< September 29 October 1 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge into Dancing with the Stars. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Dance (Live)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Let's Dance (Live) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page hasn't enough information. It is referenced, the song is just a promotional single and there's no music video for it. It should be deleted or redirected to patent album's page.Voices4ever (talk) 13:20, 30 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. Xclamation point 03:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notebook hockey[edit]

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

Contested prod. The lead sentence of the article is also its deletion rationale: Notebook Hockey is a newly invented table game. See WP:SCRABBLE. Delete. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:58, 30 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 g1, complete bollocks, yet another "word we made up that means whatever we want it to mean", WP:NFT, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duuechkie[edit]

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

Contested prod. Neologism with no assertion of notability except for local usage. No sources. Delete. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:54, 30 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. Xclamation point 03:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flying High (album)[edit]

Flying High (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources to show that the album is real, Google Search for the album brings up 0 results. Edgehead5150 23:44, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schiel & Denver Publishing[edit]

Schiel & Denver Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Created as an advertisement by User:Schieldenver, company has no products released yet. (WP:FUTURE) JRP (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed this one too. Let the afd decide. What is this rush to cut off discussion? The very person who placed the prod wants to continue the afd, just above. DGG (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the time to start the article is when they actually publish and have some books that attract attention, even if not notable enough for articles at first. Then there will be something to talk about, and some sources. DGG (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Jaspan[edit]

Robert M. Jaspan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am requesting deletion because I feel this guy isn't notable enough. A quick search for reliable sources turned up nothing for me except for an orthopedic surgeon of the same name. Tavix (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chirognomy[edit]

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

Google shows that compared with chiromancy, this term is very little used. The article has only one unreliable) source. The subject itself is, of course, abject nonsense, but in this case it does not look to me to be notable nonsense. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 30 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 per reviews found. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small World (2008 novel)[edit]

Small World (2008 novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources for this.Schuym1 (talk) 22:10, 30 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. Malinaccier (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Test (character)[edit]

Johnny Test (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to The Adventures of Little Carp. MBisanz talk 04:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laipi[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. No list of characters to merge to; series not notable enough to create list. Malinaccier (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morpheus Superman (1988 TV series)[edit]

Morpheus Superman (1988 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Jem characters. MBisanz talk 04:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Raymond (Jem)[edit]

Eric Raymond (Jem) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 21:31, 30 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. Xclamation point 03:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Paris (EP)[edit]

Oh Paris (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

EP, unsourced since one year, fails WP:MUSIC, and is probably completely false information (particularly in light of her new album).
Prod declined by an anon user. AmaltheaTalk 21:30, 30 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 The Adventures of Little Carp. MBisanz talk 04:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbles (The Adventures of Little Carp)[edit]

Bubbles (The Adventures of Little Carp) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 21:23, 30 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. Xclamation point 03:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arzt Diät[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 21:16, 30 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. Malinaccier (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aarch[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 21:14, 30 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) 01:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liviu Cangeopol[edit]

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

Notability Canis Lupus 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Strike[edit]

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

This article completely fails NPOV and Verifiability. The concept of men refusing marriage as a political protest might be notable, but that would be better represented as a section in Arguments against marriage. The few useful parts of the article have been merged to a section there. The article is nothing but arguments why men should not marry, and the arguments are not attributed to anyone. The references are about declining marriage rates and provide support for some of the arguments, but do not describe the topic of the article ("Marriage Strike") at all. Rather, it is an original synthesis to form an argument. I suggest redirecting to Arguments against marriage and deleting the current redirect Male attitudes toward marriage. I did redirect Marriage Strike myself, but it was reverted several times. There is some discussion on the talk page. Apoc2400 (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a NEW "marriage strike" page,the article was completely rewritten, with excellent citation etc, neutral point of view, overcoming all the objections listed above. The new marriage strike article offers discussion of current topics regarding the present day sociology of marriage avoidance. Arguments against marriage article is more historical and political in nature.The newly written Marriage Strike page should NOT BE DELETED.Daxmac (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)daxmac[reply]

It has been less than 12 hours since I lasted posted in the discussion/talk page on the article and its already been deleted? How come no one is interested in actually discussing these things or getting a third party opinion or mediation or any of the other normal paths taken to resolve disputes? hmmm... Jwri7474 (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted again on the talk page. Hopefully we can come to a compromise here. Thanks. Jwri7474 (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has not been deleted yet. This page is for discussing if the page should be deleted. The discussion will be open for several days unless it is deemed obvious, then it will be closed by an administrator. This is a method for getting third opinions since many editors review articles listed for deletion. You can read more about the process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and see other ongoing discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 30. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Please recognize that the opinions of SiobhanHansa are highly biased. SiobhanHansa has a long history of activism against articles she is personally at odds with. SiobhanHansa is colluding with Apoc2400 to attack this page on personal grounds. As SiobhanHansa has said on the Marriage Strike talk page - she essentially didn't like the fact that rates of marriage have fallen due to men's choice in the matter. SiobhanHansa did not like this information. The mask 'slipped'.

SiobhanHansa could not find other another plausible explanation to explain away the fall in marriage rates. See her sandbox - she tried hard. So, in attempting to delete information about the Marriage Strike, she has decided to hide information from herself and others that does not fit her world view. Strong, long-term bias from SiobhanHansa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertTruffle (talk • contribs) 08:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my attempt at a rewrite in my sandbox I wasn't looking for a plausible explanation for the fall in marriage rates - because the article isn't about fall in marriage rates in the USA the article is about the subject marriage strike. If the article were on the fall in marriage rates then I would have a whole different set of issues with it! Please do not ascribe intent to my actions - you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. -- SiobhanHansa 11:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed your Tag_team_editors collusion work below so that the record is clear for others. DesertTruffle (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collusion between SiobhanHansa on Apoc2400's talk page about deleting Marriage Strike[edit]

This morning while you were redirecting I was having a go at a rewrite. Rather than revert your redirection I pasted my edits into a sandbox. It's in no sense a good or finished article but provides a little more depth to the term than the current Arguments against marriage paragraph. I would appreciate your thoughts on whether it would be a good alternative to redirecting the article. A significant part of me favors the redirect because I think it will be easier to ensure less POV pushing long term. But I spent a few hours putting the rewrite together so have a certain attachment to seeing that information in the encyclopedia if appropriate. -- SiobhanHansa 11:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There will be a lot of overlap, but your version provides a good view on the history of marriage criticism. The term "marriage strike" itself doesn't seem all that important, but marriage-critical activism and writing certainly is. Still, would it be possible to merge the two articles? Arguments against marriage is in quite bad shape too, and could certainly use a rewrite. I like the idea of separating it into historical periods since the criticism of marriage and marriage itself has changed a lot over time. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good plan but I don't know how much I could help with the more general subject. I did my best on the marriage strike rewrite but really sourcing from a couple of good newspapers isn't exactly great for what is, in the end, sociology. Do you have ideas or sources that could be used to improve and combine the two?
Also it looks like there's a bit of an external campaign (or a bunch of sock puppets) getting into the Marriage strike discussion. Might make sense to broaden input so there are more good editors keeping an eye on it before it gets out of hand. Any ideas? -- SiobhanHansa 11:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are some ways to request outside opinions, but it's often hard to make people spend time on something. I'm still considering listing it at AfD since it is essentially a question of deletion. AfD has many regulars the know the Wikipedia policies well. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a blunt but often effective tool :) -- SiobhanHansa 11:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I listed it at AfD, discussion here. Please help out if I forgot something. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above was copied from User talk:Apoc2400 by User:DesertTruffle. Border added by User:Apoc2400.
Oh, yeah. Reasonable discussion between editors. How simply horrid. Violet (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "Marriage Strike" has certainly been used by many writers, but for all kinds of different things. This article only about one such case, Men's movement activists suggesting men to boycott marriage because of perceived unfairness to men. They have used the phrase in a small number of opinion pieces (only two are cited, both related to ifeminists.com). The article could be rewritten to include all kinds of "marriage strike", but then it would become an article about criticism of marriage in general, and should be merged with Arguments against marriage (which I think would be better moved to Criticism of marriage. What information would be lost that is not original research or synthesis? --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the idea of a "Marriage strike" is distinct from "criticisms of marriage". I'd like to see the article concentrate on the use of the term "marriage strike" by journalists, and how they use it for a variety of situations where people avoid marriage consciously or unconsciously. An article about "criticisms of marriage" would talk about tax issues and divorce rates. While this article obviously needs work and has a ridiculous number of "see also"s, it is not WP:HOPELESS, and a revamped article would still include the material on the Rutgers study. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried that with a rewrite in my sandbox. The wording is used in all sorts of ways and doesn't cover one concept. I found my rewrite attempt unsatisfactory because in the end this is a sociology topic - not a journalism one and it becomes a fairly uninformative article if it just lists when the term is used - but I couldn't find good sociology sources for use of the term. The Rutgers study doesn't mention "marriage strike" nor does it draw the conclusion that one gender is refraining from marriage to a greater extent than the other or attribute the reduction in marriage rates to its findings about reluctance to marry by young men. Indeed it finds that most young men want and expect to get married - just not yet. I'm not sure how it would fit into an article on journalists' use of the term except to say that some commentators have used it along with statistics on falling marriage rates to draw the conclusion that there is a marriage strike by men in the US - but it doesn't appear that any actual experts on marriage have drawn the same conclusions (from what I could find). -- SiobhanHansa 22:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News articles[edit]

I actually went and checked all the articles on Google news ([2]), 101 hits in total.

Remaining are 24 columns or opinions pieces. Removing duplicates there are 13 distinct ones: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. All by eight opinion writers. None of it is actual news coverage.

Our guideline on reliable sources says

News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text.

--Apoc2400 (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since this article was deleted... I would vote to at least expand the current section "men's movement" in the article Arguments against marriage. Thanks Jwri7474 (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Articles fail the verifiability test. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Innocence (band)[edit]

Age of Innocence (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a band which allegedly had two top ten albums, yet Google has never heard of them. I agree with User:Guest9999 who tagged it as a likely hoax.

I'm also nominating their alleged albums

To Hell We Ride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Visions of a Dark Land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:02, 30 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 failing WP:N and WP:V. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen Varma[edit]

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

This article has a number of problems, not the least of which is that there is little in the way of reliable sources to indicate that the subject does in fact hold a world record. I went through a Google search - News, Blogs and Web - to try and come up with solid reliable sources to back up the claim, and wasn't terribly successful. There are a lot of Google hits for Mr. Varma himself, but many of them seem to be variants on this article posted to locations that accept submissions. The two registries that are stated to have declared the successful world record also turn up few Google hits, and I have to wonder about their authority in terms of being an authoritative source for the base claim here. We can lump in the fact that the article has been edited by Jayenvarma (talk · contribs), Musicrecords (talk · contribs) and Worldrecordbassplayer (talk · contribs), and there's some conflict of interest involved as well. I think this needs some discussion as to whether it's an acceptable article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The author has also blanked the page several times. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Though I ve lots of Blogs in the net, I find only few are reliable. I consider Wikipedia as one of the most reputed ones. I agreed to delete my page only when Wikipedia was reluctunt to accept my post. But I wish to inform you that my World Record is very much Official as the Registry of official World Records which does it with Record Holders Republic is a competent Authority."
Wikipedia is not the place for self promotion. I also wonder if we are dealing with multiple sock accounts User:Musicrecords, User:Worldrecordbassplayer, and User:Jayenvarma Dbiel (Talk) 20:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I had earlier confessed that I was ingnorant of editing rules and that was the reason for making many changes and blanking it out of frustration. Sorry for the same. I ofcourse was dealing it like a blog. But I realise now that WP is such a very reliable and reputed Organisation. I appreciate your comments. And surely, like any other human beings, I am doing it to be noticed and everyone does it as self promo. I am to break my own record end of this month in front of 20000 people in India which will be varified by computer software then and there( this is yet to be confirmed by the organisers after discussion with GWR or RHR). . If anyone can play faster than what I did he can ofcourse break it and I told many people and organisations that I am ready to do demo infront of any great musicians to prove what I did, provided the notes per second should be varified by computer Thanks for all the informations. Regards JV

Comment:No one is denying that you are a record holder. What we (those who have commented to delete) are saying is that the article does not have sufficient sources to demonstrate your notability per the relevant WP policy on notability to be found at WP:BIO and that it crosses the line into self promotion, which is also not allowed: WP:SPAM. – ukexpat (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks With due respect to the WP editors, I thank for the above comment, which is really objective. I hence request the WP editors that the page may be made as if it doesnt look like self promo. Now, I would appreciate even if the page heading 'Jayen Varma' is changed to meet the WP policy. Regards JV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayenvarma (talk • contribs) 16:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic doesn't meet the criteria for notability, then there isn't any way the article can be rewritten to change that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for getting edited After going through the Rules and Criteria for notability,very carefully, I am convinced that the article requires changes. Now I feel I am not competent to edit it. Therefore I wish to submit the article to the WP Editors to scrutinise it to meet the criteria. Hope this can be accepted after editing by WP editors. Regards, JV

Registry of Official World Records (UK&USA) and Record Holders Republic (UK) in 2008 declared a world record in bass guitar for Fastest Percussive Bass Playing [16]. . The Record is 36 percussive notes per second, played by Jayen Varma from India. Percussive Bass, which is otherwise called slap bass is conventionally played by slapping the strings with Thump and Poping the strings with index and middle fingers. But the precussive bass style adapted by this Indian Bassist is in the same way that the Indian percussion instruments tabla and mridangam are played. Percussive Bass is played mainly in Funk Music, though it is widely used in many music now a days. Percussive bass style has been going through many major changes since it’s evolution in 1920’s and many Bass players play this using different techniques. More information in this can be had from the List of slap bass players (electric bass).

Reference 

http://www.recordholdersrepublic.co.uk/recordholdersdetails.asp?id=484

External Link 

1. http://www.myspace.com/jayenvarma

2. http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/kickapps/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=2700383&as=7691

The Recent Editing suggestion above I went through the notices in my page once again and could see the following notes:- .1)Delete: It is basicly a self promo page which makes a neutral POV nearly impossible 2)This article or section is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject, and may not conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. But when I looked in to this link: List of slap bass players (electric bass) For Eg; Pl see the profile of the 25th person in the said list. I do not want to name him. I could see that many of such in different profiles look like self promo and autobiographies or biographies of different bass players. Anyway I respect many of the Bassists in the list. Kindly look in to those with a neutral and indiscriminatory view. I however love many of those Bass players and respect them.

However, I have made changes in the above submission to get edited with a view that mine should not look like an autobiography or biography as per the WP policy. I have produced proof for what is written there. I have also received appreciation from many Bass players including the greatestJeff Berlin. In this context, I request to either approve my above suggestion for editing or kindly delete my page at the earliest since it is filled with many notices and that is indirectly affecting my profession. With due respect to all the WP Official Editors. JV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayenvarma (talk • contribs) 07:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed.'


Based on the aforeread notice in the article's page, editings has been made. I have done it to the best of my knowledge after due discussion with others who are familier in this. Please see if the editing is appropriate. If not it is requested that the article may be approved after making necessary changes as per the WP rules. And if it is not found to be notable, it may be deleted, since it is a long discussed article where there is no false information and proper reference is given. I am doing the editing since the notices are still there in the article's page even now. Thanks for the informations.. JV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.129.163 (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closing administrator will decide whether to keep or delete based on the discussion here. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I request that a decision in this may be taken as early as possible since its a long discussed matter. Regards--Jayenvarma (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Google and google news searches prove notability. Malinaccier (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Oliver (violinist)[edit]

Mary Oliver (violinist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was prod'ed but was removed by a new user. The article has no reliable sources and fails notability. Bidgee (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • With respects, you could have done so yourself. Not having notability sourced in an article is no reason to send it to AfD. When I visited earlier, I did not have the time to do more than look or I would have worked on the article then. However, I just spent the last hour at the article and it is much better. Thanks for your patience. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we please keep the "You could have added sources" off this AfD since this AfD is not the place to discuss who should add what. I will say this, No editor who has not added content to an article should have to source it. Bidgee (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's good to see the article has had work done to it with a better layout and with reliable sources (I don't have any doubts on the sources ATM) but I still feel the article lacks notability which needs to be explained why she's notable? Bidgee (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe notability in her field is shown by the sourced statement "Her equally brilliant work as an improviser is a rarity in the ranks of first-rate classical interpreters", which shows that even her peers consider her work outstanding... and they'd know better than I. She is qualified as notable under WP:NP subsection WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Barnett[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. No evidence of notability provided over and above any other business person. The "references" do not actually refer to Mr. Barnett at all. PROD disputed by a new editor, Erroreraser (talk · contribs), as his/her third edit. His/her first edit was this charming message Mattinbgn\talk 20:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Note: PROD was disputed with the following edit comment: "Notability is not being notable in Cleveland"[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gordana Jenell[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable. A quick google search brought no results worth mentioning and she doesn't have much of a claim to notability anyway. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:08, 30 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. MBisanz talk 04:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every Child Ministries[edit]

Every Child Ministries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Has been speedied once as non-notable group. Almost certainly written by someone with a COI. Short on references. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment And how EXACTLY are EMIS, ECFA and Guidestar supposed to be reliable sources? The ECFA entry itself is not notable and is under discussion. What we have in terms of "sourcing" is 25 so called sources: 14 of which are from the company itself, 7 more of which are just non-notable websites, a couple of handbooks which are basically listings, and two news articles. The Ghana Chronicle is hardly the Ghana News or Accra Mail, it's not even as big as the New Ghanan. It's basically an "events" newspaper. The Monitor article is at least direct coverage. But I'm having problems buying the whole "very notable" argument. Having a presence on Google or having important programs or a pile of Geocities pages does not notability make, and the fact that three SPA's decided to weigh in on this issue just makes it more unlikely that we're going to miss anything encyclopedic here.
  • 'Comment'EMIS is the main--no, really the ONLY handbook for Evangelical and Protestant Mission Agencies--found in all libraries of Evang. & Prot. colleges, highly respected within its own community, which is, after all, the topic under discussion. The ECFA listing in Wikipedia may be undersourced, but within the Evangelical community it is certainly a highly respected organization. Sources for it are out there, too. It's just that no one has yet made the effort to put them in Wikipedia. I think the entry for this organization is worth KEEPing.Musoniki

(talk) 19:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response -- Gee, that still doesn't seem like indepedant coverage. More like "a listing of charities and NPO's." WP:ILIKEIT isn't a keep rationale. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 16:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment'It's not how big the Ghana Chronicle is that is in question. The GC is a respected source of news on business and education, which is probably why news about this organization's school appears there. One would not expect such a newspaper to be as popular as some others. Many in Ghana are simply tabloids. The Ghana Chronicle, on the other hand, is a serious news source and shows that news from the organization in question is considered seriously in one of the countries where they work.Musoniki (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment'I think the ECFA membership of this organization is significant because as a member of the ECFA, they have to submit to and publish an annual audit by an outside CPA, submit to the seven principles of good stewardship described on the ECFA website, and submit annual reports to the ECFA including even examples of advertising put out by the member organization, which are analyzed by them. I know that the ECFA even conducts random on-site visits to check on its members. At least the ECFA provides an independent check on any self-published claims the organization makes. Seems significant to me. Musoniki (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS is not negotiable. Membership in an organization is *not* notability. If the group is notable, why isn't there coverage? That's all I want to know. I don't want to know your personal opinion on if a list of companies or audits is important, I want to know -- very simply -- why it should be here if it has no notable third party coverage. Third parties are groups that have no stake or direct connection to the group in question -- and obviously if ECM is a member of ECFA that's not an independent relationship. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 16:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upped my "keep" to strong in light of the superb work over the last few hours in improving and sourcing the article. Good job! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

&Keep. Coverage considerable. Ten news & features in newspapers (US) are quoted, as well as one from Ghana and one from Uganda, two magazine features, 3 school & similar sources, not counting references to ECM's own website or others, databases and handbooks.Musoniki (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect. Malinaccier (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty Pleasure[edit]

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

Non-notable, non-charting song. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. Redirect reverted without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Send My Love to the Dancefloor, I'll See You In Hell (Hey Mister DJ)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Send My Love to the Dancefloor, I'll See You In Hell (Hey Mister DJ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, non-charting song. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. Redirect reverted without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three Valleys Club[edit]

Three Valleys Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable club, raising a little money for charity. No Secondary sources. Fails WP:ORG. TrulyBlue (talk) 19:53, 30 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 ¡Viva La Cobra!. MBisanz talk 04:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The City Is at War[edit]

The City Is at War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, non-charting single. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. Redirect reverted without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:48, 30 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. Malinaccier (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Hot Addiction[edit]

The Church of Hot Addiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, non-charting single. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. Redirect reverted without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:40, 30 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 a1, no substantive content after copyvio removal. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin K Kayani[edit]

Kevin K Kayani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources found to verify notability. Also, I suspect WP:COI. Prod declined. —  X  S  G  19:31, 30 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:SNOW. Maxim(talk) 22:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tekken theories[edit]

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

Essay-like rambling about the Tekken game series. Tried to prod it, got second vote then author removed my prod. Rob Banzai (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STAY because tekken is full of theories and not facts so it should stay. Ace2690 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace2690 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STAY because it could be a good page, base on everybodies ways of tekken i think its a good page STAY because all the facts base on tekken stories is and are theories because most of the so called facts about the story are not stated in the game. so they are theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown2020 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STAY because they right about it all look if you guy want to know why it should stay ask one of namco producers here is her email devil_jin_kazama@juno.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Power250 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to put in a Sockpuppet report based on the vandalism to my user page and similarity between comments and usernames (the same users you see here voting STAY) but the process is just too long and complicated. Rob Banzai (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle makes things much easier. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the smelly ones on my feet right now? Sure do. MuZemike (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

stay because tekken series is good and the page is just looking at the series in a defferent way, i think its cool. --nicrow-- —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:56, 30 September 2008.

Stay The reason why I made this page is so that many fans could come and talk about the tekken game and comics series. many of us has talk to one of the tekken comic producer, and she has told us that many of tekken stories is mix up, the producer says that namco has defferent stories about tekken, and many people have question and theories. So I came up with tekken theories because namco have the game series defferent from the comics series, so i wanted to tell the defference between them, and tell the theories about them from the tekken forum fan web page base on tekken. I still want to work on the language and corrections on the page so that I can make it out of an artical. These are just theories not facts about tekken, these are forum tekken fans theories base on the comics and games series of tekken ––Teriko–– —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:42, 30 September 2008.

STAY because these theories is good to think about, because the series is alittle mix up. --carvus-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.240.42 (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2008

Stay because its just explaining the tekken theories, from the facts. --darkryuken-- — darkryuken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Stay because its good a little theories about some, life has theories —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrinkyaku (talk • contribs) 21:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC) — [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Stay its pretty cool to wounder about the unknown about tekken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.240.42 (talk • contribs) 30 September 2008, 21:42 (UTC) — [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment: User:pyrocrow doesn't even exist; that edit was made by a numeric IP. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:50, 30 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, and redirected to Paris Hilton#As a recording artist. Cenarium Talk 14:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton's second album[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Paris Hilton's second album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Album has no name yet. No sources other then an on air interview. Hammer's Law applies. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One problem is that the announcement is not particularly credible. She finished recording it "a few days ago", and it will be "released in a couple of weeks"? How many albums have you seen that had a 17 day lag from the last recording session to release? Didn't have a title two weeks for release? When I see a record company provide a release date, track list, and title, I'll agree that it isn't crystal. Without those, it clearly is.—Kww (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Other Stuff is on Wikipedia and mine should be too is not a valid argument. GtstrickyTalk or C 22:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-administrative closure). The article does show notability, but it is mentioned that there are WP:COI problems with the article. COI itself in an article isn't necessarily a reason to delete an article, and that's the main problem here. There's a ((COI)) tag on the article, so someone should eventually cleanup the COI in the article. Besides the COI problem, there's no reason to delete this from looking at the discussion below. -- RyRy (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Hindman Auctioneers[edit]

Leslie Hindman Auctioneers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertisement, posted by an employee of the company (as admitted on the talk page). Article does nothing but promote the company. References verifying various "facts" about famous clients and such are not present. (Contested speedy; a virtually identical version of this article was speedy-deleted previously.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skeyelab (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You make a good case for an article about Hindman herself, but not the firm. I'm still not convinced on the notability of the firm, spam nothwithstanding. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum to above: Perhaps a good solution to this is to have an article about Hindman herself, with a section about her firm. I think the notability lies more with her than the firm, due in large part to the TV show and Eappraisals.com. But this should be done independently, without being written by people from her company. Comments, anyone? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The old Chicago Tribune references help to a point, but because they are old and only available by subscription, they are of limited usefulness. Items from PRnewswire are not considered reliable sources because they are news releases issued by the company and distributed for a fee. But you still are trying to promote your company! That's not allowed! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:32, 30 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. Google news search shows notability. Malinaccier (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Changed to delete. Google news items are passing mentions and consensus is against me. Malinaccier (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Chey[edit]

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

Article on unremarkable film director, with COI issue. Two of his films have articles but are themselves of somewhat iffy notability (although they feature notable performers). Unreferenced except for movie reviews and none of those meet WP:RS. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. That search only covers the last month. You need to click on "all dates" to get complete results [30].
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability established. Malinaccier (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theo & the Skyscrapers[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. See also Theo and the Skyscrapers (2006) and So Many Ways To Die, their albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Theo and The Skyscrapers is comprised of Theo Kogan on vocals, Sean Pierce on guitar, keys, and programming, and Chris King on drums and percussion";
"Theo Kogan, front woman for the alt rock Theo and the Skyscrapers and previously of the Lunachicks";
"ex-Toilet Boys co-frontman Sean Pierce"
"Theo and Sean found bliss in the form of fellow vertically-daunting musicians Chris Kling and Dimitry Makhnosky".
Google is your friend. – iridescent 20:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roll-playing[edit]

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

Aside from lacking sources to demonstrate notability of this term, there's also no evidence to suggest it's not a neologism. Further, this seems like this could be original research filled with weasel words. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:12, 30 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, and redirected to Paris Hilton#As a recording artist. Cenarium Talk 14:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My BFF[edit]

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

Single fails WP:MUSIC. Radio only release, uncharted, from an album that is still a piece of WP:CRYSTAL. Creator restored article after a redirect, so here we are at AFD. Kww (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

why can "If I Were a Boy" and "Single Ladies" have articles and not this one?? CHECKORUP (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't any more. Thanks for pointing them out.—Kww(talk) 12:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retching Red & The Twats[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Retching Red & The Twats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable album from a non notable band. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 16:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have also tagged Get Your Red Wings and Scarlet Whore of War, and put the band's page up for A7. If the band's page is A7'd, the albums should clearly go. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Albums--Scarlet Whore of War

Get Your Red Wings Retching Red & The Twats splitṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 17:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Halo (series). MBisanz talk 04:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Halo 3 project[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Untitled Halo 3 project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Basically WP:CRYSTAL. Sources verify little else than that the game exists. If this were an album it'd be WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew L. Cohen[edit]

    Andrew L. Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Police officer of no apparent notability other than featuring in an incident which doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 30 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 per WP:SNOW. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Little Miami High School (Ohio)[edit]

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

    The result was Keep. No consensus to delete. Malinaccier (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Transylvanian Society of Dracula[edit]

    Transylvanian Society of Dracula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    References do not support notability requirements. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I utilized LexisNexis Academic, entered "Transylvanian Society of Dracula" and chose "Major U.S. and World Publications" as a source category, producing 56 returns from 1993 to present. Although a majority of the articles tend to focus on the group's "touring" activities in Romania, a number of them provide a more detailed overview of the groups mainstream academic involvement in research regarding the history and folklore surrounding the vampire motif, with specific focuses on the historical figure of Vlad III the Impaler, the literature surrounding Bram Stoker's Dracula and Goth subculture in general. Although my "inclusionist" biases may be showing here, I'd like to suggest that we are jumping the gun in terms of prematurely excluding this article based on its current form, it obviously requires some "cleaning up", but as I mentioned above, in my opinion, it is currently under represented in its own reference section in terms of what's out there in the literature. I think we should give the editor concerned an opportunity to do some more work on improvement before we too hastily dismiss their topic as too "esoteric" or "unsupported" in the literature. There most definitely *are* references out there that support its "notability", we should provide people who are involved with this piece the chance to provide them and do a general clean up, without feeling they're 'under the gun' right from the start. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Liberty (Machinima Series)[edit]

    Liberty (Machinima Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    COI article. I'd have speedied it but technically it asserts notability (youtube comments and ratings, please). It is clear from reading it that the series has not received any coverage in reliable, independent sources. Drat (Talk) 14:42, 30 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 Snowy Delete as obvious hoax. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Philip Geng[edit]

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

    The article says he co-directed three major films, but there is no mention of this in the Internet Movie Database for those films. e.g. [37]. In fact Philip Geng is not listed anywhere in the IMDb [38]. A Google search [39] finds 27 hits, none to do with the film industry. Jll (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nickelodeon's All That 10th Anniversary Reunion Special[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Nickelodeon's All That 10th Anniversary Reunion Special (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    One-shot special cruft celebrating 10 years of the sketch show existing that was made when the program was at a creative wane and months from cancellation. All sources are either PR fluff or TV/movie directory descriptions of this glorified extended episode, and this is certainly not on the level of any regular reunion special (which rarely have separate articles) or a network anniversary program. Note that the article creator currently has two other nominations, one from me, for articles which deal with minor Nickelodeon topics inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Nate • (chatter) 09:15, 19 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, Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:00, 25 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, Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to Fay Moulton. MBisanz talk 14:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fay G. Moulton[edit]

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

    Non-notable football coach, no biographical information proffered. A previous AfD was withdrawn on an editor's assertion that the college football Wikiproject had declared all college coaches notable and that Moulton was an Olympic athlete. However, WP:CFB's notability essay goes well past the remit of WP:ATHLETE, the subject fails WP:V completely in that there are no independent sources, and the Olympian is in fact Fay R. Moulton  RGTraynor  20:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Request As discussed on the AfD talk page, if this article (or any of the series of articles) is closed as a delete, please kindly first move the article to User:Paulmcdonald/Articlename, where "Articlename" is the name of the article (or articles) being removed. Also, please note the new page location at User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach so we can be sure to find the moved page.
    Why? There have been, at present count, 58 articles of our project placed on the AfD list and there is just not enough time to adequately and appropriately respond and ultimately improve the articles themselves. This would give the project memebers time to work on improving the articles. This request should in no way imply that I believe that the article (or articles) in quesiton should be deleted at this time. I am making a simple cut-n-paste request due to the sheer volume of AfDs in such a short period of time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I still haven't been able to find any sources, but if someone in a time zone further east than me could call up the Kansas City library and ask them to look up this item, they should be able to give a definitive answer. I tried, but they had just closed. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:10, 23 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, Cirt (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you clarify if you looked at the source I listed above (found by JKBrooks85)? Are you basing your conclusion on the earlier conversation, or is the book unpersuasive? Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry. They may be the same person. It's not 100% clear, but there is enough evidence to strongly suggest that may be the case. If so, my opinion is to keep but merge. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:49, 30 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, Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Genevieve Blanchett[edit]

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

    I'm not convinced that this costume and set designer is notable. She appears to have been nominated for (but did not win) one of the Green Room Awards. Grahame (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Merton F.C.[edit]

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

    Football club which plays in the Southern Amateur Football League, which is "a mixture of 'old boys' associations from schools and colleges, business house sports clubs as well as private clubs". The league is not part of the football pyramid and has never played in any FA competition. Bearing this in mind, I do not believe the club is notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher J. Olmeda[edit]

    Christopher J. Olmeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Does not pass either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. A plain google search gives 6 hits[41], nothing at all in GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks. The two books authored by the subject are not listed in WorldCat as being held in any libraries[42]. No evidence of citability of his research that I could find, no academic awards or honors and no other coverage by independent sources to show passing either WP:PROF or WP:BIO that I could find either. Nsk92 (talk) 11:07, 30 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 Boldly redirected, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Mind Eraser (roller coaster)[edit]

    The Mind Eraser (roller coaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    another article exists for The Mind Eraser which discusses the roller coaster. Capt. Beardo McDougal Esq. (talk) 10:17, 30 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. MBisanz talk 04:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryan Muldowney[edit]

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

    non notable college tv presenter that lacks non trivial coverage in reliable sources Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    His tv appearences appear to be limited to a campus TV network and an appearence on single segment of talk show. Neither make a person notable without proper coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Triple-A All-Star Game broadcasters[edit]

    List of Triple-A All-Star Game broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Obvious violation of WP:NOT#INFO, and likely WP:N, no evidence that broadcasting the Triple-A All-Star Game (which isn't extremely notable itself and I believe that article should be merged to AAA (baseball) with the game details removed) makes any of those reporters notable, nor is a notable subject itself, not worth a merge to Triple A All-Star game neither because of notabilty concerns Delete Secret account 15:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge and redirect to Triple-A All-Star Game. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:26, 25 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, Stifle (talk) 09:49, 30 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 (G10). -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David Horridge[edit]

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

    Vandalism ɷ i m b u s a n i a 09:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    this is not vandilism. the guy i am writing aboput is sitting next to me helping come up witht he rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirachinmoku (talk • contribs) 09:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 16:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Racebannon[edit]

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

    Fails WP:MUSIC on all counts. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 09:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Response Let's see: #1 (multiple non-trivial published works): Article from Pitchfork Media and a review from same. Also A biography and several lengthy reviews from Allmusic. Also, band is/was on Secretly Canadian, a notable indie record label which has released music from notable indie rock artists such as Animal Collective, Antony and the Johnsons and Throw Me The Statue and therefore is considered a notable label. The band also released music on Southern Records, which has released music from notable artists such as Babes in Toyland, Chumbawamba, Crass, Les Savy Fav and Slint, which makes that label notable. Also the first Pitchfork Media link I linked to features information on a "national concert tour in at least one sovereign country". Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 15:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete as failing notability due to lack of reliable sources needed for verifiability. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    BYOND[edit]

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

    Article presents no assertion of notability (WP:N) or independent references (WP:V). Prod with these concerns was removed anonymously without comment in July. Request for sources since then has unearthed [43], a blog which isn't sufficient per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are weblogs reliable sources? (blog author has 22 ghits) Marasmusine (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Bartle has been quoted, "BYOND is 100% free, and is excellent." Technically that's a review, a very short one. SuperAntx (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not exactly "significant coverage". Marasmusine (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Terra Nova had an article on free game creation software which was written by Richard Bartle, a notable person in the field of game development. The blog is notable and counts as an outside reference. BYOND IS NOTABLE - CASE CLOSED! SuperAntx (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was merge and redirect to My Chemical Romance. This issue should have been discussed on the talk pages of the articles as this really isn't the place for a merge/redirect discussion. While this can be the result of a deletion discussion, initiating a deletion discussion with the intent of discussing a merger and redirect is inappropriate. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ray Toro[edit]

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

    Three musicians that are part of a notable band, but have no individual notability as per WP:MUSIC. Redirect at each page is persistently contested and redirected. Using AfD to get consensus and formal approval for the redirects. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Other musicians:

    Mikey Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Bob Bryar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Adding former drummer, has no other notability claims other than previous having played with the band.

    Matt Pelissier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Very true, it would be nice if proposed merges generated some sort of contribution but often they do not. --neon white talk 13:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was speedily deleted by Alexf. Non-admin closure. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    JAMES GONO[edit]

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

    Hoax, probable attack page. Google finds only a myspace page for this individual. TrulyBlue (talk) 08:46, 30 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 failing WP:N due to lack of reliable sources which can be used to verify independent notability. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dorina Pineda[edit]

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

    This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that the fate of "Dorina Pineda" and the soap is strongly connected. Is it any chance to find some information that we should not include in the soap opera article but only in the character's? Would that information be enough to have a different article? The soap opera article needs clean up itself as well. I think a section to that article about "Dorina" is enough. We could convert to redirect instead of deleting. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So are just giving links about the show, that contain short summaries from the plot. This means the show is notable but this is not implied for the character as an individual work of art. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But enough sources to merge into a character list at the very least. "Plot rehashing" is a valid source.... Hobit (talk) 02:54, 30 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, Cirt (talk) 08:39, 30 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. MBisanz talk 04:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jo Reynolds[edit]

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

    This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 17:00, 25 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, Cirt (talk) 08:38, 30 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 failing verifiability due to lack of reliable sources which can be used to verify all of these competitions the article subject is alleged to have done well in. While it's great that so many people"know" he has done well in so many different competitions, Wikipedia requires sources backing up these claims. So far, no one has provided them, instead just stating that they "know" he has won (or done really well or played something really difficult). This closure is not prejudicial, and the article may be created again in the future IF reliable sources can be found supporting all of the claims made here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sean Bennett[edit]

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

    No really reliable sources, mostly YouTube and trivial mentions. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. (I just hate it, too, when people put an article in a category, sub-category, and sub-sub-category.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • How is the label notable? How is the award notable? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My concerns about tone were just to emphasize that it's a vanity page, seeking to make non-notable accomplishments appear notable. The same issue was raised in the previous deletion discussion. Also, it's interesting that there are two administrators arguing for deletion and one anonymous IP arguing for keeping. BeIsKr (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    TheOrchard is the biggest music distributor online, but also an Indy label, and works with both independent and mainstream label artists. The individual sites have to accept the artist into their library, the more sites the artist is accepted to, the more important the artist is to the TheOrchard catalogue and the Digital Label. The Chopin Competition is one of the most respected American piano competitions: here are a few links about it: http://www.thekf.org/MUChopin.html, included Carnegie Hall: http://www.carnegiehall.org/article/box_office/events/evt_13211.html?selecteddate=04052009, http://www.musicianguide.com/biographies/1608003145/Murray-Perahia.html. The other contests mentioned on the page now include the Kingsville, which is one of the biggest international competitions in the US for all instruments for the the under 24 age category (I believe Bennett won prizes in it in 1995 and 1996). The Richardson is a national competition held in Lansing, MI annually that rotates through instruments. The Silver Lake is a now defunct International Piano competition that was held in Silver Lake, WI. 71.178.122.46 (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC) It should be noted the page for Frederic Chiu, Elizabeth Borowsky, and Moses Hogan all cite the Chopin Competition in their wikipedia articles as notable accomplishments. Ruslan Sviridov mentions the Kingsville competition in his entry. All have less page views per month than Bennett. 71.178.122.46 (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Here are some of the issues that I see with the above. First, if one looks at the sources, one finds that he did not actually *win* any of the competitions mentioned; he receives a special mention in the Chopin competition, and was a finalist in the other. I admit to not being versed in classical musical competitions, so I can't say whether the competitions mentioned are at a high level. To quote the relevant guideline: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." Whether finalist counts as placing is up to interpretation, but for myself, my opinion is that it doesn't - others may disagree, and that's fine, because the deletion discussion is all about one's opinions. Page views are not a notability gauge, and YouTube videos - presumably posted by the artist - are not reliable independent sources. If this artist has made an impression on the industry such that he has become notable, then we need to see reliable sources discussing it - not his own contributions. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:37, 26 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, Cirt (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    and he is a child prodigy, apparently. says who? self proclaimed, nothing more. 58.165.60.208 (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC) It's not personal 58.165.60.208 (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep due to addition of references indicating notability. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chuck Findley[edit]

    Chuck Findley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm, no they are not. Did you even read the discusion? Notability is the problem suggested.Yobmod (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that the IP editor was trying to point out his issue with VG's !vote further up the page in a somewhat sarcastic and ironic fashion. When it comes down to it, the closing admin will almost certainly ignore both !votes since neither one of them introduce a valid new rationale. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    World Security Forum[edit]

    World Security Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable conference; borderline advertising. Blowdart | talk 10:23, 25 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, Cirt (talk) 08:35, 30 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 to delete leaning toward keep. Please take the merge discussion to the appropriate article talk page(s). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    International Reaction to the 2008 Dairy Scandal[edit]

    International Reaction to the 2008 Dairy Scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article was created by User:Roman888, a serial copyright violator, possibly as a vehicle for his continued transgressions. Its existence outside from the 2008 baby milk scandal, which is itself (45k) hardly at a size where it is of concern, is potentially a POV fork, so I do not see a justification for retaining this article at this present time. Please note that the creator is on the bench for his repeated copyright violations. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:19, 25 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, Cirt (talk) 08:33, 30 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. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chang'an CV8[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Chang'an CV8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Was legitimately prodded by another author. Prod removed by main editor however article still appears (as per the previous prod) to be a non notable car - with no sources & indeed the one link provided is a Chinese link which does not assist this article. --VS talk 07:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You are right,and why I remove the previous PROD is its obvious strange reason for PROD,otherwise you can place in all pages with the words nn blablabla,I don't think why it's here--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 08:14, 25 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, Cirt (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes there is. It is because the car is non-notable. Wikipedia is not for everything that exists. Schuym1 (talk) 16:08, 30 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. Lack of sourcing is fatal here. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Microbead pillow[edit]

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

    Unsourced, non-notable product.

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 02:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They're used in the giant beanbag thingies you can sit on, and I think also in some soft toys. Sticky Parkin 18:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But microbeads aren't the same as the beads (expanded polystyrene, bigger, softer) used in the big beanbags since the '60s. These new ones are different. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Make it microbead stuffing if you don't like plain microbead. But I do think this should be kept and expanded under some title. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:13, 27 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, Cirt (talk) 08:25, 30 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 unsourced WP:BLP, and redirect to phpBB. No sources are provided to support any biographical facts beyond a role in software development. The opinions acording to which this role or his being interviewed (about the software, not about himself) confer notability are given less weight because they are at variance with WP:BIO.  Sandstein  07:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    James Atkinson (software developer)[edit]

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

    One possibly reliable source and that's it? Contains quite a bit WP:OR (he currently lives in Canada? where does it say that?), and is, overall, a giant WP:BLP1E violation Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If we just have a stub, then we have a stub. We keep those (labelled), we don't delete them merely for being stubs.
    Secondly, I don't believe I've ever been required to be WP:CIVIL to a pile of PHP code. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, your comment still violates WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "conferred" isn't the same thing as "inherited". In this case, notability is conferred (and thus wiki-valid) by his role in phpBB (as his role in this was active and crucial). His partner (assuming for the moment that he's married) would not inherit (i.e. not wiki-valid) his notability though, as that role as a spouse isn't relevant to the original source of the notability (phpBB). That's the difference between conferrence and inheritance. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting semantic argument, but I cannot find any wikipolicy that backs your interpretation up. Quoting WP:INHERITED, Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable.. Misterdiscreet (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, what Andy Dingley said. Atkinson's involvement in the development of phpBB confers notability upon him, that isn't the same as inheritance. Clearly you're a touch excitable on this matter and in the interests of keeping the peace I won't address the remainder of your comments. Be well, X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:37, 26 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, Cirt (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good job it's WP:NOTAVOTE then. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've participated in enough AfD's to know that that doesn't hold any weight what-so-ever. If 90% of people vote keep, without giving any reason, and the 10% of people who vote to delete give very cogent and very real reasons, admins aren't going to care. They're not going to risk getting the 90% of people who voted to keep mad at them. Sure, the closing admin could cite WP:JUSTAVOTE, but those people who voted to keep aren't going to care - they're going to be mad, no matter what. And if the percentages are really close, as they are, here, the closing admin will say that there's no consensus, even though there is. The 50% of people who voted keep didn't form a consensus because all they did is cast a vote whereas the people who voted delete did form a consensus because they didn't just vote - they presented very cogent and very real reasons.
    But hey - you want to play that game? Fine. The argument you presented for keeping this article is dead wrong as per my earlier reply so your vote should, pending a better argument, be ignored, per WP:JUSTAVOTE. Misterdiscreet (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you assume good faith? I argued that there are reliable sources that establish notability and have explained why I don't believe that BLP1E applies. You're obviously very passionate about this deletion, but that doesn't mean people who disagree with you have no base for their opinions! --Karnesky (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't your justification that I discredited - it was Andy Dingley's. That said, I still don't believe one interview is enough to justify inclusion. Misterdiscreet (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. You had initially referred to all who want this article kept as a collective entity. You also failed to remark that some deletion comments only argue BLP1E, which is meant to keep current events/news from over-running the encyclopedia, and which I don't really see as fitting here.
    The Linux Mag interview is a second source that is not in the article, so there are at least two separate interviews with Atkinson. --Karnesky (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "I've participated in enough AfD's" WP:NOTAPROOFBYAUTHORITY either. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not attempting to prove anything with my first paragraph. The paragraph you should really pay attention to is my second one - the one where I suggest your vote be ignored. That doesn't involve any appeal to authority arguments - what that involves are wikipedia policies, plain and simple and if you believe that attacking the first paragraph invalidates the second, see ignoratio elenchi.
    And as for the first paragraph.. that's not really an argument for anything. That's just me sharing my own experiences. And per those experiences, I don't believe the admin is going to ignore your vote, even though, at this moment, they should, since the only argument you made has been shown to be invalid. If you, none-the-less, want to believe that the first paragraph is an attempt to make an appeal to authority argument, go ahead. A no consensus closure, which is what I think will happen, per my first paragraph, means you essentially win, by default, and if that upsets you, that's your problem, not mine. Personally, I'm opposed to a no consensus closure, but I'm not the one doing the closing Misterdiscreet (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete as failing WP:N. Additionally, the sources provided either 1) don't say anything about the event in question, 2) are blogs which are not generally considered reliable sources, or 3) are primary sources which can not be used to establish notability. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Great West End & Railroad Square Hand-Car Regatta & Exposition of Artistic & Mechanical Wonders[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    The Great West End & Railroad Square Hand-Car Regatta & Exposition of Artistic & Mechanical Wonders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Rather spammy write up of a non-notable new event. The author could not even be bothered to check whether WIkipedia's idea of an handcar is the same as theirs! - Sgroupace (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • does it live here? Are Wikipedia contributes not people all of a sudden? Wikipedia has policies that we go by that dictate what notability is for Wikipedia, not just what any random user thinks is notable. Tavix (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, take a look. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Article's terrible and looks like it's the first wiki edit by someone posting a press release onto it. That's all edit work though, not deletion. Basic topic is sound. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gramlee[edit]

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

    A grammar correction service written up by user:Gramlee. Is it spam or not? - Sgroupace (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Meh, this is a web service, so it could be deleted as WP:CSD#A7, but the article does try to assert notability with a couple of reviews, so it's worth debating here. VG ☎ 19:45, 30 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. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hemofarm Group[edit]

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

    Notability, page provides no secondary sources other than the company's own site to establish it as a "major pharmaceutical company". MrNerdHair (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --Other sources have now been provided including its "major" presence in the country. Buttons 06:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Actually the number of Google Books hits for just "Hemofarm" is 62. It doesn't go down at all from the search linked by Benjiboi. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Galenika (company)[edit]

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

    Notability... Page references no secondary sources to establish this is a "major" pharmaceutical company. MrNerdHair (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    -- Added additional source concerning the article Buttons 05:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. What do you mean by "accessible"? If you mean "freely available online" then there is absolutely nothing in policy or guidelines that demands that. See WP:V. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Geraldine Ryan-Lush[edit]

    Geraldine Ryan-Lush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A few assertions of notability but no evidence offered. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Avalon Druid Order (ADO)[edit]

    Avalon Druid Order (ADO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Notability. It provides no secondary sources referencing the organization other than the organization's own website. MrNerdHair (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Screentoaster[edit]

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

    Non-notable software; the PROD was deleted, so i've moved it here. Ironholds 07:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Ironholds 07:23, 30 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 Pyramid scheme. Cirt (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverse funnel system[edit]

    Reverse funnel system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Obvious SPAM. Article's references criticize this pyramid scheme for the sole purpose of promoting a second one. Repeat occurrence, strongly recommend salt, or protect as redirect to Pyramid scheme Reswobslc (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. Salting is not to be used as a pre-emptive measure. Han-Kwang (t) 10:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, how about now? WH Coordinator (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, all of the "sources" blatantly flunk WP:RS and WP:QS as they are all blog/forum postings or self-published "articles" on websites that publish any junk submitted by anybody. None of these are acceptable as reliable sources. Reswobslc (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you be a little more specific on how they flunk WP:RS and WP:QS? WH Coordinator (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    New York Times, Krasnaya Zvezda, Time Magazine = Reliable Sources. Joe Schmoe's Blog = Not a reliable source. Article on Print-N-Po$t.net that publishes anything from any Joe Blow = Not a reliable source. Posting on somebody's blog = Not a reliable source. Posting on some other wiki or forum = Not a reliable source. Even Wikipedia itself does not meet the bar for "reliable source" because it consists of user-posted content. Please read WP:V and WP:RS in detail. Reswobslc (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read both WP:RS and WP:QS, and am still having trouble equating it with the afd, could you bring a specific quote out, so we could analyze it, and see how it's relevant to the Reverse funnel system. WH Coordinator (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you asking whether the references meet the criteria in WP:RS/WP:QS, or whether meeting/not meeting those criteria means that the article should be deleted? I think that the references are somewhat questionable if viewed by themselves, but taken together they do make a point, although a single article in the NYT would be better. I do believe that there are better references hidden among those 454,000 search results. Han-Kwang (t) 17:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well after the article gets deleted, if you can find a few of those "better" references, you could consider recreating the article. (However, chances are far more likely you will find a leprechaun or a pot of gold, or get struck by lightning; both of these occurrences would probably dramatically alter your life enough to keep you from wanting to promote or discuss pyramid schemes on Wikipedia.) Reswobslc (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on, let's not loose the thread of the discussion. Reswobslc, you are suggesting that WP:RS/WP:QS warrant the AfD for this article, could you bring the exact quotes to support your assertion? WH Coordinator (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Reswobslc, having a good point does not mean you can throw WP:CIVIL out the window.[56] Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, go blow me. Just kidding. I don't think I have been uncivil or a dick, though if you disagree, you're welcome to toss a template on my talk page. Use of sarcasm is not uncivil. Telling someone to "go blow me" is. Assuming they meant it. :) Reswobslc (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep.  Sandstein  07:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Roman Rubilio Castillo[edit]

    Roman Rubilio Castillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I suspect this page does not contain sufficient material to assert the importance of its subject. However, I don't know enough in this area to tag it for speedy deletion, and thus require consensus to verify my suspicion. MrNerdHair (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nicole Dault[edit]

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

    Fails WP:BIO, aspiring actress with extra parts and Youtube videos. Prod removed by anon. Jfire (talk) 05:32, 30 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 as meeting WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Pemberton (anthropologist)[edit]

    John Pemberton (anthropologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    May or may not be notable - sent to AFD. Rschen7754 (T C) 21:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course, but the "lack of understanding of the individual's considerable contribution" is not surprising since the article at that point in time didn't make reference to those contributions. Google is certainly not the place to find all sorts of useful references for notable people, things, and ideas. However, looking there shows sufficient good faith in attempting to rescue an article that doesn't even bother to make the claim of notability in the first place. Your edits and comments convinced me, not the generic shell that was there before. Bongomatic (talk) 06:49, 26 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:01, 30 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 to delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    M. Christian Heywood[edit]

    M. Christian Heywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    not enough secondary sources to write an article and subject is not notable Jeremiah (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Struck my delete per subject's comment. Knowing that this is a major series character named "Lab Rat" and not simply a lab rat, I may be able to find a notability. I can do a wider search based upon this new information. I'll be back. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I said it is a very close thing. If you give your management a boot in the backside they should be able to spin that "up and coming" into a "arrived and cheering". Can you point the direction to any articles about "Lab Rat" as a character. As a name, it is such a generic term that searches bring thousands of non-related hits. Damn near impossible. I'm willing to work on improving the article and establishing notability, one actor to another, as I have been learning what Wiki expects from an article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:37, 29 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    S.S. Tipton[edit]

    I am nominating this article for deletion because it is nothing but plain cruft. It also provides no real-world notability and only appeals to a small group of people - those who watch the show. --haha169 (talk) 04:41, 30 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.

    Related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The S.S. Tipton

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Steven Coleman[edit]

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

    There are assertions of notability but doesn't seem notable enough. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mary Ann Springer[edit]

    Mary Ann Springer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Failed PROD. Unsourced article about a non-notable actress. DCEdwards1966 04:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    USA National Grape Catching Competition[edit]

    USA National Grape Catching Competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No sources or google hits. Suspected hoax. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Reads like a hoax to me. Also lacks internal consistency. Huadpe (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mikie Marsh[edit]

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

    No evidence of notability. Was tagged for A7 speedy deletion and the tag was removed without comment. I do not wish to edit war over a speedy tag. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:25, 30 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. Cirt (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lost Hills Books[edit]

    Lost Hills Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This was tagged for speedy deletion as WP:CSD#A7. It has a slim assertion of notability, and the press has been written up. I don't think this is an A7 but I don't think it meets notability standards either. Chick Bowen 04:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question... do we know that this publishing firm is more than one person? And inre WP:CORP, the guideline states "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"... and for what it is and where it is, it seems to qualify. I mean really... Duluth, after all. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment back For a small start-up press, reviews are an important way to secure notability within their industry. The vast majority of these publishers never get written up in major media, so getting attention via reviews is key to establishing their cred. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    D.W. the Picky Eater[edit]

    D.W. the Picky Eater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Basically just an episode of "Arthur". No reason for it to exist as a separate article from List of Arthur episodes. JuJube (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also added because it has basically the same issues:

    Dancing Fools (Arthur episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Comment I believe you can freely move the content to your user-page/sub page, where you can work on the content. If it eventually meets WP:OR, WP:WAF, and WP:N, it can be re-added as a regular page.--  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Okay then if anyone is against this move speak now. Elbutler (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay i'm moving it now Elbutler (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Elbuter. Why did you move that page to your userspace. It seems to me your trying to evade those pages deletions. Correct?. Mythdon (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another reason why this page should be kept...The Alien Costume is just another episode of Spider-Man and you kept it, and don't say it's important because it isn't. You're only just deleting this page becuase it's a page from a less popular tv show, if i created an article page for Home Improvement, or Superman: The Animated Series you would keep it. Also why do we have a page for the BTAS episode Almost Got 'Im it's just another episode of Batman? Now correct me if i'm wrong, but it think you guys are deliberatley picking on me!!!!! Elbutler (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was never involved in a deletion discussion about The Alien Costume. Also, we are in no way picking you. These articles should be deleted and that is final. Mythdon (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact is, articles about Spider-Man and Batman episodes usually have quite a number of outside sources, whereas you'll likely never get any people talking about particular "Arthur" episodes. JuJube (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Janice Brabaw[edit]

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

    Non-notable person. Author of two self-published books which are not notable, and has been a production coordinator for a handful of TV episodes. No independent sources to verify biographical details. Very few Google hits. Article was originally written by Brabaw's PR agent, definite COI issues. Same author wrote a similar article about Brabaw two years ago which was speedied. This edition was speedy-tagged but declined, then PRODded which was removed without explanation. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • As I told you beforehand, Wikipedia specifically forbids articles which promote anything at all, and especially self-promotion or promotion by someone who is paid to do so, as you admittedly are. Please read this article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This user signed up for a user name exactly one minute before posting this comment, and has no other contributions other than that and a snarky message posted on my talk page. I am beginning to suspect sockpuppetry, but it's just an old reporter's instincts right now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: My remarks to the entry before this one apply here too, excpet this user took three minutes from sign-up to vote. Anyone noticing a pattern here? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, a google search only returns about 70 hits nearly all of which are either imdb (or similar) or facebook (or similar). Dpmuk (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I've just noticed that the majority of the article is taken verbatim from here... just thought this possible copyright violation should be noted here too. OBM | blah blah blah 11:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of musicians with multiple self-titled albums[edit]

    List of musicians with multiple self-titled albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Trivial intersection. I see nothing particularly notable about acts that have had two or more self-titled albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Because the definition of the list is clear and well-bounded. I wouldn't claim the members of this list were exhaustive, or even that it was an exhaustive list of all potentially wiki-notable albums that would meet it. I certainly wouldn't want the role of maintaining it. However I don't see anything in WP:SALAT that this conflicts with. I certainly don't see it as being either too specific, or too broad. With WP:SALAT particularly in mind, I see no concern that either would, or ought to, split into List of hip-hop musicians with multiple self-titled albums, List of rastabilly skank musicians with multiple self-titled albums etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 03:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is voting twice reallly called for? And both times strongly? That's pretty strong!Yobmod (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Duplicate vote by same user as voted earlier struck through. Probably a mistake, given it was either side of a re-list, but striking for the benefit of whoever closes this. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 11:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTAVOTE anyway Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's listed twice, I'll restate my opinion. This appears to be a bad-faith nom as it is; major contributors and the relevant wikiproject were not notified. ProhibitOnions (T) 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I don't think anyone can have a problem with that, hence why I didn't strike what you wrote. But a bad-faith nom is stretching it, I think: major contributors don't have to be notified, nor WikiProjects - infact, as far as I'm aware, no one does, but it's generally customary to notify only the creator, no? That's all I do when I nom something, and I certainly hope my nominations aren't taken in bad faith... AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Is there a difference between untitles and self-titled? Most of these seem untitled to me. the self-title is just given by marketing types, cos people expect one.Yobmod (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Throwing Muses maintain that their 1986 album was untitled and their 2003 album was self-titled, but I don't know how anyone would be able to make that distinction from the album covers/packaging. -- Foetusized (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then those policies need to be mentioned, you can't point to an essay and say 'delete because of that'. It's just not a valid reason for deletion and will carry even less weight than pointing to a policy or guideline with no explaination. Many of the points on WP:LC are not in line with existing policy or community consensus and are not agreed guidelines. For Example 'The list was created just for the sake of having such a list' - Everything on wikipedia is created for the sake of having an article on it. This is not a good reason to delete. 'The list is of interest to a very limited number of people' - Doesnt make it non-notable. 'The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category' Directly violates policy WP:CLN and guidelines on navigational lists. 'The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date.' - There is no limit set on the amount of time or effort a wikipedia article should or shouldn't take to keep in order and up to date. In the end these are all just personal opinions and not based on any agreed policy or guideline. --neon white talk 16:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your premise completely, I just don't think people's opinions should be discounted out of hand for pointing to the wrong page. If any just said "delete per WP:LC" I would agree, but none of those citing it said just that - the three people pointed out at least one individual part of the essay which are built in policy. Their opinions shouldn't just be ignored, that defies common sense - but I would expect any admin with decent experience closing AFDs would be capable of weighing the opinions of those who quote it. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 06:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Warkop[edit]

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

    This article was speedy deleted twice, but is back again. Obvious problems with WP:RS. All of the films listed here are redlinked and (I assume) none were ever released outside of Indonesia. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment well it depends.(1) Once again another Indonesian topic is left out of the Indonesian project deletion list (2) problem is that many Indonesian editors have no idea of RS and at most times the request to ask them to add them is left with complete and utter silence from the editors (3) I dont think that Indonesian editors have sufficient or adequate understanding of article V - N issues to adequately defend afds for a start - which makes the speedy suggestion so tempting I suppose (4) although perhaps not meeting conventional understanding of the N or V context the external links onto youtube would be ok if this wasnt an afd :) SatuSuro 10:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 03:21, 30 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    AfterSys[edit]

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

    Appears to fail WP:WEB and/or WP:CORP. <100 Google hits, for one. Biruitorul

    Talk 03:10, 30 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Benjamin Plaza[edit]

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

    Non-notable strip mall. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Caroline Howarth[edit]

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

    not notable, info could be merged into other articles Saveourcity (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Notable National Basketball Association games televised by CBS[edit]

    Notable National Basketball Association games televised by CBS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Hopelessly PoV article, while sourced, many of the sources doesn't tell why many of these games are "notable" and the few that does aren't really independent of the subject (team websites). Some of these notable x games as been deleted in AFD before, and I see this one no different Delete Secret account 12:16, 25 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:05, 30 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 Notebook Paper. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    When I Hustle[edit]

    When I Hustle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No rankings or awards or anything else that would lead one to believe that reliable source material is available for this topic. Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs. -- Suntag ☼ 05:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 03:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 02:02, 30 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 to delete, default to keep.  Sandstein  07:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tu Mal[edit]

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

    It is an album article with little more than a track listing. In sufficient source material. Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums. -- Suntag ☼ 05:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 03:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 02:01, 30 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 Suicide Silence. Cirt (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mitch Lucker[edit]

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

    No reliable sources found to verify notability. Prod declined. —  X  S  G  01:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Since XSG revised to redirect, I'd be happy to concur with that too if it's deemed the overall best solution. MadScot (talk) 19:24, 30 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. Cirt (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Suicide Silence[edit]

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

    No reliable sources found to verify notability. Existing sources are press releases and a blog (not reliable). Does not meet guidelines for general notability. Claim for notability for a band (Peak #94 on Billboard 200) is questionable. Prod declined. —  X  S  G  01:41, 30 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 to delete, default to keep.  Sandstein  07:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anchor Gaslamp[edit]

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

    Essentially spam. This Christian community did get a little bit of local media coverage but certainly not enough to support the current content of the article or, in my opinion, a full article which can be properly sourced. Oh and if you like the notability guides: WP:ORG. Pichpich (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Do Not Delete (more) - Below I have Copied the afore mentioned notability guide originally used to begin this discussion on the validity of this article WP:ORG:

      Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

      Vince11881 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince11881 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know they are. A commenter further up this AfD discussion mentioned that this project is apparently the first of its type in the USA, and that such projects are otherwise restricted to the UK. I was reporting the anecdotal evidence that these things are indeed reasonably widespread over here in England. I hope someone else can tell me whether this is, in fact, the first in the USA. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gotcha, I doubt this is a first but a part of a trend of evangelical churches doing so. That they seem to devote half their gatherings to doing community outreach instead does seem notable so that part may be more unique. -- Banjeboi 23:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete Gazimoff 00:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Music of Europe[edit]

    Music of Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article is devoid of meaningful content. It's just a list of geographical names. It was created in February 2005 but never developed. There are already many other articles on aspects of European music, so notability is not really relevant here. The problem of the article was discussed on the Music project here. Kleinzach 01:34, 30 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. Per WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IPod games[edit]

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

    The subject of this article is not notable, as it has not received any third-party coverage. While I agree that many of the games themselves are notable, that does not make the concept of iPod games notable. There are two sources: the Apple website itself and a website which is not a reliable source. Therefore, the article is both non-notable and unverified. seresin ( ¡? )  01:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Review here at MacWorld which I believe is sufficiently independent of Apple for our purposes. It's a review of games as a group, not individually, which seems to validate the article concept. MadScot (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agent One-Half[edit]

    Agent One-Half (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The movie appears to have not been released and that it's status isn't known even though IMDB has the release date as March, 2008. The reason that I think that is because the only reliable source that I could find is the official site. I searched on Google, Google News, Rotten Tomatoes, and Movie Review Query Engine.Schuym1 (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Haskore[edit]

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

    It's messy, ad written, and it doesn't assert notability, nor seems that it is. If this is a total screw up on my part then let me now. It's been so long. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 02:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That is, from an academic standpoint I believe it as notable as, say, Xmonad. --Gwern (contribs) 12:03 26 September 2008 (GMT)
    I would disagree with that. There may be a few JoFPs & conferences which explicitly focus on functional programming, but that's a reaction to the overwhelming mass of all the other stuff, which are so mainstream that they are practically default. Arguendo, I'd also note that I've never seen anything in the relevant criteria that discriminate against 'noisy minorities' (as you seem to suggest the Haskell community is). --Gwern (contribs) 14:02 29 September 2008 (GMT)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 30 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.

    Douchepuss[edit]

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

    The result was speedy delete per G10- Attack page. Shana tova!-- L'Aquatique[talk] 01:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Article is about a non-notable neologism. Prod was removed by someone. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 00:53, 30 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 Gazimoff 23:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fluxdvd[edit]

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

    This article has a lot of information, but seems to be purely an advertisement. — Yavoh 02:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    N.B. Speedy was declined. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:21, 25 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:51, 30 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. MBisanz talk 04:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Saturday morning preview specials[edit]

    Saturday morning preview specials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is an unsourced, cluttered trivial list. It's nothing more than an advertisement list of shows that helped promote new seasons of shows. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 30 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) 01:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Richmond Town Square[edit]

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

    Does not show significant cultural, social and economic impact on the local and regional market area. No support in third party credible and reliable secondary sources. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Additionally, this mall falls into the super regional catagory, which in itself (usually) endows notability. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 30 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 Gazimoff 23:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick Amoroso[edit]

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

    Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:MUSIC) and it is uncited and appears to be wriiten by the subject, i.e. being a Vanity page. 125.236.160.92 (talk · contribs) Text copied from article's talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed 13:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 30 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 Gazimoff 23:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WeCreate[edit]

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

    This seems to be a purely local company without anything more widespread. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SevOne[edit]

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

    A user added a CSD. It doesn't meet that criteria, but I'm not letting the article off the hook just yet. LAAFansign review 22:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Delete. A single mention, and that's a press release in google news. Comment by User:VasileGaburici. Sorry, my bad google fu, so keep. VG ☎ 12:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure I understand the problem with the wikipedia SevOne page. It offers a neutral viewpoint and gives a reader a basic understanding of what SevOne is. I have read the Wikipedia: Deletion policy (Reasons for deletion) and do not see a reason for the SevOne page to be killed off. Other pages that are very similar to the SevOne page that are not in danger of deletion are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netqos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentley_Systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSFS_Bank

    I can not see a difference between these pages and the SevOne page. Please let me know what actions I need to take to insure that the SevOne page remains on Wikipedia.

    Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwmetz (talk • contribs) 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The argument that this article should be kept because other articles exist is typically disregarded, because each article is judged on its own merits - you might want to review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for more detail. On point, The article is sourced with four references - two to a NetworkWorld article, one to the company's website, and one to a press release. I'd want to see more independent news coverage before choosing to Keep this article. I'd also note that items that seem neutral, such as a list of clients, can seem promotional if there is little other content. The list of officers, for example, can be safely removed - I believe such a list would be found on the company's website, yes? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 30 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kaze (rapper)[edit]

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

    Non-notable rapper with only 1 album on a major indie label; fails WP:MUSIC. Prod removed without comment. Unreferenced—also fails WP:V.—Hello, Control Hello, Tony 13:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothin' Fancy[edit]

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

    None of the awards cited are notable ones. The only source is a PR piece, and I can't find any other reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 30 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gu Chen[edit]

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

    Subject is a non-notable model and the article is unreferenced. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 30 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NSO Punishment 2008[edit]

    NSO Punishment 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article appears to be about a subject that does not meet the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator, who repeatedly accused me of persecuting him for nominating the article for deletion. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:00, 30 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.
    More