, since the IEEE Review is the owner of the article, from which this appears to be copied word-for-word. Somewhat interesting idea, though it strikes me as something that would be mentioned in one of the Poe aritcles. Mandsford (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that the ref in the article (presumably written by Rabinowitz) says that its print publication was in the IEEE Power Engineering Review (1993), whereas the linked site where Rabinowitz himself uploaded the PDF to the Web says that it was published in the Journal of New Energy (2001). Deor (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The paper of reference 3 was published in both the Journal of New Energy(2001) and in the IEEE Power Engineering Review (1993) by invitation of the Editors and without the requirement of copyright by the respective journals. The later publication was used as the reference of this paper in the arXiv, as they permit only one reference for a given paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario715 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mr.Z-man 04:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Shipwreck[edit]

No assertion of notability. Only one source. Drat (Talk) 07:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One source from the navy times, interviews on a Naval radio station, Air Force Times reference, evidence of a DVD release and so on. Ironho lds 08:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. WikiScrubber (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given Ironholds' evidence of further coverage (which I hope s/he adds to the article). —Quasirandom (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He; I'll be adding it tomorrow afternoon. Ironho lds 23:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete for insufficient context by Anthony.bradbury; non-admin closure. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 21:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S.W.O.R.D[edit]

Not at all notable. Is there a speedy-tag for this? --Aktsu ^(t / c) 07:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete lack of WP:RS, probably due to non-notability. Movingboxes (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, probably WP:SNOW. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFT. Ironho lds 08:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the disambiguation page at S.W.O.R.D. (note the extra period) as a plausible typo. -- saberwyn 08:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no assertion of notability, and a quick google turns up nothing that relates to a novel called The Fallen with those characters. It appears to be what others are indicating - "something made up in school one day". SilkTork *^YES! 09:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Falls under the "Not for things made up in school one day" criteria. Probably didn't need to be sent to AFD; could have been PROD'ed or speedied at the outset. 23skidoo (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete with full knowledge that it doesn't technically fit any of the criteria, but come on, characters from "a book being written by 2 high school students" is as deletable an article as Wikipedia has ever seen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for any number of reasons (WP:MADEUP, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS WP:V and WP:NOTE all spring to mind!) -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 16:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Userfied obvious autobiography to limit collaterlal damage per WP:BLP Guy (Help!) 21:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Freeman[edit]

Actor. Does not meet notability criteria for entertainers. Has only had a few roles, mostly as "police officer" and "suspect #1" etc. Google gives no hits of substance. Also probably conflict of interest/self promotion. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and non-verifiable (no significant coverage from reliable 3rd party sources). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable performer, self-promotion. Corvus cornix_talk 19:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Herbythyme (A1 - insufficient context to identify subject) Nonadmin close. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malus fett[edit]

Looks like pure fiction to me. No relevant hits on Google. --Aktsu ^(t / c) 06:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as pure fanfiction. No character by that name or background exists in the Star Wars fictional universe as it currently stands. An identical article on Wookieepedia, created by an editor with an identical username as this article's creator, has just been deleted as fanon there. -- saberwyn 08:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Both have been deleted from the starwars.wikia - appears to be pure invention. Search reveals nothing much other than comments about deleting the articles on other star wars related websites! SilkTork *^YES! 09:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 00:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ContE[edit]

Advertising; no evidence of notability given — Alan^✉ 06:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage, only source is the company that created it. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 07:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no mention of the product or the company found on a quick search. The two websites linked in the article don't work well, and return gibberish. SilkTork *^YES! 09:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn WikiScrubber (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Midland Metro#Line One Extension. Mr.Z-man 22:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bull Street tram stop[edit]

Non notable future tram stop. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:CRYSTAL. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Midland_Metro#Line_One_Extension. Redirects are cheap and easy - if there's a article that relates to an existing article it is usually more advisable to redirect (and merge if there's some material of value) than go straight for a delete. Treat the redirect as a Prod, and if challenged, then bring the article to AfD. If someone has created an article on a topic, it is likely that someone else at some point may do a search for the same topic. SilkTork *^YES! 09:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are usually easy, but on this issue, the PROD is not. It is almost always contested, so, to jump a step, I just bring them here. Undead Warrior (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until the construction contract is let. Until then the whole thing is mere WP:CRYSTAL - something that never happen. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lil Twenn[edit]

The result was Deleted per WP:CSD#G5 and other nonsense. seicer | talk | contribs 23:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax apparently created using content from an older version of the Pimp C article --Aktsu ^(t / c) 06:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably releated to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil Twinn --Aktsu ^(t / c) 06:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, given the details in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil Twinn. Though we'll probably get a Lil Twiin, and a Lol Twinn, and other such nonsense. SilkTork *^YES! 10:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and block user as yet another Troy Rodriguez sock. JuJube (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Complete rewrite has established notability as noted by those who have commented since the rewrite. Davewild (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Fisher[edit]

Minor actor, with no significant theatrical, film, or television roles noted in the article, nor can any be found in his listing on IMDB. CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC) (Ambiguity removed)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. IMDB does not have anything that would help. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 06:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is on IMDB here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0279702/ Peter Ballard (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. What I mean is, even IMDB does not have him meeting WP:BIO. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 06:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am well-aware that he has an IMBD listing, and did not state otherwise: I stated that 'no significant theatrical, film, or television roles' can be found on IMDB. But in the interest of avoiding further confusion, I have altered my remarks. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard_W._Fisher#Personal_life. SilkTork *^YES! 10:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few issues to resolve.

Question of Nobility - Miles Fisher's Wikipedia page has been online for many months and it was never an issue until just a few days ago. Still, many people continue to look at his page proving that its information has implicit value. Moreover, millions of people have seen his performances, particularly in Superhero Movie (it was covered so significantly that a lengthy article was written on his performance in specific in wikinews article by other members of the wiki commuity - http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Tom_Cruise_spoofed_in_film_%27Superhero_Movie%27). I do not think this article should be deleted on the grounds of a lack of "nobility" of the subject.

Question of Copy Violation - The claim that the text here is nearly identical to that found on Miles Fisher's IMDB page is undisputed. Nonetheless, it is written by the same person. Both authors, on Wiki and on IMDB are "Erwin Fletcher". It can therefor not be plagiarized, as it was written by the same person. Furthermore, the Wiki article has been updated and improved upon since, with many added new external links, and significant restructuring of each paragraph with additional information listed. I do not think this article should be deleted on the grounds of a Copy Violation.

Finally, to quote from the Wikipedia guidelines:

"A topic is deemed encyclopedic if it is "notable"[38] in the Wikipedia jargon; i.e., if it has received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources (i.e., mainstream media or major academic journals) that are independent of the subject of the topic. Second, Wikipedia must expose knowledge that is already established and recognized.[39] In other words, it must not present, for instance, new information or original works."

Google has a myriad of hits on the subject at question. Articles have been written about him in Variety, New York Post, Dallas Morning News, Harvard Crimson. He has been featured on various Television programing. This article is exposing knowledge on him that is already established but giving the subject's biography greater breadth and clarity.

Unless there are other claims against the worth of this article, I advocate a removal of the warning banner at the top. Many thanks. --Erwinfletcher (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

'The claim that the text here is nearly identical to that found on Miles Fisher's IMDB page is undisputed. ' - Unsurprising, as no one, to my knowledge, has made that claim other than yourself. However, if it's true--I haven't checked for myself--then the material in question MUST be deleted as a copyright violation, since IMDB holds the copyright.

The rest of your commentary, unfortunately, does not address the problems with the article and its subject, namely that he's not actually notable nor has he done anything really of note, whatever passing mentions he's generated in trade and alumni publications. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:NOTE: has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, as can be seen from a brief perusal here. Here are some notable mentions in Daily Variety, Toronto Star and San Francisco Chronicle, however it should be noted that the actor was receiving positive acclaim as far back as 2001, years prior to his appearance in Superhero Movie: - Peppard, Alan (December 3, 2001). "Fate of Texas in their ears". The Dallas Morning News. p. 27A. I will try to work on this article to improve it and add additional sources. (Note: I wrote that Wikinews article mentioned above.) Cirt (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he does not satisfy WP:NOTE, as brief passing mentions in a few newspaper stories do not constitute'significant coverage', nor am I seeing any evidence of the most of the media name-dropping you listed above. What notable mention in the Toronto Star? What notable mention in theSan Francisco Chronicle? What notable mention in Daily Variety?--the last is only a brief casting notice, probably a press release sent out by his agent. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the Daily Variety article you refer to that is currently linked in the article is simply a bio brief, the article I mentioned is a different Daily Variety article that gives significant discussion of the individual, as do multiple other WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, and this amply satisfies WP:NOTE. I will demonstrate this if given a chance to do so, I just have not been able to yet. Cirt (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have emailed Erwinfletcher (talk · contribs) in an attempt to resolve the possible issue related to text from Miles Fisher's bio page on IMDB, which says it is written by "Erwin Fletcher". If the user agrees to release the work under the GFDL, then that is no longer an issue. In any event, I will work to remove all that info anyways and source everything in the article to additional WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources (though I noticed some were already included as external links, and I have begun to format those and add more). Cirt (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how. We can always paraphrase a source. The IMDB page not showing the subject meets WP:N is an example of how not-notable the subject is. IMDB content cannot be regarded as reliible enough to establish notability. The fact remains, he has no notable roles, has done nothing rising to the level required by WP:BIO, and lacks significant coverage by third party sources, Cheers Dlohcierekim 13:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We won't really even need the IMDB source at all in the article, I have found sufficient other secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS/WP:V to improve upon it. I just have not had a chance to do so yet. Cirt (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs) - I agree with you that IMDB is not the best WP:RS source, that is why we can't really trust IMDB in and of itself as to whether someone is notable or not - we should not rely upon it to judge this but should instead look to see if the individual has been discussed significantly in independent sources, as per WP:NOTE. That is why I will improve upon the article with other secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have done a good deal of work on this article. I removed all of the material that was the exact same text as at IMDB. I added a whole bunch of material from lots of WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that significantly discuss the individual. The subject of the article is the son of the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Richard W. Fisher and grandson of former Congressman James M. Collins. He beat out 10,000 entries at the 2001 International Teen Movie Festival (ITMF) to win "Best Actor" for his own film Head Shot. Newsday focused an article on his career in 2001 - the article is titled: "Miles Fisher, 'It' Boy" and he is referred to as "wunderkind" and "the next Tom Cruise". He was tapped by film director Ronald F. Maxwell for a role in Gods and Generals. He received positive praise in many different papers for his role in Superhero Movie, the reviews singled him out as the only funny part of the movie when the reviews were highly critical of the film itself. And now he has a recurring role on the A&E Network program The Cleaner. At the very least I request that this AfD discussion be relisted to generate a more thorough discussion. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rewrite by Cirt. I'm going to assume the multiple independent sources add up to significant coverage under the basic criteria of WP:BIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Cirt and as per WP:N#TEMP in that "In 2001, he won Best Actor at the International Teen Movie Festival (ITMF) in Vaughan, Canada for his role in his short film Head Shot". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:24, 7 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) —— RyanLupin • (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satanas[edit]

Non-notable criminal organization which fails every guideline and policy under the sun, primarily one of verifiability (lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications). JBsupreme (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete No assertion of notability. I found nothing about the subject at the link in article. No google news mentions that I saw. Dlohcierekim 06:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to Keep per Silk Tork's research Dlohcierekim 14:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete meets A7 criteria — Alan^✉ 06:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC) keep notability now asserted and verified; nice work SilkTork — Alan^✉ 12:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as non-notable club or organisation. It always amuses me in situations with "gangs" making articles; you get a page of "we are the hippest guys in LA, yo, we'll put a cap in yo ass, nobody is better than us, you get me?" with a big tag at the top in bright red saying "this organisation is unimportant". Keep per new ref's; good work SilkTork Ironho lds 12:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The gang exists, and there seems to be some material on them - [27]. It is unfortunate that the master's thesis is unpublished, but it does indicate serious academic interest, and given time and motivation someone might be able to pull together enough reliable information for an article. SilkTork *^YES! 10:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That thesis is available for study in a university library [28] so it qualifies as a reliable source. SilkTork *^YES! 10:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thesis appears in a number of libraries - [29]. Perhaps it has been published? SilkTork *^YES! 10:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a solid reference - [30]. "largest and most feared Filipino street gang" "founded in 1972". Asian American Youth: Culture, Identity and Ethnicity, Jennifer Lee, ISBN 0415946689. SilkTork *^YES! 10:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kudos to SilkTork for establishing notability and saving the article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have removed the first reference provided by SilkTork in the article: NationMaster Encyclopedia is a copy of this Wikipedia article (see the bottom of the NationMaster page), and is therefor not a source that can be used. Fram (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Coal Men[edit]

This article has quite a few problems. For one, there is a major COI issue to deal with. I don't know for a fact, but the image uploads are by Jason Colemen, which is very similar to the lead singer Dave Colemen. Also, tie that in with the statements made in the bio section. Some of them seem to be statements that only a person close to the band would know. I didn't find any of the friends statements on any of the sites given. Besides all of that, this article fails WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. No notable label. No major tours. A supposed link to The Lonely Hearts, but it's not certain or sourced. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete The CMT page for the band shows regional tour, not national tour. Same with BillBoard Circle Back Records does not appear to be a significant label. Allmusic does not show any charts or awards. No assertion of notability in the article. If someone could show me how they charted on BillBoard, that would be appreciated. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 06:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many bands out there without chart success or awards that are nonetheless notable. Being on an indie label shouldn't be criteria for deletion, especially with 4 releases. Vrefron (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other bands on Wikipedia that don't meet WP:Music? probably. But I don't see how this one does. Dlohcierekim 13:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. A COI issue by itself is no reason to delete an article, but a COI issue coupled with failing our music guidelines certainly is. If nobody except the band itself or direct friends/relatives cares to write an article, that says a lot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to pass any item on WP:BAND.-- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 16:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prism3D[edit]

Article does not indicate notability of subject, and the author removed both PROD and maintenance tags without comment or article edits. chrylis (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, is used in (some at least) of the games listed, but most of those games arn't really notable in themselves. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 07:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — It also does not meet WP:DIRECTORY, as the article revolves around that list, in which the non-notability of the article itself comes into play. MuZemike (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 00:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Security and surveillance[edit]

NN, dicdef, already covered elsewhere superβεεcat 04:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a personal essay. As Superbeecat says, the information is already contained in other articles on Wikipedia. SilkTork *^YES! 10:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, an essay of some what. Probably could have been proded, i dont know what anyone even the creator can do about this "article" Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 12:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 13:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masjid Al-Ihsaan[edit]

The article does not indicate the notability of the subject. Rather than replying or improving the article, the author reverted both PROD and maintenance tags without comment. chrylis (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Places of local interest indicates that the best place to put information about churches would be in the parent article about the town - in this case Orlando, Florida. At the moment there is no decent demography information about religion in Orlando so there is no easy redirect. There appears from a quick search to be no information about this church to signify notability enough for a standalone article. Someone might be motivated enough to create a section in Orlando, Florida on the various religious communities, in which case this article could be redirected there. Otherwise, delete would be the most appropriate decision. SilkTork *^YES! 11:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see anything to establish that this mosque is notable. -- Donald Albury 19:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Olsen-Mills[edit]

(1) Not sufficiently notable, and (2) possible WP:AUTO. She is a relatively low-rated player at this point. Also, most editors who have worked on the page don't edit much on other articles. Bubba73 (talk), 04:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - generally we draw the line at GMs, national champions, or truly outstanding juniors (like World Junior champions). Being the #81 U-21 girl in the USA[31] is a nice achievement and I wish her well. But it doesn't meet WP notability criteria, it doesn't even come close. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "GM' = grandmaster (chess) abd "U-21" is "under 21 years old". Bubba73 (talk), 04:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Puzzled by the comment about, "most editors who have worked on the page don't edit much on other articles." Seems a poor argument for deletion. Everyone starts somewhere. Most of us start with what we know. Someone's contribs are less valued for being focused? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 05:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that as possible evidence of WP:AUTO or WP:COI. Bubba73 (talk), 05:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* 65.103.228.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

*RoastedChessNuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bubba73 (talk), 05:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete What Peter Ballard said. A 17-year-old rated 1721 is very non-notable. I was rated close to 2000 at 17, and would not claim that was close to notability. We have not even treated International Masters (around 2400-2500 Elo rating) as necessarily being notable (unless they're also prominent writers like John L. Watson or Jeremy Silman), and she's very, very far from that level (or its junior equivalent). Krakatoa (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ATHLETE suggests that she should have played in a top tournament, but her ranking is so low that it appears she wouldn't qualify for the higher level tournaments - ELO_rating_system#FIDE_tournament_categories. Unless there is evidence of her playing at a high level tournament or against a high level player then she is not notable enough for a standalone article. SilkTork *^YES! 11:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Top 100 on a gender and age-restricted list is not really a claim to notability. Regarding the rating of 1721... well I am a 1290 player and consider players with 1721 to be out of my class, but for an encyclopedia entry one really ought to be at national champion or grandmaster- (perhaps IM-) level, and 1721 is about 600-800 points below that. Second place in the first tournament says very little unless it's described what type of tournament that is. (Most tournament players will sooner or later finish second or better in a tournament, because the strength of tournaments varies greatly.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the good rationales are already taken, 'cause I went to bed instead of coming back to this. Setting aside the coi or auto issues, because a notable subject could have an article with those issues, subject is not sufficiently notable. I'm not aware of a notability guideline for Chess, but if we apply WP:ATHLETE, then subject does not meet that. From what I see, being in the FIDE Top 100 Junior's is not sufficient standing. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you are in the unrestricted FIDE top 100, then you are almost certainly notable. Players on that list are grandmaster level, and players of that strength tend to get their efforts published about in their home country's chess publications at least, if not the general media. On this article, we are talking about the US Womens' Under age 21 list, and the restrictions on nationality, gender, and age have excluded almost all the notable players. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sjakklle. I clarified my position. And understand now better what we are discussing. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amend rationale per Suncreator below-- Does not meet WP:BIO. Is not a top achiever/competitor in chess, and like an athlete not achieving as a highest level competitor, is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. We really need a guideline for non athletic competition of this nature. Dlohcierekim 23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the good reasons above, and also a good friend of mine (girl, if that matters) had reached the 1700-rating at the age of 13, much in advance of this Jamie Olsen-Mills. (sorry, I was not able to find another good reason). SyG (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject required by WP:NOTE. Much of the above arguements are false by the way(WP:ATHLETE does not apply here) but none the less thankfully reach the correct conclusion anyway on this article. SunCreator (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with others. Criteria for notability is clear and this one is not close. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as G11. Synergy 12:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RScript[edit]

Declined speedy. Fails WP:N, and per the contesting of the speedy on the talk page, it seems to also be a case of WP:MADEUP as well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as advert As it was just released yesterday, it hardly has had time to become notable. I found no reliable, verifable sources. The thing is hosted on freewebs, and has had no hits on it's forum. This gives the appearance of a start-up from yesterday. No hits for "Rabbid Script". Many for RScript, but there are many other uses. Charlie Parker, the musician gets many G-hits. Only 3 for Charlie Parker + Rscript. Google news has seven archives, unrelated. It seems to me that this is promotional in nature based on talk page content @ Talk:RScript and general lack of any info anywhere else, and brand newness of subject.Cheers, Dlohcierekim 05:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clear candidate for Speedy G11 - Blatant advertising. The article as written tells us that the product was launched yesterday, and then tells us the benefits of the product. The creator explains on the talkpage that there is no other information because all the information is already contained in the article. Wikipedia is not the place to promote one's products and that's why we have Speedy - the longer the article remains on Wiipedia the more exposure the product gets so it becomes worth a company's while to post something on Wikipedia in order to promote their product if it manages to stay up a full seven days for an Afd. A Speedy delete negates that value, and discourages other companies from doing the same thing in future. SilkTork *^YES! 11:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a G11 Speedy tag on the article for the reasons I have given above. SilkTork *^YES! 11:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NonvocalScream (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Honey Club[edit]

Not notable. Google news only turns up one relevant story (about the parent company, no less). Delete. Horselover Frost (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The criteria for notable is its appearance in DJ Magazine's poll. This criteria is also used in Stereo nightclub, so it appears to have some validity. Also, it does get a fair degree of coverage. This does appear to be a more significant nightclub than the average, and does appear in news sources [32] where it is called a "major seafront nightclub". SilkTork *^YES! 11:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the Argus is a local paper, and not really a reliable source. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 09:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - top-20 nightclub according to almost any magazine is notable. Vrefron (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly-sourced, reads like an advertisement, and does not appear to pass WP:COMPANY. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 16:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article does not mean the article topic is non-notable. They're separate issues. --Oakshade (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's the fact that it fails WP:COMPANY that makes it non-notable! -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 10:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It actually passes WP:COMPANY as it's the subject of reliable independent secondary sources, the core criteria of WP:COMPANY. The current state of the article is separate from the topic passing WP:COMPANY. --Oakshade (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? WP:COMPANY says that a company must have been the subject of "significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable... Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability" (my emphasis). I am just not seeing this kind of coverage for this club. An article in a local paper, and appearing in a few polls in magazines does not seem to be significant, non-trivial coverage to me. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 09:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really. "Trivial" is defined by WP:NOTABILITY as a "passing mention" or "directory listing". The coverage if this place is far beyond the scope of "passing mention", "directory listing" or "incidental." Once again a user seems to be under the false impression that local coverage is somehow banned as a "reliable source." Sorry, but in no where in WP:NOTABILITY or WP:COMPANY or WP:RELIABLESOURCES is there any stipulation that local coverage is not allowed. --Oakshade (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that local coverage is not allowed (trust me, I used enough in the John Brunt V.C. (public house) article - saying local coverage is not allowed would make me a hypocrite). It wasn't the fact it's a local paper, it's the fact that I don't believe the journalistic integrity to be that high. As for the "significant coverage". All I've seen people offer as sources for this article are polls in a couple of magazines. That's hardly in-dpeth coverage! If there truly was significant coverage of this establishment in reliable sources, surely they would have been added to the article as references by now? -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 08:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the references cited above as it is consistently rated as one of the top clubs in the UK.--Oakshade (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep if at all. WEre if not for the DJ classification, I would have said "Delete as a NN nightclub". I wonder how widespread the data for the DJ classification really was. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make Believe Stage & Screen Ltd[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Make Believe Stage & Screen Ltd

delete unremarkable school. Without evidence of notable alumni or other such then won't pass WP:NN and so should go. Article does not assert how it is notable. fr33kman (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for a company only incorporated in 2006 [33], there is next to nothing indicating this would pass any notability guideline including WP:CORP. – Zedla (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sounds like a NN after-school/weekend club for thespian kids, which is trying to franchise its concept. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kestrin Pantera[edit]

AfDs for this article:

~~Weak Keep~~ Although article recreated after AfD deletion vote; claims new material and although the ref's are minor individually, together they provide stronger evidence of WP:NN but may not pass WP:MUSIC. fr33kman (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:Music, even if she did make the LATimes cover. Nothing at Allmusic. Myspace and blogs do not count for significant media coverage. Other media links to not establish claim to meeting WP:Music, or even WP:Bio. IMDB does not assert meeting WP:BIO. No national tour. No major label release. No important indie label. She has not starred or had a leading role in a feature film. No awards for her acting. While the charitable work is commendable, it is not a claim o meeting WP:BIO. Dlohcierekim 05:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fundamentally agree with you fr33kman (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC with no significant media coverage, fails WP:BIO overall. Movingboxes (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sand Frizzle[edit]

No Google hits, no sources. Either a hoax or something "made up in school one day". Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete made up one day. No evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Could be genuine local kids' game, good-faith edit, but not appropriate for article. JNW (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on the "local kids game" part. I should have mentioned that in my rationale per WP:AGF.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, screw the whole good faith thing. The author(s) continue to delete templates, after explanations and warnings. JNW (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, utter bollocks. Game over. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up nonsense. No applicable non-Wikipedia ghits. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability, or verifiability. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 05:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert/Barnet Station[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Albert/Barnet Station

Non notable station. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:CRYSTAL. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until such time as the rail line and station are built. --Stormbay (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not exactly a crystal ball exercise. Planning for the rail line is underway, although construction has not yet begun. --Eastmain (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Until construction has begun, this is exactly WP:CRYSTAL. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Transportation are helpful here. There would be a question about the station's notability even if it existed. As it does not yet exist, this is a debate about a nothing. In a nutshell: "An article about a railway station or railway line could be created if there's enough referenced information to make it encyclopedic. Otherwise, include the station or line in a parent article." Redirect to Evergreen Line (Vancouver). SilkTork *^YES! 11:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) is an essay, not a policy or guideline.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree this sounds like WP:CRYSTAL. If/when it is built; will it be notable? I think it could be brought forward again after it is built and then there can be a discussion of notability. --Stormbay (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Articles on future stations are WP:CRYSTAL at least until the project is funded and the construction contract agreed. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per Elkman, if it's not currently planned to exist, then it has to go. Black Kite 23:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6th Street Station[edit]

Non notable future station. Fails WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:CRYSTAL. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not exactly a crystal ball exercise. Planning for the rail line is underway, although construction has not yet begun. --Eastmain (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the exact same comment you left on the other ones. Planning is not enough. Sources are needed. Construction is needed. This article is about something that might happen. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The station is not even under construction yet, nor are there any linked sites to point to it being noteworthy enough to be included. Proposed or not I say delete. - Dlrohrer 2003 05:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. This project is beyond crystal ball phase and is actually planned, not just proposed. --Oakshade (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this station has been politically approved, and therefore has a very high probability (not just might be) of being built. Therefore WP:Crystal Ball does not apply and the station should be considered notable. Groundbreaking is not a requirement for inclusion, just that it is "almost certain to take place", which the planning of this project has now reached. Arsenikk ^(talk) 06:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 6th Street isn't shown on the current planning map of the Central Corridor -- the nearest stops are 10th Street and Fourth and Cedar. This engineering diagram shows that there's no plan for a 6th Street station right now, and that the station platform is already diagonally located between 4th and 5th Streets. I don't know where they'd even put a proposed 6th Street Station -- it's pretty well boxed in between the Town Square parking ramp and the Macy's store, which apparently opened in the former Dayton's location. (OH, and if you want some extra fun, tell them to catch the train at the corner of 8th and Cedar.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After a little more research, I think I see what the story is. An earlier draft Environmental Impact Statement listed a station on 6th Street. The new supplemental draft EIS, page 3-28, states that they're going to cut diagonally across the block bounded by 4th, 5th, Cedar, and Minnesota Streets and build a larger station there. Page 2-17 of this document says they're going to do the diagonal because it fixes a tight curve and a bunch of impacts to utilities. Thus, it looks apparent that the 6th Street Station was the product of an earlier design, which has since been modified, so it isn't in the plans any more. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Articles on future stations are WP:CRYSTAL at least until the project is funded and the construction contract agreed. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open Speed Limit Database[edit]

Non-notable web site or database (not sure which applies). Article is largely promotional in nature. Very few Google hits, most of which appear to be blog comments that link to the site and are likely spam. Contested PROD, removed without explanation by original author. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Sounds like a wonderful idea. For right now, the database does not seem to meet WP:N with WP:V. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 06:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - It clearly really exists, but I don't see enough here to establish notability. A web search didn't reveal terribly much either. — Alan^✉ 07:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not notable enough. See WP:N. Ilyushka88 (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability before Wikipedia, not the other way. WikiScrubber (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with a WP:EL in the article Speed limit. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Indivisibility of labor. Mr.Z-man 22:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Indivisible Labor[edit]

Original research DimaG (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not original research, which refers to material that has not been published elsewhere. It is about a mainstream academic theory, and the article definining the concept, according to this Google Scholar search, has been cited hundreds of times in the economic literature. --Eastmain (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indivisibility of labor, otherwise keep as this is quite an important concept in labor economics, as demonstrated above. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to indivisibility of labor as what was not already there I have copied across so this article is now 100% redundant. Capitalisation would need fixing anyway. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to AEK Athens F.C. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgios Toubalidis[edit]

I nominated this one for speedy and it was declined. In my view being president of a football (soccer) club, however famous that club may be, is not per se notable. Article's creator is in the process of creating stubs for all of AEK's presidents, so this is a wider issue than just this article. Seeking consensus. ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have no doubt that sources can be found to confirm that this guy was in fact AEK president. My point is, even with sources, is merely being AEK president notable? – ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key adjective here (which I originally omitted) is "significant." A reliable source saying that he was president would be enough to verify a sentence about him in the club's article, but doesn't provide the basis for an independent biographical article. — BRMo (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am having difficulty finding sources. --Shark face 217 03:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ukexpat (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ukexpat (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There's a whole serires of these little articles linked one to another. Put the information in the Main club article, or a list. -- Kipof (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Kipof. The subject of this article is not notable enough to have a separate article. Cunard (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect per Kipof. Not notable individually. Lookslike the best one can hope for is a list in the club article. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 06:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to AEK Athens F.C. as suggested above. Just being an otherwise unremarkable president doesn't make someone notable, but its probably appropriate to include his name in a list or something on the main article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge & redirect - have a list of presidents on the club's main article; no need for a seperate article. Giant Snowman 11:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this and the non-notable others to AEK_Athens_F.C.#Chairmen_history. Break out in summary style only if notable - for example: Demis Nikolaidis. SilkTork *^YES! 13:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as list of presidents/chairmen already exists in AEK Athens F.C. Quentin X (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Reiki. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seichim[edit]

I am trained in this therapy and am good at finding WP:RS, so if the subject is worth it I could try to clean the article up, but I have brought it here as I think it may not have sufficient notability, and am interested in what other's opinions are. Sticky Parkin 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator unless reliable sources can be found. JBsupreme (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources as I usually judge them, per google news, books and scholar. [34] [35][36]. The newspaper and most of the book mentions are relatively few, and not all that in depth, mainly just tagging the name of the therapy on after a mention of reiki and other available therapies. There are a few books on the subject itself but probably not by the best of presses. I wanted to get other's opinions on this little-edited article rather than work hard on something that might not be noteworthy enough to merit inclusion. It doesn't seem entirely clear cut to me but I thought I might not be able to judge that well as an occasional user of this therapy who spent money to learn it lol. P.S. Thanks for your !vote.:) Sticky Parkin 00:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Research has found this company is not notable doktorb _words^deeds 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a company as such, it's an alternative therapy, -that's just a clarification for others, but thanks for your !vote and I perhaps agree.:) Sticky Parkin 21:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sticky Parkin 01:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. A quick search turned up a book - [37], which in addition to what has already been found does indicate a lot of satisfatory research material, and a widespread use of this therapy. Part of the problem that other editors may have had in coming to a decision on this, is that there are a variety of different spellings for the term which may lead people to think there are less reliable sources out there than there are. SilkTork *^YES! 13:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O my word! [38] that is an avalanche of books! That has to be the most amount of books which either have a section on a topic or are directly about a topic which has been brought to AfD. 38 books in total. Significantly notable! SilkTork *^YES! 14:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look, these books are about reiki, a system from which seichim mainly derives, or similar new age stuff, and only mention seichim as one of numerous practices derived from it. The few books on seichim itself are self-published, which means they're not WP:RS as the authors can write what they like, and anyway books actually mainly about the subject are very few. If this is kept you have to promise to help me improve this neglected article and add cites for its statements from WP:RS. :) If you look that link only shows three books devoted to seichim, the first two are self-published by "Celestial Wellspring" publications, the author's own business, [39] the other published by Llumina press , a self-publishing firm [40]. Both sources call it seichim-reiki, which shows it's similarity and derivation from reiki. I held a merge debate for it with reiki, as I don't consider it independently notable, but people didn't want it there. Sticky Parkin 17:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - I haven't gone through them all, but the first two I checked out are self-published. I think it's your call Sticky. You seem to have some knowledge and experience of this subject - certainly more than anyone who has come forward. From my quick research there's books out there which are about this therapy, and books which mention this therapy - though the quality of the books and their coverage needs examining. It's possible that it could be a section in the reiki article. So the choice now is - Delete, Keep or Merge to Reiki#Seichim. If you're uncertain - merge to Reiki#Seichim, see if it grows there, and if it does, at that point break it out in summary style into a standalone article - or really, just back into the page space now occupied by Seichim. SilkTork *^YES! 19:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I just checked and out of the three self-published books about this therapy, one hasn't been released yet, a release which has been promised for several years. I proposed a merge of the two articles but people didn't want it, some didn't think it was the same therapy, (which I suppose it isn't exactly) others didn't want more clutter in the reiki article. If this debate ends with a consensus that we should merge, we could probably go for it. I wanted other people's opinions, yes I know a bit about the therapy but I also know what indicates notability on wiki, and am not quite sure/dubious. So it depends on what any consensus decides.:) Sticky Parkin 23:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - This particular article has no RS (none at all actually), the section in the other article is IMO, better. --Lord ₪Sunday 23:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as an article about a band that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (Wikipedia:CSD#A7). -- Longhair\^talk 01:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of Motorsport (band)[edit]

Non-notable band that does not meet any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC or posess other indica of notability. No independent reliable sources are cited in the article and I couldn't find any in a quick google search. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Was PRODed previously but was restored on this comment by the author. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 01:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BAND. No albums on a notable label. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 01:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject appears to be a pub band that has not, to this point in time, achieved notability. WP:MUSIC --Stormbay (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local club bands are not notable. Does not meet WP:Music. Dlohcierekim 06:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC. Ilyushka88 (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, trivial content.--Lester 17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally NN, fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BAND, and various other guidelines often used at Afd. --Lord ₪Sunday 23:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Masamage ♫ 22:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caution dog[edit]

No notability asserted; reads as an advertisement; no references ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 01:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've previously speedied this twice already, but haven't this time to allow others to review it. Content is not encyclopedic and this appears to be an intent to advertise. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Advertisement. Another Speedy wouldn't be a bad idea. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 01:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per speedy delete criterion 11 under general/G11 (blatant advertising). G11 contends "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" should be deleted. In my opinion, the article would need to be fundamentally re-written to become encyclopedic, and I believe the article exists for the sole purpose of promoting a product. I also believe "Caution dog" should be salted, since the article has been "repeatedly re-created after deletion in line with the deletion policy" (this quote is taken from WP:SALT). JEdgarFreeman (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable product, hard to identify what due to advert-speak content. I found no significant media coverage, no books, no scholarly mentions. Just advertisements. I would not mind a speedy deletion, though the creator needs to be educated as to why this is not encyclopedic, if has not been already. Dlohcierekim 02:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Advertisement. See Wikipedia:ADVERTISING. Ilyushka88 (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant advert, no assertion of notability, no sources. Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G11. Tagged as such. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Malik Ayaz. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hayatsar Road[edit]

I can find no indication of notability for this road, and the article certainly claims none. I'm quite willing for this to stay if it's the main street in Gujar Khan (per my own WP:50k standards), but if not, I see no reason for this article to exist. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Several articles link to it but none of them claim any notability. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 01:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malik Ayaz, whom the road is named after. It appears there is more info there than in this article. If expansion should become possible, it could still be done.Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I don't really understand how this is named after the person I want to redirect it to, but then againI don't understand anything foreign. --Lord ₪Sunday 23:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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