< September 4	September 6 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 20:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Cole[edit]

Fails to meet notability standards. Qqqqqq (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any reliable sources that demonstrate notability of this article. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 23:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree. My research uncovered nothing supporting notability. Jeremiah (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of notability/verifiability. No claim of improtance/significance makes this CSD:A7 I believe. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article gives no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC and searching on the limited info provided seems to confirm the subject fails the notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero coverage found about the subject -- Whpq (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I not found a reliable, independent, and secondary source offering non-trivial coverage of Cole. As a result, I have concluded the article fails WP:N, and that it should be deleted as a result. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Hayek[edit]

Another non-notable porn actor who doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. A ni Mate 08:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn WikiScrubber (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment has anyone looked for sources to support assertions of notability? Just saying it is "nn" is hardly what proves it is so. The deletion policy says the burden is on those calling for deletion to make a coherent argument. The best way to achieve that end is to make a good faith effort to find sources. You may be surprised and come back and say you found them, or you may come back and make a compelling argument for lack of notability like I checked here, here, and here, and I found no... Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to humor you Jerry, there are no results for google news archive. Also, stating the obvious, there are no google books results. I guess you don't need me to tell you how many google scholar results there are. Finally, again somewhat obviously, there are plenty (around 170) google web search results, none of which constitute significant coverage in a reliable source. So, in this case "non-notable" pretty well sums it up. PhilKnight (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Conservative Party[edit]

Self-admitted small local party. The "official website" is a Yahoo blog. Zero Google News hits. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no evidence of notable political presence. Mukadderat (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to indicate that a candidate did stand under this name. However, it was only one candidate and they polled 73 votes. Unless coverage to show otherwise can be provided I think this falls well short of being a political party, more a one man protest. Nuttah (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJ^Talk 01:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Wormwood[edit]

Non-notable character, in-universe. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harpy (Puyo Puyo)[edit]

Side character in a video games series. Considerable amounts of dubious content and zero evidence of any kind of notability. --Leivick (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Puyo Puyo or a list of Puyo Puyo characters. This character is not the heroin or villain of game, doesn't need individual article. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources in the article. No claim of notability. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not indicate any real-world significance of this fictional element. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cub Cadet#Cub Cadet Trick Shot Challenge. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Kalb[edit]

Non-notable person. Even if this event would be notable, the subject of the article does not fulfil the requirements of WP:BIO as this is only one event. Crusio (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Very non-notable. De728631 (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, speedy was denied (see also article's talk page). As the creator seems intent on keeping this article, I decided that prodding was probably useless. --Crusio (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps this subject should be moved to article on LeBron James. Jeremiah (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I have fought for the article to not be deleted is, it was going to be deleted because of it not being notable, not for BIO requirements. I understand that it can not fulfill the requirements of BIO and it will be deleted; but my point for challenging its deletion was that users should not tag pages with speedy deletion when the page does meet requirements. I have moved the information of the David Kalb page to Cub Cadet and redirected David Kalb to the new section but an admin will still need to delete the talk page.--CPacker (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ff m 22:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse 2500[edit]

Article is about a non-notable RPG. It actually self-asserts non-notability by stating: "is a fairly new game and may be unknown to most people". Unless reliable sources and significant media coverage can be found, the article should be deleted. Victor Lopes (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, can't get much more non-notable than that. JuJube (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though it's not policy quite yet, the outline of Wikipedia:Notability (toys and games) which has some indications of notability show that this game does not fall into the notable area.--Pmedema (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article clearly asserts notability Testmasterflex (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Clearly"? I don't see any clear assertion of notability. But in any case, there needs to be more than just an assertion of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What more do you want to see in the article??--Whatiswhatwik (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls well short of notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All that I can turn up are blog posts, myspace/angelfire/geocities pages. No reliable sources covering the game system. -- Whpq (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find a reliable source on this game. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment type Apocalypse 2500 into google and you will find tones of sources on the game.--Whatiswhatwik (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Reliable sources are needed. The google search results provide forum posts, blogs, and press releases; none of which are considered to be reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whatiswhatwik, no source covering the game has been discovered that was written by a reliable writer. In MySpace, and blogs, for example, anyone can write whatever they want. One blog post could say that Apocalypse 2500 is the worst game in the world, and I hope you understand that we would not use that opinion on a Wikipedia article because the writer of that post cannot be considered reliable. I hope, by extension, that you understand why this article needs reliable sources supporting it. The Wikipedia community means nothing personal against the game, and if it gains reliable sources in the future to support it, then an article about the game will then be welcomed. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Can Blink[edit]

I can find only one reliable source that shows notability. Schuym1 (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC) g[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple sources aren't necessary as long as you have one good one. I added another reference which is partly hidden behind a paywall, but which seems relevant. --Eastmain (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G1 by Cailil. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chelona theos[edit]

Apparent hoax, no outside references found, article itself states: "The only known believers of this god is located in the Tampa, Florida area" CactusWriter 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Nonsense/hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy this hoax. RockManQ (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nearly unanimous keep, some delete's discounted as "AfD is not a vote, reasons are required."Fr33kman^{talk APW} 20:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wet paint sign[edit]

Contested PROD. Trivia in the extreme. Ros0709 (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to notable. RockManQ (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said above. De728631 (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. iMatthew (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw this nomination and KEEP This page is STILL under construction. I am planning on expanding this page in the coming days. I see nothing on Wikipedia:Deletion of pages under construction that says that trivia is a reason a page under construction should be deleted. Shaliya waya (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how this page is notable in any shape or form? RockManQ (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable [1], [2]. With maybe a section on the psychological effect the wet paint sign seems to have on some people, bringing out an irrepressible urge to touch the paint to see if the sign is correct. RMHED (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources are only mentions in passing. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 23:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think types of signs are notable, and the Google searches don't demonstrate notability (They all seem to be mentions in passing). If you want to demonstrate notability, please indicate a specific news mention or scholarly article demonstrating it and I will consider changing my vote. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 23:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it be appropriate to transwiki this to Wiktionary? Jeremiah (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ideally, there should be no prejudice to re-creating this. It's an article that seems to do little more than state the obvious, and the one interesting statement-- about a "legal disclaimer" -- is unsourced. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some undergrad or law school textbook that has a wet paint case. I imagine that content could be added (and sourced) as suggested by RHMED about the psychological urge to test the paint. My only fear is that there will be a spinoff article called "Wet paint sign in popular culture", though that too would be an OK addition to an article. Mandsford (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if AfD was clean-up, this article has been given no chance to grow. Tag it, wait some time, THEN AfD. If the author says it is under construction, add the "under contruction" tag, and wait to see what he does. An internationally recognised sign and the effect that goes along with it could easily be notable.Yobmod (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to concur that this AFD is a bit premature. Keep per RMHED; though some of those sources might be trivial mentions, others show that the subject is sourceable, and I think it's reasonable to permit adequate time for that sourcing to take place. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being commonplace adds to notability, rather than subtracting from it as seems to be assumed by the nominator and others. The third of 218 Google Books hits looks very interesting, and there's plenty more where that came from. In reply to Mandsford we would probably have room for a Wet paint signs in popular culture article, as I'm sure there are countless film comedies and cartoons where this has been a plot device, but I'm not looking forward to List of wet paint signs. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that Wet paint signs in popular culture can be a part of this article one day, but not a separate article until it grows to be large enough (see Article size). List of wet paint signs does not sound like it would make a good article, but I am currently looking out in the real world for a wet paint sign that I can snap a photo of for this article. Shaliya waya (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Prince of Argentina[edit]

The result was SPEEDIED. Alexf⁴² 02:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina does not have a monarchy since 1810. There is no reigning monarch and therefore there can't be a Prince of Argentina. Also, an unofficial Royal House as e.g. in Greece can't exist since Argentina had always been a viceroyalty of Spain, not a proper monarchy. This page is a hoax. De728631 (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator just left me a note. I wasn't sure what to do because some editor blanked the page and said it was a hoax. I thought it was best to tag it as a hoax and see what happens, but if it really is a hoax it should be deleted. Storkynoob (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy this blatant hoax. RockManQ (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per TenPoundHammer. JuJube (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant hoax. Edward321 (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No notability whatsoever. One article that can't be rescued, I'm afraid. Black Kite 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irina (General Hospital)[edit]

Very minor fictional character in a long-running soap opera. It appeared for less than a month! It's not even important enough to mention in the list of recurring characters. Article is 1-line-long. No evidence of notability, no media coverage, no real world information. Magioladitis (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real world relevance. JuJube (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Minor character that clearly hasn't received substantial coverage from independent sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to real world relevance and substantial coverage in independent sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well-expressed nom. Eusebeus (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Article has now been rescued. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not enough to establish notability for a character who appeared in only a few episodes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is enough for Wikipedia and a start. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doctorfluffy. No non-tangential mentions in third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to General Hospital or appropriate List of... characters subpage. Lacks sources that provide evidence of significant third-party coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to very well established notability and the 5 pillars Testmasterflex (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only third-party reference is from soaps.com which records every single episode summary... -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 near unanimous keep, no discussion in 48hrs approxFr33kman^{talk APW} 20:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kochanoor[edit]

Article does not assert notabilty. The subject is not notable. Only source is a blog. _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 20:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep As long as the existence of such places can be verified, any geographical location is notable. De728631 (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the long-term consensus is that we keep definable settlements and this one is significant enough to be mentioned on a government site [3] and to have a High School.[4] Smile a While (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real places are notable and Smile a While's links show it is a real place. Edward321 (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being a village asserts notability. --Oakshade (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Incidents[edit]

To start out, the article is poorly named, and if the article were to stay it should be renamed to Effects of Hurricane Gustav or the like. Aside from that, the article is unsourced, incomplete, most of the information is original research and irrelevant to the topic, and finally, all relevant information is well-covered in the Hurricane Gustav article. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is just an incomplete and un-sourced clone of the headings of the Impact section of Hurricane Gustav. The only heading that the author bothered to fill in was a POV rant about "Southern Scrap Recycling". Plasticup ^T/C 20:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally unnecessary page; the effects of Gustav are already covered in the Gustav page. RockManQ (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page is not needed. Merging with Hurricane Gustav would be pointless, since all of the information is already covered in the article. iMatthew (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename, but I moved a whole bunch of controversial material from the USCGC courier page to the talk page as two posters really messed up the page. As far as incidences are concerned the page may qualify. If the unneccesary section heads and state the conflicts of information are properly structure. Maybe rename the page to "New Orleans Industrial Canal-Gustav-Scrap Ship incident". I bet there are news worthy sources that support the page. Regarding Gustav, the incident appears to revolve around improperly moored ships during the storm, not the storm itself, as there may be judicial or other action taken against the owners of the vessels.

Poorly named - Agree
Poorly sourced - The article is based on newsworthy material, the sources chosen however are poor, not grounds for deletion. In the courier page I moved the sources to talk page and threw out one source altogether. The average new article on WP has no sources, poor or otherwise.
Covered under Gustav - This assumes no further political development will occur. Who is going to pay for damages to the pump housing and natural gas pipelines. Right now the company claims that the ship was a specific cruiser of the USCGC vintige, they claim that this is not true. There could be legal reprocussions to the claims, as a result this page is notable enough.PB666 ^yap 21:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jer10 95 Talk 22:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: this is already covered at Hurricane Gustav. Cliff smith ^talk 23:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anymediaguy (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loosened Vessels in New Orlean's Industrial Canal during Gustav[edit]

To establish the notability of the topic, but considering that this main, at minimum will be renamed.

Brewer said that before the storm, the Coast Guard sent out several notices to mariners, instructing them on the proper way to moor ships during a storm. These precautions included taking steps to double mooring lines, as well as rigging an anchor close to the vessel, he said. An investigation will be launched into how the vessels got loose during a storm, but Brewer said he couldn't comment about any potential penalties. A dry dock owned by Southern Scrap sank in the canal during Hurricane Katrina, prompting a lawsuit against the company by the Army Corps to recoup the $8 million the government spent to remove the wreckage. That structure tore loose from its moorings during the storm, drifting across the canal before sinking near the Florida Avenue bridge.^[1]

"You've got a lot of scour here associated with water flow," he said. "Another 30 yards and it could have been eroding right here at the federal floodwall. "We know there are concerns here," Cephus said as emergency crews, towboats, the Coast Guard, city officials and the scrap yard owners tried to untangle the mess of ships, repair the damage and assess blame. Chris Bonura, a Port of New Orleans spokesman, said work to shore up port-provided flood protection at the Almonaster bridge has not moved along very quickly. On the canal, the port has its own floodwalls, but they are much smaller and meant to protect harbor business.^[2]

Nagin: Surprise is a mild way to put it. I am absolutely incensed about that. It wasn’t just barges. There were two 400-feet Navy ships that were scheduled to be scrapped in the doggone Canal. They were floating around up until 9 o’clock last night. They finally secured them. We must get the Coast Guard and the levee board and everybody to clear those canals when a storm is threatening us.^[3]

Do not delete a page simply because the creator is a quacking duck, that is not satisfactory grounds, in and of itself for deletion. Error's in this regard have occurred in the past. The question is whether the topic is notable or not.PB666 ^yap 23:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Hurricane Gustav News and Storm Tracking Nola.Com
^ Few problems with levees, Corps of Engineers says KATC.COM
^ Nagin: 'Absolutely incensed' about barges in canal 01:03 PM CDT on Wednesday, September 3, 2008 WWLTV.COM

That's good but it belongs in the article on Hurricane Gustav. If its section there becomes exceptionally large then it could be split into an separate article, but right now I don't see why it should be broken out on its own. Plasticup ^T/C 13:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a POV fork and consists of a) stuff that should be in the main article and b) one man's grievances against a company. naerii 21:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- A lone voice here. The Gustav page is currently 77,000 in length. According to WP:Split it is acceptable, indeed desired to create splits. "> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" WP:SPLIT so that we can stop using the FORK issue and look at the notability issue, already 4 news articles devoted to assessning blame for the situation in the industrial canal, it is therefore notable. Is there a notable, stand on its own topic here, clearly yes. The controversy is this: what did the US Coast guard tell dock owners to do prior to Hurricane Fay and what did dock owners do. There were dozens of ships, barges loosed during the tropical storm despite the coast gaurd recommendations. One of those ships, the Courier ended up on top of a regional natural gas pipeline that could have (or may still cause) catastrophic damage in NO or shut of supplies to the Eastern US raising energy prices. This is not about hurricane Gustav, its about a preparative issue and policy guidelines. I have updated the section on Louisiana in Gustav and provided references. This topic clearly deserves a page, the question here concerns the NPOV of the creator of this poorly named and referenced page.PB666 ^yap 04:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the "split" premise does not apply here, as WP:SPLIT says that an article is recommended to be divided when there are 60+ KB of readable prose, a term with a clearly-defined meaning. Gustav only has 30 KB of readable prose, still clearly between the safe margin. And the so-called "controversy" is inflating an event that while regretable, is not actually encyclopedic. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, let's separate the message from the messager, BlueNorway obviously did not carry NPOV and the information was chocked with errors, I should know I followed his work on 4 different pages correcting the errors. But there is a single underlying theme I think is encyclopedic. It involves a chain of events that begins with hurrican Katrina and may well reassert itself with hurricane Ike. The primary issue here is the mishandling of unpowered vessels during a storm. I have associates who owns ocean going vessels and the common practice is to run the vessels in a protected inlets during storms like this with the help of tackle, etc. A point here is why did the fed deliver two ships to SSMC two weeks before the peak hurricane season but at the same time restrict the ability for the ships to be moved? The key word used in the media is the 'Situation' in the Industrial Canal and by now this is well referenced. By Wiki standards it is encyclopedic enough, there are a million or so pages in wikipedia that do not even come close to that standard so don't give me this BS. The current named page is not in an appropriate format and needs to be renamed. This is a superficial issue.PB666 ^yap 13:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely rewritten the page. I have placed a option rename on the talk page, and suggested a rename. I have also backed up the page to my talk page. Please make an effort to be objective about the topic.PB666 ^yap 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this isn't ING 4727, there is nothing notable about these ships. Also, as this is a POV fork, groups together hand-picked material and mixes events relating to Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Katrina, I'm not even sure if it can be ever suited for an article. Maybe something for a blog, but not for here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has served a purpose of sorts as a repository for facts that might be incorporated into the overall article about Hurricane Gustav. And for that purpose, "Gustav incidents" was good name for a bulletin board. But eventually, bulletin boards are cleared and the important postings are synthesized into a more concise form. I understand Courier's concerns that the Gustav page is lengthy at the moment (77 kb). However, as with all things on Wikipedia, that article will be edited by subsequent users, separating the history from the news. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Family Guy. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Up Late with Stewie & Brian[edit]

An online spin-off of Family Guy that failed after one "webisode." No demonstrated over-arching notability outside the context of Family Guy and nothing that couldn't be adequately covered in two sentences in the main article. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This show didn't really get anywhere and doesn't/won't have enough information for it's own article. iMatthew (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information belongs in article on Family Guy, if anywhere. Jeremiah (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, near unanimous keep debate, delete due to arguments that no one is working on it are not validFr33kman^{talk APW} 19:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Space Battleship Yamato characters[edit]

This articles has no reliable sources to justify article.

Uh. I think you've done this wrong. This should probably be undone/relisted or something. Also keep. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrivia - The attempted listing of this AfD seems to have gotten borked. I've fixed the header here and relisted it in the main AfD page (assuming I managed to not bork things myself). The five days timing should, however, begin now, I believe. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Then tag for needing verification per WP:BEFORE. I note that the series itself is majorly notable, and that a list of characters is by consensus a valid spinout for articles about works of fiction when they get too long. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Quasirandom. Characters of notable series are often spun out from their original articles. JuJube (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the individual references for the characters about the characters to justify notability then ? Dwanyewest (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Character articles are a standard spinoff article to prevent the main article from growing too large and this is definitely a notable series. Edward321 (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK I understand that point all I am saying is provide evidence of the characters through references is it that hard to understand? Dwanyewest (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If an article has no references, you mark that it needs references. You don't put it up for deletion. That's policy wonkery and it's not cool. JuJube (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been here since last year thats more than enough time for someone to make an effort to provide reliable evidence from non fan sites or self published materials. If JuJube is so concerned why don't they provide references for this article. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about this show. And how about addressing the points? Lack of references in and of itself is not sufficient reason to delete an article no matter how much time has passed. JuJube (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that at the bottom of this article and the main one there are several external links that can be used to trivially verify the existance of most of those characters. ANN can also verify most of the roles. If your complaint is that the references are not explicit enough, that is very much not a valid reason for deletion, but rather a reason to improve the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said if anyone can do the work then do it surely according to wikipedia an article has to fall on the burden of the writer to prove what they are saying is true. WP:Burden Dwanyewest (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just seem to bewildered how anime with less reliable references than I have used in articles have created survive. At least I used official websites to use most of my references and the editors seem to ignore their own rules such as the criteria to provide reliable sources . I feel the references aren't reliable and fails wikipedia's criteria WP:PSTS Dwanyewest (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your articles, I'm not sure you really understand the notability policies to begin with especially if you think that linking to an official website is notable; actually, it seems like you've gotten notability and verifiability confused. Looking at your Great Yamato article, which seems like you just machine-translated the official website, made the infobox, and tagged the article for someone else to finish, I highly suggest you brush up on policy before you start trying to cause trouble to make a point - I don't know what motivated you to start this, but most of your Yamato articles have the same problem so your indignation is probably not completely justified. There's more to editing than just creating a page, filling out the infobox and a couple of generic links, then copy-pasting in some random text and tagging it for cleanup. Gelmax (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NOEFFORT is not a good reason for deletion. It could be that an expert on Space Battleship Yamato has yet to come along and see the article. Most of this article is probably implicitly cited or citeable from the series itself. -Malkinann (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - series is lengthy enough and licensed, and thus able to support having a separate character list. The page needs a lot of cleanup, but so does the main article (which just plain sucks), but that isn't a valid reason for deletion. This is a perfectly valid and standard spin-out for this kind of series. From the comments above, this seems to be a pointy nomination, possibly due to the editors own list for a very short series being redirected back to the main article because one could not make a valid case for a spin-out on such a short series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Standard spinout article for a notable, lengthy series. Fix it up a bit. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Gelmax (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Space Battleship Yamato is a historically significant anime. This anime that has lasted 35 years (yes, it is still being worked on in 2008). This article is a list instead of creating seperate articles for each character in the series. It is my understanding that this is a valid reason for a spin off list - the size of the main article. Does it need cleanup? Sure it does, as does the rest of the articles in this collection. But that is not a reason for deletion. Turlo Lomon (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know where people are getting the impression that reliable sources aren't needed for an article, but it sure isn't from our policies or guidelines concerning sources and inclusion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship) for similar arguments. This particular article fails both WP:PLOT and WP:IINFO. The big reason secondary sources are needed for topic coverage is that those sources provide critical commentary that we can then summarize. Interpreting promotional sources from the company or primary sources (the episodes themselves) is not our job. The significance of the "parent" article doesn't have any impact on this particular article. Unless there are multiple sources which cover the subject (characters of the show) in detail, this article should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPINOUT and WP:FICT. List of characters are a natural spinout of the main article, particularly for works of fiction that have a large cast. Most of the content can be assumed to be sourced from the work itself, though more specific citations would be helpful. The source of the character names should either be sourced or removed as original research. --Farix (Talk) 11:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), Transwiki to wiktionary (I will do it) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudointellectual[edit]

Contest Prod. No sources for a term, which doesn't represent more than a dictionary definition of a term with no substantial content possible. Already has an article on wiktionary, there is nothing to add or save here. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Soft redirect to Wiktionary entry unless more info can be found, I didn't both looking for info. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. No potential for expansion. Deltabeignet (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), closing as unanimous keep, "not notable in todays world" irrelevant, notability not temporary Fr33kman^{talk APW} 20:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Scholder[edit]

This article focuses on someone who is completely non-notable in today's world. In accordance with the notablity policy, this article should be filled with links and references. Alas, it is not so. There arn't even any pictures. The level of detail in inadequately low, and would provide no help for anyone who wished to research further on this man. I can't see why it should be kept. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 19:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm going to extend this with content from the German Wiki. Scholder was major contributor to the Free Democratic Party's cultural program of 1957 and is therefore notable as a politician. De728631 (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep Should be expanded.DeGawl (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Has been expanded. De728631 (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The expanded version of the article clearly shows the subject's notability, and provides enough information for others to expand the article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 789 Google Books references say that the subject is extremely notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stamford park[edit]

Article fails to establish the notability of its subject. Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from the fact that it's got a bronze award from Greenspace, I don't see anything particularly notable about Stamford Park. And Trafford alone, a borough of more than 200,000 people, has 42 parks of which 17 have gold or silver and they can't all deserve an article. I believe the Altrincham article amply covers the subject and don't believe the park merits an article of its own. Nev1 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per rationale given in nom. --Jza84 | Talk 19:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading. BJ^Talk 01:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Yamaoka[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Well, its been five months, so its time for another round I think. This is the sixth time this article has appeared here. The previous five can all be found through the article talk page and I am not going to bother linking them here, though someone less lazy than myself can certainly do so if they feel the urge. Now, rather than having a free-for-all, I hope I can focus this debate on a single issue (yeah, I know never going to happen, but I can dream can't I?). There is a wikipedia policy (not guidline, essay, proposal, etc, but honest to God policy) that goes something like this:

"Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." (see Wikipedia:BLP1E#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event

Now what this means is we should not have a debate here about the fall. Yes it got news coverage, yes it led to changes in the sport, and yes the incident still gets mentioned from time to time today. Does that make it notable? Doesn't matter. We are not here to debate the notability of the accident. Now what about this Kristi Yamaoka herself. Lets focus on a few select quotes from the above-quoted policy: "remains a low-profile individual," "reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event", and "no independent notability."

Criteria one, "low-profile individual" seems to apply here. The first page of my google hits for "Kristi Yamaoka" give such hits as wiki and its mirrors, her facebook page, a youtube of the accident, and a few articles on the accident. Going through a few more of my 3,310 hits, I am seeing nothing but stories related to the fall or wiki mirrors. She has not become a celebrity, not become a spokeswoman for the dangers of cheerleading, and has had no media coverage relating to events since the accident. Definately kept a low profile.

Criteria two, "reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event" also applies. See above. I have not found any coverage of the individual not related to the fall. If someone can find a reliable source that does so, please feel free to bring it here and we can discuss its merits. If no one can do this, then criteria two is open and shut.

Criteria three, "no independent notability". I realize I have chosen three phrases that essentially mean the same thing and have the same evidence, but I am trying to make a point based in wikipedia policy here, so I think the redundancy is a good idea. Sure the accident made national news in the United States; I'm with you there; we may have established notability of the event. Now what about the person? Has this person done anything covered by a reliable source that might fit into the nebulous definition of notability? I am not seeing it, but if someone sees an indicia of independent notability, please bring it here to duscuss.

Well, there you have it, I have posted a wikipedia policy, dissected it, and shown how the subject fails to meet it. If someone can provide a reliable source that establishes either a high profie in the media or a notability independent from the accident bring it here and we can discuss. If all we get are keep votes that make no attempt to satisfy the policy requirements posted above, I hope the closing admin will remember a particular portion of the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators policy that states: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." Now lets see if we can have some good old-fashion policy debate on this page. Indrian (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The incident and its effects if any on the rules for cheerleading are covered at Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading. Per WP:BLP1E. (Note to nominator: brevity is the soul of wit. People don't like to plow through paragraph after paragraph of musings in addition to the rationale for deletion). Edison (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been nominated for deletion five previous times, and short initial comments have not stopped it from being kept in violation of policy. I think an in depth treatment of why this article fails policy was needed at this point. If afd is really supposed to be about policy rather than head counts, sometimes a longer argument is necessary. If nobody wants to read an indepth analysis in a discussion forum intended to illuminate the merits or lack thereof of an article based on policy, then afd is broken. Indrian (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm just glad someone else besides me felt that this article was a problem. Edit history indicates that not one solid piece of information has really been added to this article since approximately one week after the accident in question. Basic biographical information has always been missing. Simply put, this does not meet BIO, and never did, because it was never about the person to begin with. MSJapan (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You recently proposed merger of this article. Since merger and deletion are contrary actions, your position is inconsistent. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Firstly, I would like to re-iterate Indrian's point that "We are not here to debate the notability of the accident." The fall's notability is, to be frank, irrelevant, as this is an article about Yamaoka, not her accident. This article breaks WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOT#NEWS, which state "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted", "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted", and "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event" respectively. I have found not found multiple, reliable, independent, and secondary sources that offer non-trivial coverage of Yamaoka outside of the context of the fall. As a result, I do not believe that this article should remain. Frankly, I am surprised that this article was not deleted earlier. To me, this article is a classic violation of the three guidelines I have used in my argument ~~for deletion~~ (Struck out due to my decision to support a re-direct (see below)). Thank you for reading.JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disruptive repeat nomination. WP:BLP1E is quite inadequate as justification because:

This has already been considered in numerous other failed nominations.
There is no separate article about the one event.
The nomination itself states "a redirect or merge are usually the better options" and these are not achieved by deletion.
There has been renewed reportage regarding her return to cheerleading and the legal aftermath and these constitute multiple events.

Colonel Warden (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to number 4, please cite so we may discuss here. Your other objections are irrelevant as I see it. As to number one, this issue may have been raised in the past, but it was never the hinge upon which the nomination rested. This new nomination brings the policy debate into better focus and allows for a thourough discussion of that issue. As for number 2, the BLP policy makes no distinction between events with a separate article and events not covered in a separate article; it merely states that if notability is limited to a single event and there is scant information in reliable sources independent of the event, then a biography is best avoided. As for number 3, it is competely irrelevant because it only states preferred methods of resolution; it is not a binding statement requiring all such articles to be merged rather than deleted.

Finally, I take issue with your characterization of this nomination as disprutive. I would agree that MSJapan nominating the article the first three times in fairly rapid succession was not helpful, but this is only the third nomination since 2006 and the first nomination ever put forth by me. The last nomination was five months ago and resulted in a no consensus with a strong urging by the admin to reorganize the information. A "no consensus" does not have the same force as a "keep" as a discussion ender and none of the suggestions of the closing admin appear to have been followed. I feel that your characterization of the nomination as disruptive may unfortunately be an attempt by you to cover up your weak arguments in unnecessary rhetoric. I hope you can answer my response to your concerns in a more constructive manner. Indrian (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have constructively added sources to the article. You propose that this work be deleted. Please explain how this would improve the project. Notice how a reader came to the article just a few days ago to look up details of this person after she was again covered in the news. You would have this reader go away empty-handed and none the wiser. Please be more constructive and withdraw your unhelpful nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry your frustration has led you to feel you must take such an uncivil tone, as this derails what could be a debate about policy and turns it into a mud-slinging competition. I have given a measured argument as to why I believe policy dictates this article be deleted. You made a good first step at sticking to issues with your initial post, and I provided counterarguments to the points you raised. If you have the sources I requested above for discussion or wish to argue matters of policy further, I would be happy to continue our dialogue. If all you have to offer is more unhelpful rhetoric such as what I am responding to now, then our conversation is at an end. Indrian (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tu quoque. I have continued to work on the article to improve it. Your policy argument is internally inconsistent, as I explained above. You fail to explain why we should not even have a redirect for this title, as the policy you cite advocates. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make a go at changing this article to one about the incident itself with a rename and change of focus to reflect that, and then redirect the name Kristi Yamaoka be my guest. This AfD has nothing to do with the incident, only the person. You are focusing on a single sentence to argue an inconsistency, to wit: "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." This compeltely ignores two other sentences that have equal value and stand separately from that one: "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." and "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." You cannot pull one sentence out of the middle of a two paragraph policy and claim that is the entire policy. This distorts the truth. The issues of the notability of the person and whether or not wikipedia has an article on the incident are separate. Furthermore, your claim of an inconsistency because the policy prefers a redirect is even more bizarre. Show me the place in the policy that states the only recourse for a violation is a merge and redirect. I think you might have some problems with that. If you have a counterarguement for why we should ignore the two sentences I have quoted here, I am all ears. Indrian (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice the word separate. The point is that an event does not justify separate articles about the people involved in the event. For example, the event of 9-11 does not warrant articles about the many individuals caught up in that event. But in this case, we have a combined article which addresses both the event and the person together and so there is no separate article and so no problem. And then there's other policies like WP:BEFORE... Colonel Warden (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is really the crux of our disagreement right here. You take the line about a separate article to mean the policy only applies if an article on the event also exists. I can see how the policy can be read that way. I personally think that reading does not make sense because notability does not hinge on the existence of another article. Now as I said before, if you want to create a new article on the event, take out certain pieces of information not related to the event, refocus the information so that it does not attetempt to read like a bio, and then make "Kristi Yamaoka" a redirect, I would not bring the new article up for AfD (though I would consider voting if someone else did so, whether for keep or delete I do not know). I believe this article violates policy, however, and should therefore be deleted. Indrian (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only claim to notability is an event which in itself wouldn't be considered notable if not for some minor repercussions and news coverage: regarding the event, not specifically the person. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I'm sure the nominator made some other good points, but i didn't actually bother to read past the first couple of paragraphs, because that really is over the top. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am normally much briefer with my AfD nominations; I just felt that when an article goes up for the sixth time, one needs to carefully explain one's position so no one thinks it is a spam nomination. Indrian (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your extraordinarily long statement may have broken the formatting for the AFD. I have tried to fix it just now but am not sure that all the tecnicalities are right. It may be properly categorised now but we're still not getting links to all the previous AFD discussions. This technical failure arguably invalidates the AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Colonel Warden, may I ask where it states that this type of a technical fault invalidates this AFD nomination? JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a process is not followed correctly then it is thereby invalidated. In this case, the nominator failed to follow the process of WP:BEFORE, contemplating better alternatives such as redirection or merger. The article's creator or other contributors were not courteously notified per WP:AFDHOWTO. The AFD header was munged so that it was not properly categorised and the history of vexatious repeat nominations was not visible. The AFD reason was filled with excessive verbiage which is greater in length than the article in question and so has deterred editors from reading it. In short, this AFD is what is commonly known as a train wreck. When a process is botched to this extent, then it cannot said to be fairly delivering a consensus sufficient to overturn the consensus repeatedly established previously. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, for every decent policy discussion we have you have to go and say something silly and unproductive that smacks of a surprising desperation to invalidate this discussion. The AfD has been accesible the entire time through links on both the article page and the main AfD page. Just because the header is not perfect does not invaildate the AfD in any way. Don't know where you are getting these strange ideas. Indrian (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Colonel Warden, I believe I understand why you think that "If a process is not followed correctly then it is thereby invalidated", but I do not believe Wikipedia guidelines communicate the same viewpoint for AFD nominations. According to WP:AFDHOWTO, informing editors heavily involved in an article which has been nominated for deletion is a recommended, not a required, practice. I believe that the nominator should have followed this practice, but I believe that not following it is not evidence to use to assert that the nomination should be invalidated, because the practice is not compulsory. As for adding links to previous nominations at the top of this discussion, that has now been done. Also, although it is very long, I understand the nominator's reasoning for posting an explanation the length of what it is for why he has nominated the article. More importantly with regards to the length of the explanation, I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy that states that an AFD discussion should be considered for invalidation due to the fact that its introduction is very long. If you can show me such a policy, please do so. I agree that the nominator should have looked at the option of merging, before nominating this article for deletion, but I do not think that is grounds for invalidation of this discussion, though I could be wrong. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is only open for 5 days and its quality is suspect if the AFD has not been properly formatted during a significant portion of this short time. This issue might be addressed by relisting it. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst I determine my position regarding your proposal, may I ask, Colonel Warden, if you know any Wikipedia guidelines/policies which state, due to the problems you have listed, that an AFD nomination must be invalidated? atm, I am at a loss to find any Wikipedia guidelines/policies that even recommend invalidating due to the issues you have raised. Thank you in advance. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRV indicates that substantive procedural errors are reason to overturn a deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found that WP:DRV states "Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early)." However, WP:DRV concerns articles whose AFD nominations have been concluded, not AFD discussions that are ongoing. Plus, I believe there has only been one procedural error, and that was the nominator not examining a merger first, and I do not believe that if a big enough problem to warrant invalidating this nomination outright. All the other problems you have raised; long introduction, not informing heavily involved editors of the article, and not adding the links to other nominations from the start, are occurences that do not against procedure, as I elaborated upon in an earlier comment in this discussion. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree on the facts of the matter. The AFD was badly formed and this is another evident procedural error. The general effects of these errors has been to keep the discussion from interested editors and so they are material. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the AFD nomination could have been executed in a much better way, but I still cannot find any Wikipedia policies/guidelines that state that, due to the issues you have raised, this nomination must be invalidated. Please direct me to specific Wikipedia policies/guidelines that state either that the article must be invalidated, or that the article should be considered for invalidation, due to the issues you have raised. Thank you in advance. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see above where I showed that WP:DRV does not apply to this suituation, and where I said that most of the problems you have highlighted do not go against procedure. As for "The AFD was badly formed and this is another evident procedural error", the AFD has been fixed. In any case, I do not believe that a delay in fixing the code of the AFD has meant that this AFD is ruined. An AFD is around for five days, meaning that an error that occupied it for its first day is not able to ruin the entire duration of its existence. To be frank, I do not believe this discussion about whether the nomination should be invalidated needs to continue. The AFD has been around for a few days, and there does seem to be any strong movement by the community to invalidate this nomination. I suggest we focus on the article at hand, as opposed to its nomination. Thank you. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no invalidation process - the process is invalid as a consequence of not having been followed. What becomes of this remains to be seen. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Text book WP:BLP1E. Yes there have been multiple nominations of this article. Yes, the article has been kept. Yes, each result was incorrect. This article needs to be deleted. A ni Mate 02:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Useful search term, but Yamaoka is non-notable per BLP1E. The accident and rules changes are borderline notable, but are adequately covered in Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading. Flatscan (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ and rename/redirect. The incident is clearly notable, so wikipedia should cover it. Maybe a rename to specify the incident would help, but if most people know the incident from her name, then i see no problem with "Kristi Yamaoka cheerleading incident" type of name, assuming the press didn't name it anything more identifiable. I even learned something from this article, which not many pages manage!Yobmod (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as was mentioned, all the relevant material has already been added into the cheerleading article. Why keep and rename when it would be more appropriate to either delete or redirect? MSJapan (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yobmod, the incident is already covered in c]. The Kristi Yamaoka article is being considered for deletion not because the notability of the accident is being questioned, but because Kristi Yamaoka's notability as a person is being questioned. According to WP:BLP1E, if a person is only notable for one event (like a fall), then a biographical article on the person is not usually needed, especially if the event is the subject of another article, as is the case in this suituation. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: OK, if the even is covered in enough detail aelsewhere, then i struck out my keep and now say Neutral (with redirect to DoC if deletion "wins"). I don't see how this article damages the project, but don't care if it goes either!Yobmod (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If material from this article has been cut/paste into another article, as indicated by MSJapan, then this violates the GFDL which requires attribution for the editors who have contributed. Deletion is quite improper in such a case. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - - 'Comment If copying/pasting has occured, then the copied text in the Dangers of Cheerleading should be changed. Once that has happened, there is no reason to keep the Kristi Yamaoka article based on the copying/pasting. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the full history of contributions should be retained per the GFDL. It is a legal requirement. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By that reasoning, if I have understood it correctly, no articles at all can be deleted. I don't think that radical argument will hold much ground in this AFD discussion. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this issue arises only when the proposal is to keep the content but delete the article. Deletion and merger are contrary processes and several editors here seem to misunderstand this. Please see WP:MERGE, for example, ...regardless of the amount of information kept — should always leave a redirect or, in some cases, a disambiguation page in place. This is often needed to allow proper attribution through the edit history for the page the merged text came from.. Note also that we already have a merge proposal at Talk:Cheerleading#Merger proposal and so this AFD is redundant. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand your point now. My apologies for not getting it earlier. I can confirm Colonel Warden's discovery that text has been copied from Kristi Yamaoka, to Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading. Unless that copied text is removed, deleting the Kristi Yamaoka article is not allowed, as Colonel Warden has stated. If the copied text isn't replaced with text conveying the same type of information, then I will vote for a Merge. Also, although it may not warrant invalidation, I think it is incredibly bad form on Indrian's part that he nominated the Kristi Yamaoka article for deletion, when the article clearly showed that a merger was being discussed. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. I really don't care if this is deleted or merged so long as the independent article goes away. Second, I take issue with your determination that a merger discussion was going on. A merger proposal was made a month before the AfD. At the time, one person commented without a vote. A month after MSJApan made that proposal, Colonel Warden gave a response opposing the merger after this AFD had already begun. A month old request on which two people have commented is not in any meaningful way an ongoing merger discussion. Indrian (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't mean to be rude when I said that you had acted in "incredibly bad form", but what I said is the truth, imo. 4 seperate people have been involved in the merger discussion in the past 9 days, 2 before the article was nominated. I consider that an active discussion. Having said that, I don't believe that nominating the article for deletion whilst a merger discussion is going on for it, is grounds for invalidation of the nomination. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) First of all, I find ColonelWarden's behavior terribly disruptive - he spent four days trying to find some sort of policy problem that to my mind really doesn't exist, even aside from the facts regarding the merger. I suggested the merger, and I got not enough response to do anything with it, despite listing it on the proposed mergers page. So, it really wasn;t necessary for Indrian to consider anything aside from deletion. I also tried redirecting it at one point, and it was undone by an admin for supposed lack of discussion. Informationally, the copied text is fully sourced bare (and indisputable) fact - it has is the basic "who what where when how", and there's really no way to "change" that other than to reorder it. MSJapan (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also believe that many of the issues Colonel Warden has raised are not policy violations, as I have explained to him. As for the merger discussion, I would like to quote what I told Indrian "4 seperate people have been involved in the merger discussion in the past 9 days, 2 before the article was nominated. I consider that an active discussion. Having said that, I don't believe that nominating the article for deletion whilst a merger discussion is going on for it, is grounds for invalidation of the nomination." JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before I respond fully to the latest points MSJapan and Indrian have made, I would like to state that I am in the process of re-writing the copied text on the Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have replaced the copied text. As a result, I believe deletion is now an allowable option. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N It is not so simple. The copied text still exists in that article's history and may be restored or reused at any time. The GFDL issue remains. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. As a result, I am for a Re-direct to Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:MSJapan has nominated this article for deletion previously four times even though numerous editors said on each occasion that it should be kept. Repeat nominations in the hope of getting a different result are disruptive per our policy WP:DEL. My action in drawing attention to the numerous flaws in this nomination are quite proper since it is the purpose of the AFD process to protect content from improper deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not believe anyone is disputing that you should argue for the article if you believe it should stay. It's just that many of us do not agree with many of the points you have made. MSJapan certainly has nominated this article many times before. However, due to the fact that there would be appear to be a consensus for a delete or a merge, I believe this nomination should remain up. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merger are mutually exclusive, as previously explained - one results in the article being deleted while the other results in it being kept. A consensus to do both is therefore a logical impossibility. The opinions of the numerous editors who commented in previous discussions should also be borne in mind as there do not seem to have been any significant developments since. The nominator made no effort to inform such interested parties and the existence of the previous discussions was concealed. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I take offence at the suggestion that Indrian concealed the existence of previous discussions. The very first lines of the introduction he made in this discussion was "Well, its been five months, so its time for another round I think. This is the sixth time this article has appeared here. The previous five can all be found through the article talk page". Also, informing interested parties, although it is considered "courteous", is "not required". [5]JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[6][reply]

The garbling of the header so that the links to previous discussions were not visible and the discussion was not correctly categorised was perhaps an inadvertent consequence of the extraordinarily long nomination, as I indicated above. My point is that, if we seem to have a different result on this occasion, it may be as a result of these technical errors. Consensus in such cases should be judged in a cumulative manner so that the opinions of all editors who have troubled themselves over this case are properly represented. Otherwise we have the injustice of double jeopardy (sixfold in this case). Colonel Warden (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading, over two years later and still only one significant event, a clear BLP1E. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP and NOT NEWS. The nom focuses the issue well. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Gymnastics-related deletion discussions. ratarsed (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think, if I am wrong please let me know, everyone who has contributed to this discussion so far does now agree that an article on Kristi Yamaoka breaks WP:BLP1E. The big question now over the article would seem to be, whether the article should be merged with Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading, or whether it should be deleted outright. I look forward to seeing the admin's decision..JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to a comment made by a user, I would like to emphasize that the statement above is not intended by me to be a summary. I did say it was a summary in the edit summary, but I assure you that that was a slip of the tongue. The statement is merely me speaking what's on my mind concerning this discussion. I do not believe it is written as a summary, and I do not believe it should be viewed as one. Sorry for the confusion. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just wanted to state here for ease of reference that if the closing admin feels that the GFDL requires that the article be kept as a redirect, I also have no problem with this form of merge. I believe policy requires the article be removed, but it is certainly not important to me whether that removal comes in the form of an outright delete or a merging of the information into another article and a redirect. Indrian (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP. Also consider that the subject is not a public figure, so it is not necessarily our job to make sure her most public face is this article. I have no real problem with a merger into "dangers of cheerleading", but I leave it up to editors who are interested and knowledgable in the subject matter to do that should the article be kept. I also want to throw in my comment that this nomination is not disruptive. Protonk (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as a test page because I'm charitable. Page is copy of What If (comics). Hiding T

Bait and Switch (comics)[edit]

Hoax, verging on a wp:speedy (per G3, blatant misinformation). There weren't no such series. Page is mostly a copy of What If (comics). GRuban (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Robert Stockwell[edit]

Anchor and reporter for a radio station, supposedly the "recipient of numerous awards and distinctions", though (suspiciously) none are detailed. Also, a likely WP:COI problem, as the only edit by User:JohnStockwell is this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a non-notable self-promotion. He's one of several news-anchors for a regional radio station and is not listed as one of its "on-air" personalities. Awards seem to be as a member of a news team rather than personal. CactusWriter 18:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline notable (maybe, if sourced) but reeks of self promoting COI. This article existed for 2 and a half years too long. Zap it. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 23:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 00:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tennyson Samraj[edit]

Philosophy teacher at a tiny college. Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO as far as I can see. The only other edits by article creator User:3814, to Epistemology, have been removed, indicating his academic contributions are likely non-notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- as per Clarityfiend, non-notable professor, an author of a single 100 pg. self-published book. CactusWriter 18:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. iMatthew (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF. Very little in GoogleBooks[7] and GoogleScholar[8]. He appears to have written just one book which is not widely held by academic libraries according to the WorldCat data[9]. No reviews of his work that I could find or any other evidence of satisfying WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I've googled, and google scholared, and I reach the same conclusion as Nsk92. His book is published by print-on-demand publisher AuthorHouse which appears to qualify as "self-published" as CactusWriter notes. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrikill[edit]

Rapper. No albums released, no other activities that fill criteria for WP:MUSIC. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to re-create article in the future when/if artists meets WP:MUSIC. Artist does not meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC.--Captain-tucker (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Captain-tucker (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to items 7 and 9 for Music, this artist does fit the bill and the links posted attest to this. Why wouldn't that be recognized?--24.126.123.205 (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And after much digging, I've found some additional credibility sources and included them on the page. Will these be given proper consideration, or will the fact that there even had to be a redo negatively impact my anti-deletion efforts? --SavvyMaven (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting to create this article based upon an artist file that was destroyed during hurricane katrina. Conceding that the creative professionals criteria are not met, two of the listed Music criteria are, yet I am still running into noncompliance issues.--24.126.123.205 (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no criteria of WP:MUSIC satisfied. lacks non trivial coverage in reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), snowball keep. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Julius Trumpler[edit]

no reliable secondary sources. the external link contains no information. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Biographical Memoirs V.78 (2000) from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a reliable source. The fact that a crater on the moon is named after him is another argument for notability. See also this Google Scholar search. --Eastmain (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - links indicate there is substantial biographical material about him, he has an extensive bibliography, and there is an award named in his honor here from a professional astronomy society. CactusWriter 19:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to results on Google scholar that verify the information and demonstrate notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a no-brainer. Those NAS biographies are only published for people that are or were members of the US National Academy of Sciences.[10] Being a member of a National Academy satisfies WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced, clearly notable. Edward321 (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Crusio noted, being an elected member of the United States National Academy of Sciences is already sufficient to satisfy Criterion 3 of WP:ACADEMIC. Nsk92 (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Mr.Z-man 19:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force (2009 film)[edit]

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Obvious hoax, has the hallmarks of a User:Lyle123 hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Matilda (novel). Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Bogtrotter[edit]

Non-notable fictional character, written in-universe. Doesn't even deserve a merge IMO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Article has now been rescued and demonstrates notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I still don't think this meets the WP:N requirements. Merging fine too. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is insane - who would want to delete an article that has something to do with an extremely popular book? Come on... RoryReloaded (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, me, for one, and I'm not insane. We have an article about an extremely popular book. It's called Matilda (novel) and there's room in that article even for Brucie Bogtrotter. Mandsford (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's insane that this article, and others like it, are kept. They provide no educational information to anyone. This is an example of a non-notable stock character from a kid's book. It is completely in-universe and contains no reliable sources. Quoting two children book authors is not providing reliable sources. We need a source not connected with the writing scene. I.E., we need a source that does not quote another children's book author. I don't even know why this was flagged for rescue. Undead Warrior (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN minor character. Move one cited sentence to Matilda article.Yobmod (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've edited it, improved the formatting and made it more user friendly, a sort of half-rescue. We should give the article a chance for now, and hope that RoryReloaded does give a bit more indication of notability, as opposed to calling us all 'insane.' J. Thompson (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Foster (arsonist)[edit]

Subject of this biography is known only for one event, which does not satisfy notability criteria of WP:BIO. Crusio (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable double murder-suicide. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable both for asset-stripping and for arson. Plenty of references in mainstream newspapers. --Eastmain (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no problem with WP:V. But next week everybody will have forgotten about this one event. --Crusio (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just because he murdered someone committing suicide doesn't make hime mirt his own article nor does it have a significant impact outside family. –BuickCentury Driver 17:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nomination that would include about 40% of the wikipedias articles.--Judo112 (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Crusio ([[User

talk:Crusio|talk]]) 17:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy WP:NOT#NEWS and essay WP:NOTNEWS, where the argument is made "News organizations have different criteria for their content than the criteria used by encyclopedias. A violent crime, sensationalized event or accidental death may be notable enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage in the news, but not be of encyclopedic importance." No evidence of any lasting or widespread impact beyond the unfortunate victims. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a crime catalog of every murder and arson in the history of the world. Edison (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E pretty much by definition. Arakunem^Talk 20:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Edison--CPacker (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Although notable at the present time, he will have been forgotten by the majority of the population within a few weeks. This is just another tragic case of a guy who lost it and not really encyclopedic. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: It is important to keep this article. Not because of Christopher Foster but to inform other women of the fate of Jill & Kirstie Foster & how it came about. I suspect there was some domestic abuse occurring over a long period before the murders - due to the psychological profile of the man & it is important that women who fear their male relatives to gain an understanding of profiles & signs that matters could become very serious. I also hear he killed a dog senlessly previously, a warning sign to the breakdown of anti-killing taboos. The incident is unusual because men usually kill their families out of jealousy (usually the wife having an affair or family break-up) - this was due I believe to quite complex psychological forces at play. It remains unproven to date that Foster killed his daughter or himself - so please at least wait until the results of the forensic tests are published & the inquest is finished. I know you want logic, but there is something unusual about this case - even if it only turns out to be a deeply psychotic father. ScoobyDoo63 08 September 2008

— ScoobyDoo63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Unfortunately, it is not at all uncommon that someone kills his (or her) family because of problems other than jealousy. As far as I can see, the only uncommon thing here is that he also burned his house down. It's still a case of WP:BLP1E. --Crusio (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), notability not in question, will also do a move to "Barron H. Lerner" with a redirect from "Barron Lerner" to it. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 20:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barron Lerner[edit]

minor figure at best, questionable notability, notability not established by article Buridan (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference from U.S. News and World Report, which together with the other references seems to establish notability. Notable both as an academic and as a book author. --Eastmain (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this could end being the most referenced stub around.. I don't think you still have anyone that is necessarily notable, i have more media hits. the sole notability is book related, at least that's what you seem to be saying, no? so why not merge this with an article about his notable book--Buridan (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment The problem is that the guy publishes as Barron H. Lerner. Lots of ghits for him that way....Literally dozens of NY Times articles by him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeGawl (talk • contribs) 22:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not sure abut a scholarhip, but the popular science writing is quite sufficint for notability. The ALA awardsis a major one, the NYT reviews are significant.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Angelo (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran Donnelly (Scottish footballer)[edit]

Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league (Hamilton were in the Second Division when he appeared for them), thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Was prodded, but removed without explanation by an IP... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 12:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), I feel consensus plus my own opinion says to merge with Waterside Theatre so, close and merge I shall Fr33kman^{talk APW} 23:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespearience[edit]

non-notable Linkboyz (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a former tourist attraction than ran for a relatively short period. It is reasonable to keep the Waterside Theatre page as that still exists and has been around much longer.

Merge - ok with a merge into Waterside Theatre but a google news search does seem to support WP:N. Most articles are subscription based so it could run into verifiability issues. It seems to be a fairly common name used for a Shakespeare education event. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The google news search only has about 10 items. The old ones are adverts or announcements for events when the tourist attraction was in business. The recent ones are about this becoming a former tourist attraction. Linkboyz (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xuchilbara[edit]

Non-notable fictional character. The only sources cited are not about the topic or are in the games themselves, because there are no independent sources to cite. Ptcamn (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm a Silent Hill fan and have played through each of the games multiple times... and I don't have any memory of this character whatsoever. I'm not saying it's a hoax, but even the article itself states this is an exceedingly minor background character who never even truly appears in the games (but is mentioned in passing in books you can read in the in-game library and so on). Too minor for a general encyclopedia... heck, even for a Silent Hill encyclopedia this would be a stretch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Starblind sums it up quite well. Minor fictional character which hasn't received substantial coverage from independent sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Silent_Hill_Characters. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the trusted expertise of Starblind, and a complete lack of reliable third party sources. Thus, this article cannot meet our WP:N guideline. Randomran (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John E.P Daingerfield[edit]

Non-notable, no reliable sources. His residence may be quite a sight (and Google finds several hits for the house mentioning Daingerfield as one of the owners), but he has not received any attention. Zero Google Scholar hits. Huon (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I respond to this note properly? Do I do it on the talk page or somewhere else? In the meantime, I'd like to say that I am a newbie here, so be patient with me.

I think Daingerfield is a notable person of the Civil War, even if his importance doesn't extend to major textbooks. He is an eye witness to the Battle of Harper's Ferry (there's a reference and a photo of the pdf on his page), having been a "prisoner" of John Brown, and he is a historical person so far as how the armory of Harper's Ferry was moved to Fayetteville. The house he bought in Fayetteville is on the National Register of Historic Homes, and his biography is partially printed on the sign for the "Civil War Trails" in front of his house.

Perhaps google scholar doesn't list Daingerfield because he is so hard to find information about him. Maybe wikipedia would be of assistance.

In addition, anyone looking for information on Elliot Daingerfield may find it helpful to understand that Elliot was a painter in a military man's home.

kelliejojo (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article he wrote seems significant, published in major publication of the era. But I could be convinced otherwise....66.65.85.250 (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google books shows his article was cited in two recent scholarly history books on the period. Not to mention the fact that it got a favorable review in an 1886 issue of the "Georgia Eclectic Medical Journal. :-) Google scholar also shows citations to his article including one from 2002. Crypticfirefly (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am aware of Daingerfield's account of John Brown's raid, but I'm not aware of any reliable secondary sources about Daingerfield himself. I was also unable to read anything of that review except the one line Google Books gives as a preview. He's an early case of WP:BLP1E; John Brown's raid is notable, Daingerfield isn't. Concerning kelliejojo's comment: I agree that it's "hard to find information about him", but that's precisely why we shouldn't have an article. Wikipedia requires sources, and if sources can't be found, the article has to go. Huon (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I think the thing to do is have an article that is about both his account of the raid (which seems to be an undeniably notable account) as well as the man himself. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we should rather mention the eyewitness account in the article on John Brown (abolitionist), probably in the "posthumous view of Brown's character" section. Given that we don't even have an article on the raid, an article on an account of the raid seems out of proportion. Huon (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultrasonics[edit]

Questionable notability; at least lacks sources demonstrating it Magnus Holmgren (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete no reliable secondary sources. fails wp:v. Jessi1989 (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like A7 speedy to me though waiting a few days won't hurt now. Huon (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seekers Quest Begins[edit]

Delete. The novel title is The Quest Begins, which is unclear from this article title. That redirects to Seekers (novel series). Little reason for articles on the three novels in the series. Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 14:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete no reliable secondary sources. fails wp:v. Jessi1989 (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've managed very nice articles on each of the novels in Warriors (novel series), a very similar series by the same author. We should be able to manage articles on these too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think as long as more people update the page it will turn out fine... Pgcool (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This book is both a NYTimes bestseller and a PW bestseller; it has been reviewed by Publishers Weekly, KidsReads, VOYA, Kirkus and Booklist; easily passes the "multiple, non-trivial, independent reliable sources" criterion of WP:BK. Why shouldn't there be articles on each volume of a trilogy if each volume is notable? And articles can be moved to better titles, too. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Carter (North Carolina)[edit]

Congressional candidate in an election, no other claim to notability Blueboy 96 14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough to be a wikipedia article. Kalivd (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, candidates are not inherently notable, and we don't have the sources to show Carter's notability. Recreate if he wins. Huon (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2008 District 5 per WP:BLP1E. No evidence of WP:RS coverage other than running for office. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So why now? If the article had recently been created, I would ask the same question of the author. I note that the nominator has been a contributor to the article about Carter's opponent in the election, incumbent Virginia Foxx [11], albeit a small item about a different challenger who said that "he didn't have the stomach" to continue a run against her. If there is a delete, then redirect to the article Virginia Foxx, with an NPOV article about the campaign, if such a thing is possible. And if not a delete, then it should be renominated on November 5, along with other candidate articles. Mandsford (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates are non inherently notable and no other notability is offered. Nuttah (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:SNOW. – iride scent 01:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wanker! (drinking game)[edit]

Quite explicitly a Wikipedia is not for things created in school one day violation, this non-notable game was indeed created at university by three teachers this year. Fails WP:V. RGTraynor 13:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mind-blowingly non-notable. Careful Googling this thing, though. Blueboy 96 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After a brief search on google i did not find enough sources to this game so we can consider it as not notable and also as per the editor who nominated this article for deletion, the article does not pass WP:V. Kalivd (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not found any reliable sources on this game, and thus I have concluded that this article does not meet WP:N, or WP:V, and I believe it probably breaks WP:OR. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment there is a reference given for the dutch newspaper De Morgen but subscription is required to view it so i'm not sure how to proceed here. Jessi1989 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite the "source" which is in Dutch and available only to subscribers of De Morgen. If that's the only source, that's still non-notable for me. I also fail to see why the only source for a drinking game invented by English teachers at a British university should be a Dutch newspaper. Huon (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It became popular among students in Holland through the game's facebook page.
Delete it doesn't even have the correct rules. Obvious hoax (sic). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These are the correct rules. Care to explain the rules you're thinking of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLUSChelmo (talk • contribs)
  - not really. AfD isn't the place for me to publish the rules to my game that I invented at least 3 years prior to this one which happens to have the same name anymore than it is a place for this also non-notable variant. Although, I suppose in the spirit of cooperation I should point out that shots of whiskey or vodka are the original drink and not beer.Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which means that we aren't speaking of the same game; therefore the rules ARE correct.
    - I think you're missing the actual point (not to mention the sarcasm, irony, and a whole lot of other stuff). The game isn't remotely notable (just like none of the other versions of drinking games that people see fit to call "Wanker" are notable). Please read this, this, this, and this to understand my point from a purely policy and guideline perspective. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was just yanking your crank, geezer. It IS surprising, however, that 9/10 of the drinking games involving a die do not have notable sources either. Perhaps they should be put up for deletion, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PLUSChelmo (talk • contribs) 16:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No "perhaps" about it. If they are unnotable, unverifiable, etc than they should be here but, at the moment they aren't. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, then. I'm gonna get busy. talk 16:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You may wish to read WP:POINT first. You don't want people to misunderstand your reasoning. And make sure you check out the ones I linked to above as well. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. iMatthew (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete and total junk. JuJube (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Hyman[edit]

Firstly, I would like to state that this article covers a property lawyer, not the writer Alan Hyman, so as to avoid confusion. I believe that this article breaks WP:N. I have not been able to find any sources mentioning Alan Hyman, save for this article, and websites which replicate the information of the article. The two sources cited in the article do not mention Alan Hyman at all. I know that Google results do not conclusively prove a subject is non-notable, but for someone described on the article as a "key advisor to the Blair and Brown governments since 1999 and...considered responsible for the introduction of the Land Registration Act 2002", the lack of any reliable sources about him on the Internet, to me, suggests a hoax. Just to note, this article was deleted back in 2007 due to it not meeting notability guidelines, as evidenced by the history [12]. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably hoax. Not being listed on the staff list of the university he's supposed to work at is quite revealing. Google Scholar also seems not to have heard of him. Huon (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as fraudulent, no independent sources, not on University staff, not mentioned in any references from Land Registration Act 2002. CactusWriter 15:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as deliberate hoax. Neither of the sources cited mentions him - that's damning. JohnCD (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wolf Creek (film). Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Mitchell (film character)[edit]

This article about a fictional character has been tagged for notability since June 2007, but still has no reliable sources. Grahame (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Wolf Creek (film) - no assertion of notability, no sources, too much WP:PLOT. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The film article already has an adequate plot summary. This article adds nothing of worth, and the character has no independent notability. PC78 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or merge~~ ~~to Wolf Creek (film). Fictional character has no notability outside that article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep Struck earlier vote as notability has been established per THIS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real world relevance. JuJube (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wolf Creek (film). Character not real-world notable outside of that film. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Plot summary with no real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that this topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Reaffirming my delete below the break. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to real world notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With respects, the article claims no real-world notability for this fictional character, and simply describs him in great detail. Though the film has passed WP:NF, i do not believe that notability automatically inherited by the film's characters. Pardon me if I am mistaken, but merging this with the film's article preserves the information and a redirect can lead people right to it.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck my comment, as notabilty has been established. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would not oppose a merge and redirect without deletion as a fair and reasonable compromise. Also, I have begun revising the article to include out of universe information.--Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real-world notability. Eusebeus (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Article has been rescued to show obvious real-world notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent work. Whether as a seperate article or merged to the Wolf Creek (film) article, it shows notability. Nice job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improved version, although the nomination was correct at the time. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think movie reviews of Wolf Creek prove notability of one particular character. Merge the information into the main Wolf Creek article.--Lester 03:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A piece on the film in a book put out by the "subsidized [i.e., vanity] publisher" Lulu does not establish the independent, real-world notability of the character. Deor (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability to have its own article. Nothing that can't be placed at the film's article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirming Delete after updates to article. Commentary on the movie will naturally mention the characters, but a few lines in such piece does not establish for a notability for particular character. The source provided is actually more about the actor's portrayal of the role than the character himself. Significant, direct coverage of the fictional character would be necessary and this article still lacks that. Also, Lulu doesn't appear to be a reliable source based on our own article on the company. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a plot summary is always going to mention characters. However, to back up a character article we need reliable sources discussing the character which do not appear to exist. Nuttah (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There was a procedural nom (expressing no opinion), three Delete votes, one Keep (from an editor who may or may not have vanished), one Merge and one Do-not-merge. All votes appear consistent with policy, although the sourcing for this list has been seriously questioned. I'm happy to userfy this list for anyone to work on who thinks they can do something with it that complies with policy. If I were forced to express my own opinion I'd note that List of The Beach Boys songs might seem to meet any need that this list would answer. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beach Boys songs by singer[edit]

Relisting individually from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Beach Boys songs. There were suggestions to merge into List of The Beach Boys songs as well as to delete this article outright. As a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. Wafulz (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but... I would change my !vote to merge to List of The Beach Boys songs iff someone can persuade me there is a reliable source out there to identify the singer of each number, and someone else can persuade me that they're prepared to perform the merge. I don't think I'll be persuaded to vote keep, though. AndyJones (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my earlier rationale at the previous afd. Categorizing songs by who sang lead is trivial and largely unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of The Beach Boys songs ~~and delete List of Beach Boys songs by singer~~, reformatting List of The Beach Boys songs as a sortable list, like List of The Beatles songs; then anyone can view the songs by singer by sorting on that column. TJRC (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You can't merge then delete something, for GFDL reasons. What you seem to be arguing for is covered by saying "merge". AndyJones (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, "merge." TJRC (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per items 1-4 and 8 at WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This !vote actually added by User:B988a4299d07c0f61fbc8378965438f0 and not by GRdC. ~~I'll drop a note at GRdC's talk page to ask if this was really him.~~ AndyJones (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: GRdC's talk page has been deleted and replaced with a "right to vanish" message. I haven't left a message. AndyJones (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He did an RTV and was renamed to that name by his request. No problems here. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge. List of The Beach Boys songs is already 91 kb. Adding this content and making that list sortable will create other problems; many Beach Boys songs have more than one lead singer and would only sort according to the first lead singer listed. Also, sorting The Beatles list by song name results in A Beginning and A Day In The Life (among others) coming before Across The Universe, which is just wrong. I would assume that the same thing would happen with this list. I take no position on whether List of Beach Boys songs by singer should be deleted or not; there are good arguments either way. MookieZ (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take Off Your Colours[edit]

non-notable fruit of non-notable tree. You Me At Six is a chronically recreated article about a Welsh band that fails WP:MUSIC. Since the band fails, so does the album. Kww (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC (no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject) and, as the band has proven to be non-notable, I think the album must be too.-- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's only logical that if the band is non-notable, the albums and other tangental articles are too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Band's page has been salted, so kill the single now. No reason to drag it through afd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 01:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Reilly[edit]

Football player who very clearly fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully professional league (he never made a first team apperance for his English clubs, and the Irish ones do not play in a fully pro league.[13] пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:FOOTYN. No decent ghits to speak of. -- Alexf⁴² 12:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability at WP:ATHLETE, having never played in a fully-pro league/competition. Never made an appearance for Stockport or Man City as per his soccerbase page. --Jimbo^[online] 12:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 13:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "part-time" clubs in the League of Ireland are not amateur, they are semi-professional. Aslo, why not delete all LoI articles in that case?Juve curr (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that they are semi-professional is irrelevant. The WP:ATHLETE guideline clearly states "fully professional". And yes, the idea is to gradually get rid of all the LOI players who fail to meet the criteria (otherwise why bother having guidelines). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- If there is no fully professional league in Ireland, and this person has played at the highest level of the semi-professional competition, then he passes WP:ATHLETE per this bit: "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports". Reyk _YO! 22:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Using that logic we should allow players from the top division in Andorra and San Marino articles (and anyway, football is not an amateur sport, so that part is irrlevant). WP:ATHLETE in its current form (fully professional league) exists for a reason (to stop articles on non-notable sportsmen). пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A few things. Firstly, I object to you changing a Wikipedia guideline that affects an open discussion you're heavily involved in, and have therefore changed it back. See the talk page. Secondly, slippery slope arguments of the form "if you include this, then you have to include all sorts of crap" don't work on me. The Irish football competition is of a similar standard and standing to neighbouring leagues which are professional, and vastly higher in standard to San Marino or Andorra's leagues. Irish teams have consistently been able hold their own against professional teams from Scotland, for instance. Reyk _YO! 09:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The change was not particularly meant to affect this discussion, and theoretically there would never be a good time to implement it because sadly I am almost constantly involved in AfDing non-notable athletes. However, the change is necessary to fix the common misinterpretation that players playing in leagues such as the FAI League of Ireland qualify under the amateur sports bit. It's quite clear that this is not the right way to interpret the guideline, as in that form, it can be used to justify articles on players in (say) the top handball league in England, the top ping pong league in Guyana, or the top division of curling in Kenya. It's quite clear to me (and many others) that the amateur sports part is for sports where there is no professional league anywhere, and thus it is impossible for players to pass WP:ATHLETE otherwise. As for the third part of your statement, I would add a huge ((fact)) tag to it. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. We've established previously that articles can exist for players in the top league of football in Ireland. Most recently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Gallagher (footballer) which I note was closed as a keep no less than 36 minutes before this AfD was started. As that AfD was started by the same person as this one, this is clearly a WP:POINT nomination. Nfitz (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we haven't established anything of the sort. There were two other AfDs running around the same time,[14][15] both of which ended in delete. Just because one AfD had the wrong result doesn't mean we have to repeat it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like that was the right result to me. It was your AfD, if you really did disagree that it was the right result, you should bring it do DRV, rather than trying to game the system, by starting up similiar AfDs. The other two seemed to fly under the radar, not getting near as much attention - I wasn't aware of either. Nfitz (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The League of Ireland is not fully professional. The vast majority of notable Irish players play in the fully professional league system in England, which effectively acts as the top level of competition for Irish football players. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Other leagues aren't fully-professional, but we accept their players. One example is MLS in North America. As recently as Saturday Toronto FC put amateur player Rick Titus on the field, who was unpaid. Do you suggest we delete hundreds of articles for MLS players? Nfitz (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course not. That is one player playing in one game. Per the link given above, there are "four or five" part-time clubs in the League of Ireland. That means there are fifty or so semi-professional players playing in that league every week. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - However the majority of teams and players are fully professional. It's the top tier of football in Ireland. It's completely non-sensical that these players don't meet the spirit of the guidelines. Surely there are better things to do here than to be deleting the top players from small countries. Nfitz (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:FOOTYN BanRay 12:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:FOOTYN. --Angelo (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ATHLETE . The WP:ATHLETE disclaimer of 'Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports' applies to global events such as Olympics, World Championships - not the highest level in a particular location. Of course, if someone provides reliable sources to the contrary (which is all that the guidelines assume, if you have performed at x level it is fair to assume coverage exists) I will reconsider. Nuttah (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Pollution (band)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, never released an album, only claim to fame is half of a split 7" EP with a notable band. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no reliable secondary sources. fails wp:v. Jessi1989 (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. --nathanbeach 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Jackson[edit]

Pure fancruft. Unsourced since December 2006, in universe "biography" of a fictional character with no real world relevance. This article fails WP:FICTION, WP:V and WP:RS and any opposition to this proposal needs to address these concerns. McWomble (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." This is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. McWomble (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Maria Jackson is a key character in a very popular spin-off of Doctor Who. Granted, this article isn't in the best of shape - mostly it needs referencing, but the references most definitely exist. Radio Times, Doctor Who Magazine, Doctor Who Adventures to name just three. _Talk Islander 13:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Radio Times, Doctor Who Magazine, Doctor Who Adventures are not reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. McWomble (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find they are ;). They're certainly counted as such on the Doctor Who articles. _Talk Islander 13:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Times is not independent of the subject. SJA is made by the BBC, Radio Times is published by the BBC. The DW publications are WP:QS as they are are promotional in nature or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. These alone cannot be counted as reliable. McWomble (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Times is made by BBC Worldwide - a different arm entirely to that which makes SJA. That aside, DWM is most definitely not a questionable source. Have you ever even read it? It's not promotional in nature, and it most definitely doesn't rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. For all intents and purposes, it's regarded as the 'Bible' for Doctor Who, and is by far a reliable source. _Talk Islander 13:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what constitutes reliable secondary sources. These are core Wikipedia policies. A fan magazine is no more authoritative than a fansite. Radio Times and Doctor Who Adventures are not independent of the subject. McWomble (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm an admin here, which adds absolutely no weight whatsoever to my argument, but does show that I'm aware of the policies that you're pointing out to me ;). Back to the argument, since when is a magazine that has high access to to production, which has columns written by the shows producer, which has blow-by-blow accounts by directors a "fan magazine"? This isn't your run-of-the-mill "lolz Who is fantastic!" fancruft magazine, like I said, it's pretty much the definitive source for Doctor Who. _Talk Islander 13:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"high access to to production", "columns written by the shows producer", "blow-by-blow accounts by directors", ergo sources are not independent of the subject. Thankyou for presenting sufficient evidence to rule out this magazine as a reliable source. See Jenny (Doctor Who) for an example of a minor character with reliably sourced information. Yes it has primary sources and cites the BBC, but it also cites multiple independent sources. This article cites NO sources and is pure primary sourced fancruft. McWomble (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Again...have you actually read the magazine? The above examples that you're decrying are examples of why it's not a fanzine--most importantly access to production documents (i.e. not filled with rumours). The main magazine articles are well-researched based on that. The columns by producers and accounts by the directors are their views and comments--that is first-hand accounts of their opinions and recollections and are treated as such in the magazine. Doctor Who Magazine has been reliable in regards to all this for at least 20 years. It might not be at the same level as, say, American Journal of Physics, but it is on the same level as Discover (i.e. well-researched but not as academic). DonQuixote (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Meh, you've got a set idea as to the value of RT and DWM, and nothing on Earth I could say will change that. I've stated my stance on the matter; others below clearly agree with me. We'll just have to see how this discussion pans out. _Talk Islander 14:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
isn't the issue here whether there are any sources for which maria jackson is the main subject of the source? the character has certainly been mentioned in sources discussing the tv show, but unless the focus of the article is on her character, shouldn't this be part of the tv show's article? Jessi1989 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have neutrally informed WikiProject Doctor Who about this AfD here. _Talk Islander 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Keep I've never even heard of this show until just now, so maybe I have the wrong idea, but both the show article and the picture therein suggest this is one of the four main characters, so I'm inclined to think a character article is reasonable. The present article isn't even all that bad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material has already been published by a reliable source. The claim for notability is wholly based on primary sources. McWomble (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all convinced that Radio Times and the like count as primary sources for our purposes, but that isn't a critical point anyway. A quick Google News search shows all kinds of coverage of this show and character, including international sources, such as this review just today in the Baltimore Sun. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - I'm sure that a few Doctor Who magazine will have articles about her. There is also an SJA website, so that probsably has notes about the character too. 86.131.239.18 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cannot imagine that a regular character on a show in the Doctor Who universe does not have enough interviews, reviews of episodes, or other secondary sources to meet WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The assertion that Doctor Who Magazine and Radio Times are unreliable sources is quite wrong; DWM operates indepentently and has gained a worthy reputation. The same goes for Radio Times. They both provide objective information. As for notability; he is a main character. — Edokter • Talk • 14:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs citations, but a quick check on my part shows adequate coverage to establish notability. I concur that Radio Times and Doctor Who Magazine are independent enough to be considered RS here. Arakunem^Talk 14:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to merge into a new List of characters unless real-world information is added to justify a separate article per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT#PLOT. Rani Chandra (The Sarah Jane Adventures) (a character from the same show) implies that some sources exist for a half-decent article, but I am not sure it's a enough to make it full-decent and avoid a merger forever. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am curious, what perspective, and particularly what minority perspective does description ofMaria Jackson advance? You're claiming a NPOV violation, and I don't see what points of view are involved. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Smith; no change to AfD rationale. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Content issues aside, Maria Jackson is a major ongoing character in a nationally broadcast television series with multiple independent sources covering it. Therefore I find this topic to be viable. DWM and Radio Times alone are sufficient sources but there are others that can be added. I would also like to state here I found McWomble's post to the Doctor Who Wikiproject regarding this AFD to be unnecessary and offensive. 23skidoo (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. The fact that it might not have all the sources needed, it does not make it unnotable. But this AfD is a good thing as it notifies the people working on Doctor Who related articles about the need for more referencing. But as established below, DWM or Radio Times will have covered the subject and are Reliable Third Party sources, not being published by the BBC. So Why 16:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the radio times is published by the bbc. the dwm hasn't been since 2006 as far as i can tell. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, wrong. Radio Times (and DWM in the past) are published by BBC Worldwide, a separate, commercial arm of the BBC - not the same people that make SJA. _Talk Islander 18:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to quote BBC Worldwide: "BBC Worldwide Limited is the wholly owned commercial subsidiary of the British Broadcasting Corporation". Subsidiary: "A subsidiary, in business matters, is an entity that is controlled by a bigger and more powerful entity." if bbc worldwide is controlled by the bbc then anything published by bbc worldwide is not a secondary source regarding a program produced by the bbc. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete although mentioned in multiple reliable secondary sources, i can find none for which maria jackson is the main subject. as i understand it, this means she should only be mentioned in the sarah jane adventures article and not have her own article. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commment There is no requirement that the article subject be the main subject of independants sources, otherwise we could not use books on the American Civil War to source Robert E Lee. Edward321 (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oh ok, i must admit i thought there was but i can't find any policy so you're probably right. thanks :). this article doesn't appear to have any sources at the moment though, as such i am not retracting my vote just yet. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not believe the requirements for RS information "solely or primarily" about a fictional character matches consensus. This seems a WP:POINT nomination designed to take advantage of the deletionists' blocking WP:FICT. Jclemens (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

are you saying that the consensus here overrides wp:v? Jessi1989 (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the least. WP:V and WP:RS have clearly been met, the only criteria in question is WP:N, especially as to whether coverage is sufficiently significant. Jclemens (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

none of the information in the article is sourced at all so how can you say that wp:v has been met? Jessi1989 (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage in independant reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although it currently lacks sources, these can easily be found as per Rani Chandra - and this example is a character who has yet to hit the screen yet, so there are plenty more sources for Maria, an established character now referenced in Doctor Who as well as The Sarah Jane Adventures. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This appears to have been stated entirely to make a WP:POINT. Looking through his contributions, he has started articles on some thing to do with the wombles (and been told that those are not notable) - and looking though the history of his (blanked) talk page reveals that an unknown IP has concerms that he is a sock puppet. Given that he is clearly overemphasising wikipedia rules I think these should be looked at. Just look at his reply on WT:WHO to the note that this had started - and his immediet jump to put a rather silly template here and here. 86.131.239.18 (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add more real-world context from (yes) Radio Times, Doctor Who Magazine, et al. The assertion that these sources are not independent of the subject is far too restrictive a reading of that requirement. DWM is an independent and reliable source on the subject of Doctor Who, just as, say, Tennis Magazine is an independent and reliable source on the subject of tennis, despite having links to the Association of Tennis Professionals and other professional tennis organizations. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BJ^Talk 00:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Smith[edit]

Pure fancruft. Unsourced since November 2007, in universe "biography" of a fictional character with no real world relevance. Editors repeatedly claim that notability has been established on the talk page but fail to cite any reliable sources in the article to back this up. This article fails WP:FICTION, WP:V and WP:RS and any opposition to this proposal needs to address these concerns. McWomble (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." McWomble (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable and no sources.--Grahame (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly constitutive of primarily sourced plot with no evidence of having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Luke Smith is a key character in a very popular spin-off of Doctor Who. Granted, this article isn't in the best of shape - mostly it needs referencing, but the references most definitely exist. Radio Times, Doctor Who Magazine, Doctor Who Adventures to name just three. _Talk Islander 13:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Radio Times, Doctor Who Magazine, Doctor Who Adventures are not reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. McWomble (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find they are ;). They're certainly counted as such on the Doctor Who articles. _Talk Islander 13:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Times is not independent of the subject. SJA is made by the BBC, Radio Times is published by the BBC. The DW publications are WP:QS as they are are promotional in nature or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. These alone cannot be counted as reliable. McWomble (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Times is made by BBC Worldwide - a different arm entirely to that which makes SJA. That aside, DWM is most definitely not a questionable source. Have you ever even read it? It's not promotional in nature, and it most definitely doesn't rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. For all intents and purposes, it's regarded as the 'Bible' for Doctor Who, and is by far a reliable source. _Talk Islander 13:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what constitutes reliable secondary sources. These are core Wikipedia policies. A fan magazine is no more authoritative than a fansite. Radio Times and Doctor Who Adventures are not independent of the subject. McWomble (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm an admin here, which adds absolutely no weight whatsoever to my argument, but does show that I'm aware of the policies that you're pointing out to me ;). Back to the argument, since when is a magazine that has high access to to production, which has columns written by the shows producer, which has blow-by-blow accounts by directors a "fan magazine"? This isn't your run-of-the-mill "lolz Who is fantastic!" fancruft magazine, like I said, it's pretty much the definitive source for Doctor Who. _Talk Islander 13:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"high access to to production", "columns written by the shows producer", "blow-by-blow accounts by directors", ergo sources are not independent of the subject. Thankyou for presenting sufficient evidence to rule out this magazine as a reliable source. See Jenny (Doctor Who) for an example of a minor character with reliably sourced information. Yes it has primary sources and cites the BBC, but it also cites multiple independent sources. This article cites NO independent sources and is pure primary sourced fancruft. McWomble (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, you've got a set idea as to the value of RT and DWM, and nothing on Earth I could say will change that. I've stated my stance on the matter; others below clearly agree with me. We'll just have to see how this discussion pans out. _Talk Islander 14:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Ok, you're confusing "not independent of the source" and "access to the source". Doctor Who Magazine is independent of the source to the extent that the BBC does not dictate what they can write about (the magazine can suddenly start writing about Star Trek a la DWB). It is also independent in that it can publish negative reviews of franchise-related merchandise (DVDs, CDs, novels, etc.). Its reliability is helped by its access to source documents--that is they can write and published well-researched articles. Please do your homework before dismissing a well-known reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have neutrally informed WikiProject Doctor Who about this AfD here. _Talk Islander 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Comment I'm pretty sure that a few artiles in Doctor Who Magazine deal with this character - he was interviewed as part of the recent series finale. There is also an SJA website, so that probsably has notes about the character too. 86.131.239.18 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The assertion that Doctor Who Magazine and Radio Times are unreliable sources is quite wrong; DWM operates indepentently and has gained a worthy reputation. The same goes for Radio Times. They both provide objective information. As for notability; he is a main character. — Edokter • Talk • 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cannot imagine that a regular character on a show in the Doctor Who universe does not have enough interviews, reviews of episodes, or other secondary sources to meet WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deja Vu! The article needs better and more citations, but another quick check on my part shows adequate coverage to establish notability. I again concur that Radio Times and Doctor Who Magazine are independent enough to be considered RS here. Arakunem^Talk 14:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to merge into a new List of characters unless real-world information is added to justify a separate article per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT#PLOT. Rani Chandra (The Sarah Jane Adventures) (a character from the same show) implies that some sources exist for a half-decent article, but I am not sure it's a enough to make it full-decent and avoid a merger forever. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am curious, what perspective, and particularly what minority perspective does description of Luke Smith advance? You're claiming a NPOV violation, and I don't see what points of view are involved. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am claiming UNDUE violation, which just happens to part of of the NPOV policy like SYNTH and PSTS are part of OR (without necessarily being a violation of original research) or ONEEVENT is part of BLP (without necessarily being a violation of anything said in the BLP intro). Thus, I do not claim an NPOV violation, or I would have said so. I should probably also have cited WP:WAF#Notability and undue weight, which in turn links to UNDUE. (Since you have started copy-pasting this question everywhere, I'll start copy-pasting my answer everytime you'll ask me this question.) – sgeureka ^t•c 15:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - UNDUE still talks exclusively about viewpoints. I am wondering what the viewpoint you see as getting undue weight is. If there is no viewpoint, there is no UNDUE violation. As for WAF, you get closer - there may well be an issue about appropriate levels of coverage. But that issue is not a violation of a core content policy. If WP:WAF is taking UNDUE to cover more than viewpoints then it is flatly contradicted by the actual policy page it cites. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll keep it in mind to write it out as UNDUEWEIGHT of plot (all) versus sourced real-world information (none) the next time. Should you believe the article already puts just the right amount of weight on plot, I'll happily cite WP:NOT#PLOT exclusively and will change my !vote accordingly. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        My point is that no policy page on undue weight addresses anything like this situation - WAF's use of UNDUE is wholly inconsistent with the policy. NOT#PLOT is a better argument, but even that seems to me tricky - "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." This page is clearly part of the larger coverage of the fictional work. The question thus becomes whether it is concise. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Content issues aside, Luke Smith is a major ongoing character in a nationally broadcast television series with multiple independent sources covering it; he is also a crossover character appearing in one other major series (as a guest star). Therefore I find this topic to be viable. DWM and Radio Times alone are sufficient sources but there are others that can be added. I would also like to state here I found McWomble's post to the Doctor Who Wikiproject regarding this AFD to be unnecessary and offensive. 23skidoo (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasoning is the same as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Jackson. To 23skidoo, I think you should not criticize the nominator's actions here but at most on his/her talk page. This is a forum for content discussion and it does tell us, even if keeping is likely, to add references :-) So Why 16:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SoWhy (i.e., I said my peace on this at the other AfD) Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Jackson. the character is mentioned in reliable sources but i can see no reliable source for which he is the main subject. as such this should be included in the article about the tv show, the character should not have its own article. Jessi1989 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this character is a main character on The Sarah Jane Adventures and has crossed over to Doctor Who in the episodes "The Stolen Earth" and "Journey's End". LA (T) @ 22:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep and improve. I take it that these DW mags are not freely available on line? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nope, they're subscription magazines, or purchasable from all good retailers ;P _Talk Islander 07:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although it currently lacks sources, these can easily be found as per Rani Chandra - and this example is a character who has yet to hit the screen yet, so there are plenty more sources for Luke, an established character now referenced and seen in Doctor Who as well as The Sarah Jane Adventures. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Didn't we already go over this for Doctor Who Universe charecters/companions?. This character is among the major cast (not a recurring supporting character or a one off, but is the actor portraying this character is second billed in the show's credits) on a popular television show and also appeared on two episodes of Doctor Who. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This appears to have been stated entirely to make a WP:POINT. Looking through his contributions, he has started articles on some thing to do with the wombles (and been told that those are not notable) - and looking though the history of his (blanked) talk page reveals that an unknown IP has concerms that he is a sock puppet. Given that he is clearly overemphasising wikipedia rules I think these should be looked at. Just look at his reply on WT:WHO to the note that this had started - and his immediet jump to put a rather silly template here and here. 86.131.239.18 (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add more real-world context from (yes) Radio Times, Doctor Who Magazine, et al. The assertion that these sources are not independent of the subject is far too restrictive a reading of that requirement. DWM is an independent and reliable source on the subject of Doctor Who, just as, say, Tennis Magazine is an independent and reliable source on the subject of tennis, despite having links to the Association of Tennis Professionals and other professional tennis organizations. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but is moved it back to Baillieu and turned it into a proper disambiguation page. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baillieu family[edit]

This short article has no sources and appears to serve no real purpose. Grahame (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Bidgee (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until/unless appropriate sources can be found, notability will be restricted to individual family members eg. Ted Baillieu. Murtoa (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY and moreover the article does not have much sources to stay. Kalivd (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to Baillieu, and change into a disambig featuring Ted Baillieu and Clive_Latham_Baillieu,_1st_Baron_Baillieu. There is also a Baillieu Library at the University of Melbourne which might eventually have an article of its own. Reyk _YO! 21:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move and transform into a disambig page as suggested by User talk:Reyk above - just also make sure that Baron Baillieu is included too. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Move as suggested by Reyk and Lankivell Satu Suro 14:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Reyk. Please include Kate Baillieu (Ted' sister and notable resident of Portsea as well. JRG (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bay and Basin FM[edit]

This article about a community radio station has no third party sources attesting to notability. Grahame (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've found no reliable sources online so fails WP:NOTABILITY. Bidgee (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With 32 unique Google hits and no news/books hits whatsoever, this is apparantly extremely obscure and unlikely to be covered by reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Licenced radio stations are always considered notable. This station holds licence 1150818 from the Australian Communications and Media Authority for the Sanctuary Point service area, pursuant to a decision dated 5 May 2006. http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib100052/lic007_community_of_interest.pdf --Eastmain (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone here is debating whether they paid their licence fee or not. What we're looking for here is claims of notability, and even more importantly reliable sources with which an article can be formed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Entertainment states:

Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable, although they may be kept if some real notability can be demonstrated. Stations that only rebroadcast the signal of another station should be redirected to their programming source (e.g. CICO-TV is a redirect to TVOntario.) --Eastmain (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is only for US and Canada stations. This is an Australian station and the license is only a piece of paper so they can broadcast which doesn't make then notable automatically and this article fails Wikipedia:Notability. Bidgee (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Refer recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3XX which resulted in deletion of an article on a licensed but utterly unnotable station. Murtoa (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to above. The general presumption is that if a licensed broadcast radio station has been around for a while, the WP:RS sources will likely be found eventually (inherent notability and precedent). That is usually a good enough place to start. Thanks to Eastmain's efforts, I'm inclined toward keep, especially if history can be shown. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDeleteInadequate evident it satisfies notability. There is no inherent notability for low power community radio stations, which in some cases are part-time hobby activities of a few people with no press coverage and no demonstrated impact on their communities. I see too little information in the references to make the case that this one broadcasts over the air to a respectable coverage area. There is no statement of broadcast power or the antenna height or the coverage area, just a directory listing that it has a license as a community broadcaster and unreferenced claims that it has listeners in certain places. I did not see evidence that it broadcasts a regular schedule of locally originated programming, unless it is buried in the stations website. I see no newspaper coverage of its activities. Perhaps someone can find such information and add reliable sources before the 5 day AFD period is up. I have seen some notable and some non-notable community or low power radio stations. ~~I do not see the evidence that this one is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.~~ Edited to add: The station's website shows that it broadcasts with 100 watts of radiated power, which should be sufficient to provide a strong signal to a respectable coverage area for several miles around, depending on terrain and antenna. The website also demonstrates that it has a daily schedule of locally originated programming, and that it does several remote broadcasts a month of community activities. It also has a number of advertisers. I am changing my "Delete" to a "Keep" on the basis that it is a licensed broadcast station with a regular schedule of locally originated programming and sufficient radiated power to cover the communities it is licensed to serve. It is far more significant than a part time hobby operation with a few watts of output or a mere relay station rebroadcasting programming originating elsewhere. I would still like to see coverage by newspapers. Edison (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N as far as I can tell due to a lack of third-party coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I have added a few sources, and added the radio station template. I live near the broadcast area and can verify that the articles' claim of reception between Gerringong and Ulladulla is true. How would you integrate this source into the article. The license area map which I have added as a source gives an indication of the areas that the station is licensed to serve, however like all radio stations there is some coverage beyond these boundaries. Station is very notable in its local community, as mentioned on the Bay and Basin forum. More ghits are found when searching from Google Australia. Hope this is enough to stave off deletion for now. Nerdluck34 (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Sorry but you can't add original research and Bay and Basin forum can't be used for it's notability and isn't a reliable source. Bidgee (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This radio station "was allocated a permanent licence by the Australian Communications and Media Authority on 12 May 2006"[16] for coverage of a specific rural area of NSW - Jervis Bay and associated small towns. As a 24/7 broadcaster, the station itself is a notable source of news and information for its community. I found 273 Google hits for "Bay & Basin FM" which would seem to indicate it has some notability in its own community. Reliable Secondary references are not always available to indicate notability. I think this article should be kept.--Takver (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, of those 273 Google hits, how many are either just mirrors of this article, or only mention the station in an offhand manner? Also, if there are no reliable secondary references available to indicate notability, then it most probably isn't notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment, The radio station is unlikely to have easily available reliable secondary references (ie primarily newspaper stories) because it operates in a primarily rural area with limited newspaper coverage - the South Coast Register based at the town of Nowra appears to be the closest local paper online covering the area. I think it highly likely, given the permanence of the radio station and the 18 year history of the Bay and Basin Community Resources Inc community organisation (which does have several secondary refs in the South Coast Register by the way) that secondary references do exist for the radio station and will eventually turn up, Just because secondary references aren't available on the net, does not mean they do not exist. --Takver (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that an article for Bay and Basin Community Resources exists, I am now suggesting a Merge into this article. It seems that the radio station on its own has very borderline notability according to your guidelines. Per Takver, BBCR has sufficient coverage in the South Coast Register, thus objectively satisfies WP:N. Nerdluck34 (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I created the article for Bay and Basin Community Resources as it is a notable organisation in its local region with primary and secondary verifiable references. This opens the option that Bay and Basin FM can be merged with Bay and Basin Community Resources if the weight of consensus in this discussion is that it hasn't achieved sufficient notability in its own right. I still believe that Bay and Basin FM is notable and there is a high probability of verifiable secondary references coming to light with time. Deletion should not even be considered for this article now: but to decide between Keep and Merge. --Takver (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The station is not notable nationally, but it is very notable within the towns of its region (Shoalhaven area). It doesn't matter whether the station has paid for its license. The fact it is a licensed broadcaster means it is a permanent fixture providing a permanent service to the region. There are not very many other broadcasters in a regional area like this, increasing this one's notability. Local radio will rarely if ever be mentioned in national metro newspapers, but this article has references from Federal Government committees, the Communication and Media Authority, local Shoalhaven guides, and the local council website. It's commercial rival, radio 2ST Nowra has an article.--Lester 05:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the only mention I've found from a federal government committee is a submission made by the station itself, included in the minutes of their report. As it's routine for any and all submissions to be included in the official record, I don't believe that you can really use that to assert notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per Lester and per WP:NOT#PAPER. JRG (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYOEI[edit]

Prod removed by author. Non-notable acronym -- wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:WINAD). Furthermore, no evidence provided of widespread use and no google hits[17]. justinfr (talk/contribs) 11:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Eh? This must be WP:MADEUP, surely? It sounds like a portmanteau of FYEO and FYI. Those both have disambiguation pages, as there are multiple articles with those initals, but this one...? A dash of WP:OR, a pinch of WP:SOURCES and a load of WP:BOLLOCKS, if you ask me! -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP and WP:BOLLOCKS. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 13:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lets not forget WP:NEO Arakunem^Talk 14:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone and the fact that it makes no grammatical sense. JuJube (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep - obvious bad faith nomination. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf War[edit]

wikipedia shouldnt have an article on this war Everywhere12345 (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I don't believe I need to explain why. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 01:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Frusciante's tenth album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John Frusciante's tenth album

Untitled album, fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 10:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete with a crystal hammer. McWomble (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL.Kww (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with crystal hammer. Snow is approaching. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 13:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Basement12 (T.C) 16:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per WP:HAMMER, of course. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete: speculation stemming from "several fan websites and rumors" (quote from the article). Cliff smith ^talk 17:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a hammer made of snow crystals. JuJube (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 01:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korn's ninth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Untitled album that fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 10:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page is very well referenced. I suggest merging into Korn or Untitled Korn album if article cannot be kept. --The Guy _complain ^edits 12:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete with a crystal hammer. McWomble (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hey, McWomble stole my crystal hammer bit! (not like I mind). Anyway, remember, this is a band who simply didn't title their eighth record, so I wouldn't be surprised if the title isn't announced for a long time, so that part of WP:HAMMER isn't applicable. But there's no tracklisting and they're not even in the studio yet, so it still gets bonked on the head with a crystal hammer (patent pending!). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HAMMER time. Nothing is known about the album yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 17:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No time to sit and wait, we Delete what we delete and what we delete can't wait. JuJube (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 05:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is referenced, and so not a crystal ball. Ten Pound Hammer is the advice of a user, and I don't think it very good advice, anyways. The nom argument is very weak, as all of the information currently in the article is referenced. --The Guy _complain ^edits 21:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stop, hammer time. Gone. Per the below. TravellingCari 05:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Smashing Pumpkins eighth studio album[edit]

Untitled album that fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 10:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete with a crystal hammer. McWomble (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Even their sources say that they don't know when an actual album may come out or what it will look like.Kww (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment well I can tell them that - it'll look like a 120mm plastic-coated aluminium disc ;-) -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless they do something like in Machina II/The Friends & Enemies of Modern Music and release 25 LPs. MuZemike (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Having been a big Smashing Pumpkins fan for the past 15 years, I'm afraid, however, that this pumpkin needs to be smashed :-) with a crystal hammer. MuZemike (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with big crystal snow hammer. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 13:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment WP:HAMMER is a wikipedia essay, as such an article cannot fail it. essays are the opinions of editors, they are not wikipedia policies. Jessi1989 (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete No sources, WP:HAMMER, etc. I'm fully aware that WP:HAMMER is not policy (heck, I wrote it), but come on, we know nothing about this album yet, just rumors. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi sorry, i wasn't inferring that this article should be kept, just that nominators shouldn't really be saying that an article fails an essay. i think afd discussion should really stick to policies and guidelines. xxx Jessi1989 (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smash this with the aformentioned WP:HAMMER. No title, no track list, no release date: pure speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 17:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite all my rage this is still just a crystal in a cage. Delete JuJube (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kanye West's fourth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kanye West's fourth studio album

Untitled album that fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 10:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete with a crystal hammer. McWomble (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL.Kww (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whack with big crystal hammer. Nuff said. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 13:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HAMMER. No reliable sources, no track list, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smash it with the aforementioned hammer. No title, no track list, no release date. Cliff smith ^talk 17:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop, hammer time! Delete JuJube (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, U Can't Touch This article. So keep...What am I saying...delete this as there is not enough information to grant a separate article. A citation at Kanye West's page mentioning this possible release is far enough for now. —Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 06:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about untitled Kanye West albums... or in other words, Delete Umbralcorax (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this article should be deleted. Think about it, the album has been confirmed, the single has been confirmed as well, it will be released, you just need more information about it but we will have more and more as days go by. If you delete now, you'll just need to create it again in a couple of days. Leave it there, it isn't bothering anyone and we know the album will come out in december. Bucknaked_88 (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC) EDIT: in fact, if you delete it now you will need to create it again tomorrow, if it's true that Mr. West will confirm the album during the VMA's. I really think we should keep the article there[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are valid arguments for both deleting and keeping this article. Eastmain has provided independent sources, and at the same time, they don't "definitively" give credence to the notability of this person. Right now, it wouldn't be right to outright delete the article, I have no problem with a relisting if the article does not continue to improve in its assertions and verified notability. Keeper ǀ 76 19:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvester Braithwaite[edit]

This is a decent little stub of an article written by a well-intentioned if inexperienced author in User:Nonameplayer. My concern is notability. The sources given in the article are either directly connected to Braithwaite or simply attest that he's a published author, which on its own doesn't come close to proving notability. I've not found anything further in some searching of my own. In short, he looks to me to fail every bullet point of the general notability guideline, and that's how I end up here. I had originally speedied this when it contained a bizarre mishmash of information about Braithwaite and Joel Osteen, but the article subsequently improved to its current state and Nonameplayer mentioned on the talk page that he had used the Osteen article simply as a template (I in turn encouraged him to revise before he publishes, and if need be go to userspace). And I think that's the whole story. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 08:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the Amazon listing, the book is apparently self-published. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references from Florida newspapers. The references are partially hidden behind paywalls, but summaries supplied by Google are enough to show the context in which he is mentioned in the newspaper articles. --Eastmain (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since He is co-founder of BayView Hospital (LinkedIn), McGill University Spring 2008 Newsletter in Barbados which is one of two major hospitals in the country.Totally Barbados and his work in educating youth in Miami (references in the main article) -- Nonameplayer (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Taking out references tags in Nonameplayer's post above, as they mess up the rest of the AfD log for Sep. 5 as they are. (Still listing all of them, though.) LaughingVulcan 03:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree about lack of notability, and the link to a hospital of no notability either is hardly a recommendation. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not just about the North American perspective (Systemic bias of Wikipedia) -- Nonameplayer (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counter comment Interesting and wrong presumption. Not the perspective taken, as I don't have that misfortune. :-)

Apology My bad. Nonameplayer (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very likely a vanity page, he does not pass WP:N RogueNinja_talk 22:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass the general notability guideline. Sources are not reliable or independent of the subject. McWomble (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article also has WP:COI issues as the author link on Image:Sylvester Braithwaite.jpg and other publicly available sources[18][19][20] suggest that Nonameplayer (talk · contribs) is related to the subject. McWomble (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted, User:Jerry deleted the article CSD G12. BJ^Talk 01:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timing over packet[edit]

Appears to be flooded with market talk, near-advert, original-research/essay material that does not appear to be notable enough for anything more than a redirect to Packet switched network and a small paragraph on that page. SGGH ^speak! 08:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect. Appears to be a verbatim copy of a marketing spiel that used to be on the Zarlink Semiconductor web site. The page is no longer active and not in the Google cache but the text is still picked up in a search. McWomble (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Copyright infringement? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to BBC Sport. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BBC F1[edit]

Not an official name for BBC F1, not-notable for it's own article, at best merge into BBC Sport. D.M.N. (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom SGGH ^speak! 08:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to F1 or BBC Sport... I can't find evidence that a merge suggestion was made previously but, if I'm incorrect please accept my apologies. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently it's full of speculation. It may become more notable nearer the time, but now it's full of useless garbage. Duke toaster (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spamtastic! No assertion of major notability. seicer | talk | contribs 16:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SuperAntiSpyware[edit]

Article originally created and speedily deleted as spam, the author recreated it in a more neutral manner but has since been editing it such that as of now just about every sentence but the first is promotional in some way. Delete as spam. Ros0709 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertisement. Byeitical (talk · contribs) 06:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear example of an advertisement. I was preparing to send this to AfD myself, as a PROD tag has already been removed. The author does not appear to be amenable to allowing the article to be more neutral. Besides, its notability itself is in question. Enigma ^message 06:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another one that should head to AfD. Enigma ^message 07:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not written as an advertisement. It just shows the function of the program, the differences between editions(as many other programs show, such as Ad-Aware or Visual Studio), and the critical reception. The article is NOT written as an advertisement, and has clear facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperordarius (talk • contribs) 06:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's SPAM although perhaps unintentional. Non-notable and non-verifiable in accordance with the policies and guidelines as well. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11. It reads like advertising. McWomble (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I almost deleted it right away (in fact, I did until I saw that someone else than the obvious program's author was trying a bit to work on the article). I fear, though, that the article is not salvageable. Delete with prejudice. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revert and keep. The nomination in fact suggests that a better version exists in the history of the current article. My understanding is that this is one of the better known free anti-spyware programs; I have used it myself, so it meets the "heard of it before seeing the article" test. PC Mag review suggests adequate notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the comparison table between the free and commercial version. What do you think now? Note: I'm not a developer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperordarius (talk • contribs) 14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Removed parts, added more review links, added more features —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperordarius (talk • contribs) 18:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Emperordarius, I think it's pretty clear by now that you're editing this article with a flagrant conflict of interest. As is, and in any version constructed by Emperordarius, the article crosses the line into spam and I recommend its deletion, at least until someone can rebuild it from a purely objective perspective. I do think the article can be rescued but one might as well delete the present version and start again from scratch. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously don't understand WHAT you consider spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperordarius (talk • contribs) 19:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added System requirements and history (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Redesign of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperordarius (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, current version is certainly acceptable. The deletion nomination wasn't wrong, though, based on the article at the time. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Fame Marina[edit]

Delete non notable marina per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a directory Mayalld (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Major that gets abundant WP:RS coverage as home of the world's biggest boat show and a busy transportation center. The problems in the article are surmountable. • Gene93k (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ if significant involvement in the boat show is proven with sources. It appears at first to be one of many venues and an article on the show itself may prove a better option. Basement12 (T.C) 12:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to delete. On further investigation the marina only plays a small role in the boat show and a seperate article on the Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show would be a better option. Basement12 (T.C) 18:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything that makes this marina notable. -- Donald Albury 17:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline Marina[edit]

Delete nn marina per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a directory Mayalld (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage; it would be helpful if the original writer of this article could have provided input as to notability and WP:RS sourcing for this article. Flowanda | Talk 07:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. Basement12 (T.C) 12:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:RS coverage does not go very deep. It appears to be a local landmark significant to fishing around Anacortes, Washington. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a transportation facility. It exists, is documented in multiple government sources, and I expect to be able to find more RS for it when I get a chance to look. Jclemens (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Gene93k's assessment, but come to a different conclusion. This is a boat harbor; any in-depth coverage would be rare. It does have scores of RS mentions, some of which I cataloged on Talk:Skyline Marina. It's mentioned in fishing reports, boating guides, news stories about mishaps and accidents, and similar things. At what point does a plethora of sources which meet WP:V and WP:RS establish notability? Jclemens (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom WP:NOTABILITY. Kalivd (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as withdrawn. Synergy 04:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Arden[edit]

No evidence of notability Doug Weller (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Being Pet of the Month qualifies under WP:PORNBIO. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 15:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DCEdwards. Tabercil (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DCEdwards. Epbr123 (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Penthouse Pets of the Month pass WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - 'Comment I didn't realise that qualified as an 'award', and if so then I obviously withdraw the nomination. Doug Weller (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball Delete. In addition, user appears to have requested deletion CSD G7. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy's House[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Timothy's House

Non-notable structure/residence. (author removed prod) -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 05:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I find no hits for this on Google (found a restaurant in Ontario though!). Pinkadelica (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a user page which I've already asked him to cut down. It doesn't belong in the mainspace. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - part non-notable structure, part vanity page, part complete nonsense. - fchd (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page was moved by the original author to Timothy House (for non-apparent reasons). -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 07:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable house. Should not be userfied because Wp is not a free host. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is a vanity piece based on the creator's live page and just needs to go. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per WP:IAR if need be. It's basically vandalism (though probably not in the strictest meaning of the word). If you need "rules" we got failure of WP:N and WP:V for starters. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete of course, and if User:Timothyhouse1 creates such a page again, he should be given a uw-create3 or 4 warning. - Face 12:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this goes on, don't take things a chance, as don't tell people a house as notability. Information get's isn't. I don't know if this article has notability. Timothyhouse1 13:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DeleteG11 and pass the salt — Clear violation of WP:NOT, WP:COI, WP:CRUFT, WP:VANITY, and WP:SPAM. User has been trying to shirk the deletion process by moving the article during an AfD as well as removing AfD templates. MuZemike (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think technically we can ((db-author)) it based on the above "votes" by the author anyway. Though it may be prudent for someone to make sure they are legit first. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the snowball clause can be applied at any rate, as deletion seems unanimous and I don't think it's likely that someone will come along and argue in favor of keeping the article. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 19:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete author requests deletion. RockManQ (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chanta[edit]

Non-notable subject. An uncited definition of a single alleged Sanksrit word without links? Hm. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 05:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not even a Sanskrit dictionary. Lack of sources doesn't help. Huon (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Huon. - Basement12 (T.C) 16:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources. We66er (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mikoyan MiG-33. BJ^Talk 01:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mig33[edit]

Non-Notable Web Content. Fails WP:WEB to much extent. Written in total promotional tone. Hitro 05:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... To experience mig33, go to wap.mig33.com on your mobile phone browser.... I've heard enough. Pity it's about the website and not the parent company as then we could G11 it. WikiScrubber (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (images are incorrectly licensed too) and redirect to the aeroplane. Byeitical (talk · contribs) 06:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam (website are "entities" too). Change to redirect to the plane and protect. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Mig33 and mig33 to the plane. 70.55.89.214 (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7, non-notable website/radio station/thingamajig. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 05:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Dissident Voices[edit]

This is an article about a non-notable internet-only radio program that fails WP:WEB Addendum: actually, the article doesn't quite make it clear if this thing was ever broadcast over the air. Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete unreferenced attack on living people G10. WikiScrubber (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Combine (Half-Life). BJ^Talk 01:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combine Forces[edit]

Contested PROD. While notability of this part of ak MMORPG may be questioned, it seems that, because of the lack of any verifiable sources and the tone of the lead, this article consists of original research, hence failing What Wikipedia is not. MuZemike (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Point of fact: it is a First Person Shooter, not an MMO. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. This is a list of baddies in HL2, none of which has a speaking role. Most of them are vehicles of some sort. Transwiki to some HL wiki and delete. Protonk (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a combination of the preexisting List of humanoid and synthetic Combine in Half-Life 2 and the previously deleted List of Combine combat technology in Half-Life 2. Looking through User:Mega Sean 45's edit history, this is only his most recent attempt to try and recreate the latter in some way, so explaining to him why it was deleted in the first place may be appropriate. Regardless, as this is a somewhat plausible search term, redirect to Combine (Half-Life). ~SnapperT o 19:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Unfortunately, I do not see this as any grounds of speedy deletion. MuZemike (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as said, lacking notability, coverage in reliable, secondary sources, and giving rather undue weight to this aspect of the game. The Combine may well be notable (I'm planning to revamp it in the future so it displays such notability), full lists of every unit, little piece of technology and what-not is not. By any chance, is it too late to add List of Combine non-combat technology in Half-Life 2 (which goes as far as listing a door as technology, you couldn't get much more indiscriminate if you tried) and List of humanoid and synthetic Combine in Half-Life 2 as they are very closely related subjects—one of which covers many of the same NPCs—and they display the same complete lack of any notability or verifiability save from playing the game. All of this exists in some similar form (ie in individual articles) over at Combine overwiki anyway. -- Sabre (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a failure to meet our WP:N guideline, since this topic lacks reliable third party sources. I might put to the nominator the possibility of nominating List of Combine non-combat technology in Half-Life 2 and List of humanoid and synthetic Combine in Half-Life 2 which only has primary/gameguide sourcing. But I leave that to the nominator's judgment. Randomran (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 04:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmington High School (Massachusetts)[edit]

Provides no sources. Search turned up mentions in a local community newspaper, but no significant mention in any larger independent publications. I'm not sure what the policy is for schools, though, so I'm not quite sure on this one. Delete. I defer to your judgement. Withdrawn. Horselover Frost (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as with other public high schools sufficient sources are available to meet WP:N. Presently a poor article but as with other such stubs we develop them we don't delete them. I would add that this was AfD'd a few minutes after it was started by a new editor - how discouraging is that? In my view a better way would have been to tag it and the editor given guidance as to how to establish notability. TerriersFan (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for acting a bit rashly. As this article was deleted in the past, and I had some difficulty find sources regarding the subject, I thought it would be a deletion candidate for sure. But, as I mentioned, I can't seem to find the inclusion policy for schools. Horselover Frost (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Hussain[edit]

Imam of the mosque (nominated below). Notability not asserted, fails WP:BIO. role^player 00:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mosque referred to is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chesham Mosque. RMHED (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RMHED (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, no sources found via Google; seems non-notable. Huon (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Slow speedy. NFF and Crystal issues apply. No reason for this to continue. TravellingCari 05:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls 4[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Back again after the previous AfD was cut short by a speedy deletion, this article still fails WP:MOVIE in that there are no sources, much less any sources that indicate principal photography has begun. gnfnrf (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - based on the past AfD disscussion, it looks like this was speedyed(if that's a word) under A7. It's been created again? RockManQ (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:CRYSTAL, maybe not a G4, but still virtually no info about the film exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I assumed CSD G4 didn't apply, since the previous AfD didn't finish with declared consensus, but was cut short by an A7. On a side note, I didn't think A7 applied to movies... gnfnrf (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: shooting hasn't started yet. Cliff smith ^talk 02:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Also, I was wondering is there anyway we could speedy this, as in maybe G4 (Oh, and I think A7 doesn't apply to movies, only to people and organizations)? RockManQ (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Suggest make it a redirect to the main Cheetah Girls website for now; it can easily be converted back when and if a movie is announced. 23skidoo (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Search finds lots on The Cheetah Girls, but nothing about a rumoured film 4. Total speculation. Bring it back if/when they make a Cheetah Girls 4. Heck, maybe all the Cheetah Girls stuff can be merged into one giant article? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BJ^Talk 01:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dev D[edit]

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when shooting can be shown by reliable sources to have already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources here and here suggest filming has begun or has already been completed. Whether they can be considered reliable is another matter. Horselover Frost (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searches 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 show WP:N per WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DEFINITE KEEP. Found THIS from February 23 2008 saying filming was imminent, and then THIS which shows first day of filming was February 27 2008. Passes WP:NFF with flying colors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ (Updating to Strong Keep based upon additional work now done to the article) ... as there are sources showing that production has begun on this film. Efforts should be made to seek out a newspaper or magazine source as Wikipedia is still stuck in 1999 when it comes to allowing blogs to be used as sources, a policy that badly needs updating for 2008. However one of the sources cited above actually provides photographic evidence that production has begun, so I think this one's fair to keep for now, with no prejudice against renomination should release not occur. 23skidoo (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Additional: have updated my "vote" based upon the work cited below. 23skidoo (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Found enough to show that the film has wrapped. Have thus corrected the article per film MOS, have sourced, cited, tweaked, and expanded. I think what you see now is a marked improvement on what first came to AfD. Fun stuff. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update added plot, additional cast, more cites, release dates, infobox tweak et al. I think its pretty good now compared to how it started. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benchlearning[edit]

Neologism/buzz word and dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Somno (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or better yet, Transwiki over to Wiktionary fr33kman (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or follow above option. I'm not even sure what this term means (It's explaned in a confusing way), but it sounds like a neologism. RockManQ (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible speedy delete as patent nonsense. No transwiki: I can't imagine Wiktionary needing a vacuous "definition" of an invented word, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all,

I know that benchlearning is a new concept, but this, I think that is very interesting that people can put their articles because there are more possibilities for this new word depending of the interest area.

If is not possible to have this article, I think that the proposal of fr33kman is also very interesting.

Thank you very much.Merce pastor (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC) (Moved from talk page [21] by Somno (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: Benchlearning is a brand name[22] and registered trademark of a business management consultancy, and is the title of a book[23] which is apparently used in the consultancy's courses. (It acknowledges the trademark). An article about the product or service would need to be recast as such, and demonstrate appropriate notability for such. (GoogleScholar seems to indicate some notability.) Alternatively, it could merge into some article (which doesn't come to mind just now) on management improvement methodologies. (I do not think Wictionary wants this neologism.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment It's not really our job as wikipedian editors to decide if Wiktionary wants the term or not, merely that we don't and that it is a term and therefore should be transwiki'd to them for their vote. If they keep it fine, if not, fine also. fr33kman (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, the article is about the non-notable usage of a neologism by a non-notable group. The sole source cited is a small, newly formed online community (28 members, first blog posted April 2008). The section on origin of the term is wrong (according to an author of the book[24]). While Google and GoogleScholar turn up a number of use-cases for this buzzword, I don't find any reliable sources that address the concept by this name in depth. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite some concerns, consensus is keep and clean-up. TravellingCari 04:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rahim Blak[edit]

Appears to be more of a curriculum vitae and portfolio than an encyclopedia article, and little in the way of notability assertions. — Coren ^(talk) 23:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (Changed vote below.) Ok, I get the bit about biography as art and art as biography. But anything remotely resembling "Portrait of the young artist as a hoax" has got to have ironclad references for established notability or it has got to go. ~ Ningauble (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Also note creator of article has no edits on any other subject. Basement12 (T.C) 04:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is in dreadful but a Google News search for his name turns up non-English coverage. I can't read whatever language it's in but it would seem sources exist to improve the article -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the article asserts that the identity of the artist is obscured or disputed, I think we have to raise the bar for verifiability in this biography. When an artist chooses notoriety over notability, it puts us in a quandry.~ Ningauble (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability obviously is a concern since goofing with his identity is one of his performance schtiks. But it can be overcome with judicious phrasing to note this if notability is established. -- Whpq (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The very first ghit shows pretty clear notability, and it's even in English, and Google News finds 14 articles in Gazeta Wyborcza (one of Polands most respected newspapers) most of which seem to be substantially about the subject (I do read Polish). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - That reference looks really good. I bet an editor could do a complete rewrite of the article with a reference like that? ;-) fr33kman (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless cleaned up, and delete the photos too. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - And add a big ((cleanup)) or ((wikify)) tag to it. Needs serious reworking but the subject is notable. Seems it is just the Polish article translated. fr33kman (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Changing my vote. Notability and verifiability have been satisfied. But someone please trim the gallery. He cannot possibly merit more gallery space than Leonardo da Vinci! ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The person is obviously notable, even though the article obviously requires a lot of overhaul. The article should not be deleted, but a lot of the material should be reformatted or removed. Neelix (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are some issues on both sides that are valid but despite having been re-listed, there is no consensus to delete this article. TravellingCari 04:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Lines (magazine)[edit]

Unnotable magazine. Article just one of many copied from the Chimurengal Library articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. http://www.chimurengalibrary.co.za/ is sufficiently selective and competent that having an article there is a sign of notability. Chimurengal Library is a reliable source. --Eastmain (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand I do not think this article is promotional nor trivial and refs may be hard to find. But remember Wikipedia is not a mirror . --triwbe (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see discussion at the Wikipedia:Notability or precedent in AFD outcomes that something having an article in "Chimurengal Library" automatically makes it notable enough to have the inherent right to an article in Wikipedia. I do not see multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage of Civil Lines (magazine). The argument presented by Triwbe that Wikipedia is not a mirror actually supports deleting the article rather than keeping it. Edison2 (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed a speedy tag from this as it asserts notability, but even allowing for systemic bias I can't find usable independent sources for it, so sadly it needs to go. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chimurenga Library is not just a list of random articles. They archive historical African magazines, amongst other things. From their mission statement: Chimurenga Library is an online archiving project that profiles independent pan African paper periodicals from around the world. It focuses on cultural and literary magazines, both living and extinct, which have been influential platforms for dissent and which have broadened the scope for print publishing on art, new writing and ideas in and about Africa. They list 27 periodicals, hardly comprehensive, so a comment such as "Article just one of many copied from the Chimurengal Library articles" isn't helpful, or a reason to delete. They are being funded by contributers to the Wikipedia:WikiAfrica project in an attempt to improve the dire state of African literary content on Wikipedia. Finding no references in Google from an armchair is not a good way to assert notability - references will be print-based, and much harder to come by. I ask those making flip judgements of notability to bear this in mind, and to give the process time to unfold, rather than drain energy in deletion requests. Consider Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#Notability_cannot_be_measured_for_some_historical_and_international_topics. The user making the contributions is not an experienced Wikipedian, so does not always know the right way to deal with things, and is not actively participating in the deletion discussions. Greenman (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep multiple independent mentions [25], [26] and publishes well known writers such as Amit Chaudhuri, Amitava Kumar etc. [27] adds up to definite definite notability.--Bsnowball (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —--Bsnowball (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike's Super Short Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mike's Super Short Show

Promotional 2-minute interstitial. No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Basically a commercial and not a TV show per se as we know them. There are many adverts that have multiple episodes within the series of ad's. That doesn't make them TV shows. Agree that there are no reliable 3rd party references from independent sources. fr33kman (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 04:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Crescendia[edit]

Non notable fan made game with no sources and no google hits. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's not even a fan made game, it's "just ideas in developement" [sic]. Somno (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotion of fan made stuff of anything. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "Tales of Crescendia as of right now,is just ideas in developement". And fan-made games aren't notable even when they are completed and released, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing at all (stupid sexy Flanders). JuJube (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 04:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life Bumming[edit]

Prod removed ~~by author~~. Non-notable neologism with no evidence of widespread use, WP:WINAD. No google hits [28] or even urban dictionary hits [29]. justinfr (talk/contribs) 01:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this neologism. Cliff smith ^talk 02:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. JJL (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no explanation needed fr33kman (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above SGGH ^speak! 08:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CineReel Film Society[edit]

Non-notable organization, only six hits for the name, no reliable sources among them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No news mentions; nothing in books. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Jeremy fr33kman (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delet. Too small and isignificant to have any notability outside of San Bernardino, California. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge to Pipa. Didn't even need an afd discussion. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electric pipa[edit]

A modification to a pipa does not qualify for its own independent article. It may be possible to find a reliable source or two; merge what little info there is ("it exists") into pipa.

Merge & delete as nominator. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BJ^Talk 01:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edgewood Mall[edit]

Non-notable mall, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 01:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Searching g-news with some local mall names produces around 500-1000 news hits on all dates. This hits two. If it were a major shopping center, it would have much more news coverage. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep, now that someone found sources at an alternate web location. The McComb Enterprise-Journal has 500+ hits when searching the mall's name; I think it's enough to pass notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a regional mall rather than a tiny strip mall. The article doesn't give the total area of the mall, but the areas given for the anchor stores gives a general idea of the scale of the mall. It claims to be "southwest Mississippi's premier shopping destination". But the mall appears to have allowed its domain name to expire, which is not a good sign. --Eastmain (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is clearly an important enclosed shopping mall serving a large geographical region. I've added some references to the article but the utter lack of coverage from the local newspaper tells me that its archives are not available online. This makes sourcing and expansion a challenge but it's now sourced well enough to keep. - Dravecky (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Dude, "the utter lack of coverage from the local newspaper tells me that its archives are not available online" - fuzzy logic, dangerous! Could it not also mean that the mall's had no coverage? fr33kman (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply In my experience, even a non-notable strip mall would get some coverage from the local paper when a major retailer opened plus the usual "directory" type listings. Given that the mall verifiably exists, their absence strongly indicates that the local newspaper is not feeding into Google News. Lack of Google News hits is not an indicator of non-noatbility. - Dravecky (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Nor does hits on Google News provide concrete proof of notability, it's just a search engine by any other name. All I'm saying is I found the logic a tad flawed. that's it. The consensus will decide the issues :-) fr33kman (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good news, everybody! It seems that the McComb Enterprise-Journal is online but not, for some reason, feeding into Google News. It'll take a while to add all of these to the article but there's plenty here to support notability:

"A grand re-opening: Four-day celebration welcomes new, expanded mall stores". McComb Enterprise-Journal. 1999-08-28.
"Retail juggernaut". McComb Enterprise-Journal. 2004-07-06.
"Kirkland's leaving mall; Dollar Tree, Bath staying". McComb Enterprise-Journal. 2005-04-23.
"Jack Ryan: Sherman has built a grand legacy". McComb Enterprise-Journal. 2002-01-06.
"No word on shuttering date for toy store". McComb Enterprise-Journal. 2004-01-30.
"1999 in review". McComb Enterprise-Journal. 1999-12-25.
"1990 Rewind". McComb Enterprise-Journal. 1999-12-18.
"Driver's license bureau moving to McComb". McComb Enterprise-Journal. 2001-08-14.
"Local drivers license station moving". McComb Enterprise-Journal. 2007-02-22.

And there's plenty more where that came from, too. - Dravecky (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, update the article and I might change my vote :-) fr33kman (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I invite your review of the updated article. I think you'll now find it reasonably expanded and more than sufficiently well sourced. - Dravecky (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
"The mall currently has more than 40 interior shops, and a food court with a restaurant located at the mall's main entrance"

Taken from Edgewood Mall.
Forty shops is not a major shopping mall unless ALL of them are the size of a Sears, for example. This is local news and the lack of references shows it. The only reference I can find that points towards the Mall's passing WP:NN is Jamie Lynn Spears shopping there] (and do we really consider celebphotos.wordpress.com to be a reliable source? I think not. fr33kman (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's reliable sourcing for young Miss Spears' shopping trip (I even noted one on the talk page) but that sort of celebrity visit is not encyclopedic nor would it confer notability even if it was on the front page of the USA Today. - Dravecky (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment My point exactly! :-) fr33kman (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is it needs fixing, but nothing that can't be achieved. TravellingCari 04:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Polly[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show this author's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polly's book "American Shaolin" was a national bestseller that was well-reviewed by American and UK papers.

He also did the national talk show circuit in support of the book: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sky_xcc9RAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delenda (talk • contribs) 13:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article just needs expansion and references. Book is listed here with reviews; Polly seems to have considerable credentials as a journalist and columnist for esquire, playboy, etc. CactusWriter 15:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - just a weak article; doesn't need to be deleted for that reason, as he appears to be notable enough. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 23:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable guy, I've added a few more reliable sources. Crypticfirefly (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hammer/Snow, whatever. Violates NFA, as in the non-existent albm section of WP:NFF. Same issue applies. TravellingCari 05:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee Simpson's Forthcoming Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ashlee Simpson's Forthcoming Album

Tagged g2 as a test page, hangon placed. Clearly not a test page, but the title is definitely WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL violation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It's not a notability issue, it's an accuracy issue: this stuff is made up. Everyking (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Speedy delete If Everyking can provide a bit of documentation as to why he thinks this is a hoax, I'll gladly upgrade to speedy. Assuming it's a good-faith bit of stuff fed by gossip blogs, I'll argue for deletion under WP:CRYSTAL... unsourced speculation about the future.Kww (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How can I provide documentation for that? I say it's made up because it hasn't been mentioned or reported anywhere else. I can't provide a source to show that there is no source. Everyking (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't get me wrong ... we may disagree on a lot of stuff, but that wasn't intended as an attack. Most of these things are blog repetitions, which takes them out of speedy-land. They are poorly sourced, as opposed to conscious efforts to deceive. With Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn Goodbye, I was able to show that the things the article was quoting for sources were actually quoting Wikipedia, and that the Wikipedia article was probably where the rumor started, so I asked for deletion on the basis of hoax. The more I look at this, the more I tend to agree with you ... I can't find hits for things like "Heartbeat" "Ashlee Simpson" or Sound a little like the pop rock from her first two albums, the alternative rock and power pop from her second album, with the 80s electro-rock from Bittersweet World, both of which I would expect if this article was quoting bad sources as opposed to made up out of whole cloth.Kww (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Convinced.Kww (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To show you how reliable this is: There are 84 Ghits for '"Like C'mon" "ashlee simpson"', and not one of them mentions that being the name of her new song (admittedly, I didn't look at every one of them, but I looked at the first 20 or so and the last 20 or so). Corvus cornix_talk 01:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And this search is telling. Corvus cornix_talk 01:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My belief is that this user isn't even repeating speculation from blogs or forums; I think it's all the original invention of this particular user. Notice this article was created without assigning a name to the album, but mere minutes later, this user had decided the album's name was "Full Circle", adding that title to the discography section of the main Ashlee article. [30] This is simply a case of an overactive imagination, and I see no need to go through the whole AfD process. Everyking (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Time to bring out the trusty hammer. RockManQ (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Upgraded to Speedy due to likely hoax. RockManQ (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be ridiculous to delete this article because the album doesn't have a title; that's a highly questionable basis to delete an article, whereas in this case the fact that the entire article is the fictional invention of one user would seem to be a very strong and uncontroversial basis for deletion. In the future, there may actually be information to fill an article before the title is available, and deleting this article on the grounds that it lacks a title would prevent re-creation of the article at that point. Everyking (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want other reasons...:WP:CRYSTAL, no vertiabilty, take your pick. Besides, it can be created later when it does have a title and reliable sources to back it up. Or if reliable sources can be found to give it accurate info, keep it and put in the article. However, it doesn't look that way. So I would say you could choose WP:HAMMER, as a rational for deletion. You don't have to like my opinion on this guideline (not policy), and you don't have to follow it if you don't want to. RockManQ (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if that was totally confusing, I typed in a really confusing way. RockManQ (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And also if it's a pure hoax, I would kindly upgrade to speedy, and it's starting to look that way now. RockManQ (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unsourced. It may be possible to write an article on an unnamed, forthcoming album, if there is sufficient buzz in reliable sources to cite it. This doesn't have a single link. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fr33kman (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there's so little information that not even a title is possible, it's clearly premature under WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. 23skidoo (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's often possible to write a great deal about an album before a title is revealed. That's what happened with her previous album, Bittersweet World, and there are a number of other examples, past and present. The problem with this article is that it is a hoax. Everyking (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete snowhammer. JuJube (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above reasons. I couldn't find sources in a 30 second gsearch -- they may be out there, but I'm not willing to invest more time than that on an unnamed album. Put what's able to be sourced into Ashley's article, delete the rest. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't anything to add to Ashlee's article, because it's all fictional. Everyking (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 04:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Strangers 2[edit]

prod removed, article fails the Future Films section WP:NFF of Notability (films), according to article filming is not scheduled to begin until 2009. Captain-tucker (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Captain-tucker (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: filming hasn't begun. Cliff smith ^talk 01:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. This article is almost WP:Crystal, as Rougue Pictures has only just announced they wish to do a sequel. This article is premature. Bring it back when WP:NF can be addressed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hasn't begun filming. Schuym1 (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to original film. Per above. Recreate when there is something substantial to say. The JPS ^{talk to me} 23:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete, chance of snow in September. Hurricaine? TravellingCari 05:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Peter Griffin's jobs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Trivial, in-universe, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial WP:FANCRUFT and unencyclopedic. --Pmedema (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic cruft. Tavix (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Get Your Cruft On. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced, unencyclopedic fancruft. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 02:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cartooncruft, in-universe detail, and trivia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total junk. JuJube (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cute article and would be terrific for a Family Guy wiki if one exists. Not a general-interest encyclopedia, though, not by any stretch. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 08:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100% trivia, completely unacceptable for a general-interest encyclopedia. Hard to fathom that this was somehow kept last year. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRUFT and as per above. How did this survive it's first AfD? RockManQ (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 01:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chronicles of the Sword characters[edit]

Subject matter is of a very limited scope and has no discussion in third party material. The characters that appear as bonus characters in Soulcalibur 3 can be more effectively covered in a single paragraph. Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no reliable secondary sources. Jessi1989 (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you do a search for reviews of the games, you do get some reliable secondary source comments on this mode and its characters and they are certainly verifiable through the strategy guide (yes, I know some consider those primary sources, but not all games have published guides and citing guides no more makes us a guide than citing CNN makes us the news). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - sorry but anyone that understands what "primary source" means would certainly consider a strategy guide published by the subject game's publishers to be a primary source. if cnn had a story about cnn then we couldn't cite it as a secondary source for the cnn article. this is exactly the same argument you posed in the lathander afd, trying to use books published by wizards of the coast to reference an article about a character from a game made by wizards of the coast. this is the why wp:v explicitly mentions secondary sources. if you know of any actual secondary sources, not affiliated with this article's subject, then please link to them there. i really don't want to sound rude but it seems that either you don't know the difference between primary and secondary sources, or you don't understand why it's important not to use primary sources... Jessi1989 (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Historically, sub and spinoff articles in published encyclopedias have relied on primary sources. The Academy of Motion Pictures, Arts, and Sciences list of Oscar winners is a reliable primary source that is almanacic in nature, just as a guide is a reliable source for a list of characters of this nature and a list of characters is as notable to an article on a video game as a list of winners is to an article on a contest. But even so, you get some out of universe comments in reviews of the games that discuss this mode. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to SoulCalibur Wikia, Merge and Redirect to List of characters in the Soul series. Those characters are from minigame of SoulCalibur (not main game mode, your notability is doubtful), and the Wikipedia is not game guide. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above and then delete here — where are the verifiable, third-party sources? MuZemike (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do a search of reviews of the game and you'll find some references. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's ultimately up to the people mainly involved in the article to do that, not mine. I have better stuff to do than clean up others' messes. MuZemike (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Deleting the article prevents them from being able to carefully take their time doing just that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - They still have five days to add the vital information before the AfD closes. If the references are that easy to find, it shouldn't take five days to shoehorn in a few. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia does not have a deadline and because we know it is verifiable and therefore not a hoax or libelous, there's no urgent need to delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia as a whole may not have a deadline, but an AfD does. If it's verifiable, then the sources can easily be added before the AfD deadline comes around. If you feel that there are sufficient sources, shows us where they are, add them to the article and stop with the devils advocate arguments. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to SoulCalibur Wikia, where this stuff belongs, and delete on Wikipedia. It doesn't belong here, being a largely unsourced and indiscriminate accumulation of game guidey material. Reyk _YO! 21:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean entirely unsourced. MuZemike (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not anymore, it's not! Also, please note that this discriminate list of non-game guide information concerns characters that don't all only appear in just one aspect of Soul Calibur III. The article notes, for example, how Strife also appears as a NPC in Soul Calibur IV. In any event, I would argue that at least the playable characters who are covered on a couple pages on the published guide and at least ones like Strife who also appear in another game are merge and redirectable in some capacity. :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That doesn't count as third party though: the info you're putting references to can be referenced just as easily by the game itself. Also I'm questioning the Stife re-appearance: is there something citable saying that? Because it sounds like a lot of the random vandalism that some of the pages have suffered and gone unnoticed because it 'sounds' "genuine enough"--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, I haven't gotten to the third party sources to put directly into the article yet. Let me finish doing what I can with the guide and then if I have some time I will also add some secondary source comments as well. One source at a time to work from though, please! :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and game guide material. No real-world context or importance. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is of course not true. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the SoulCalibur Wiki and delete. Not notable, important, or referenced in the real-world. Content is more appropriate to a specialist wiki. And yes, LGRdC, I know you disagree. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion, especially when it isn't true as it is notable, important, and referenced in the real-world. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Verified or true? MuZemike (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Verified. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please note the top of that page, which says "This is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. You may heed it or not, at your discretion." (my emphasis). As such, your point is incorrect — in future, may I suggest you use "WP:JNN is, in my opinion, not a valid reason for deletion"? Stifle (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Saying JNN in this case is wrong is not simply my opinion, because this subject is notable and therefore saying it is not notable is a falsehood. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's completely specious — JNN says "you shouldn't recommend deleting an article with no other reason than 'not notable'". It doesn't say "this subject is notable". Stifle (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the minor characters of a single mode of a fighting game (not even the primary characters) don't need coverage. Excessive and unnecessary. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

This necessary page has now been rescued. Also, many above have suggested it be transwikied. Has that in fact happened yet? I do not personally know how to transwiki, but I suggest it be done to at least The Soulcalibur Wiki. If someone has or does do that, please indicate as much here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

player's guides repeating direct facts one can see in the game does not equate to notability satisfaction LGRdC. Every reference you have isn't even discussing the characters: it's just saying what weapons they use or where to find them. Seriously, what the heck?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all video game characters are published in game guides. At worst, this article is 1) transwikiable to the above indicated site and 2) merge and redirectable to List_of_characters_in_the_Soul_series#Bonus_characters. I see no reason why the article should be redlinked and not at least transwikied and redirected without deletion to the section of the other list that also mentions the bonus characters from this game for which I merged some of the references from this article. Moreover, the references I include on this page do not merely list the weapons and how to find them. If you look in the guide on the section of each chapter on Chronicles of the Sword, it verifies additional content cited in this article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article is only sourced by primary sources and non-independent gameguides, thus failing to meet the WP:BURDEN of proof required to keep a Wikipedia article. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Unfortunately for this article, it just does not belong in Wikipedia according to our policies. Randomran (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If the only things citable here are what weapons they have and in what scenario they appear this blatantly fails our content guidelines (WP:VGSCOPE etc). Nifboy (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.vsd.nu[edit]

Does not appear to be a notable website. Defunct as well, for over five years, so unlikely to grow in notability. rootology (C)(T) 22:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, the website is not notable; it does not meet WP:WEB, it does not meet WP:N, and the website is defunct. This is not About Us. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:WEB and the notability guideline. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tavix (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:WEB Tavix (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is not notable and specifically fails WP:WEB --Pmedema (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Lawley[edit]

Unnotable motorcycle racer that fails WP:ATHLETE. It is also an unencyclopedic article with no sources for verification. Tavix (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't find mention of him in any major races other than the Isle of Man TT, in which he never placed higher than 7th. I'm not quite sure whether that counts as the 'highest level of amateur sports' as in WP:ATHLETE though: I will defer to the opinion of someone knowledgeable on motorcycle racing. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tavix (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as unverifiable. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on the creator's name, this is almost certainly written by a family member. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn WikiScrubber (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. henrik•talk 20:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Helen Elementary School[edit]

Delete as an unnotable former elementary school. Tavix (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 00:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 00:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources to verify notability. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Closed elementary schools lack notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Shirley Manson solo album[edit]

Delete as a crystal hammer of a untitled future album. Tavix (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 00:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HAMMER time. Do I even need to say it? We've got nothing here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hammer, hammer, oh and did I say hammer? RockManQ (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This hammer is not silver. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 02:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Crystal hammer"; I like that. This is full of references, but a careful look reveals that none of these actually talk about an upcoming album, except one which vaguely cites an interview. No reference to show that there is a forthcoming album. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - HAMMER don't hurt em. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW is falling here. No need to hammer away any longer. JBsupreme (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HAMMER, WP:SNOW, WP:CRYSTAL, etc. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G4 by Orangemike, non-admin closure. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanaer[edit]

This article has been deleted three times. The first deletion was requested in late July by its author, JBP44 (talk · contribs). The second edition, posted in early August by Alements (talk · contribs), and the third, posted this week by JBP44, were both deleted as per WP:CSD#G11: blatant advertising. I undeleted it after JBP44's complaint on my talk page and, although I considered referring JBP44 to the Wikipedia:Deletion review process, listed it here for wider exposure. — Athaenara ✉ 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the third admin to delete the article, I came in late. I support deletion because the only sources not directly related to the company seem not to be independent or reliable: see Accurizer's 22:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC) edit summary (www.allergyuk.org reference seems to be limited to mfr.-supplied information only). — Athaenara ✉ 19:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In re notability: a web search for a few key terms (Cleanaer, LiquidIons, Atrium Innovation) yielded very few hits, none of which were non-commercial. — Athaenara ✉ 22:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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