From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 12 October 14 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

Massimiliano Scaglia

The result was 'Keep, 'no point in keeping this around longer than it has to be. Avast! Tavix ( talk) 23:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Massimiliano Scaglia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played for a professional club. Tavix ( talk) 23:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep per this and this which indicate he has played Serie B which qualifies according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues. Yes it needs developing, but nobody has worked on it yet.--ClubOranje Talk 08:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment a simple glance at the Italian version of the page would have shown he has indeed passed WP:ATHLETE and has played for a professional club--ClubOranje Talk 08:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Playing in Serie C1 (as this guy has) would also be enough to pass WP:ATHLETE. Bettia  (rawr CRUSH!) 09:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - clearly passes WP:ATHLETE. The nominator, however, is corect in saying that "he hasn't played for a professional club" - he's played for SIX! Giant Snowman 11:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - easily meets the requirements. matt91486 ( talk) 14:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Caesars (band) as the older of the two options (and he's listed as drummer & not guitarist on the other). SkierRMH ( talk) 05:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Joakim Åhlund

Joakim Åhlund (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Contested speedy. Individual not notable outside of a band. Fails WP:MUSIC -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to El Tigre: The Adventures of Manny Rivera. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 02:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Miracle City

Miracle City (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Unremarkable fictional town. LAA Fan sign review 23:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

EoCMS

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

This is simply being edited by the software's creator, and as such, is completely biased. It seems that this would need to be rewritten to be fixed. DavidWS ( talk) 23:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

To me, the article appears to be written exactly like an advertisement, and thus would need a rewrite. Also, the software is not notable. The creator also requested deletion on the talk page. DavidWS ( talk) 00:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I would respond to that by saying that few advertisements contain both pros and cons for the usage of the product. I intend to work further on the page to make it less biased. E.G Interactive ( talk) 10:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't find any third-party sources to support notability of this unreleased software. The back and forth discussion on the article's talk page easily qualifies for WP:LAME. VG ☎ 07:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's an unreleased content management system and the article in no way asserts its notability. It's also probably worth drawing attention to the discussion on the talk page. Mvjs Talking 08:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non notable CMS - article is bordering on being just an advertisment. Pedro :  Chat  11:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Do not delete. It seems Erik, or E.G. Interactive, has revised the article to be...not so biased. I think, now, this article should be given a second chance. I will certainly help in the rewriting of this article if needed. Soren121 ( talk) 18:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non notable software. Somewhat like an advertisement, the only site with info on the site is it's own. Also, it seems the owner has two accounts (E.G Interactive and erik) and it seems a little like sock puppetry. Anyway, just wanted to give you my official stance. DavidWS ( talk) 18:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Article is a mix of an advert and talk of a future product. Phrases like "E.G Interactive plans to..." scream advert to me. Either way, at this time, the software is NN.-- Terrillja ( talk) 00:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 20:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Monty Lankford

Monty Lankford (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Comment My understanding of WP:POLITICIAN for candidates in ongoing elections is to create an article only if they win, or if there's sufficient grounds for notability based on other criteria (coverage related to the election should be on the page for the election itself, WP:ONEVENT). RayAYang ( talk) 18:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep on the same basis as the article for his opponent. Win or lose, since there are only 2 major US parties, their candidates for national office should be considered notable.Given the usual campaign appearances, there will always be sources, though it may take looking at print. Yes, this would be opposed to the guideline--consensus on such things can change, and it can change just as well here as on the guideline page, which can always be adjusted to represent reality. DGG ( talk) 00:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep While this person does not currently meet WP:POLITICIAN, the election that will determine whether he does is only 20 days away. There is a reasonable chance that this article will qualify three weeks from now, and be recreated without opposition. It doesn't seem to violate WP:NPOV or look like a campaign ad; indeed it should be tagged a a stub. Perhaps this discussion could be deferred until 5 November? Rklear ( talk) 14:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Goal (ice hockey). Lankiveil ( speak to me) 02:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Garbage goal

Garbage goal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Unnotable dictionary definition. Fails WP:NEO and WP:DICDEF, not to mention the fact that it is unreferenced. I watch a lot of hockey and have never heard of this term. Tavix ( talk) 23:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete as made up. DS ( talk) 01:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Phag

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

More neologism shenanigans. Ecoleetage ( talk) 23:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete WP:NFT -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Neither the mythical creature (it doesn't appear that the Firebird has anything to do with a stag) nor the neologism (which was probably made up in school in one day) needs an article. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 23:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above -- Banime ( talk) 23:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 02:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Vortex Football League

Vortex Football League (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Not notable, references are from Geocities sites and a Google search reveals only 3 hits, of which none is really relevent Jeff3000 ( talk) 23:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

*Weak Keep It seems to pass WP:V when you take a look at the self/questionable sources section. If the article has a logo, it must also at least be somewhat notable. Jock Boy 23:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

You guys are right, this was clearly drawn in Paint. My mistake. Delete Jock Boy 01:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply

    • Anyone with a paint or draw program can make a logo. Notability does not follow from a logo.-- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I drew a professional-looking logo for my church last winter. It closed three months later due to lack of membership, that is, lack of notability. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 01:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. The article itself says the whole league only has five players. 3 non-wiki ghits, none of which show a whiff of notability; zero gnews hits.-- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as unnotable. After reading through it, the article seems to be about 5 guys in a backyard football field. There are no third party references and a logo does not mean it is notable, just that someone knows how to use MS paint (or variant). Tavix ( talk) 00:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as utterly non-notable. And I don't even have to look at the references, the article pretty much states its own lack of notability. I'm not even sure Rogers TV is aware that it has a "tentative" deal with this league. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 01:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - come on, this is just five guys goofing off down their local park, no different to the pick-up games of football/soccer I played on wasteground near our house with my friends when I was a kid. The argument that the "organisation" must be notable because someone spent five minutes drawing a shoddy-looking logo for it on their home computer is the most unintentionally funny thing I've read on WP in ages -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 07:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - this is a bunch of guys playing with a nerf football. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salting was suggested, but no consensus or need for that as far as I can see Lankiveil ( speak to me) 02:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Lumel D. Valadez

Lume D. Valadez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lumel D. Valadez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Two COI biographies of a car audio competitor. WP:RS coverage for neither the person nor the sport found. Searches bring up forum posts, many from the same nym as the author. Speedy tags contested/removed by author. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Smells like A7 material to me but we can do this the painfully slow way to make sure it stays down. JBsupreme ( talk) 02:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt RayAYang ( talk) 05:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability, just forum posts -- Whpq ( talk) 14:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both - fails WP:BIO, WP:V, and WP:Self promotion. A bit of hyperbole doesn't help the cause here. Originator of both articles was a SPA. B.Wind ( talk) 02:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Ratfink Funny T-Shirts

Ratfink Funny T-Shirts (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable company. Has been deleted before for non-notable corporation at Ratfink T-Shirts, my db-corp template was removed by a user with no other edits to their credit, I will assume good faith and try not to believe that the editor who did that was actually the editor who has created this article before and has been warned before, but since the db template has been removed, I have no choice but to list this for AfD. Little Red Riding Hood talk 22:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The editor with no other edits has now created Ratfink T Shirts, which I have redirected to Ratfink Funny T-Shirts. Little Red Riding Hood talk 22:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Probably WP:COI but regardless, non-notable t-shirt company. Article does nothing to assert notability. Mvjs Talking 08:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete In its present form, the article lacks notability. However I've found one reference at The LA Times but I can't find any other reliable sources. This company is given a trivial mention in a book about Rat Fink. IMO, that's not notable enough to pass WP:CORP. Other searches come up with no results, leading me to believe that the article hasn't received enough coverage in third-party sources to grow beyond a stub. Cunard ( talk) 22:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - insufficient reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Femida Bilasuvar

Femida Bilasuvar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable football club. ErikTheBikeMan ( talk) 22:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

DJ Spincycle

DJ Spincycle (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Vanity page for a music DJ from Canada, article already tagged for notability. No third party sources. ~ Eliz 81 (C) 22:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete does not satisfy WP:MUSIC, not even close. JBsupreme ( talk) 02:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A google search didn't bring anything back resembling significant coverage in reliable sources.-- Michig ( talk) 19:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Marketing ploy or not this was reported and is therefore notable. Whether to redirect/merge should be subject to usual editing process and does not require a recommendation from AFD Spartaz Humbug! 20:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The Battle of Britpop

The Battle of Britpop (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Unsourced and a lot of original research. Notability in question. This could easily go in the article content of the relevant bands. It also seems like an unnecessary branch off the Britpop article. — Realist 2 22:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep - This incident was reported throughout the week on the BBC's flagship news show and is therefore an event in its own right. It concerns the two most influential bands of the decade in British music and citations could be found for every single fact in the article. It is just unsourced, not unnecessary. -- Tefalstar ( talk) 22:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Just added citations from the BBC, Gigwise and the Gaurdian, relating to the event, quotes by Noel Gallagher and the eventual outcome. -- Tefalstar ( talk) 22:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • And why cant this just be a part of the Britpop article, it incorporates most of the same ideals and is completely unnecessary as a stand alone article. — Realist 2 22:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Because Britpop relates to over a decade of music by dozens of bands. The Battle of Britpop relates to a very specific event which is very famous amongst fans of the genre. With the new citations irrefutibly demonstrating notability, it meets all the criteria for a stand alone article. Alluding to the event and providing links from the Britpop page is just commonsense. However, there is no reason to get rid of an article about a notable event which includes sources. -- Tefalstar ( talk) 23:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
        • A very specific event that could just as easily fit in the Britpop article or the article of the relevant bands no doubt. — Realist 2 00:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • By that logic the D-Day landings should just be in the World War II article. And George W. Bush should just be in the USA article. Articles like Britpop and Oasis are where we bring together all the threads, not include every single bit of information. If people want to follow the link from the Britpop article then they can read exactly what happened, see exact record sale figures and follow the various reference links. There is nothing at all wrong with this system of interconnecting articles now it has citations. -- Tefalstar ( talk) 00:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Do any of these sources actually say "The Battle of Britpop", (I haven't had time to read them all indepth as it's late) or is this a make believe title? — Realist 2 00:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • The later BBC articles refer to it as a "chart battle", but the orignal 1995 news reports and the NME magazine both went with the phrase "Battle of Britpop". I can probably find citations for those but it would be murder. The Gaurdian use it more, for example in this article the headline references the 1995 "Battle of Britpop" - [3] -- Tefalstar ( talk) 00:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Redirect. This was basically a marketing ploy. Singles compete against each other every week in the charts. This was not much more notable other than the fact that the media decided to jump on it. It would warrant a mention in the Blur and Oasis pages perhaps (if either page's editors warrant it to be important enough), but it certainly doesn't deserve an article to itself. Apart from anything else, how do you title such an article? To my memory it was never specifically reported as "The Battle of Britpop". It could just as easily be called "Blur V Oasis" or "Two singes released in 1995 that competed against each other" or any other name you can dream up. -- Tuzapicabit ( talk) 13:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Accept that notability has been clearly demonstrated and you don't get to decide what the media is right and wrong about. It was an event followed by the flagship news shows of the country, between the two most significant cultural acts of the era. The term "Battle of Brit-pop" is unofficial yes, like most culutral titles, but see the link to the Gaurdian online above for journalistic usage. Also see here [4] for the BBC flagship news show describing the event as "the biggest chart war in 30 years". -- Tefalstar ( talk) 19:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and Strong redirect to Britpop. It was a big story at the time, but was only WP:Oneevent, and per WP:Notnews, it doesn't need its own article. It was all a marketing ploy: That newspapers at the time fell for it does not mean an encylopedia should be so non-discerning. the britpop article will have to cover this in the same detail as this stub to be comprehensive, so keeping it would be redundant. In fact the Britpop article already has mopre coverage than this one! so no merge needed. Redirect means anyone interesed in it will find all the information given here anyway. Yobmod ( talk) 10:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Tamil Nadu Peasants and Workers Party

Tamil Nadu Peasants and Workers Party (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

The party fails notability. A simple search "Tamil+Nadu+Peasants+and+Workers+Party"&btnG=Google+Search&meta= does not throw up any meaningful results other than the Wikipedia article and its mirrors. Shovon ( talk) 21:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I saw the outlook link which talked about 1952 state election. But, are both the parties same? Shovon ( talk) 05:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
[17] isn't very clear on this. -- Soman ( talk) 06:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A google search with site:eci.gov.in clearly shows TNPWP as registered unrecognized party. They contested a single seat in general elections in 1999 and none in 2004. Pretty non-notable. -- GDibyendu ( talk) 06:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Comment, what should be taken into account in Tamil party politics is the tradition for smaller parties to contest on DMK or AIADMK symbols. -- Soman ( talk) 06:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • For example [18] says that the party contested the 2006 election on the Samajwadi Party symbol. [19] gives some indication that candidates of the party could contest on AIADMK symbol in 2001. [20] states that the party had supported AIADMK for 22 years, indicating that the party has a history. The article also states that AIADMK hadn't allocated any seat to TNPWP in 2006, the wording indicates that such allotments had been done in the past. The rally photographed at [21] doesn't seem very small. -- Soman ( talk) 07:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, ghits in Tamil, [22], [23], [24], [25]. -- Soman ( talk) 07:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Soman, I don't think that the Peasants and Workers Party referred to in the citations given above are all about the same party. e.g. If its for TNPWP, then why this link refers to a different party? Shovon ( talk) 18:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment, all the links above (except the Observer article mentioning the 1952 election, which is a bit unclear) relate to the TNPWP. The Peasants and Workers Party of India is a separate party, limited to Maharashtra. -- Soman ( talk) 18:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Also, whom do you want to establish as notable? Pon Kumar or the party? According to links like these, probably Pon Kumar is more notable! Shovon ( talk) 18:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The rediff link in question doesn't explicitly name TNPWP, but indicates that the party could have contested elections on AIADMK symbol. I posted the link in response to a comment on the electoral performance of the TNPWP at eci.gov.in. -- Soman ( talk) 18:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
My whole point is this: if a regional political party does not contest election with its own symbol, is it notable enough to have an article in WP? -- GDibyendu ( talk) 05:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
My answer is yes. The 'region' in this case has a population that is 66 million. Tamil Nadu has a party system that is rather unique, where the Indian national parties do not play the leading role. There are two main blocs of Tamil parties (centered around DMK and AIADMK), and there is a large number of smaller parties (like TNPWP) which play a significant role in creation of alliances. -- Soman ( talk) 11:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep it is cited, and apparently a real party. Remember not everything has to be online. If it is a peasant and workers party (and this seems to be truly so), it is not going to be on the internet. Which constituent would come online to read pmaphlets and manifestoes? btw- when deletion comes up, are the voted simply tallied for absolute merit? Or is relative merit taken up by the deletor? Lihaas ( talk) 01:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Reply. The closing administrator takes into account the strength of the arguments presented, rather than just counting votes. Phil Bridger ( talk) 09:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Samajwadi Party has their own website, but they do not mention alliance with TNPWP anywhere. So, the so called alliance very well may be like defection, which does not help in establishing notability of TNPWP. -- GDibyendu ( talk) 09:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not following this argument, please elaborate. The point of bringing up electoral alliances with AIADMK and SP is that the notability of TNPWP cannot be measured by ECI figures alone. -- Soman ( talk) 09:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 ( talk) 21:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Ruth Ndesandjo

: Ruth Ndesandjo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD) There is absolutely no notability here (save for her "three degrees of separation" connection to Barack Obama). At the very least, this article should be merged into Family of Barack Obama Loonymonkey ( talk) 21:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Please close this AfD. Upon further investigation, the article was recreated as a result of an editor removing the redirect that had been placed by consensus some time ago. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 21:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Noel Areizaga

Noel Areizaga (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable person. One direct-to-video film, one non-notable appearance in a reality tv show. Little Red Riding Hood talk 20:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Merge. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Duo (EXE)

Duo (EXE) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN ( talk) 20:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Sanctions (Axis of Time)

Sanctions (Axis of Time) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This fictional topic does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN ( talk) 20:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete a small element from a series of novels that has no independent notability. RMHED ( talk) 21:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no particular notability, apparently not critical to the plot, and not worth a redirect since totally nondistinctive word. DGG ( talk) 02:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Sanction Four

Sanction Four (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This fictional topic does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN ( talk) 20:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete a small element from a series of novels that has no independent notability. RMHED ( talk) 21:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Even more trivial than the overall list of punishments. and not suitable for a redirect--unless of course the word comes into common use, when a proper article can be written. DGG ( talk) 02:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Special Administrative Zone (California)

Special Administrative Zone (California) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This fictional location does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN ( talk) 20:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - malformed name (this is the only Special Administrative Zone article; therefore no dab needed), no independent sourcing, no assertion of notability. It reads like someone's original review. B.Wind ( talk) 02:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nomination. Utterly in-universe, and absolutely no hope of being otherwise. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 14:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Schuym1 ( talk) 23:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Saigon Kick

Saigon Kick (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 ( talk) 20:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Phil Chalmers

Phil Chalmers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Delete Total non-article consisting of one sentence and two red links. Article has existed for some time and has failed to establish notability of the subject Jack1956 ( talk) 20:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Axis of Time.  Sandstein  16:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

USS Hillary Clinton

USS Hillary Clinton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This fictional ship does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN ( talk) 20:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • redirect This name is distinctive and memorable enough for a redirect. Jut a redirect. enough about it is in the main articles. DGG ( talk) 02:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Axis of Time. VG ☎ 08:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Snow close (which is rather ironic,really). This is probably a borderline A7. Black Kite 10:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Vladimir Zografski

Vladimir Zografski (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

A teenage Bulgarian skijumper of dubious notability. It already got deleted once, and got recreated, so am bringing it here. For discussion. -- how do you turn this on 20:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete A good argument could be made for speedy A7, because the article does not assert notability and Internet searches confirm that this is not a notable person. I don't see anything to distinguish him from all the other teenage skiers out there. He hasn't won anything of any significance or received any coverage in the media, as far as I know. Enigma message 20:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A7ed earlier today, notability not established in recreated version. لenna vecia 21:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. If recreated again, then salt. X MarX the Spot ( talk) 21:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Neither the Continental Cup nor the Fis Cup competitions seem to constitute "the highest level in amateur sports" specified in WP:ATHLETE (that would be the World Cup competitions). I'm open to correction if I'm wrong, however. Deor ( talk) 22:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — Deor ( talk) 22:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete, A7. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete under A7. -- Banime ( talk) 23:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. Bingo. JBsupreme ( talk) 02:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete and salt I don't know, but this gives me that feeling that it will be recreated many times. Undead Warrior ( talk) 06:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Happy Tree Friends TV episodes. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 02:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The Wrong Side of the Tracks

The Wrong Side of the Tracks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

These episodes do not establish any sort of notability. They are simply bloated plot summaries. TTN ( talk) 20:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • I am also nominating the following related pages:
Who's to Flame? (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Party Animal (Happy Tree Friends) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dunce Upon a Time (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mime to Five (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Merge/redirect all to List of Happy Tree Friends TV episodes, as per WP:EPISODE.-- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 23:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge these are the sort of children's episode articles which has given that type of article in Wikipedia a bad name; formulaic, over-extensive, and written in an unencyclopedic manner. Some basic information should be returned. It would facilitate discussing these nominations if the nomination would at least indicate the name of the series and the type of genre. DGG ( talk) 02:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • There should be an article on the concept of the wrong side of the tracks...-- Samuel J. Howard ( talk) 22:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge what? People reflexively voting merge is getting worse than thoughtless "deletes", they need to look at the target article, not just the one at AfD. The list article already has these episode, so there is no merge needed; there is only OR plot without citation, so no "info" anyway; the redirect left from merging would need deleting, as it is too general a term to be taken by one episode of a minor TV series. So delete all. Yobmod ( talk) 09:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 08:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Chanel 9

Chanel 9 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This sketch does not establish notability independent of its series by using reliable third party sources. TTN ( talk) 19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, I think it's a very memorable sketch in The Fast Show. If the other sketches can also have an article, why not this one? JIP | Talk 20:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • All articles must establish notability using reliable sources. All of the problem articles cannot be taken care of at once, so other non-notable articles will still remain during the cleanup process. If you can find reliable sources to establish that this is more than a minor sketch, then it can stay. TTN ( talk) 20:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I've never heard for this sketch before but I searched in Youtube after your nomination and I found thousands of videos with many hits. Are you sure it's not notable? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
No clue. If someone establishes that it is actually notable, I'll gladly withdraw as with any other case. TTN ( talk) 20:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep, not just because many years on the catchphrases are still used by an entire generation :-) Ask anyone TV-fan over 30 in the street in Britain where 'Scorchio' comes from or any of those other catchphrase and you'll instantly get a big smile. Love love love it. Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Tris2000 ( talk) 14:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment if deleted, redirect to Channel 9 70.51.10.188 ( talk) 08:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Memorable is not notable, and Youtube has stolen videos of anything. This should certainly not be the primary page over the Channel 9 redirect, which has actual real life channels listed.
  • Comment: This article can very well be moved to Chanel 9 (The Fast Show), with Chanel 9 redirecting to Channel 9. As mentioned above, there are thousands of videos of this sketch available online, and many Finns, at least, think it's the best sketch in the series. Also, by far of the most of the sketches in the show also have their own articles. JIP | Talk 20:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment A question to everyone: What does make a sketch notable? I see that make Monty Pythons sketches have an article in Wikipedia as well. I am not making a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument but I am really wondering if Wikipedia has established criteria for this situation. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and cleanup. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Computer-based mathematics education

Computer-based mathematics education (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This is not an article, it is an essay. It would take an extreme amount of effort to convert it into a proper article, an effort which will be hampered by the lack of an actual definition of the term (rather, this article simply goes into length about how it is the intersection of computers, math and education, without discussion of its implementation or use). Additionally, though the article is two years old, a Google search suggests the term itself may be a neologism.

The article also contains a good deal of original research, as none of the references actually pertain to CBME itself, and I was unable to find any references which substantiated the term beyond a simple buzz-word for "using computers to teach math". nneonneo talk 19:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Hmmm....I'm going to tag this for rescue. I might get to it later tonight. Computer based mathematics education isn't just a buzzword, even though you might not know it from this article. Math is an interesting (to educators and scholars of education) subject because it is practice based but new technology obviates practice at low levels. Some colleges ban calculators entirely from math classes. Some use computers to determine where skill deficiencies lie in students and help to correct them. IMO, this article needs a strip down, rename and restructuring. The concept is important and is VERY likely to be covered in dozens, if not hundreds of books and scholarly works. I don't think this is a "bad" nom, per se, as this article doesn't really help the reader down that path. I'm neutral for now and I'll return later. Protonk ( talk) 20:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep and expand and improve. I'd have to agree that just because the article is poorly written doesn't mean it should be gotten rid of, as this type of education is common, at least where I went to school. -- Banime ( talk) 23:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, cut back to basics, and try again. The writing is that of an essay or chapter in a textbook or teacher's guide. The topic deserves better. DGG ( talk) 02:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment In Some Fields, The Existence of Lower [hyphen omitted] Case Initial Letters Is Not Yet Known, And Neither Are Hyphens (E.G. Business Administration, Computer Science, And Possibly Education). In The Interest Of Englightening Dark Corners Of The World, I Have Moved This Article From "Computer Based Mathematics Education" To "computer-based mathematics education". Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep But please clean-up - don't we have a handy essay about not posting your dissertation? -- Banjeboi 17:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I have gone ahead and nuked the majority of the article, mostly stuff that is covered in much better detail on Mathematics, Education, Computer and Mathematics education, and rewritten a good chunk of the remainder. The term needs a clearer definition, and I cannot find much beyond what I have just added. Hopefully this improves the article. nneonneo talk 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Snicklin

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

Unsourced original research or vanity article Boffob ( talk) 19:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

LARP Alliance

LARP Alliance (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Contested prod, reason was Organisation associated with roleplaying that asserts no real-world notability. Procedural nomination. Tone 19:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Speaking as a seasoned LARPer, I see no reason to believe this is Notable. Independent sources covering the topic could save it, but I doubt it. - Verdatum ( talk) 19:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 23:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete note that this was already speedied several times. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • delete I can't find any reliable sources at all. Hobit ( talk) 03:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq ( talk) 14:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Crewdate

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

Contested PROD, Neologism

Sources mentioned in the article are from studentforums and studentpapers and only use the term and are not about them. No reliable third party sources mention this term. 137 Ghits [26], non reliable. Erebus Morgaine ( talk) 19:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

There's now even a website for organizing them: http://CrewDates.com. This should remove the objections, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsramek ( talk • contribs) 08:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Website is a primary source, and are again just using the term, not discussing it. This is a non-notable local neologism. Yobmod ( talk) 10:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per Yobmod and nom. Mvjs Talking 10:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

List of Pokemon: Battle Stations episodes

List of Pokemon: Battle Stations episodes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a place for fictional content. There is no Pokemon series called "Pokemon: Battle Stations". That kind of stuff is for Pokemon fanfic's sites (ex. Serebii.net), not Wikipedia.

  • Strong delete no evidence that such a series even exists, appears to be completely made up (Google searches for various terms all come up with just this article). nneonneo talk 19:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as hoax. I have a feeling a 225-episode series of Pokemon shows would have, y'know, some Google hits and stuff. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube ( talk) 07:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, appears to be a hoax. -- Pixelface ( talk) 07:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 08:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Beating up

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

First off I realise that the previous discussion about this article ended just over a week ago and renomination within this time period is not standard practise. However that discussion ended out of process after the nominator withdrew his nomination and was then closed as WP:SNOW by a non-admin and as always on Wikipedia exceptions to policy or convention can be made. To sum up the previous nomination:

  1. Several users thought the article should be deleted for various reasons.
  2. The article was then reformatted into a disambiguation page.
  3. The page was deemed to be a perfectly acceptable disambiguation page and received support to be kept from several users.
  4. The nominator withdrew and the discussion was closed per WP:SNOW by a non-admin.

The problem with this is that in no way is the page a disambiguation page - at least not what is described in Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Disambiguation is intended to resolve "conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic" - this page does not do that. There are no articles with the title "beating up" or anything particularly close to beating up - the page does not serve any purpose in terms of disambiguating articles. The initial section of the page is a list of dictionary definitions, Wikipedia is not a dictionary so they should not be the basis of an article and if the page is intended to be a disambiguation page then dictionary definitions are the first thing mentioned in the what not to include section of Wikipedia:Disambiguation. The next section is a list of synonyms, again Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The final section of the page contains some information about things with vaguely similar names such as the game genre Beat 'em ups and the Song Beat Him Up, these are, at best, partial title matches which are the second thing mentioned under what not to include in disambiguation pages. Based on this I think that the page cannot serve as a disambiguation page. As an article the page was roundly criticised in the previous discussion and I think the topic is already covered in an encyclopaedic manner on Wikipedia. From a legal perspective the topic is covered in articles such as Battery (crime) and Assault, from a more general perspective there are articles such as Violence. An article with this title would likely either be simply a dictionary definition of the colloquialism or a content fork of other articles that present the topic in a more definable way. Guest9999 ( talk) 18:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. As the nominator says, this is nothing like a proper dab page per WP:DAB. Along with this page, Beating should probably be deleted, or selectively merged to Beat, where almost all the relevant senses seem to be already disambiguated more in line with WP guidelines (though even that page needs some tweaking). Incoming links to this page are irrelevant, since it is they that need to be revised or unlinked, not Beating up that needs to be kept. Deor ( talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per Deor. [  roux ] [ x was prince of canada 19:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • As Deor says, Delete. X MarX the Spot ( talk) 19:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral I was in favour of Keeping this article in its previous AfD, and I believe the nominator has cogent points. However, I am bothered that this is being brought back to AfD so quickly after the previous go-round. I might ask if the nominator or anyone else would like to try editing this page before trying to erase it. Thanks! Ecoleetage ( talk) 22:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and trim so it IS as disambiguartion page. It does not need explanations or descriptions as if it were Wiktionary. I'd be glad to do so myself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Trim to what? There are no pages with the title "Beating up" or "Beating up (XXXX)" or any variation of "beating up" that could apply as a combined term. Guest9999 ( talk) 00:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • keep as is a useful non-standard disam page. Since when does everything have to be formulaic? DGG ( talk) 02:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A dab actually disambiguates between some Wikipedia articles. This "dab" is merely a collection of WP:DICTDEFs. VG ☎ 09:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Some sort of page is needed here, as it has 29 incoming ordinary links, including via the redirect page Beaten up. (Compare discussion in Talk:Vial.) Beating-up is all too common as an unofficial means of enforcement etc, and in my opinion there is more to it than merely saying what the word means. It is not an absolute synonym of assault, as not all forms of assault involve beating-up. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 09:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: echoing VasileGaburici: this is not a disambiguation page, just dictionary defs. Beaten up and Beating up can redirect to Assault -- redirection is not an indication of absolute synonymity, and there are many instances of narrower terms redirectig to broader terms (so that not all forms of assault need to involve beating up for the redirect to be useful). -- JHunterJ ( talk) 17:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
A good example of that might be " Hitting" which redirects to Violence even though obviously not all forms or instances of violence involve hitting. Guest9999 ( talk) 01:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Useful page to the Wikipedia project, which therefore trumps other arguments. That said, a complete STOMPing of WP policy to re-list this quickly deserves further looking into. Editors jobs are to IMPROVE articles, not delete if possible. BMW (drive) 20:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is just a dictionary definition. Bwilkins, it's not obvious to me why this page is useful to the Wikipedia project -- can you explain further? brianlucas ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC). reply
    • Alternatively, this could be merged to Beat or Beating. There's no need for "Beating up" in addition to those two. brianlucas ( talk) 22:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • delete as bunch of (unourced, OR) dicdefs or Redirect to wiktionary, where they treat definition of terms properly. Yobmod ( talk) 10:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Contains original research and should probably just be redirected to wiktionary. Either way, it doesn't need a page here. Undead Warrior ( talk) 11:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Themfromspace ( talk) 17:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • It is not "original research". Many of the meanings given are public common knowledge. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 22:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • It's commone knowledge to who? There are people out there who don't share the same "common knowledge" as you do. Either way, common knowledge is not a basis for a keep. It's unsourced information. Undead Warrior ( talk) 22:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Angelo Plessas

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

Article was previously deleted as the result of an AfD discussion. There is more information in this version, but no references, and no real proof he is any more notable now than previously. Aleta Sing 18:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, no indication that he satisfies WP:N, no sources given in the article. I did a few google and google news searches and nothing indicates anything different. [27] [28] meshach ( talk) 19:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete again and then WP:SALT for good measure. JBsupreme ( talk) 02:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep on the whole. The article's listed exhibitions are enough, imo, to assert notability, and there are more on the website. Notability for this sort of art is harder to assess. The last debate was not very impressive - a battle of the non-signers. No external references, although for once all the art is online. The exhibitions need referencing. Johnbod ( talk) 15:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. the links just show that the art really exists - as they are all to the artists pages, they do nothing to show notability , which is the problem here. No notable artists showing off their non-notable art on their own webpages doesn not = needs coverage in WP. Yobmod ( talk) 10:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Number Permutation Systems

Number Permutation Systems (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This is one of a flurry of short, unreferenced articles differing by only a few sentences with the same final paragraph, all about individual courses taught by someone named Charlie Banacos, a person about whom Wikipedia has no article, and with no context context within which to evaluate their notability even collectively, let alone individually.

Also nominating:

Comments:

  • Delete all as nom.  Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 18:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all original research which fails verifiability and WP:Notability. Edison ( talk) 18:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per nomination (which was from my earlier PROD nomination, so I get to leave my reason at "per nomination" without expansion). —Largo Plazo ( talk) 18:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment These articles seem to be putting the cart before the horse. An article on Charlie Banacos would seem to be the logical first step. (And a bit of googling indicates that he may well be notable, there's plenty of news hits from interviews with other artists referring to their studying with him, and terms like 'guru' do get used quite often). I'd think that the various teaching elements mentioned in these various articles could reasonably be mentioned in an article on the man himself, and only if they were independently notable then broken out. MadScot ( talk) 18:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all - Per nom, but no bias against recreating as redirects to a Charlie Banacos article, should one be created. TN‑ X- Man 18:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 09:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All without prejudice, per Tnxman. AndyJones ( talk) 17:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Delete all, per nom Clubmarx ( talk) 03:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all and put relevant info into a new article about Banacos. I and some other editors have already discussed with the original author the direction this should take, and he is already working on it. He was a newbie, and as newbie mistakes go, this was fairly minor. (BTW, I prodded some of these articles as well.) - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 05:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Don't you really mean merge in making the !vote you just did? If so, these pages need to be retained for GFDL reasons, although as redirects or protected redirects not as articles. AndyJones ( talk) 07:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Note to closing admin suggest you check if any of this material gets merged before closure, and if it has been, close as a merge not a delete. I know that doesn't look like the consensus, but I think you'll agree it would accord with most of the rationales given above. AndyJones ( talk) 07:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per G7 by KieferSkunk. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 ( talk) 19:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Vonyx

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

I suspect a hoax or an opaque reference to something from an alternate reality world. No Google hits show the word Vonyx in any context that relates such a thing to the Druids. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 18:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy keep. MBisanz talk 16:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Toepler pump

Toepler pump (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Doesn't cite sources. It also doesn't seem very notable to belong here. Possible SD? Beano ( talk) 18:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • I see a citation right there, at the bottom of the article. It's hard to miss, because it's in red. In those 17 minutes between this article being created and your nominating it for deletion, did you look for sources yourself, as Wikipedia:Deletion Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage all say to do? If not, how can any weight at all be given to your estimation of notability? You don't know what sources exist, and so have no way to gauge notability at all Notability is not subjective.

    Please consider helping new editors to get the markup right, instead of hazarding wild guesses at notability followed by nominating articles for deletion. And look for sources yourself before nominating articles for deletion on grounds of notability and verifiability. If you'd done even a few minutes' worth of research, you would have found quite a few books documenting this machine, and you could be helping to improve the article right now. Uncle G ( talk) 18:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Keep or Merge to Vacuum pump. This also should be discussed in the article August Toepler. A Toepler pump is a reciprocating mercury pump, well known since the 19th century, just like Geissler pumps and Sprengel pumps which should also have their own articles. The pumps have been extensively discussed in the literature independently of their inventors. Many reliable sources with substantial coverage of Toepler pumps exist to improve this article. See from Google Book Search [29] in particular the book references [30](1894, American journal of Science) , [31](1986, book) , [32] (1915, textbook) , [33] (2007 textbook). Edison ( talk) 18:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • keep Per last two editors, plenty of sources. MadScot ( talk) 19:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep More than notable. Famous. DGG ( talk) 02:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Definitely notable. Mvjs Talking 08:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I've cleaned up both Toepler pump and Sprengel pump, so they should be decent stubs now (though expansion is clearly welcome). I would particularly say that a description of the physical concept for the Toepler pump may be useful, as the current jumble of letters isn't too helpful to a new reader. nneonneo talk 13:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  16:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Wildlife Inspector

Wildlife Inspector (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This page is a direct copy of http://olesem.doi.gov/jobs/fields/fwswildlifeinspector.html, which as a US government website is public domain, and thus the page is not eligble for speedy deletion, but the replication seems unencyclopedic. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 17:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Keep but stubbify as the topic does seem encyclopaedic but there is little value in duplicating promotional material. There is a good article on this topic, but this isn't it. Springnuts ( talk) 18:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - occupations are notable. I have cleaned out the promotional content. TerriersFan ( talk) 20:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Steve Souza (baseball)

Steve Souza (baseball) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable baseball player. Wizardman 17:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - article is very stubby but minor league is fully professional so keep iaw WP:ATHLETE. Springnuts ( talk) 18:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    That's a misunderstanding of WP:ATHLETE. Minor leaguers are not inherently notable, they still need the appropriate accolades via third party sources. Wizardman 18:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
To expand on Wizardman's comment, a first year Class A short season player made $850 a month in 2005 (I don't have more current figures, but I doubt it's very far off), and only gets paid for the 3.5 months they play. For comparison, here in California a minimum wage full time worker makes $1,386 a month. Hard to call Class A baseball "fully professional" when their yearly income is around $3,000.-- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Well that's what the policy says - unless WP:IAR applies. By the edge of the basket? I agree, but still in the balloon. Springnuts ( talk) 18:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Juan Rivera (infielder)

Juan Rivera (infielder) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable baseball player. Wizardman 17:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - article is very stubby but minor league is fully professional so keep iaw WP:ATHLETE. Springnuts ( talk) 18:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    That's a misunderstanding of WP:ATHLETE. Minor leaguers are not inherently notable, they still need the appropriate accolades via third party sources. Wizardman 18:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Class A baseball players get about $850 a month for 3.5 months. Total income of about 3K -- hard to call that a fully professional league.-- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Well that's what the policy says - unless WP:IAR applies. By the edge of the basket? I agree, but still in the balloon. Springnuts ( talk) 18:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. 21 year old Class A ballplayer, nothing that indicates notability. Rklear ( talk) 20:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: as Wizardman notes, minor leaguers are no more inherently notable than college baseball players or any other non-major league and non-Olympic baseball players, and this article doesn't demonstrate notability for any other reasons. Nyttend ( talk) 02:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Has had a five year minor league career, hasn't yet risen above single-a. Without any secondary sources, this player hasn't achieved a level notability that would justify him having a page. Hardnfast ( talk) 21:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • There is a related discussion at [ [35]]. Springnuts ( talk) 18:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No significant coverage from reliable sources. — Wknight94 ( talk) 22:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thomas Stokes

Thomas Stokes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

I cannot find any mentions of this person outside of Wikipedia. The original version claimed that he married Mary Seymour, who disappeared from the historical record at the age of two, so the events this article describes are unlikely. Hut 8.5 16:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Even if the article's claims were verifiable, this distant relative of Lady Jane Grey seems hardly notable. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as G3 by User:Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Ecoleetage ( talk) 02:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Veto crisis

Veto crisis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Neologism, unclear what this article is intended to be about. The text is copied from Economic crisis of 2008 but moved around slightly with sections removed or duplicated. PROD template was removed but there is no evidence of this being developed into a valid article — Snigbrook 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Support Snowball anyone? This is a copy/paste of a better article... "veto crisis" isn't even mentioned in the lead. NJGW ( talk) 17:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • The word "veto" doesn't even appear in the article at all! NJGW ( talk) 17:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: appears to be a random pastiche of other articles: pure vandalism. T L Miles ( talk) 23:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete ( G3) — pure vandalism/soapboxing. No mention of the word "veto" nor an explanation of why the article is called as such. MuZemike ( talk) 00:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Note was speedy deleted by Orangemike ( talk · contribs) NJGW ( talk) 01:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  16:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Miss Cast Away

Miss Cast Away (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Unsourced, notability unestablished and has remained in a stub state for quite some time. — Realist 2 16:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete, G11 (blatant advertising). Author blocked as a spam-only account. Blueboy 96 19:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Project home 2010

Project home 2010 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This article as a patent hoax. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 16:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete as obvious hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Project Home 2010 is a private research program think tank experiment, and is legitimate. The company funding the project is out of Australia and the laboratory is located in Connecticut USA. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Projecthome2010 ( talk · contribs)
The credibility of the project is highly suspect. It is unlikely any corporation would invest its future in two 12 year old students, no matter what level of promise they showed. The project's homepage on Angelfire looks like it WAS developed by a twelve year old. And the only other links I can find in Google are by the two alleged members of the project attempting to link their research into established physics forums, where they have been summarily laughed off. I am going to copy this discussion to the main page, which is where the AfD debate should occur. The above discussion has been copied from the discussion page. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 18:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Impressive in its hoaxaliciousness, but lacking in verifiability. Edison ( talk) 19:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Even if it's not a hoax, it seems unlikely that anything other than primary sources exist for it at this point. All G-hits are forum postings. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c)
  • Keep:Project Home 2010 is real, but it is a science project for youths. No one has laughed off the Project from any forum, however thay have laughed off the science enthousiasts whom copied material from the project's website onto those forum without the consent of the company funding the project. The idea of Project Home 2010 was to create a brainstorming think tank for eligible students interested in science to see what they could come up with. It is very much real, although it hasn't won any nobel prizes. The 2 youths in the science project are on to something in the area of magnetics that could be useful someday. Their experiment will be in Connecticut in 2010 and it will be interesting to see how their project works out.

Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Project_home_2010" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.54.137 ( talk) 02:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

There is not a single reliable source of information to back up the claim that this is a real project. The only hits in Google are the actual Angelfire.com site (which looks like it was written by a 12-yr old with poor English skills), and cross postings from that site to other forums, where the only reaction has been "Get a life, quacks." [36] WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 04:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • delete I'd say a speedy as nonsense, whether as a hoax altogether or non-notable real nonsense, except that since it's being defended, an afd will lay the matter to rest. DGG ( talk) 03:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I know a bit about physics and the things those kids are working on are very plausible. They admit that their research is only theorized and nothing they describe violates the laws of thermodynamics in any way. The website has many references to back up the things they are trying to prove in physics, and I am interested to see what they come up with. Yes they are just kids in a sponsored science program of some kind, but I wouldn't try to say it isn't real. There are pictures all over the site of the devices they built, and even pictures of their devices working. The "get a life quacks" comment was undoubtably from Bill, a 40 year old man that harrassed those kids and their friends. The way they are working on using magnetic energy from ambient air using ionic forces of matter is facinating if you ask me. -DECKER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.54.137 ( talk • contribs)
Comment: Note that both "Keep" votes came from the same anonymous IP address. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Whether it's a hoax or not, it's simply not notable. As Mufka pointed out, all the non-wiki ghits (all 21 of them) are forum postings and don't show notability. Zero gnews hits. Zero gbooks hits. Zero gscholar hits.-- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I must note that in regard to those forum boards, the forums that have a population of serious professionals never tried to discredit the project in any way, however the boards where someone was mentioning Project Home 2010 that has immature replies were boards where there were a particular group of lesser impartial individuals. Other topics on those boards had the same reaction. On that "quack" board I did notice that the one that made that comment apologized further down the page after they found out the project was the real deal. Any postings of the project on message boards does not represent the academic atmosphere the project is surrounded with, or people that are working specifically in that field of study.

The 2 honor students in the project are making great strides with their work there. They shouldn't be put down. They don't have PhDs in physics and don't work at some laboratory at a prestigious University, but they are 2 people devoting a lot of time and effort into their research. The project may not be front page New York Times, but it is a real science project the 2 kids are working on extracurricular while studying engineering in college, just as the information says. This is not an unusual thing. Project Home 2010 is paying for both of their college educations with a full scholarship trust fund, and the 2 students are International Honor Society inductees. That can be looked up. What if they did change the world someday? Most would be interested to learn about projects like this early in the event that it becomes something significant later. The engineering they are doing in the project has a lot of good ideas that other science majors could build on and develop themselves. I think it is noble of them to share their ideas and the work they have performed. Project Home 2010 is something of interest that is going on in the world that quite a few would be interested in knowing about. (Teacher) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.43.178.242 ( talk • contribs)

Two students working on a science project in their backyard is NOT notable. Since this project has no secondary sources, there is NO WAY to verify its veracity. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 19:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: It obviously is not two students working in their backyard by themselves. It is an established project backed by an Australian company paying for both of their entire college educations to Bachelor degree level, and have an established lab for the students to construct the layout. They are under the direction of their benefactors and have to follow their rules. The company supported them with food and housing since they were 12, as well as supplied all the materials they required to design and build what they have so far, through the college they are at since they were both 17 (as the information states). A backyard that pays for their college, not bad. They are definately likely to be two future notables. The information states that the two students are working on this through the college they are attending. If their IP is from a college that would be some hard evidence that the information is true.- DECKER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.54.137 ( talk) 00:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
What is the name of this unnamed Australian company? Such information would go very far in establishing the veracity (although not necessarily the notability) of this project. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If it is a true patent, it should have a suitable reference with the appropriate patent database, IP Australia in this case. Mvjs Talking 06:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. I am tempted to put a request for checkuser on the user and both IPs above. Undead Warrior ( talk) 12:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: How much detail is allowed to post about the project? Is it O.K. to post the names of companys, schools, associated people, etc. here? The company is out of Australia and the students and college/lab are in USA. Angelfire is a USA host I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.43.178.242 ( talk) 12:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Please limit yourself to ONE vote per discussion!!! (See this edit.) Comments may be added as required, but only ONE vote, thank you. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
PS ANY amount of information that would actually allow a reader to verify the veracity of the project would be appropriate. Names of schools and sponsors would be VERY appropriate. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
CommentThere was just a concern about using company names without permission, especialy when there seems to be a lot of negative people without the positive toward the project.

The company is called Envirotech E.A. LTD, not to be confused with "Envirotech". The company funded seminars for Project Home 2010 where the 2 students John and Matt demonstrated their technology at Springfield College in Massachusetts in 2001 and the project and the 2 students were given a very good reception; far from not being taken seriously. They also demonstrated their technology to the engineering department there. Envirotech moved the 2 students to a lab in Connecticut in 2002 and cut funding to Springfield College. Envirotech E.A. LTD has submitted many notarized documents in a fat folder to the U.S. Social Security Administration regarding that Bill K. person stealing one of the student's father's ID, messing up the student's father's record that had an affect on his son in the project. Envirotech E.A. LTD also hire a lawyer then. this was 2004. What this means now is that Social Security now has documents that prove the company exists, and that they had a great interest in John and Matt, the students picked by them to be in Project Home 2010 to complete in 2010.

If the company is sponsoring the project, they should have no trouble having their name associated with it. If they do NOT want their name associated with the project, the project probably has no business publishing itself on Wikipedia anyway. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 16:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The closest match I can find on Google is a company called "AP Envirotech Pty, Ltd" which is a vendor of environmental remediation products and services, but doesn't appear to be of a size or nature to be sponsoring original research in any area. Further, Springfield College does not HAVE an engineering department. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 16:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The exact name of the company sponsoring the project is "Envirotech E.A. LTD." The acting Agent of the company funding Project Home 2010 as of 2001-2003 was "Jackie James" from Australia that is the main connecticon to the funding of the students in Project Home 2010 in U.S.A. She would fly in to the states every now and then to check on progress, reciepts and construction logs. She would stay at the Springfield Mass. Sheraton Hotel. Now there is an electronic record keeping system the students use with Australia. Springfield College had a Computer Science- engineering science related program that the 2 students were interested in using to develop their Polybit computer processor invention. It was 6 years ago, but the college should certainly remember them. The project wire transferred $15,000 to Springfield College for Matt and John to attend a semester there in 2002. John and Matt were well liked there and showed off their magnetic powered vehicle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.43.178.242 ( talk) 18:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Again, please only ONE vote per IP address. You have now submitted 3 keep votes from this address. Additional comments are welcome, but not additional votes. You have also still failed to produce any VERIFIABLE information about this project, and since no searches can produce any hits, the project cannot be considered NOTABLE, even if it is real. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 18:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The project is real, I can vouch for that. What exactly is the criteria for notable? Is Wikipedia an information source of the world and what is going on in it and what is known about it, or is it limited to a special elite and limited information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.54.137 ( talk) 00:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The criteria for notability is found at WP:Notability. WP:V also has pertinent requirements. Wikipedia is limited to verifiable and notable encyclopedic information.-- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have submitted a checkuser request for the IPs and the registered user. Undead Warrior ( talk) 02:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 09:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

MISRA C++

MISRA C++ (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Topic appears completely non-notable. The existence of a programming language by itself does not establish notability of the topic. Jehochman Talk 15:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (and its acronym MISRA) were deleted as spam, this article ( MISRA C++) as such has no existence, it was better as a part of Motor Industry Software Reliability Association. Suggest to delete this, and recreate as a redirect if Motor Industry Software Reliability Association is deemed suitable to exist. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 15:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    Comment. You're assuming that non-notability is inherited. The organization itself may not have received enough press coverage for a Wikipedia article, but the two standards it promotes may well have. VG ☎ 08:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    Re comment. True, though I would say that a company that writes notable software should inherit the notability of the notable software (although also that is not really necessery). I have been going through the edit histories, and I see that the programming languages were part of an old version of the article, and that Derek farn split them out into the seperate subjects. I think the problem here is that none of it was referenced independently at all (though the few external links suggested around, and some of which are/were in articles would make good references. Maybe stub it all down and try to reference it properly? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    Comment As the person who speedied MISRA as spam, I have not problem if an article is written on the subject as long as notability is established. However, notability isn't the reason it was deleted...it was because it was quite spammish, and there were some strong COI issues with the person who created it as well. AKRadecki Speaketh 22:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. I'd think that a version of C++ would have at least some worthiness as far as WP:N goes, but google results are pretty iffy and since I'm not very sure about the notability, delete. — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 16:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. C++ is a widely used programming language and it use within embedded software is growing. The MISRA C++ document contains a set of guidelines for the use of C++ in embedded software. Other people/companies/organizations have produced similar sets of guidelines. The notability of the MISRA guidelines can be gauged by the fact that a large number of static analysis tool vendors have put effort into supporting the MISRA guidelines (support for other documents is much rarer and not industry wide) and calling this fact out in their advertising. The fact that the MISRA article had been edited to read like advertising (earlier versions did not have this problem) is not a reason for deleting an article that shares an association. Derek farn ( talk) 16:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

information Note: I have become aware that MISRA C is another article in the series. It also looks non-notable, and is closely related. Please comment on whether this should be deleted, or if the two articles should be merged, or kept. Jehochman Talk 16:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete both. Neither appears to be notable. Variants of programming languages can be covered in the main articles, such as C++. Jehochman Talk 16:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I stand with my previous statement, delete (both), and/or redirect to Motor Industry Software Reliability Association. I did a cleanup on MISRA C, it does not have any suitable sources (all are connected to the organisation; though maybe two suitable external links ..), nothing except the first sentence seems notable enough to mention to me (but I am not a specialist in programming languages). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both, per noms. -- John ( talk) 18:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I am totally confused about why the above think both are non-notable. Google returns 33,600 matches. Where is one of the best places for an editor to go to cite sources but those provided by the organization that produced the documents? The list of members seems a bit pointless, ok so delete it. Derek farn ( talk) 18:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Remark: a Google test is not always the best measure for this (heh, having an entry in wikipedia does already increase that number). Derek farn, what about the following solution, we undelete the main article, Motor Industry Software Reliability Association, and move it your userspace ( User:Derek farn/Motor Industry Software Reliability Association), and delete the redirect that results in mainspace. You rewrite (e.g. with the help of a wikiproject) the article into a neutral case, and when editors here are satisfied, it gets moved back into mainspace. The two articles we are discussing here become then redirects to that main article (along with some similar articles)? (By the way, did I say that the two articles we are discussing here have the same intro?). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 20:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • I agree with Beetstra; merge these into the main article and userfy. Good suggestion, Beetstra. I think it makes everyone happy. SunDragon34 ( talk) 06:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks for the offer Dirk Beetstra. If I were to spend time writing Wikipedia articles I would probably spend it on other articles. I work in the area of static analysis and am aware of how notable MISRA C and MISRA C++ are, hence my arguing to keep them. MISRA is a bureaucratic organization that manages to waste lots of my time whenever I deal with them and I have no motivation to work on an article about them. I would be willing to help cut the articles back down to stubs. Derek farn ( talk) 10:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 09:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Even if you delete this, my guess is it will be added back in a couple of months at the most. The working group just finished the C++ standard this summer (after 3 years), but the C++ variant has already been mentioned in some conference proceedings [37], and featured on embedded.com [38]. MISRA C is an older standard [39], so it should be discussed separately; likely there are more references for it. A few more references for the C++ one: tmworld.com [40], and two academic papers [41], [42]. VG ☎ 09:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete IMO, the C++ article is best for this. As stated above, this is a tricky one. If delete is not a good outcome, I'd also support a merge. Undead Warrior ( talk) 00:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both (C and C++). MISRA as a standard does deserve an article (like CMM has) but the two current texts contain no encyclopedically useful information. It is always better to start from a clean desk than to scare potential contributors with such garbage. Pavel Vozenilek ( talk) 17:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
MISRA is not a standard, it's an organization. The standards are MISRA-C and MISRA C++. VG ☎ 14:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
OK, I was not precise. Pavel Vozenilek ( talk) 19:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Show- dance crew 2008

Show- dance crew 2008 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Contested prod. Event with no asserion of notability. No sources. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 14:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Splinter (Gary Numan album)

Splinter (Gary Numan album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Not enough verifiable information to warrant an article of its own. Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL. Suggest either deleting or merging into Gary Numan until more information becomes available. JD554 ( talk) 14:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to Hulk (comics). MBisanz talk 08:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Powers and abilities of the Hulk

Powers and abilities of the Hulk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This a fork of the incredible hulk article. The folk was created because found it difficult to keep unnecessary detail out of the main article - in effect, creating a dumping group for lavish over detail about fictional in-universe events. I had a go at cleaning up the article but even in a "clean" form, the article remains and will remain an entirely in-universe perspective on fictional events supported by readings of the primary sources. The material simply doesn't exist to turn this into an article that is based on real world commentary and analysis - it cannot meet the standards that we set for articles. Indeed, it's existance requires us to turn a blind eye to the MOS, our policies on sources, our core purpose as an encyclopedia. Originally I was going to suggesting merging this article back into the main article but after spending the weekend working on it, I'm no longer convinced that serves a useful purposes and that it would be best to just write what needs to written for that article from scratch. Cameron Scott ( talk) 13:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to Hulk (comics). Stifle ( talk) 14:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Emperor ( talk) 15:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The current material was originally removed from the Hulk article as having a negative effect on that article. It's a morass of in-universe stuff that has no place to go. Merge is not a good answer. Ford MF ( talk) 16:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I originally was in favor of merging it but I don't believe a merge is suitable. It's true that most of this material can't be backed by any real world content. It's just not out there. It's also true that much of the article was taken out of the main Hulk article, making this one partially a glorified dump. The article has become almost an homage to the character. What makes the character "cool" or "incredible", such as all these examples of how physically overwhelming he is isn't very encyclopedic to me. The character's powers are simple to explain and common among fictional superhumans. As such, what's important to get across about them can be explained in the powers and abilities section of the Hulk (comics) with a lot less space. Odin's Beard ( talk) 16:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I tried to fix the powers section during a major overhaul of Hulk, and instead the fork was created. Rather than perpetuate a fight back then, I let the cruft accrue here, but it's time for it to go, it's a list of amazing feats instead of out-of-universe discussion of the powers of a fictional character; the main article's powers section has far more reliable, non-comic issue citations. ThuranX ( talk) 17:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Addendum, I stand corrected, there is one useful quote from Greg pak there; if/when article is redirected, that one quote can/should be incorporated. Everything else can go, though. ThuranX ( talk) 17:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I see this as no different from the other articles associated with the incredible Hulk, nor from other detailed articles about a notable fictional character. Regardless of what one may think of the subject, this particular article meets Wikipedia's standards for verifiable sources to support statements within the body of the article. For aesthetic reasons, it doesn't work as part of the parent article. On the other hand, whether one likes it or not, "The Hulk" is an icon that has had a devoted following for decades, and has been its own multi-million dollar industry. Mandsford ( talk) 17:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Aesthetic reasons isn't a reason to keep, it's a reason to do somethign about the ugliness. The sources aren't reliable and verifiable, just verifiable, but inherently unreliable because different writers adjust the specific upper limits of his strength to fit their stories. The status of Hulk in popular culture is thoroughly irrelevant to the discussion here. ThuranX ( talk) 17:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
On the other hand, whether one likes it or not, "The Hulk" is an icon that has had a devoted following for decades, and has been its own multi-million dollar industry. em yes? That's why the hulk is a fit and proper subject for an article and why an article entitled "hulk merchandise" would also be. That has absolutely nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand - which is an a sub-article that is entirely in-universe and cannot be fixed because of the very nature and subject of the article. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 17:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Everyone is entitled to nominate an article an open discussion about deletion. On the other hand, nobody is entitled to dictate the terms of the discussion. Mandsford ( talk) 22:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • No one here is dictating the terms of the discussion. Noting that a comment isn't convincing or relevant hardly 'dictates the terms'. don't use bullshit accusations that we're steering or railroading to compensate for or cover a problem in your reasoning. Accept it, argue back in rational ways, or yield. ThuranX ( talk) 22:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Mr. Thuran, don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry. Mandsford ( talk) 13:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • You can argue what you like - we are equally entitled to point out that your comments are not relevant and do not answer the questions raised by the nomination. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 22:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge any salvageable, sourced content to Hulk (comics). Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 21:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Done. Only reasonable, non-comics in-universe sourced content was Greg Pak speaking regarding the character during WWH, that has been integrated. ThuranX ( talk) 22:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • MergeHis powers etc. are the basis of his character, and belong -- suitably edited-- into the main article. DGG ( talk) 02:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete--I see nothing here that has any real-world value. Whatever is worthwhile, and I don't see much, should be under the main article. Drmies ( talk) 04:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Hulk (comics), as ThuranX has merged some content and the topic itself is better dealt with as a section of the main article. If reliable sources are found then later a suitable spinoff article should be made. Protonk ( talk) 05:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Hulk smash merge per ThuranX. Giggy ( talk) 07:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete honestly, I'm not sure what much more needs to be said regarding his powers in an encyclopedic context. Bruce Banner turns into a green, massively powerful, indestructible... Hulk when he's mad. And he can jump. Far. JuJube ( talk) 07:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are other similarly well-referenced powers & abilities pages such as Spider-Man's powers and equipment or Batcave, and ones literally filled with thin air claims without any current sources whatsoever, such as Powers and abilities of Superman, and the entire Wikipedia comics section is littered with extremely brief and unreferenced pages for minor characters that have not appeared in any real-world movie or tv-show whatsoever. This is a completely non-harmful, versatile, and very well-referenced voluntary extra for those who wish to know more about an extremely prominent character, and the very nature and long rich history of the Hulk character makes all the mentions a very relevant extension and highlight. Nearly every single mention in the page has been thoroughly matter-of-fact referenced. Per definition Powers and abilities of Superman and all Marvel or DC Comics pages in the vein of Null, the Living Darkness or even numerous simple storyarcs such as Incredible Hulk: The End or fancruft aspects of a character such as Power Cosmic, should be greatly prioritised in a deletion order. It is extremely odd that this particular page garners such interest before all of the rest. Rather, some editors might be assigned to help clean up the page to turn more easily read and accessible. The main Hulk article is better served streamlined to strictly focus on the real-world impact or stated philosophical aspects of various interpretations, while the various sub-pages such as this, List_of_Hulk_supporting_characters, or Hulk_in_other_media go into specifics. Of note is also that a vandal 'named' User:JJonz has very long targeted and threatened said page, myself, and any editor that interferes in a host of hastily created cover identities, while similarly censoring any non-favourable references at just the Superman P&A page. (The above are strictly the ones we found and bothered to add until we lost interest, and as long as he kept making transparent edit-comments/threats) Given this experience, I can't help finding it similarly odd that a just-created, supposedly inexperienced identity decides to make his first actions into the most extreme intervention against this particular page through careful administrative jargon, while being shown as fully content to simply edit just P&A of Superman. Additionally Red Hulk editing history almost simultaneously displays two editors very much named in the standard JJonz 'hint' fashion: User:Bold Clone and User: Anon e Mouse Jr.. Dave ( talk) 13:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Your argument consists of "other stuff exists" and an attempt to poison the well by making this AFD about me is neither of which are convincing arguments to keep. As for the Superman Powers and abilities - that's a mess as well and I'm considering AFD that as well. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 13:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Well then, if you're willing to delete P&A of Superman you're likely not JJonz at the very least, although your similar habit to ironically include the word 'please' and 'lie' in your edits does seem to fit the pattern, but yes, there are a very great array of completely unreferenced pages for storylines, minor characters, spin-off aspects and so on, so I do find it suspicious that a page that has gone to extremes with 'over-referencing' to avoid this, and even including "lower power displays" for fairness should be focused on before all of these, and if the sole reason to focus on this page is because of personal extreme bias against just powers, or even this particular character, yes that very much is a valid reason to keep, since you're per extension attacking the very structure the entire Wikipedia Comics community is built upon. In comparison this is easily one of the more ambitious displays. There is no objectively rational reason whatsoever to single it out before hundreds of comparatively irrelevant comics pages. Also, there are other parts of my past than "other stuff exists". It's a harmless appreciated feature, and does go to extremes to be matter-of-fact reliable. Dave ( talk) 13:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
That's the point you are missing, it's *not* over referenced, it only included one reference we give a damn about - one from a reliable third party. It's constructed entirely from primary sources to talk about entirely in-universe concerns, it's irrelevant that those are treated in a sober fashion because they don't represent a real world perspective or distance. As for a personal bias against the character - I OWN pretty much the entire run (feel free to test me if you don't believe that) of v2 and do own all of v3 - so please keep your mind-reading about my motivations to yourself. When I edit at wikipedia, I do it as an editor not as a fan or a "hater". -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 13:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Well, it is simply stating exactly what happened in the given issues without any inaccuracies whatsoever that I'm aware of. I've made a lot of effort in that regard. 3rd party sources are a valid point, given that this actually is overall Wikipedia policy, but fictional works generally make this impossible for description of happenings in various books throughout the character history, since they aren't well-referenced in mainstream media, generally not by reliable authors (We'd have to resort to brief Entertainment Weekly snippets, or even Wizard the Guide to Comics...), and handbook references should be mostly avoided unless complemented by contrasting sources, so the custom amongst most Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics editors is to use 1st hand sources (along with recurrently sneaking in thin air claims or deliberately misleading information, which I'm noteable for being fanatic about removing wherever I notice it). If I understood him correctly User:TheBalance even once told me that he thought 1st hand references were favoured. Seriously, take a look around in the comics section and you'll find that this one is definitely in the upper level of reliability. Excepting Hulk in other media it's definitely the supplementary Hulk page most warranted to keep based upon referencing/reliability, noteworthy character aspect, and effort put into it. Well, either that, or cleanse out 98% of all American comicbook character-related pages out there. Certainly virtually every single storyline page. Dave ( talk) 14:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
On the other hand, again: It could do with some serious work to make it more 'visitor-friendly', and I'm no good with that sort of 'structural common sense' thing. I just tend to fill things with lots of facts, and catch errors. I'm very into making my handicap of having limited ability to filter or lie to myself into something useful. Dave ( talk) 14:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Btw: Since the note came up the article has been heavily deleted, so if anyone is interested in looking at what it was like before here is a saved copy (the first two images would likely be deleted for potential being WP:NFCC#8): [43]
And here is the version where I tried to compress it down: [44] Dave ( talk) 15:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
You just don't seem to grasp this - if reliable 3rd party sources don't write about something, we don't construct an article about it - that's the start, middle and end of the conversation. We use primary sources to provide a limited descriptive account and that's it. The article would be fantastic over at a marvel encyclopaedia but it's categorical fails our requirements for an article. Well, either that, or cleanse out 98% of all American comicbook character-related pages out there. that's pretty much what needs to be done - many articles were written before we codified what wikipedia was about. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 14:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Well, if that's what you intend to do, and follow through on it, you've at least convinced me that you're not JJonz and honest in your endeavour. Although it's still strange that you know policy and jargon so well, so quickly. Organising a massive move-out of all Marvel and DC pages to Wikia might be an idea. Then this page and all others would still ber available for all people who want more in-depth information. The problem would be that they'd quickly lose quality from massive fancruft. I wonder if there is some similarly regulated 'link to extended version' of Wikipedia or similar, to keep the massive fictional lexicons, and keeping regulations to maintain reliability, while making a firm note that these are not encyclopaedic per se in the Britannica manner. In any case, if the article is eventually merged into the main part (which, you know, would give me some extra free time) it would be very useful if different editors could look into my compressed version to overlook which parts that are most informative/should be kept. Meaning, my vote for keep, means a backup vote for merge, since it's not as extreme as delete. Dave ( talk) 15:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Note--that version can only be called "very compressed" if the non-compressed version was hulk-sized. Cameron Scott's argument is sound: no reliable 3rd party sources pretty much means no notability. Publish such a list as an addendum to the comic books, but don't publish it here. Drmies ( talk) 17:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Well, I count 4 "counts as notability" references to articles, and 104 to the comics themselves, which I take it does in fact merit its existence~from that angle. Dave ( talk) 19:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
This is the same argument David A made on every other Hulk discussion he's ever involved in. He asserts taht because other crap exists, the crap he likes should exist too. Here, as in all other discussions, David A is insistent that sourcing statements to the comic, then inflating them with grandiose peacockery or drawn conclusions, makes a good article. when defeated there, he casts about for 'other crap exists' examples. then he resorts to deletionist/inclusionist arguments, and then he repeats as needed. The Hulk happens to be his niche, and it's for that reason that, as I stated above, I didn't push this issue before. but here we are again. Further, I have little doubt that if deleted, the page will soon reappear. I say, clean up and/or nomination for deletion the other articles as well. But let's settle this one first. ThuranX ( talk) 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Uh, no. That's your own seeming habitual need to use contemptous, misrepresentative, and misdirected intense venom as a first choice in nearly every single statement, as far as I remember you did in fact push the issue before, and I by no means see how being less rabid than yourself right after you've simultaneously insulted me without provocation and deleted some minor but accurate addition, equals being "defeated" to you, but it's enlightening about your mindset. Personally I had been much happier to let bygones be bygones, and only actively remembered you again when you insulted me in the Red Hulk edits, but apparently you still hold a grudge for whatever reason, as you're the one consistently attacking me, not the other way around. Also, again, I'm not deliberately inflating any of the references. I'm attempting to write them exactly as they are shown and described in the given sources. I've consistently removed dozens of exaggerations and inaccuracies, and if you believe some of them to be improperly worded it's easy enough to correct.* I'm a reasonable sort if a point is rationally dissected and handled civilly. (*Such as "more impressively" rather than say "more extremely", as a potential bad choice of words to note that continental plates are bigger than the Andes, since Cameron had a legitimate problem with this... yet somehow considered the consistently demonstrated healing-factor 'in-universe')
However, there are a couple of very important issues that I probably should flesh out a bit, and need to be taken into consideration by everyone here. One is that more than any other Marvel character the Hulk is defined by his tendency to perform completely outrageous and irrationally extreme 'feats of power'. Along with "the price of rage" it's one of the two most intrinsic 'points' associated with the property, so the argument that this page has less merit in itself than ones dedicated to single storyarcs and in fact _every single supplementary Hulk page_ save the "Other Media" one is utterly inane. It's not a point-trivialising "other crap exists". It's a matter of rational consistency. If the sole motivation to delete it is a personal severely biased hatred of P&A pages, or that the Hulk character is displayed as more ridiculously overpowered than one is comfortable with in certain storyarcs and reference-guides, i.e a specifically targeted hit-job, then that argument is not valid in itself. Another is that, yes I _have_ tried to make this article as well-rounded as possible, _108 sources_ are most definitely not simply cherry-picked irregularities, it's a pattern, and a history, and I've genuinely made an effort to make it as matter of fact as I can, but you haven't exactly tried to help. And perhaps the most important point, as it touches upon the very essense of what this entire issue is about, is that I _agree_ that the conclusion of uniformly consistently deleting virtually all Marvel and DC pages out there is completely rational based on the real-world Wikipedia policy. There was an editor who claimed to wipe out 500 redundant manga-related pages a week until he got tired, including lots of titles (including ones I currently like considerably better than the Hulk) enjoying enormously greater mainstream popularity than, say She-Hulk, so if a uniform move to Wikia is the intent, i.e. it's not a personally motivated hit-job, then that is a valid, founded, and pure motivation/intent, but not to target this page in particular (in which the references are technically up to B-class, but the 'reader-friendliness'/'easily digestable structure' could obviously be vastly improved by someone with the talent) while favouring a horde of unreferenced fancruft-pages. Either you target the entire section, which others have, and Cameron seems motivated to do, or you do admit that this page does hold a higher standard than the majority, and thus does not merit to be singled out unless there is a personal bias in action. Incidentally this is the way my mind-logic structure works in general. Either there exists a very solid specific foundation, or consistency demands a general approach, either of which is fine if handled carefully. Wikia has plenty of room. Specific targetting/censoring agendas solely founded on personal bias (such as that one does not like the picture from instances where the Hulk character was, in fact, written to perform all of the described thoroughly ludicrous actions, without exaggeration that I'm aware of) on the other hand are not.
Regarding the sidenotes, as far as I remember you were extremely vocally inflexible (and characteristically compulsively offensive) in the parting, although I personally saw it as the best solution, as you'd get to tend the main Hulk page in peace, while sub-issues were brought to alternate sources. I'm also _really_ sick of dealing with this page and its constant vandalism, and would much rather that someone else took over (preferably improving without butchering it). From your perspective a merge or deletion would likely lead to additionally having to deal with the nonsense I and Sesshomaru do. I'm also not remotely the type to set it up again 'just because', nor a weasel who uses multiple identities for the same matter. Additionally, Hulk isn't exactly my niché. I'm really much more of an anime guy nowadays, but I have remaining nostalgia for the superhero comics, recurrently check up on them, and have cleaned up inaccuracies in quite a lot of pages in the Marvel and DC sections. Dave ( talk) 19:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comments (Some of these are repeated from Talk:Hulk (comics)#Merge proposal, modified for changes in the article since I posted there.)
    • Out of story context and references: All but nil. The article reads as a break down between recap paragraphs and lists of in-story "feat" examples.
    • The few secondary source cites (4) are being used inappropriately:
      • 2 are used for feat examples in paragraphs (currently refs #11 and 24). These 2 also are positioned in such a way to imply that more information than just the comic (primary source) listed. An implication that isn't followed through on.
      • 2 are used to create a quote. (currently refs #15 and 16) These are two separate quotes from Pak and should not be edited to imply that he said them at the same time, much less in the same interview.
(additional points)
    • The article still reads as a fansite "greatest feats" list.
    • Last thing, and this is looking at David A's comments above and his back and forth with Cameron Scott [45] here: Dave, stop the mudslinging. If you feel you have concrete grounds for a sockpuppet report against Cameron, file it with the difs that show an editing pattern, style and inclination comparison between him and whomever you think is socking through him. And for the record, as someone else that has run into JJonz and his socks Cameron's edits, tone, and articles edited don't match the vandal you are accusing him of being. - J Greb ( talk) 00:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, the Hulk character is about ridiculous 'feats of power' at its essence, I would welcome help to improve the page/cut it down to its most informative essentials, after 50 sockpuppets and 1.5 years of relentless harrassment I've turned paranoid about JJonz, and I'm not attempting to mudsling, as always I've been noting down patterns I genuinely find suspicious, and as already stated Cameron already convinced me that he was a different person, and that his motivation is general. Dave ( talk) 19:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I understand why it was split off (as it was dragging the main article down) but it was still not the right way to go and it has just created a bigger monster that is pretty much off the leash. P&A sections on articles should be kept trimmed down and thoroughly referenced so merging this back into the original article is probably a bad idea - it doesn't seem a logical redirect (once incoming links are fixed) so just delete it (although if people want to redirect it then that is fine by me too). ( Emperor ( talk) 01:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)) reply
  • Delete Without reliable secondary sources to indicate that the Hulk's powers are worth documenting in the first place (much less given their own article), this page has no reason to exist. WesleyDodds ( talk) 09:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge any useful content not already in the Hulk article, and redirect. BOZ ( talk) 12:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Best of Stress Management

Best of Stress Management (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Brought up at WP:AN. Created by User:Wholelife, whose raison d'etre at Wikipedia has been to insert spamlinks to MBL Therapeutics, this article appears to be another coatrack to advertise the company. Black Kite 07:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, advert. Stifle ( talk) 09:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, appears to be an advertisment rather than an encyclopædia article. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC). reply
  • Delete as an advert, the sources on the article don't show notability, they are only supporting secondary facts -- Enric Naval ( talk) 11:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, nn / advert. Deiz talk 14:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination; not a notable course, and an implausible neologism that seems an unlikely search term to boot. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 15:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and agree the author's whole contributions to Wikipedia appear to be promoting a single website and should probably be blocked as a spam account. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete ( G11) — Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!. MuZemike ( talk) 16:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete while singing a chorus of The Spam Song in four-part harmony. Non-notable course, likely a promotional attempt. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- this has WP:COATRACK written all over it. There are a handful of "sources" that are there only to make the article look less disreputable; they mention stress management generally but not the collaboration in particular. Reyk YO! 05:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:ADVERT! Mvjs Talking 09:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Brently Heilbron

Brently Heilbron (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Still no real claims of notability. The best that can be said is that he's mentioned in reviews of plays, but an actor in a notable play or movie is not per se notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - I've fixed up the pre-existing refs that I think will qualify for WP:NOTABLE. It's all there, it's just not clean. —  X  S  G  19:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    Comment. I checked a few of the links. "Heilbron" doesn't appear, including the critical references [3] (Woody Allen opera) and [4] (Heilbron hosted, according to the artcle, which is not at all the same as "opened" or necessarily notable.) Vaudeville Heartthrob Recordings is Brently Heilbron, so doesn't add notability as publisher of his tracks. It's possible that one or more of the links is valid and indicates notability, but odds are against it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    Comment - Even if some of the links aren't valid for establishing notability, there are now at least four references in which reliable sources talk about Heilbron nearly exclusively. Heilbron should be presumed WP:NOTABLE. I don't see how it could be argued otherwise. —  X  S  G  02:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    Comment. Please point to them, then. Also, as noted above, Vaudeville Heartthrob Recordings is Brently Heilbron, so perhaps there's enough notability between the two for one article. But I can't say I see evidence of that, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    L.A. Times, L.A. City Beat, Austin Chronicle, and Austin Chronicle. Stop being difficult and do your own work. —  X  S  G  23:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    1. Seems to be a blog entry, without a clear statement it's being published by the Times, as opposed to merely being hosted. It's also more about Trapped in the Closet than about him.
    2. His comentary about (the same) performance. Suggests that the performance is notable, but not about him.
    3. One paragraph about him. Do the other dozen or so entries deserve articles? If so, start writing, but I don't think that qualifies.
    4. A review of his performance. I can't even say the performance is notable without knowing the placement; perhaps they (at least, in the online copy) review all performances in the city on that day? Who knows?
    Nothing really definite. Looks like 0/6 so far.
    And you wonder why I don't want to research the references in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    Comment - Okay, so let me try to capture the spirit of your arguments. When considering general notability:
    1. An entry in a major metropolitan newspaper's official arts and entertainment blog that is written by one of that newspaper's staff writers does not constitute a reliable reference.
    2. An interview with someone about their own work and independently published does not constitute a reliable reference.
    3. A reference in a major metropolitan newspaper's website about someone's upcoming performance, describing them as the superlative performer of that medium in that metropolitan area and also stating that the performer has developed a cult following in that area does not constitute a reliable reference.
    Does that accurately sum things up? If so, this has all the earmarks of becoming one of Wikipedia's more controversial notability essays. You should start writing it. —  X  S  G  02:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    1. It doesn't say it's an "official" arts and entertainment blog, nor that it's written by one of the newspaper's staff writers, nor is it about Brently (it's about the specific performance, which is, and possibly about the performance as a whole.)
    2. An intervew by someone about there own work might be notable if it were over a few column-inches. I don't know how many people are given a few inches to talk about their own works in "LA City Beat", but I suspect it's more than we have articles.
    3. " reference in a major metropolitan newspaper's website about someone's upcoming performance, describing them as the superlative performer of that medium in that metropolitan area" (which seems inaccurate; Austin is a major metropolitan area, but I'm not convinced the Chronicle is a major newspaper in that area, nor at best, it appears to be saying he's the best stand-up comic in the Austin area in 1999; perhaps evidence of notability, but even it were as you said, doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER, which seems the appropriate notability guideline.)
    Next? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    And since you're obviously familiar with all of L.A. Times' web properties, you're the expert to say that it's not, right? Except that ... Soundboard is L.A. Times' offical music blog, and the author of the article, listed right at the bottom of the cited article, is easily identified as an L.A. Times staff writer if you perform a subsequent search. My point is that you have not done your homework, and in order to distract from this, you attempt to poke holes in my homework. You admit yourself that you don't know what LA City Beat contains, and you indicate that therefore it must be some sort of rag of ill repute, at least until someone conclusively proves that it isn't. You demonstrate the very nature of bad faith, and this from an English Wikipedia Admin? For shame. —  X  S  G  20:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    Even if your claims as to the reliablity of the sources are correct, you have not demonstrated notability. My secondary notes on each part give adequate justification to show that they do not indicate notability:
    1. The LA Times blog indicates the performance may be notable. No indication that we don't have WP:BLP1E.
    2. LA City Beat is clearly not reliable, although it may be notable. And it's natural to interview the performer about a notable performance even if the performer is not otherwise notable. (And it is pretty short for an interview. At best, I'd call that a modified review.)
    3. (and 4): Even if the Austin Chronicle were a real newspaper, is being the "best" standup comic in Austin in 1999 even an indication of notability. (That's really all it says.)
    No, I really don't think we have it here, although I now think he may deserve a paragraph in Trapped in the Closet, so perhaps a redirect would be more appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Although I don't see notability, I request this be kept open so that the editors finding sources have to time to find some which actually support the statements they're making. I think (as of 19:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)), almost all the verification tags are in place, although the question of whether a calendar entry (which is all many of the remaining sources are) is a reliable source for anything other than a planned appearance is questionable, as even reputable publications accept the publicist's statement as to the source of the material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I object to keeping it open any longer. AfDs are for five days. Here we are on our 9th day. We have one vote for keep and no official votes for delete, though one might assume that the nomination equates to a vote for delete. At worst, this should be closed with no consensus, though I believe it should be closed keep. —  X  S  G  22:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Compare the number of sources to the number of verification request tags in the article. The majority of the article is unsourced, or the sources fail verification. A rational person would see there is, as yet, no properly sourced proof of notability, although I now believe it may be possible. Also, the article has been actively edited during the last 5 days, anyway, once I started tagging the bad references. Perhaps, in another week, it will be relatively stable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I see a great deal of name-dropping, but few decent references (if any) in support of very little identifiable notability or reason for notice. In other words, this doesn't appear to be documenting importance at all, but rather attempting to promote it. When the subject is ready for an article, perhaps someone will be able to unambiguously make the case, but not today, not at all. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 14:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete I'm not seeing the notability per WP:ENTERTAINER nor am I finding enough stuff that covers the subject in a significant and non-trivial manner independent of said subject. He may be up and coming or something but, I'm not seeing it yet. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 15:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sources found by XSG. The argument against them seems to be that articles about the subject's performances are not about the subject, which is simply ridiculous. Phil Bridger ( talk) 15:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Articles about the subject's performances which don't mention the subject are not about the subject. (And being mentioned only in a picture caption doesn't count.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • All of the articles linked by XSG above do mention the subject, and not only in a picture caption. Phil Bridger ( talk) 19:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Arthur, I want to be civil and respectful toward you, I really do. Because I was giving your sanity the benefit of the doubt, I just went back to read the articles. Each one of them clearly identifies Brently Heilbron as the subject. I don't understand how you can say black is white, but that's what you've been doing all along, here. Sadly, I can no longer give your sanity the benefit of the doubt. Your arguments border on the ridiculous, and I'm not the first to point it out. I told you on October 3rd to stop being difficult and do your own work. You haven't. You improperly put this article up for AfD on September 29th. The article was finally listed on October 6th. It is now October 15th GMT, so here we are on the ninth official day of a deletion discussion that has lasted seventeen days. My conclusion: you are either insane or you exhibit bad faith. This marathon deletion discussion needs to be closed and now. I'll take a No consensus.—  X  S  G  02:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply


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

The result was Merge with Wake County Public School System. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Durant Road Middle School

Durant Road Middle School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

article fails to establish why this middle school is notable. Lacks 3rd party references to demonstrate its notability. Rtphokie ( talk) 19:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

List of Legend of Legaia locations

List of Legend of Legaia locations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This is an list gameplay elements that amount to unnecessary game guide material and plot details. TTN ( talk) 16:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:GAMECRUFT. Even so, article appears to fail our sourcing requirements as it has no reliable third-party sources. Randomran ( talk) 16:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Have to agree, way to excessive and to in-game to belong here. needs to go the way of the bin. Also have you seen the character list, its as bad, especially as you think that this is all for one game. Salavat ( talk) 16:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Locations in a game are not generally notable. I see no reason to think these are either (sources, etc.). Hobit ( talk) 17:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Even taking my dislike of the GAMECRUFT policy in general into account, there's no getting around the fact that this stuff is cruft/gameguide. McJeff ( talk) 06:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete an in-depth guide to every location in a video game is unnecessary in an encyclopedia. Could be optionally pared down and put in the main article, but definitely cannot exist in this form. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as non-notable trivia. — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 16:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I've done a relatively exhaustive (though not completely) search for secondary materials covering the fictional universe of this game and notes some results here. the basic takeaway is (lots of the sources are old articles and so are gated) that most reviews of the game no not go in to any detail at all regarding the fictional world. The probability that an article can be built and meet our guidelines given the dearth of sources is very low. Protonk ( talk) 20:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge too detailed for something like this, but can be included as a list in the main article- DGG ( talk) 03:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – inappropriate topic per WP:VGSCOPE. Article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NOT#GUIDE. — sephiroth bcr ( converse) 19:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Transwikied to StrategyWiki:Legend of Legaia/Walkthrough. -- Prod ( Talk) 05:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I created these pages, merged from a whole series of individual pages for each location. I've never played the game myself, and am happy to see them go. Ziggurat 08:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare contact me My work 21:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Long Dong Silver

Long Dong Silver (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

I have nominated this article for deletion for two simple reasons - lack of confirmation and the article lacks of any credible source.

Norum ( talk) 10:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

It does need to be sourced, but as much as I hate to say it, this guy is noteworthy. He was a major part of the Clarence Thomas confirmation controversy in the United States (Thomas was accused of bragging that his sexual prowess was equal to that of LDS), and he was apparently famous as a porno star in the early 1980s, although I know very little about that. Jsc1973 ( talk) 15:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Verified by its discussion in reference to the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. CNN's [46] "Bill Press: The return of Long Dong Silver"(2001) says that Anita Hill testified that Thomas harassed female workers inpart by describing porn videos he had watched "including the now-famous 'Long Dong Silver.'" If CNN says it is famous, that goes a long way toward establishing notability. Google News archive has many other articles discussing the film.See Google News archive [47] , particuarly Pioneer Press (1991) [48]. Washington Post [49] called Silver "a well known performer." Rocky Mountain News [50] says Silver was well known even before the Thomas hearings. Time magazine(1998) [51] called Silver "a household name." Edison ( talk) 19:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article needs refs, but very famous, because of the Clarence Thomas hearings. John Z ( talk) 20:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Redirect to Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination. The individual is not notable beyond the mention of the name during the testimony and I don't think there would be any discussion without the connection. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 00:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The sources to demonstrate notability do exist, but the article needs improvement by way of a delicate chainsaw. JBsupreme ( talk) 03:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per, well... everyone. I mean, I don't read the news but I know about this guy. JuJube ( talk) 07:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. However, this is likely to be back here before long unless it is improved. Stifle ( talk) 09:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Marathi nationalism

Marathi nationalism (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

The article is a complete WP:OR and never has been such a term or sentiment used in India or abroad in past or present media. Article has no citation and is a complete hoax or propoganda page created for some nuisance. I am surprised how this article survived so long. -- gppande «talk» 19:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Keep for now. AfDs are not the place for content disputes. Ask for specific citations and edit the uncited information out. If nothing is left then come back. JASpencer ( talk) 08:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Article is a complete hoax and reads like a propaganda. Try googling and you would find nothing. This is WP:OR -- gppande «talk» 13:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 14:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I don't know anything about this subject, so I'll not "vote", but I will agree with the nom: this is an "existence" dispute, not a content dispute — i.e. is there really such a thing as M. nationalism at all? Nyttend ( talk) 02:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, there is gross OR at present, but the phenomenon is certainly real and deserves an article of its own. -- Soman ( talk) 14:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Hey Soman, nice to see you buddy. I think you are trying to say that Marathi regionalism exists - as can be seen from recent activities of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena. WP has a GA for that 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra. But Marathi nationalism, which means, Maharashtra as an independent state has never been thought of in past or present. So this article deserves a delete. What say? -- gppande «talk» 07:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Nationalism is a rather broad subject, and I don't think the term 'Marathi nationalism' necessarily needs to imply demand for a separate state. My understanding is that there is a separate Marathi nationalist discourse, which isn't 100% the same as Maharashtra regionalism. But perhaps a merger between the two articles can be a solution. -- Soman ( talk) 11:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Can you explain which organization, political leader or mass movement represents "Marathi nationalism" and which cannot be covered under Marathi regionalism article? Merge might be a solution but only if the two terms of regionalism and nationalism imply same meaning. Otherwise not. I don't think the 2 terms are synonyms. -- GPPande talk! 12:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Why aren't they the same? Is it because of the meaning as shown above? If it's because nationalism = seperatism, then that is wrong. B/c it does not necessarily mean that. Marathi nationalism might exist, but as it already includes a level of Hindu nationalism the "enemy of my enemy ultimately becomes my friend." Lihaas ( talk) 18:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I tried googling as suggested by the nominator and this Google Books search confirms that this is a notable subject. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable topic based not the search Phil did. Certainly not a hoax as the nominator claims. Edward321 ( talk) 22:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep a clearly notable subject matter, clean up no excuse for deletion. Taprobanus ( talk) 01:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Reply to Phil Bridger and all those who voted to "keep" after him: Nice that Phil did a google search to check this out. Let me explain you the findings you have got. Most of the book findings show "Marathi;nationalism". This means the two terms are present in the book at separate places but they are not present as a "term" used as article here in WP. For those with non-Indian background, I can explain this more simpler. Marathi is an Indian language spoken in west Indian state of Maharashtra, India's most industrialist and third most populous state. Marathi people have been quite prominent in freedom struggle of India (till 1947) and also during the 1857 Indian uprising. People who were involved in these struggles are called "nationalist". There is nothing like "Marathi Nationalist" fighting for separate Maharashtra as written in the article. In the book "Where I Come from" by Vijay Agnew - he is trying to address the Samyukta maharashtra movement which took place before Maharashtra state was created in 1960. The term is entirely out of context here. The two movements are different by decades and purpose. My point is - in India there are separatist movements in states like Jammu and Kashmir and in past in Punjab. But no such movement or feeling has been ever used in either of the central or western Indian states. Wikipedia already has articles like Marathi regionalism and 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra. But Marathi nationalism is way too much of imagination done, it's a hoax and complete WP:OR. I would ask all those who have given keep comments to rethink. -- gppande «talk» 07:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Bottom line is : Don't get confused between Marathi regionalism, which is resentment towards non-Marathi people living in Maharashtra to Marathi nationalism, which means separatist movements in Maharashtra as in Jammu and Kashmir or in Punjab in past. Former one surely exists and is represented quite thoroughly in Wikipedia but the later one is a complete hoax or WP:OR -- gppande «talk» 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Only five of the 29 Google books hits for which snippets are shown have punctuation between "Marathi" and "nationalism/ist". That isn't "most of the book findings". Also it's not necessary for Marathi nationalism to exist as a significant force today for us to have an article on it - we cover history too. Phil Bridger ( talk) 09:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Never in past also - was there any sentiment for separate Maharashtra nation. -- gppande «talk» 09:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Keep The article needs work but a quick google search shows many diverse references to the term, including news media and at least one academic source, indicating that the term is recognizable and topical. -- Regents Park ( sniff out my socks) 16:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Can you show me a single reference from past or present - where any organization, political leader or people sentiment in any media demanding a separate nation of Maharashtra ??? This is first time such an idea is seen only on Wikipedia. All you do is "google search". Read the article you have searched and show where there is a demand or movement for "Maharashtra nation". If you show just one reference showing separatist movement exists - I will withdraw. -- GPPande talk! 07:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
OK. You are right. The term is WP:OR. The only academic mention is as follows: Tilak attempts to fit a militant Marathi nationalism into the rubric of the emerging all-India nationalist movement, an idea that continues to be relevant and revisited in the post-colonial period, where it is clearly not used as a term. The newspaper references are dubious (Indian Express [52], which shows up as many hits, contains the term in a comment from a reader). Google scholar pulls out five hits for "Marathi nationalism", but none of the five seem to address the issue directly (I can only see the abstracts). JSTOR pulls up 25 articles and, from what I can make out (I don't have the time to read all 25!), most don't even use the two words together. From the titles, none address the issue directly. I apologize for not looking deeper in my initial response but must admit that my view was partly colored by the fact that I think that Marathi nationalism does exist. Apparently, the world at large hasn't extended the sectarian influences in Maharashtra to a nationalistic level as yet. -- Regents Park ( sink with my stocks) 13:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Thanks. And Yes, hate crimes committed by Shiv Sena and MNS show their regionalism but they are not separatists. Atleast till now :-) Who knows what Thackeray family might do in future. -- GPPande talk! 14:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article certainly needs a lot of work and citations, but they are not too hard to find. Keep a tag on for cleanup and citations, but it is certainly an issue that has been raised in the past, (division of states) and is once again picking up steam in 2008. (there was some scheme to demand visas for others coming to Maharashtra (if was obviously shot down)).
see this from nationalism: "nationalism can refer to an ideology, a sentiment, a form of culture, or a social movement that focuses on the nation."
And in turn, see nation. A nation is technically (by definition, and in academia) defined as having a commong ethno-cultural bond, where a nation is homogenous. See the Celtic nations as an example.
Heck, we should have a Gujarati nationalism too. That's picking up steam with economic growth and Modi's comments that Gujarat should not pay federal taxes in return for no central assistance. Lihaas ( talk) 19:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Please understand, nobody in Gujarat or Maharashtra is asking for separate "nation". You are still not able to understand the difference between regionalism and nationalism. Please read difference explained above in bold. -- GPPande talk! 07:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Look at my definitions above. The definition for nationalism doesn't precldue any demands for an independent state. The restructuring of india along linguistic lines was a result of pressures in the same vein of nationalism. Like the anti-hindi movement in the south (tamil), was also a result of a tamil nationalism (although there were fringe elements calling for indepedence) it doesn't mean it has to be an indepedent state. re-read my comments above to talking about the definitions of nationalism and nation.
Reading your comment above i can see a flaw in the logic there. Seperatism doesn't have to be based on grounds for a nation. What you are interpreting is the interchangeable use of nation and state. the two are not interchangeable (the nation-state was an ideal set forth centuries ago, it is rarely the case today. a few nation-states would be portugal, czech rep, slovakia, croatia, serbia, mongolia, and japan, but not much more)) Granted the wider world does use the term like so (and as a poli scientist this will grate, it's a major pet peeve), it is still wrong. a nation doesn't have to be seperate, nor does a seperation mean it becomes a nation. Your quote here, "Marathi nationalism, which means separatist movements," is wrong. It does not mean seperatist. again, see my links above.
comment subnationalism, as a term, should satisfy the disagreements here. For those who can't see it as per the political definition, one can at least see it as a "subnationalism"

Lihaas ( talk) 00:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree that nationalism and separatism are not the same thing. However, an examination of the available literature shows that the idea of Marathi nationalism is not something that is even remotely recognized outside of this article. Historians do not appear to state that Marathi nationalism drove Shivaji's conquests (in fact, the concepts of nationalism, nations, and nation states seems to have developed around the time of the French revolution, 1789, much after Shivaji's time). We should not be inventing terms and synthesizing ideas on wikipedia and Marathi regionalism (I had no clue that this article existed) covers everything that anyone wants to place under nationalism. -- Regents Park ( sink with my stocks) 02:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
But using this nationalism here is not tied to Shivaji alone. I just re-read the part on the page with Shivaji and I agree that part can be re-phrased to something along of the lines that Shivaji is used as the rallying cry. Academically speaking Shivaji certainly didn't base his ideas around a Maratha base (although he never denied, and did occasionally use a Hindu base if it suited his battle). I agree with you on this path, but see the definition of nationalism above. regardless of whether the actual term is used by proponents/advocates, the definition falls in with their deeds and words; and, at any rate, in the modern era there is also mention of the term. Lihaas ( talk) 04:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't disagree with you. In fact, my first reaction to the nom was 'of course there is Marathi nationalism (calling it a hoax was not helpful).' I !voted keep and was going to respond to gppande's comments on my !vote with an explanation of why nationalism, nation, nation states, and separatism. But, instead I looked more carefully at the google results and was surprised to see that they don't really talk about Marathi nationalism and, in most cases (except for a Tehelka interview with Padamsee) the equation of the two was purely casual. Google scholar showed the same thing. I looked at JSTOR and found the same thing. When you research the term further, it appears that the academic community as well as the news media have not elevated regionalism to nationalism. We, at wikipedia, should not pre-empt them.-- Regents Park ( sink with my stocks) 13:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Valid points you have no doubt. but i imagined you searched for "Marathi nationalism" which limits your search. See this: http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=maratha+nationalism&meta= you can also search for this term (as it was they call themselves. Marathi is the language, not the people and the culture) Lihaas ( talk) 18:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete: I don't get what the article is trying to say. Either the editor(s) are thorughly confused or have thrown together a random collection of events and ideas(their own) in order to present a viewpoint of their own. To equate ethnic pride with Nationalisim is definetely OR. The present plank of the Shiv Sena or MNS is best defined as regionalism, not nationalism. Even at its worst this regionalism has not morphed in anti-India or seperatist sentiment (if that is what the article's creators intendent to convey by the term nationalism). The Belgaum issue is one of many border disputes within Indian states, caused by the Reorganisation of states on linguistic lines, and not restricted to Maharashtra alone. Delete as per WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV and maybe even WP:NONSENSE -- Deepak D'Souza 07:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete Strong Keep: Similar articles like Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism and many many more also exist. Subject notable. Kensplanet Talk Contributions 12:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Strong nationalist sentiments exists in different parts of India in past and present. Like Kashmiriyat, Khalistan and Tamil sentiments. They are not disputed. Show some reference for Marathi nationalism. That's what is the topic of debate here. -- GPPande talk! 12:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Well, the recent attacks on North Indians by the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena and the past attacks on non-Mahrashtrians (both physical and verbal) by the Shiv Sena clearly reflect the ideology of nationalism (a nation only for Maharashtrians). Maharashtra can be classified as a nation since the state speaks only 1 language Marathi officially and has a majority aggregation of persons of the same ethnic group. Kensplanet Talk Contributions 12:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Again, that's regionalism and not nationalism. Regionalism is covered in WP with 2 articles - 1 is GA written by KHP2. Nationalism - is not present. Shiv Sena or MNS are not equal to Khalistani militants or LTTE or militants in Kashmir. Their xenophobic acts are for Marathi region and not nation. -- GPPande talk! 13:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I think you are right GP. That is regionalism and not nationalism. They do not want a seperate nation as of now. But I still have to research on the differences between nationalism and regionalism. So, a Weak delete for now. Kensplanet Talk Contributions 16:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – The title is descriptive, so that would blunt a claim on OR. Marathi nationalism does exist, only that its not called that in India. Xenophobic acts perpetrated by the Shiv Sena and MNS, and earlier organizations in the 1960s that advocated a greater Maharashtra state are acts of nationalism. Quoting wikipedia on nationalism: "The term nationalism can refer to an ideology, a sentiment, a form of culture, or a social movement that focuses on the nation." And yes, Maharashtra can be classified as a nation. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
So are you suggesting that there is a separatist movement in Maharashtra and that MNS and Shiv Sena are fighting for a separate Maharashtra nation? That's not true. Their fight has been covered in Marathi regionalism, which is resentment towards non-Marathi people living in Maharashtra. Marathi nationalism, which means separatist movements in Maharashtra as in Jammu and Kashmir or in Punjab in past. Former one surely exists and is represented quite thoroughly in Wikipedia but the later one is a complete hoax or WP:OR -- GPPande talk! 12:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Gaurav, I think you are confusing the term nation with nation-state. Examples of nations are England, Scotland, Holland, while nation-states are the United Kingdom and The Netherlands. The Wikipedia article on nationalism has the following information:
  1. "in a nation-state, the language of the nation should be the official language, and all citizens should speak it, and not a foreign language" Apropos Marathi
  2. Nationalists see nations as an inclusive categorization of human beings ... national symbols, a national culture, a national music and national literature; national folklore, a national mythology and - in some cases - a national religion -- Apropos Shivaji, Hindutva
  3. Nationalists define individual nations on the basis of certain criteria, which distinguish one nation from another; and determine who is a member of each nation. These criteria typically include a shared language, culture, and/or shared values which are predominantly represented within a specific ethnic group. Apropos Marathi, denouncing Valentine's day
  4. Nationalism has the strong territorial component, with an inclusive categorization of territory corresponding to the categorization of individuals. Maharashtra + Belgaum
  5. According to Smith, the preconditions for the formation of a nation are as follows: See the bulleted point there. I can map the following: 1 Memories of battles (Shivaji vs Mughals), Sacred centers (quite a few), Languages and scripts (Marathi), Special customs and Historical records and thinking (many), A fixed homeland (Belgaum agitation).
So why is this not nationalism? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
England, Scotland and Holland are good examples of nation. But I think the idea of comparison between them and Maharashtra or Marathi resentment is not correct. England and Scotland were enemies in past. England and Scotland still have separate parliaments. Dutch rebellion against the Habsburgs was iconic. Holland was a sovereign state in a larger Dutch confederation. Shivaji or Maratha Empire never fought for "Marathi culture" or "Marathi language". Shivaji established Hindavi Swaraj(self rule) which was for Hinduism and not Marathi. Hinduism is a very broad term and cannot be narrowed down to Marathi. Another good example of nation would be Quebec as a nation. No such comparable sentiments exists in Maharashtra or Marathi people in past. Shivaji did not fight against the Gujarati, Kannada, Hindi or Telugu people to establish a nation. Shivaji fought against Mughal aggression while hate crimes of Thackeray family can be termed simply "regionalism". People of one region should remain there. They see migration to Maharashtra as aggression. They never put forth the Marathi nation concept like RSS imagines a Hindu nationalism. Below are answers -
  1. Not true. Read Chapter XXIV. Maharashtra from here. This is official. Marathi is official language in Maharashtra but central government directives force English and Hindi use in all official work.
  2. Shivaji never fought for Marathi culture or Marathi language. Hindutva cannot be narrowed down to Marathi. It's a very broad term. Yes, Marathi language is different and so different music and literature but they never symbolized distinct nationalism. It was always a subset of Hindu nationalism and culture. Recent acts of MNS and Shiv Sena are not against this larger nationalism. Shiv Sena has always promoted Hindutva and so their hate crimes can be termed as regionalism.
  3. No. People can be identified as Marathi or Telugu or Gujarati but there has always been shared traditions and festivals Hindu dominated parts in India. As far as ethnic origin or race is considered, all north Indians belong to same Indo-Aryan race while south Indian belong to Dravidian. Valentine day denouncing is foolish act and done in many other states too apart from Marathi people.
  4. No arguments here. Yes there is strong territorial component which existed in past too. But again, this sentiment is very very weak as compared to other territorial sentiments in rest of world from UK, Netherland and Canada. Maybe, Peurto Rico in US.
  5. Smith's points are * A fixed homeland (current or historical) - Yes. * High autonomy - No. Maharashtra or Marathi have no autonomy * Hostile surroundings - No - No war fought between Marathi's and Gujarati's or Kannada or Telugu. * Memories of battles - No. Wars of Maratha Empire were against Mughals and maybe stop Islam's expansion. Not for Marathi. * Sacred centers - No. Sacred centers of Hinduism not Marathi. * Languages and scripts - Language yes but scripts no - Scripts of Hinduism. * Special customs - To some very small extend like Gudi Padwa (Marathi new year). But that again the flexibility in Hinduism. * Historical records and thinking - None. Maratha empire was not aggression of marathi language, Tilak and Sawarkar were nationalist for Indian independence.
All I am trying to say is, before Samyukta Maharashtra movement there was no separate linguistic identity on large scale. Recent acts of MNS and Shiv Sena is truely "regionalism" as they do not symbolize any identity other than language. That alone cannot be called "nationalism". Maybe you would like to explain the difference in the two terms. As we are on WP, if you can show some good reference on Marathi nationalism exists and which in contrast with other cultures or languages of India and which is not Hindu nationalism - I will withdraw. -- GPPande talk! 09:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
While nationalism is associated with nations (cultural, ethnic, and sometimes linguistically defined) rather than with the nation state, and therefore can be associated with the Marathi people without the presence of a separatist movement, I don't think that there is evidence of the independent existence of a 'Marathi nationalism', either historically or today. The conditions may exist, a proto-nationalism may exist, however we should look at the outside world to inform us about that existence rather than drawing those conclusions ourselves. A look at the literature on JSTOR shows little or no evidence of Shivaji's conquests being driven by a 'Marathi nationalism'. Google pulls up a bunch of assorted pairings of the two words without an explicit attempt to combine them into a single noun, except in one or two cases from unreliable sources. No, what we have here is a protologism, and that is best avoided. -- Regents Park ( sink with my stocks) 18:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I support this merge idea, although i think marathi regionalism should fall under marathi nationalism. Lihaas ( talk) 00:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Marathi regionalism. Perhaps I am confused but it seems from what I read above is that if Marathi nationalism does exist, it is synonymous with Marathi regionalism. Topics like the attacks on South Indians and Biharis and other activities of the Shiv Sena are already covered in the latter and it appears that if the former is expanded, it will dwell on the same issues. Gizza Discuss © 23:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Exactly. There is a grey area between regionalism and nationalism. It is conceivable to consider demand for separate nationhood as a cogent criteria for nationalism and we have no sources supporting this claim. The grey areas of nationalism can be discussed in the Marathi regionalism article. Docku: “what up?” 23:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
See my comments above for a mention of the definitions of nationalism, etc. (+ i have since edited the main page, it looks cleaner now, though still needs some more work) Lihaas ( talk) 18:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment I am trying to descern the differences here. Nationalism: The ideas espoused by Shivaji to consolidate the Maratha empire which was later invoked by people including Tilak during Ganesh Chaturthi and Cow protection movement. Regionalism: Issues defined in Marathi Regionalism article mostly occured and occuring after India became one nation. Is that a fair assessment? If that is, should I change my vote to keep the article? Docku: “what up?” 18:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Regionalism is largely a misnomer. It is something more suited to IR than intrastate. Especially in the regard of an ethnically diverse country/state (NOT nation, India is NOT a nation) like India, regionalism is essentially nationalism. Lihaas ( talk) 18:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
You may be right. But, I am trying to make a distinction grounded on available secondary sources, or we will run into the risk of creating original research. Docku: “what up?” 18:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
(ec)According to wikipedia: As an ideology, nationalism holds that 'the people' in the doctrine of popular sovereignty is the nation, and that as a result only nation-states founded on the principle of national self-determination are legitimate. So it does seem that the goal of nationalism is the foundation of a nation state. However, I do think that we're going down a slippery slope here where we, in wikipedia, are defining something that may not yet exist. Maratha nationalism does draw more hits on google, 220 versus 151 for Marathi nationalism, but most seem in the same vein (not RS, using the term casually). A few sources seem more reliable (an IHT article, something on JSTOR, and a few books, but one will have to read the text to see if Maratha nationalism exists or not. Not to belabor the point but, in every ethno-linguistic group, you'll find some elements of nationalism. The question is to what degree has that nationalistic spirit spread in the community and at what point does it become a recognized movement that deserves a page on wikipedia. I don't think Marathi or Maratha nationalism is notable enough for that as yet, or at least, there are no reliable secondary sources that say it has. (IMHO, of course.) -- Regents Park ( sink with my stocks) 19:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
You mean, what Shivaji did to consolidate Maratha empire ( this book calls it Maratha Nationalism) is neither notable nor nationalism? Docku: “what up?” 19:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I introduced this definition into the article. When I look back at the old version of the article, it talks about something similar. Docku: “what up?” 19:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
(ec)Consolidating a Maratha state is not nationalism. Nationalism is explicitly defined as the idea that national (as in common ethnic, linguistic, and social groups) self-determination is the only way to form a nation-state. If Shivaji espoused a Maratha kingdom based solely on the socio-cultural-linguistic Maratha identity, then yes, it would be an example of Marathi nationalism. Most historians, however, don't say that Shivaji did that. At best, he was more interested in a Hindu nationalism rather than a Maratha one (see the Spear quote in the book reference you've provided). Your reference does say Maratha nationalism (but then, confusingly, adds Maratha Hinduism to the mix), however, I doubt if the source can be called reliable (peer-reviewed work, high academic credentials, etc. etc.) Of course there is a nationalistic streak in the Marathi world, that (unfortunately) exists in every community, but is there a nationalistic movement - I don't know, but I've yet to see a reliable source for that. -- Regents Park ( sink with my stocks) 19:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I read your definition. There is a huge WP:OR leap between cow, country, et al and Maratha nationalism (I know, that's what the source says, but the conclusion neither flows from the Spear quote nor from the slogan. ....) But, clearly I'm in the minority here, so que sera sera and all that. -- Regents Park ( sink with my stocks) 20:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Change to Keep I believe Marathi nationalism was the nationalistic sentiment created by Shivaji to carve out an empire from several small kingdoms. Docku: “what up?” 20:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
In regards to the reflections from the nationalism page, i though that was dubious to say it has to be manifested as a state. Sure enough, upon seeing the source, one will not it is referenced from an abstract to a book without any mention this. This cannot be ascertained from a source like that, it is dubious at best. I have yet to see a reliable source to show that nationalism has to do with becoming a state. The Basque case is certainly a nationalism, yet it doesn't have a state. Likewise with Celtic nationalism, Corsica, Catalonia, Alsace-Lorraine, Prussia, Bavaria, and this is just West europe.
When one uses the definition it is possible to get a basic idea of what this is. Of course you need sources too, and with that idea something molded around the definition can be seen. There is a clear mention of this phenemenon, as you have already shown, all we should be doing is working out when it developed and what it's manifested as.
Docku, I agree with you broadly, but still not too sure if it was a Maratha nationalism that Shivaji fought for.
(btw- nice intellectual debate on the nuances of this political nitty-gritty, most people miss the difference on nation, state, and nation-state. Lihaas ( talk) 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Well, there has to be the desire for a nation state. The basques, for e.g., definitely desire independence from the Spanish (and, to some extent, the French, but that's another story). Celtic nationalism arose out of the desire for a nation of their own. Ditto for Catalonia. Alsace-Lorraine, I can't say if there ever was a nationalist movement there - they got tossed around a bit but no fault of their own. Prussia, Bavaria - I'll have to read up on German history and what exactly Bismarck was fighting so I won't comment on that. But, most of your examples are those of a people wanting their own country, which, afaik, the Marathas are not doing. Perhaps if the article were titled "Nationalism amongst the Marathas" I would be less concerned but the current title seems to be taking it a bit further than we should. (I promise, this is my absolute last post on this topic!) -- Regents Park ( sink with my stocks) 20:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree I dont have a reference which claims that Nationalism is only associated with founding a nation. Nevertheless, Marathi Nationalism as a cause was used by Shivaji to make the empire. Does it still exist? it doesnt have to.... What exists now can rather be classified into regionalism. Docku: “what up?” 20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Regents, I may have fed your point on the Basque case. But see the Cornish part of Celtic nationalism. All they want is devolution at the moment (all that might change when Scotland become independent (inside 10 years, probably 5)). Wales have had strands seeking independence, but that was mellow compared to the demands and near ceasure of independence with devolution. Scotland is starting to pick up thats true, but it's independence and devolution numbers are quite different amongst the nationalists. Some form of pragmatic nationalism was at play. Nonetheless, the sources have quite indicated a necessity for statehood. But once again, I'm fair game if the title was changed. It keeps the subject but alters it's meaning (if you must) to get accomodation. Although, I do see somewhat eye to eye on the basic strain your heading on.
Dockhu, Agree with you on the first part. On the second, however, I think that's the big problem here. Regionalism is not a nationalism (even the wikipedia article on a domestic regionalism is completely uncited. Lihaas ( talk) 20:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Marathi nationalism was a past event, history. Marathi regionalism is present. References do support this notion. I am not sure if we will succeed in our effort in drawing an unambiguous distinction between regionalism and nationalism, a feat which could not be achieved by those two WP articles. Docku: “what up?” 21:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
For all good purposes we are on the same page about nationalism existing and being sourced. I just don't agree with it being regionalism today. I call it nationalism today as well. Lihaas ( talk) 21:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Zix, Travoltron, and Tee

Zix, Travoltron, and Tee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This character article does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN ( talk) 01:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare contact me My work 19:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nom is right and the article doesn't seem to elicit enough interest for a merge. VG ☎ 14:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete minor villains in a notable series who, according to the article, appear only in a handful of episodes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply


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

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 09:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Photo pillow

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

Veiled spam for a non-notable product. At best redirect to a general article about putting photos on to non-paper surfaces. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 13:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete Most objects can be treated this way, I have a friend who puts photos on all sorts of objects. This is just one example, and a non-notable one. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 09:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

List of Qassam rocket attacks, 2006

List of Qassam rocket attacks, 2006 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Wikipedia is not news, nor is it an archive for news items. Although, I have no doubt that some of the events may in fact be notable this article claims to be about all of them but, only serves to regurgitate items of news without any apparent attempt to be encylopedic on the subject. PROD tag removed by author without any attempt at explaination. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 12:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: reply

List of Qassam rocket attacks, 2007 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

And if I'm gonna nominate these two than in the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and lord know what else I need to nominate the following for the same reasons as well:

List of Qassam rocket attacks, 2004 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Qassam rocket attacks, 2005 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Qassam rocket attacks, 2008 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Additionally, although Qassam rockets and such may be notable enough the base article List of Qassam rocket attacks need to be reviewed. It should either be a list of notable events or an article about Qassam rocket attacks and at the moment it appears stuck half way in between to me. Thanks. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 13:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, Jasynnash2 said most of what I was going to say. RockManQ (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom. Eatabullet ( talk) 23:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into a single list. If all the information is already there, delete. I do not think the entries too detailed, and a list of them is appropriate content, more than just temporary interest. DGG ( talk) 03:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
If a merge occurs than List of Qassam rocket attacks is probably the best place (but, as I pointed out that article is stuck somewhere between being a list and being an article). Jasynnash2 ( talk) 07:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 08:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

List of named Solar System objects

AfDs for this article:
List of named Solar System objects (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

I can't see the point of this article. There are only two reasons for someone to look up the name of a Solar System body: either one knows the name but doesn't know the object, or knows the object but not the name. If one knows the name, one can type it into the search engine and find the object in the disambig. If one knows the object, one can search for Moons of Jupiter, list of planets or whatever category one wishes, and find the name that way. This article is no help whatsoever. Serendi pod ous 12:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep I'm assuming the information is accurate. The list is somewhat interesting and does no harm. (A lot of work went into it too but I know that's not a reason to keep.) Northwestgnome ( talk) 13:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Just because an article is used primarily to find objects is not a valid argument against its notability. As such, I would ask that additional reasons be brought forth as to clarify why it should be deleted. Thank you. Zidel333 ( talk) 14:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The point is not that it is used to find objects. The point is that it is absolutely useless at finding objects. There is no reason for anyone to use this page, other than curiosity value. No one who knew the name of the object would bother looking for it here when they could more easily find it on a disambig page. And if one were looking for an object, like a moon of Jupiter or an asteroid, but didn't know its name, this page is no help, because it's arranged by name, not by category. If you want additional reasons, fine. It's coverage is patchy; it seems to basically include everything that isn't an asteroid, but excludes comets. Serendi pod ous 15:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
You still haven't brought up good reasons as to why it should be deleted; where and why the article needs work, but not for deletion. Sorry, if you can't come up with anything better, I'm going to vote for keep. Zidel333 ( talk) 17:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia already has too many lists of Solar System objects. I'm trying to consolidate the lists into useful, sortable featured lists for the Solar System FT. I can't see this list ever reaching FT, and there are already plenty of other lists giving the same information, so I'd prefer it if it went. Serendi pod ous 18:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. "I can't see the point of this article" isn't a valid reason for deletion. Anyway, here's one use for such a list - suppose you want to know how many non-asteroid bodies in the Solar System have names that begin with the letter Z ? There's only one (I didn't know that before I browsed the list). Very hard to find that information through categories or other resources. Gandalf61 ( talk) 16:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per my and Gandalf61's comments as well the lack of compelling evidence for deleting the article at this time. Zidel333 ( talk) 17:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as part of cleaning up the Solar System lists into something worthy of an encyclopedia. This isn't really a list of named SS bodies, but an arbitrary partial list of SS bodies that one source thought were of interest. I mean, why should Ganymed be included, but not Hektor, which is far more notable? It's completely redundant with several other lists, and deleting it would not remove any information from Wikipedia. kwami ( talk) 20:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • We have a list of named asteroids, but other than this no direct list of solar system objects by name. If the information can be preserved in another article, fine, but I don't see how that can be done other than be reproducing the list. The other objections are weak; the proper response to "wtf is the asteroid Ganymed doing on this list" should be to delete Ganymed, not to delete the list. Comets don't appear because they don't have proper names, but rather designations consisting of a number, a letter, and the name of the discoverer. I approve in a general way of consolidating information, but it seems to me that deleting this article is not consolidation but subtraction -- removing a helpful index of planetary and lunar names. RandomCritic ( talk) 00:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Nothing wrong with the list: it fulfills list guidelines quite well (its criteria are obvious, not POV, etc.), and as noted by Gandalf, it fills in a spot that no other article or category does. Yes, it's redundent to some other lists, but not to any other single article: to get this kind of information elsewhere, you'd have to compare multiple other lists to get the information visible all together at this list. Nyttend ( talk) 02:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • weak keep and work on to coordinate with other lists. Merge can be done later. The key reason for lists--besides locating information imperfectly known--is browsing. Browsing is perhaps the main reason for collecting articles into an encyclopedia in the first place. DGG ( talk) 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:LC items 3 and 7. Stifle ( talk) 15:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Without wishing to be overly pedantic, I would note that WP:LC is only an essay, so I don't think its (rather idiosyncratic) list of criteria can carry much weight in an AfD discussion. Basing arguments on policies or guidelines would be better. Gandalf61 ( talk) 16:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It isn't indiscriminate. I do see the redundancy of which others have spoken, but the best way to handle that is to engage in merge discussions. This seems to fall within the scope of WP Space, I'll tag the page so they can coordinate things. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- I just don't see how this list can ever have a decent inclusion criterion. Do you include the named asteroids or not? If so, the list will be tens of thousands of entries long. If not the list would exclude interesting and important bodies like Ceres and Chiron. Do we include only bodies bigger than a certain size? No, because then we'd just have a duplication of this list with a different ordering. This list just isn't going to work. Reyk YO! 07:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Mvjs Talking 09:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

IHP National Airpistol

IHP National Airpistol (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

No text whatsoever - enough to delete under db-a3. The only info in the article is an infobox. No references/inline cites/inbound links either Flewis (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy close. Enough text has been added since nomination to address the A3 issue, and one reference has been inserted, though it is not a third-party reference. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 16:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep per Blanchardb. May need to be relisted however due to questions of notability. -- Millbrooky ( talk) 01:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Resurrection (Gary Numan album)

Resurrection (Gary Numan album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article should be re-created once concrete info (together with verifiable external sources) on the album emerge. Flewis (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 08:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Requisition

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

Contested prod for two-year old dictionary definition that shows no potential for growth beyond its current state. Delete as per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Allen3  talk 12:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete — dictionary definition. MuZemike ( talk) 16:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: this article consists only of a dictionary definition and has a page on Wiktionary, which is where it belongs. Cliff smith [[User talk:Cliff smith|talk</ 17:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The historical context that Daniel ( talk · contribs) is talking about (You all looked at the article's history, right?) is probably World Wars I and II. They involved Germany's egregious flouting of the Hague Regulations, in particular Articles 46 and 52, governing requisition by an occupying army — the standard method of supporting such an army through the 19th century. There's plenty of source material on this, including discussion in books on international law, and analyses of the various military manuals of the world that shows how they now codify practices on requisition. We don't delete stubs with potential for expansion. And this article is exactly that. We might need an article on spoilation (the jus in bello concept), too. Keep. Uncle G ( talk) 18:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I assume that in your eagerness to disparage the nomination with comments about not checking the history that you also noticed that Daniel ( talk · contribs) has twice undeleted this article without having once expanded it beyond the dicdef stage or producing one of the many sources you claim exist. If these sources actually exist, and there is an encyclopedic subject related to this article's title, then please WP:PROVEIT because the appropriateness of this article has been repeatedly challenged. -- Allen3  talk 19:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • I wrote nothing disparaging about the nomination. Indeed, I wrote nothing about the nomination at all. But I did try to make sure that you were all on the same page and knew what I was talking about when I suddenly brought Daniel into the discussion. I have already told you, in detail, what the encyclopaedic subject by this title is. AFD is not a means for imposing deadlines by which articles must be expanded beyond stub status. Nor is a mechanism for bullying either Daniel or anyone else into doing such expansion. There is no deadline, perfection ab initio is not required, and we are all unpaid volunteers. If you want this article expanded beyond stub status, be bold and expand it. You should have a clear idea, now that I've explained what Daniel was getting at, what the subject is. Uncle G ( talk) 12:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There is lots of potential for this stub as there are two separate topics here - the military context of compulsory demands for goods and services; the administrative start point for purchasing. The article needs to focus upon one of these topics and so what's needed is another article, not the deletion of this one. Colonel Warden ( talk) 11:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator (myself) due to subsequent improvements. The article now establishes notability, and is well written. ( non-admin closure) Flewis (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Allen Clarke (educationalist)

Allen Clarke (educationalist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Non notable character. No inline citations or external links for WP:V. No inbound article links either. The text within the article also lacks context. Flewis (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - A google search provided me with these to links: (both obituaries) [53] [54], however 2 external links alone do not assert notability. -- Flewis (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Unless the article is a hoax (and I don't think so) he is certainly notable enough. Sources could probably be found in a British library. The article could use a slightly more neutral view, but still is informative. Northwestgnome ( talk) 12:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep All above comments are now fixed. Bletchley ( talk) 13:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable. Eatabullet ( talk) 13:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Elaborate a little more, please. RockManQ (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The references establish notability. -- Eastmain ( talk) 16:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep.The obits decisively establish notability. John Z ( talk) 20:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry about that, I just don't like it when people arbitrarily determine an article to be simply "not-notable". Guess I'm being a little picky. While I'm here though Keep; the verifiable references establish the notability of the article. RockManQ (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
This is what the article looked like when I tagged it for afd. -- Flewis (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sources establish notability. Edward321 ( talk) 01:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Headmaster of Holland Park is notable, as for any other truly famous school. The founding headmaster is more than just notable, but a key figure in modern education. and obits in The Times remains accepted as sufficient by themselves for notability. At the time of nomination, that and other refs were not yet in the article, but nominating new articles for deletion only 5 minutes after their start without doing the most superficial check for notability is unconstructive. DGG ( talk) 03:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Aaron Boyd

Aaron Boyd (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Procedural nomination, PROD removed with rationale "Plays in top tier of professional football in Northern Ireland". However, the Northern Irish league is not fully professional. Player record does not appear on Soccerbase, and he has yet to make an appearance for the first team. [55] Therefore, he fails WP:ATHLETE Bettia  (rawr CRUSH!) 12:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Robbie White (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE - as far as I'm aware, there are no fully professional clubs in the Northern Irish league. I'd add Robbie White to the nomination too, as he is in the same situation (and was deprodded by the same editor for the same mistaken reason). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Scien tizzle 00:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Medical statistics

Medical statistics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Poorly focused article, with no real content — G716 < T· C> 11:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- — G716 < T· C> 14:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- — G716 < T· C> 14:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep this article could become useful. Note that it is already linked from several other articles, meaning that the editors there suggested creating this article. Don't think the arguments for deletion are the right ones; this topic has verifiable, reputable sources. It doesn't look like OR either. -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 15:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I added a list of about two dozen concepts that should be presented here. It clearly needs work, but there's plenty of scope here for a Feature-length article, and there is no shortage of potential sources. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • obvious keep notable, encyclopedic subject. Sticky Parkin 18:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep definitely is notable and important. Sentriclecub ( talk) 18:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply


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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Parramore Sports

Parramore Sports (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Club fails to meet the generally accepted notability criteria for English football clubs, i.e. having played at Step 6 or above, or in the FA Cup or FA Vase. This has been established in numerous ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16) past AfDs. Was prodded, but removed by anonymous editor without explanation. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The highest level this club has played at is Level 12/Step 8, two divisions below the normally-accepted cut-off point for English clubs. Bettia  (rawr CRUSH!) 11:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 15:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom. -- Angelo ( talk) 10:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Alexf (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Sexuality (Rihanna song)

Sexuality (Rihanna song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rihanna's Fourth Studio Album (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)( delete) – ( View AfD)

Upcoming Rihanna song. Second sentence starts with "It may be the lead single ...". Third and last sentence ends with "... leaked onto the internet".
Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTE, WP:V. PROD declined. Amalthea Talk 10:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete You can just add it in on the Rihanna wiki page, under a topic called future projects. And just state that she recording a new album and this song. Make a wiki page when it gets closer to the release dates. -- BatterWow ( talk) 11:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:HAMMER. -- AndrewHowse ( talk) 14:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a leaked clip is really a good excuse to create an article. Sometimes i wish wikipedia would block people who make pages like this. Ogioh ( talk) 15:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, textbook example of WP:NOT#Crystal. — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 16:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Speculative single from an as-of-yet-unconfirmed album, sourced to an unreliable website (a fan blog). Hammer this thing! -- Winger84 ( talk) 19:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing is certain at this point. -- Crackthewhip775 ( talk) 01:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. One thing is certain. This article gots ta go! JBsupreme ( talk) 02:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply


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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:SNOW and under CSD G10. Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 14:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Sasha Wilson

Sasha Wilson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Unreferenced, no sources found via Google or Google News. WP:BLP issues, borderline attack page. Huon ( talk) 10:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply


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

The result was delete. — Scien tizzle 00:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Global Extinction Awareness System

Global Extinction Awareness System (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Apparently this is a computer game, albeit with a serious purpose. Article is short on refs. Is it notable? Sgroupace ( talk) 10:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, according to the article, its predecessor was "was developed in 2010", and this system was "developed in 2014". Something doesn't add up here. Was not able to find anything to indicate notability. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC). reply
  • Delete seems to be a hoax, although with a serious purpose. Too bad there is not a Wikiprediction. Redddogg ( talk) 12:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete doesnt seem to be notable. Eatabullet ( talk) 13:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete either a hoax or authored by a time traveller from the future. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply


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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Luciana Misi

Luciana Misi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Previously deleted as an expired PROD and recreated by the same author. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Stifle ( talk) 10:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

DJ Drew

DJ Drew (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

not notable; suspected COI; reads mostly like an advertisement -- Gmatsuda ( talk) 09:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Why the criticism for this DJ when for example, David Rockwell, has less notoriety and no problems with a creation of his page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afranklin2 ( talk • contribs) 01:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Perhaps because many (including myself) weren't aware the article existed? -- Gmatsuda ( talk) 02:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Curse of the Name Change (2005).

AfDs for this article:
Curse of the Name Change (2005). (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Almost nonsense. Unreferenced (no citations); virtually all POV and not notable -- Gmatsuda ( talk) 09:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 08:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Nurse stereotypes

Nurse stereotypes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Although there is a reference provided, this article does not assert the importance or significance of the topic as to be included in an encyclopædia article. EuroSong talk 09:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Why is this not a notable topic? The article does suffer from being written from only one point of view however. (It seems to be written with an agenda -- as is the source I'm guessing -- to promote the "correct" view of nurses vs. all these "stereotypes.") Redddogg ( talk) 12:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Article promotes career prejudice and is also sexism in disguise. The article could be renamed Female stereotype and most of the article would still be true. Instead of talk about nurses in a cultural/historical context, it just lists and categorizes about various European/American stereotypes of this profession. BTW, nurse is a respected profession many other parts of the world. -- Voidvector ( talk) 13:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Are you suggesting we Censor WP for this kind of information? This Article deals only with the Nurse imagery, are you saying that as a Female stereotype we should expand it(?) while as a Nurse stereotype it should be deleted? Exit2DOS2000• T• C• 01:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Someone apparently thought it important enough to create a French-language version. - Drawn Some ( talk) 04:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Oh those French! :-) Redddogg ( talk) 05:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • rename to Nurses in Popular Culture RogueNinja talk 13:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, merge only salvageable content into nursing. The current article is a POV screed. The alphabetic "classification" of major stereotypes is either invented or was introduced by the only source (which is not credited) and therefore not notable as such. JFW |  T@lk 20:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - it must be a notable topic if all these books talk about it. Just because they are not mentioned in the Article is only an edit issue, the rest could be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue, as this admittedly is an issue that a entire industry sector dislikes. Exit2DOS2000• T• C• 01:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Seems notable enough and sufficiently sourced for a separate article. Merging to nurse would create WP:UNDUE problems because this text is fairly long. VG ☎ 07:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Citi Badminton Team

Citi Badminton Team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Non notable, non sourced, content not suitable for an encyclopedia Eatabullet ( talk) 08:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Pls retain this article as the Citi Badminton Team is one of the pilars in Corporate Badminton Tournament Circuit in the Philippines. Citi Badminton team is the one of the oldest Corporate badminton teams in the phils and its history need to be archived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darupinta07 ( talk • contribs) 08:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Can you pls provide me with guidance and/or tips to improve the contribution in order for this to be compliant to the minimum standards for wikipedia retention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darupinta07 ( talk • contribs) 09:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as unsourced and unverified WP:OR. There probably is a need for an article on this subject but this article, in its present form, isn't it. Eddie.willers ( talk) 11:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • The info provided was based on the data gathered from our organization's historian. There are several articles written in major dailies in the Philippines about Citi Badminton team. In due time, they will included and cited in here... particularly, after the resolution on whether this topic merits its inclusion in Wikipedia.
Care to sign your messages with the four tildes? Starczamora ( talk) 20:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:ORG, WP:N, WP:V. Company sports teams are fun and good for morale, but not something an encyclopedia can reasonably cover. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • This is not only about a company sports team. Citi Badminton team has already made its mark in Philippines' employment by providing opportunities for collegiate athletes. In a country, where there's no real incentive system (e.g. monetary) for athletes to continue their sporting career after the university, Citi Badminton has bridged this gap. This is just an example of its impact and value as a human interest ... ergo an encycopedia can cover.
      • Okay, now this is just getting silly. Unless the "Citi Badminton Team" consists of millions of people, I strongly doubt it's had any impact on the Phillipines employment whatsoever... the Phillipines is a country of nearly 100 million people! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Completely non-notable, and what's with including press write-ups and e-mails on the main article? Starczamora ( talk) 20:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, company-based sports teams are by themselves not notable...unless, say, the said team made it in the finals of some international competition sponsored by the international regulatory body for badminton. I don't care if, as alleged, it does provide employment opportunities for some persons--for all I care, there may be other companies or company sports teams that do the same---it's just that it simply does not meet Wikipedia's notability policies, and it simply has to go. There are also conflict of interest issues given that, per the anonymous/unsigned user comments, the article was written by a company historian. --- Tito Pao ( talk) 08:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to page author, kindly do not blank the content until the discussion is closed. Thank you! Eatabullet ( talk) 01:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for being a non-notable company team. Although if I may add some teams are highly notable. – Howard the Duck 03:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. An editor below had requested a link to the previous AfD(s), at least one is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles. Cirt ( talk) 11:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

1991–1992 United States network television schedule (late night)

1991–1992 United States network television schedule (late night) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Articles are unsourced and do not assert their own importance.   — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 07:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following (if they still exist anqualify):

  — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 07:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Comment The nomination is ill-formed by not noting previous AFDs such as [56]. Would the nominator or someone else please link to all previous AFDs for all these articles? That might head off WP:DRV. I will assume good faith from Jeff G., that he simply did not know that these articles had been through AFD before, nominated by Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Edison ( talk) 19:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, Wikipedia is not a TV guide, and certainly is not a TV guide from the mid-20th century. Stifle ( talk) 10:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I propose to add to the nomination United States network television schedules (late night), which will be only redlinks if this discussion results in a delete decision. Stifle ( talk) 10:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Some discussion on what programs the major channels have historically sent may be covered in the articles on the channel. However, this raw timetable data is source material, not encyclopedia material. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as pure listcruft, even if moderately interesting. Eddie.willers ( talk) 11:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is primary material, not encyclopedia articles. Put it someplace else on the Internet. Redddogg ( talk) 12:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete Not encyclopedic to say the least. Eatabullet ( talk) 12:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Dl2000 ( talk) 16:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All including United States network television schedules (late night). Wikipedia is not a TV guide and I would also argue that it is these lists fall under WP:NOTREPOSITORY in that it is not a "Mere collection of public domain or other source material." Television schedules are source material, public domain, and widely available. We also are not a mirror of TV.com and the like. This and other such lists are not encyclopedic and do not add to the body of knowledge here. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 16:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Destroy them all! — Wikipedia is not a directory for these sort of things. MuZemike ( talk) 16:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm not seeing a particularly strong reason to delete these (assuming they can be sourced, that is). Someone doing research into TV programs would certainly find these useful. It's good to know which programs were competing with each other at a given time. And in case people weren't aware, many similar articles have survived AFD in the past. Zagalejo ^^^ 18:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all Each year's network TV schedule is discussed substantially in reviews in national media, as are all the programs, so they can be sourced. For 1991 and 1992 late night programming, the year selected for the main AFD entry, see Google News archive [57]. Each programming slot gets discussed in relation to its competition, who was the host before, and who might follow as host. See [58] which notes the late night competition between Arsenio Hall and Johnny Carson's designated successor, Jay Leno. Many of the article are unfortunately behind paywall. Dennis Miller versus Arsenio Hall versus Johhny Carson is discussed at [59]. The 1992 late night schedule is reviewd at [60]. The prime time schedules also have received substantial discussion in reliable sources every year there has been television broadcasting. Books have been written about TV schedules and programs for many of these years. The nomination is illformed and one big "IDONTLIKEIT." Edison ( talk) 19:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • First, Keep 1967–1968 United States network television schedule and its redirect 1967–68 United States network television schedule. Why was this year singled out over other schedule years? Furthermore, the 1967-68 article was sourced in a References section, contrary to this AfD's claim.
Secondly, there's nothing new presented in the AfD that hasn't already played out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles, etc., other than that most articles in this case are the less-prominent late night schedules. There are also plenty of non-arguments here such as WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:ITSCRUFT. As for WP:NOT#DIR, see its point 3 which tolerates historic lists such as United States network television schedules - NOT#DIR is not a sufficient ground for deletion in this case.
Thirdly, specifically for 1990s CTV prime time schedules, like the 1967-68 article this is one of those things that are not like the others. Dragging the 1990s CTV into this mass-nomination is hardly good practice. A mass AfD should stick with the common theme, in this case limiting to U.S. late night schedules. That said, the 1990s CTV list is not substantive, and should Merge to the relevant Canada-wide schedule articles such as 1998–1999 Canadian network television schedule. However, much work remains to do on Canadian television information - let's not WP:DEMOLISH that house.
Fourthly, the "Any other bluelinks on United States network television schedules (late night) that qualify" is too vague to be acted upon for AfD purposes. Articles need to be individually identified for AfD. And just what is supposed to be meant by "qualify" here?
Finally, for the late night lists, historical schedules are valid lists which provide context of television history, how programs of each network have competed according to timeslot. However, some of these are not substantive and could merge to the main schedule article. For example, 1954-1955 United States network television schedule (late night) only indicates The Steve Allen Show, therefore it seems better to merge that info to 1954–1955 United States network television schedule. But the extent to which merging should be done (all year? some? none?) is best done as a project discussion outside an AfD e.g. at WT:TV before proceeding further. Therefore, No Action (Deletion or Merge) of late night schedules until this aspect is brought to a consensus. Dl2000 ( talk) 20:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all Per Edison, Zagalejo, Dl2000 and the previous AfDs. No real sourcing problem of course; the articles could be expanded to discuss changes and reasons for changes. John Z ( talk) 20:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all Wikipedia is not a directory and this does nothing for the the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia. Tavix ( talk) 23:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all this is an encyclopedia, not the TV Guide archives. I can't believe we're even having this discussion, people really will post anything to Wikipedia these days. JBsupreme ( talk) 02:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Why isn't this encyclopedic? There are real world reference books that contain annual network TV schedules. The people voting to delete need more substantial arguments. Zagalejo ^^^ 02:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Okay. An encyclopedia is supposed to consist of articles for people to read. A database of raw information should be maintained elsewhere on the Internet. There is no danger that something bad will happen and information not stored on Wikipedia will be lost. Nor does this information somehow gain higher status by being on Wikipedia. Redddogg ( talk) 05:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • So are we going to delete all lists and tables? What makes a network TV schedule worse than the articles at Category:Meteorology timelines, or the extended periodic table? I agree that this information could be stored somewhere else, but can't that argument be extended to every article here? (By the way, three of those links lead to dab pages.) Zagalejo ^^^ 05:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I guess I got a little carried away with the wikilinking. :-) Since you asked, yes I think lists and tables should be removed unless they do something useful in the context of an encyclopedia -- like help someone find the right article, or they have some extraordinary importance -- like the Periodic Table. Redddogg ( talk) 23:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • That real-world reference books contain this material doesn't mean that encyclopedias contain this material. This argument is simply a non sequitur.  Xihr  09:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • WP:FIVE says that Wikipedia incorporates elements of both general encylopedias and specialized encyclopedias. Surely Total Television counts as a specialized encyclopedia. Zagalejo ^^^ 17:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all of these and everything else in Category:Television schedules, per Edison and the fact that Wikipedia is not paper. This information is vital when dealing with the history of television, along with the articles in Category:Years in television. This material would be in a television encyclopedia so it's absolutely appropriate for Wikipedia. People are right, Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. But these lists are not issues of TV Guide. I don't see how these could violate WP:NOTDIR since that says "although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable." All of these lists have great historical significance. If people want the lists to have more sources, they should look for them. For example, 2008–2009 United States network television schedule has 33 refs. So I don't see how deletion is the answer. A decision to merge the late night schedules into the main list articles is another topic altogether. And speaking of precedent, there was no consensus to delete in any of these related AFDs [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] -- Pixelface ( talk) 07:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all obviously, and now even WP:SNOW delete all, per all the arguments. This is simply not encyclopedic.  Xihr  09:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Please read WP:SNOW before trying to apply it where it is inapplicable. Several editors have presented good-faith arguments that substantial coverage in numerous sources suport notability, and that the articles comply with all Wikipedia guidelines. Also as noted above the AFD is ill-formed and out of process and should be closed, since a mass of unlike articles are nominated, without noting previous AFDs which have resulted in articles being kept, and without clearly identifying the articles presented for deletion, due to the vague "Any other bluelinks on United States network television schedules (late night) that qualify" in the nomination. Edison ( talk) 15:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per Sjakkalle. Raw timetable data such as this is source material, not encyclopedia material. Perhaps Wikisource would make a good home? RFerreira ( talk) 16:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Edison, others. Edward321 ( talk) 22:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as all major network shows will have Wikipedia articles, these lists serve usefully to organize the material. the shows produced by each network are notable, and the content is simply from the specific Wikipedia articles, which are invariably well referenced at least in this regard. If the topics are notable, a list of them in any suitable and reasonable arrangement is a valid article. The earlier deleted articles should be reconstructed. DGG ( talk) 02:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete To the other delete arguments let me add this: The article is perfect and complete as it is. All possible information is given, So then the wiki aspect of wikipedia is not needed. Steve Dufour ( talk) 23:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • With all due respect, this is among the silliest arguments to delete I have ever heard! Assuming it is even true that all of these articles are perfect and complete—you are arguing that if we manage to get an article to a state of perfection and completeness, we should then delete it? Shall we also delete List of leaders of the Soviet Union? Since the country no longer exists, I'm pretty sure that list is also perfect and complete. DHowell ( talk) 04:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. This is material one might expect to find in a television encyclopedia, and per the first pillar we incoporate elements of specialized encyclopedias (as well as almanacs, where you would expect to find timetables). Also, WP:NOT#TVGUIDE specifically allows for "historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules)." DHowell ( talk) 04:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's useful. As per Edison, others, strongly agree with DGG.-- Julián Ortega - drop me a message 18:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. This is very trivial information, and Wikipedia is not a TV guide archive. Else why stop at TV schedules, how about one article per city and year listing the bus schedules of the time? -- Amalthea Talk 01:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep per Wiki is not paper. Deleting these does not help server space, the articles are potentially useful, and they don't harm anyone by existing. NuclearWarfare contact me My work 01:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • keep per pixelface & DGG; seem like reasonably informative lists to me, epecially when taken together with the rest of category:television schedules. -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 07:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per WP:NOTDIR: "mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable"--emphasis on may be. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 09:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. — Scien tizzle 00:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

World Stars of Wrestling

World Stars of Wrestling (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable wrestling company, has only existed for two months total and seemingly has only run a single event. –– Lid( Talk) 06:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages:

List of WSW World Champions (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of WSW World Championship reigns by length (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WSW Inception (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –– Lid( Talk) 06:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
May I also suggest deleting Category:World Stars of Wrestling when the other pages are deleted. Darrenhusted ( talk)


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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Ronin Pictures

Ronin Pictures (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Seems to be a non-notable film production company. Only one film listed here. VG ☎ 05:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The company you linked to in your comment (Ronin Pictures Inc) is a US based company and not affiliated with Ronin Pictures Ltd (UK).

Ronin Pictures Ltd was founded earlier this year and is currently in pre-production with it's first feature film entitled Dementamania - Kit Ryan has been hired to direct. This makes Ronin Pictures a notable company. 12:39, 13 October 2008

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Top Chef. MBisanz talk 08:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Top Chef Junior

Top Chef Junior (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Having some doubts that this upcoming TV reality show is notable already. No third party sources are provided in the article. VG ☎ 05:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 05:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Top Chef, create heading about program 267 unique G-hits for "Top Chef Junior", including publicity releases from the network itself. It's a definite go, but for now a mention in the senior (no pun intended) article about the show is warranted. Nate • ( chatter) 05:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Top Chef, split out later. Will undoubtedly be notable, but there isn't quite enough info just yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Top Chef per Starblind. Quid Pro Quo 23 17:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge for now as above, split out if and when it's notable. SkierRMH ( talk) 07:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I would respectfully ask that another look be given to the article as it now exists. I'm a relative newbie, and I certainly appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of this article being debated! SupermanML ( talk) 05:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
All those references are newsflashes saying "this show will air soon" and giving info on criteria for applicants. WP:NOT#NEWS applies here. Also, there's nowhere near enough info in those refs for a separate article. VG ☎ 07:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was early-closing deletion per WP:SNOW -- The Anome ( talk) 15:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Boiling bigots

Boiling bigots (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

No references and Google doesn't help me here. Info could be false. Also, insufficient context (northwest what? VG ☎ 05:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Lazulilasher ( talk) 04:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Argentina Top 40

Argentina Top 40 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Fake Countdown! This ranking is unofficial and false. There are so many songs charting that aren't successful, and it isn't only my point of view. The real charts of Argentina are:

  1. http://www.los40principales.com.ar
  2. http://www.interproducciones.com.ar
  3. http://top100argentina.blogspot.com

Please delete this fake countdown, this insults me as argentinian.

(Sorry for my bad english)-- 200.117.198.204 ( talk) 04:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Copied from this edit.   — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 04:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Keep. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 03:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Tanya Blount

Tanya Blount (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Notability? Avi ( talk) 04:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, lack of references. Quid Pro Quo 23 04:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If the information about her is correct she is notable. The article just needs some sources. Redddogg ( talk) 05:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep from a quick search there is [evidence to support notability http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-0nvsWQwd53I/sister_act_2_his_eye_is_on_the_sparrow/]. Needs a lot of work. -- billinghurst ( talk) 06:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep with cleanup. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 03:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Homosexuality and Confucianism

Homosexuality and Confucianism (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Original research. (That doesn't mean that the points it asserts are not true, just that there is no source available to support them, which makes it entirely its author's opinions.) Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 04:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The topic is notable, and part of a series on homosexuality and various religions. Sources need to be found, it sounds like someone just wrote it out of what he already knew. Redddogg ( talk) 05:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Confucianism is not a religion, it's a philosophy. 70.51.10.188 ( talk) 05:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
That's because the modern day Chinese want to mix it with Marxism and that wouldn't work if you call it a religion. :-) Redddogg ( talk) 18:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - as per Redddogg. It needs referencing, but is encyclopaedic. While Confucianism is not a religion per se, the article's editors have chosen to link it in to the series on homosexuality and religion. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 06:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - agree with Redddogg and Beeswaxcandle. The article admittedly needs referencing and improvement, but it's an eminently encyclopædic article (at least in its potential). Maethordaer ( talk) 14:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 09:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 09:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 09:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. The topic seems indeed notable enough [67], [68], but the current article is first hand analysis of religious texts, which is a prime venue for original research. This article has been without reference for three years, which doesn't bode well, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt for now. Relying on published scholar analysis in this area is much better. Looking at Homosexuality_and_Christianity, you can pretty much spin it as you like. VG ☎ 16:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and clean-up as needed per WP:AFD - "If an article can be fixed through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AFD". -- Banjeboi 17:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I actually like the topic and the content, and I am sorry to see it go. However, it is entirely unreferenced and has been so for a long time. No one has added proper sources to the article despite long-standing requests for them. So, as much as I think it could have been an acceptable article, WP policy is no sources, no article. Folks who created it have had their chance to source it and have not. Unfortunate. — James Cantor ( talk) 12:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • We don't delete because no sources are on an article, we delete because no sources exist that anyone is aware. Are you stating that you have looked and no sources even exist? -- Banjeboi 02:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare contact me My work 21:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Belnan

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

No kind of references whatsoever, no notability, not even links to other pages. Quid Pro Quo 23 04:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to Croman Corporation. MBisanz talk 08:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Croman Heliport

Croman Heliport (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Just like the others. The sources listed are directory listings which do not establish notability. Delete or merge to Croman Corporation. Undead Warrior ( talk) 04:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy deleted by DMacks as a copyvio. Stifle ( talk) 10:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Logam Mulia

Logam Mulia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Blatant advertising / notability. Not eligible for speedy or for prod, as it first received a prod for notability which was removed by the article creator. Maethordaer ( talk) 04:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Indonesia#Indonesia Satu Suro 04:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Comment No apparent attempt at wikifying the article appears to have occured despite the prod - if it is a notable Indonesian company it could be saved in minutes flat with WP RS - the creator has made no attempt at putting in reliable 3rd party resources - I am placing this comment first before supporting a keep or delete - in case i find material during the duration of this afd that would swing me either way Satu Suro 04:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. A good primary resource would be the company's own website (logammulia.com) from which this WP page is cut'n'pasted. I'll just G12 it so we can get on with our lives. DMacks ( talk) 10:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 09:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Cat Rock Hollow

Cat Rock Hollow (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Procedural nomination: after placing an AFD tag on the article, User:Cmichael only left ADW notices on three editors' talk pages and made some small modifications to the article for the county in which this hollow is located. The article is about a small hollow in Greenbrier County, West Virginia, and Cmichael's apparent reason for nomination (as expressed in the edit summary for the edit in which he placed the tag) is "What makes this hollow notable? I don't know." Please replace my commentary etc. in this nomination with Cmichael's reasoning if he coems here to explain his reasons for submitting this article to AFD. Nyttend ( talk) 04:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Now that I've explained reasons, I'll say Keep: small hollows surely aren't major geographical features that are inherently notable, but this place seems to have enough sources to demonstrate minor notability. Nyttend ( talk) 04:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment This article makes no claim of notability. There are a lot of hollows in West Virginia. Why is this one special? WVhybrid ( talk) 04:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • As I say, I believe that it does because (1) streams, etc. can be notable — thus that's the assertion of notability, being a geographic feature, and (2) its multiple reliable sources demonstrate notability that's claimed. Nyttend ( talk) 04:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Do we really want to start writing articles for every WV hollar just yet? We have so much to do first. No prej. against recreation down the line, though. youngamerican ( wtf?) 13:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment In response to Nyttend, I believe I left an AFD notice for every editor that wasn't an obvious bot. If I left anybody out, I apologize for that oversight.

I have been a fairly frequent contributor to the Greenbrier County article over time. My recent edits are only my latest.

Per WP:NGL, the guidelines on notability for geographic features are not yet settled. If a consensus eventually forms around Option 1, then Cat Run Hollow and every other named geographic feature in the world would be considered notable. If the consensus eventually favors Option 3, then Cat Run Hollow might or might not be included. On the other hand, if the consensus forms around Option 2, which I would personally favor, then Cat Run Hollow would be excluded.

The only other article that links to this one is the one for Greenbrier County, WV, where the hollow is apparently located. All of the other links on that page are to far more notable articles. Cat Run Hollow sticks out in the list for its lack of notability.

The articles on the Greenbrier River, Beartown, Greenbrier State Forest, Greenbrier River Trail, and other geographic features could still use a lot of work, and no one would argue that Cat Run Hollow compares to any of them in notability.

Unless there is something special about Cat Run Hollow that I don't know about, I just don't think we should water down an encyclopedia by opening this door right now. If we do, then I could just as well write an article about Court Street, which is simply an ordinary residential street in Lewisburg where I used to live, and claim that it is notable because it appears on many, many maps. Cmichael ( talk) 01:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I believe that all major geographic features are inherently notable, just like (for example) all professional athletes are notable. However, to use a biography example, I don't believe this hollow is any more notable than an amateur sportsperson: just like the amateur sportsperson isn't inherently notable, this hollow isn't inherently notable, but both are notable if and only if they have enough sources to make them notable anyway. I've supported keeping this article because I believe it's notable, not because it's an inherently notable place, but because it has multiple reliable sources that suffice for verification as required by our notability policies. Nyttend ( talk) 02:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
With all due respect, what are these "multiple reliable sources?" All I see are a listing in a database which was taken from a topo map, and another database listing that shows the stream is known to the EPA. Hardly evidence of notability, IMHO.
To carry on your "notable people" analogy, I am no professional athlete or major league politician, but I am known by family and friends. Furthermore, I do have an email address, and I am listed in the telephone book. Does that mean that an article about me would meet notability criteria? I think not. Cmichael ( talk) 09:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The EPA listing and the USGS topo map are what I mean — they're multiple reliable sources. BLP concerns mean that simple listings like this for people aren't as significant (hence you're not notable) as listings for other subjects. Nyttend ( talk) 10:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I think that WP:NGL will eventually be controlling. If the community establishes a consensus around option 1, I would be willing to reconsider, but for now, I say Delete. Cmichael ( talk) 16:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

As is only reasonable, seeing that you're the real nominator :-) Nyttend ( talk) 16:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Several days ago I asked for an explanation of why this particular hollow is notable. The reply that this place is notable just because it exists or that it is listed in some database just doesn't hold water. Let's look at the reference links. One of the links is an record of a EPA water sample point location, that, guess what, the EPA hasn't sampled. If we use this database of as proof a notability, then every sewer pipe in the country country would be notable, because, rest assured, the EPA has database record of each and every one. The other link is just as obtuse. It is a record from a GIS data base that seems to contain hundreds of thousands of geographic locations. Is every sidewalk intersection in every city notable? Is every hollow notable? Clearly not. If evidence is shown that something notable happened in this hollow, say of a notable crime or of the homestead of a notable West Virginia, then this hollow might then be notable. But listing in a database of EPA sample points or US Geographic Survey GPS locations does not inherently make the location notable. WVhybrid ( talk) 02:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Is there something into which the entire article can be merged? This info is too good to lose, but, sheesh, I'm still not ready to write about my 27 favorite hollars withing 30 mins of my parents house. youngamerican ( wtf?) 13:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: little more to say about this than that it exists. Stifle ( talk) 09:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. MBisanz talk 16:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The Incredible Adventures of Captain Taylor

The Incredible Adventures of Captain Taylor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

I did a Google search and came up with a big goose egg for both this book series and "Andrew J Cole" (supposedly a science fiction writer) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 03:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Female protagonists in Disney animated films

AfDs for this article:
Female protagonists in Disney animated films (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Page has not been improved upon since this page's last afd in 2005. In some cases, those listed on the page fall under WP:OR as they are not protagonists but secondary characters. Where is the matching Male protagonists in Disney animated films page? WP:NOT an arbitrary collection of lists... and this page is only linked to from one other place on WP, so its overall importance is questionable in that regard as well. SpikeJones ( talk) 03:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 03:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 03:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 03:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 03:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This seems have the purpose of putting information together to make a point. Interesting but not what an encyclopedia is all about. If someone wants to write an article on women in Disney they have to do the research themselves, and then publish it outside WP. Redddogg ( talk) 05:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm having trouble seeing the point of this list (where many of the entries are hardly "protagonists", e.g. Maid Marion in Robin Hood). That films have important female characters is hardly a distinguishing factor... I'm having a hard time thinking of a film without one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:LC items 2, 4, 8, 9, and 10. Stifle ( talk) 10:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as blatant listcruft. Eddie.willers ( talk) 12:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: While I am not in favor of keeping this article as is, this can be a workable topic. See this book that could be used in a prose article and not just a roll call of fictional characters. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - IMHO, this case perfect meets point no 1 of Wikipedia:Listcruft. Andrew18 @ 20:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete ...um, many of the characters on the list are in fact antagonists. :/ There could be an article here, as Erik says, but this ain't it. JuJube ( talk) 04:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rename, if the title of the article could use a better name then deletion is not the solution. It looks like a list of female Disney heroes and villains. If some entries don't belong on the list they can be taken off. If you want a matching Male protagonists in Disney animated films you should create one. Alot of these characters appear to have articles so I think a list is fine. The book Good Girls and Wicked Witches: Women in Disney's Feature Animation by Amy Davis [69] that Erik brought up would be a good source in this article. -- Pixelface ( talk) 08:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and work on a little; probably retitle per Pixelface. . An appropriate list, and Erik's ref is enough to refute those who think, however incorrectly, that there has to be a work specifically on the topic of the list itself. DGG ( talk) 02:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If someone wants to create an actual article about this topic, he's free to. But this is just a pretty pointless list, and I don't see any use in it. -- Conti| ✉ 12:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as wholly unreferenced, also concurring with the nomination rationale. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scien tizzle 00:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Seven Days Of Samsara

Seven Days Of Samsara (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 ( talk) 22:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

What documentation needs to be provided to make this band legitimate in the eyes of Wikipedia?
I realize that as an "underground" sort of thing, hardcore and punk tend to not garner the same level of media exposure as other popular acts, but there ought to be relativistic standards. i.e. bands, or rather genres of music, that have/has typically eschewed popular media shouldn't be expected to be as obviously present in those outlets.
Take for example Tragedy who have no MySpace page or official website due to their take on capitalism, the internet, etc. The band is clearly relevant but online there exists little official/verifiable information because they operate outside of the conventional band/touring/promotion network for socio-political reasons. They are _essentially_ "punk" in that regard, but you're likely not going to see them getting front page coverage on CNN.com or other large/commercial news sites.
Here's a few links of interest. If there are criteria that need to be met, please let me know and I will attempt to source additional information.
- worldDownInFire ( talk) 20:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The first 6 sources aren't reliable and Wikipedia can't be used a source. Read WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 ( talk) 21:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare contact me My work 03:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Huon ( talk) 13:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete if that's all there is as far as reliable sources go, there's no way this could be an article. And the main claim of notability (small-venue touring) is extremely weak anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. If a band deliberately goes out of the way to be inaccessible and avoid notice, and succeed, then they are non-notable. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply


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

The result was Delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Kyle Alisharan

Kyle Alisharan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This actor has only had one major role and I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 ( talk) 02:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare contact me My work 03:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no sources, apparently none to be found except for his study-related activities (and that's a single local paper, for all I can tell). Huon ( talk) 13:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete Notability questionable, two years of article and no content. -- billinghurst ( talk) 14:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above, the notability for this person does not exist. Hence the lack of sources. JBsupreme ( talk) 02:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music in the 1990s

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Ricardo Sanchez (music)

Ricardo Sanchez (music) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No particular evidence of notability for Sanchez or his album Unmerited. Biruitorul Talk 02:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 03:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Given the number of times this has been relisted it could have been prodded and nobody would have noticed. Also, Google is hopeless for finding sources due to US Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. VG ☎ 04:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Couldn't find any sources when I checked the internet. Eatabullet ( talk) 13:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to POP TV. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 04:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

List of programs broadcast by POP TV

List of programs broadcast by POP TV (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic breach of WP:NOTDIR. Biruitorul Talk 02:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Rewind: The Best in Old Skool Garage

Rewind: The Best in Old Skool Garage (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 15:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Advert-like article with no sources. At the third relist it's pretty clear that nobody is going to add them. VG ☎ 04:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per above. Eatabullet ( talk) 13:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Tal Zwecker

Tal Zwecker (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The man's written a few books; anything else to indicate notability? Biruitorul Talk 03:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 04:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete minor author of unknown works. -- Y  not? 12:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - seems like a non-notable rabbi; the external links/sources don't assert any notability for this person. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 12:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - had a hard time finding anything truly notable about this person. Eatabullet ( talk) 13:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no secondary sources to be seen. Huon ( talk) 13:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Charles G. Hulse

Charles G. Hulse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references; I couldn't find much on Google either. Biruitorul Talk

It's pretty easy to find his book on Amazon, http://www.amazon.com/Tall-Cotton-Charles-Hulse/dp/0758201214

03:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Bio without sources and it looks like nobody is going to add any either. VG ☎ 04:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. Seems to have written numerous works, though I had a hard time gauging how well-known/significant they are. Perhaps someone more familiar can help. Eatabullet ( talk) 13:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Certainly, the article claims he's written numerous works, but can you or anyone else point to some mention of them outside this article? Biruitorul Talk 00:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Sure, if you Google it, you can find a wide variety of his books mentioned. Admittedly I haven't researched it in depth but its definitely showing up in my search results. Eatabullet ( talk) 03:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Ghetto Mafia

Ghetto Mafia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Hip-hop group, no evidence of passing WP:MUSIC and no WP:RS. Record labels associated with this ensemble are all red-linked. Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 17:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare contact me My work 01:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

MapNTL.com

MapNTL.com (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:WEB. Biruitorul Talk 02:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Given the scarcity of sources about African websites, the fact that I easily found a couple of references that cover this business in depth (e.g. "the planimetric accuracy of the Lagos street map used for mapntl.com is about 1m. Each street in the database has a name, a suburb, the speed limit, and direction. The roads are classified into Express, Major and Minor roads. This level of accuracy and quality is the direct result of the fact that STL literally drives through the street of Lagos to collect the field attributes used to develop the road network data"), makes me think that the company is a legit major GIS provider for Nigeria, so I say it should be kept. VG ☎ 04:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 04:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Shaenon K. Garrity. The merge has been performed, with a redirect left to the target page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Smithson (webcomic)

Smithson (webcomic) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

No evidence of notability, tagged for a year. Time to go. `' Míkka >t 20:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply


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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 08:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Roll On (Kid Rock song)

AfDs for this article:
Roll On (Kid Rock song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Song hasn't charted yet. Yes, it has been released, but it still hasn't charted and I can't find any sources. Wouldn't make a good redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted already by Orangemike as A1. VG ☎ 04:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Poptimal

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

No independently-published reliable sources to demonstrate notability RJaguar3 | u | t 02:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

This articles should NOT be deleted because it has substantially similar notability to other entries. Specifically, the following three articles are similar in notability have not been deleted:

  • Survivor Sucks
  • BuddyTV
  • Television Without Pity

As such, fairness requires this article to NOT to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zublaw ( talk • contribs) 03:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply


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

The result was redirect to List of Criminal Minds episodes. MBisanz talk 08:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Doubt (Criminal Minds)

Doubt (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Google shows there is no information about these episodes from reliable sources (only blogs and episode guides). The individual episodes are not notable. There is already a brief outline of the episodes at List of Criminal Minds episodes and simply redirecting these articles to there makes little sense - no reader is going to type in one of these article titles as a search term. Somno ( talk) 01:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

This nomination also includes:

Scared to Death (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In Name and Blood (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Children of the Dark (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seven Seconds (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
About Face (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Identity (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lucky (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Penelope (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
True Night (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Birthright (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3rd Life (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Limelight (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Damaged (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Higher Power (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elephant's Memory (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In Heat (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Crossing (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tabula Rasa (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lo-Fi (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mayhem (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Angel Maker (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Minimal Loss (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Paradise (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Catching Out (Criminal Minds) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Somno ( talk) 02:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Wow. That's a lot. Each and every one has been checked to see that they don't have any RS coverage? My first instinct would be to just merge them into the List of Criminal Minds episodes. You may want to do that, and if it 'sticks', withdraw the AfD. Otherwise it is possible that a bundle nomination this big might get closed as keep just due to how unwieldy it might be to pick out individual elements. Protonk ( talk) 03:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Sadly (for my real life, anyway! ;), I did check each one on Google and only came up with blogs and episode guides. Even the season final and first episode back (but then, even the pilot episode doesn't have its own article). I'm not a fan of bundling, but I believe these articles all have the same level of RS coverage, and that therefore bundling was preferable to creating separate AFDs and flooding the page. Somno ( talk) 04:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Ok, figured I would ask. Thanks. Protonk ( talk) 05:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Salvage anything important. No need for all these articles. Computerjoe 's talk 19:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable episodes mostly consisting of just an infobox and a sentence. Not even useful as likely redirects. RMHED ( talk) 19:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/redirect I disagree with the nom that these are implausible search terms. In any case, anything worth keeping should be merged. IMO, television episodes that aren't (in)famous for some reason shouldn't get articles. JuJube ( talk) 04:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all an non-notable, allow creation of list article, but do not redirect. The parantheses make them very unlikely search terms (searcher would need to write the exact title, searching "doubt ciminal minds" does not find the article!), and some are notable terms in thermselves. Yobmod ( talk) 09:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into List of Criminal Minds episodes improving on the basic plot summary that is already there. Deletion is highly unnecessary but do at least salvage some of the good information that has come out of the hard work of whomever to created them. Perhaps a series/season summary similar to that of 24 (season 1) would be best suited to television shows? -- 82.42.150.196 ( talk) 22:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect all to List of Criminal Minds episodes. Would not be opposed to a Merge of any relevant information if there is anything that can be salvaged from these articles. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 04:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC). reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Magnetic resonance imaging.  Sandstein  20:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Unsolved problems in medical imaging

Unsolved problems in medical imaging (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

There are no notability criteria for inclusion in this article and I doubt there could be meaningful ones. This is a POV-fork of medical imaging and anything that could potentially be listed here would be much better discussed in that article or left out. As the current content already indicates, this article will most probably develop into a subjective mess of vague wishes and speculations. The related articles unsolved problems in medicine ( deletion discussion) and unsolved problems in biology ( deletion discussion) have long been deleted for related reasons. Without accepted inclusion criteria, this article should be deleted. Cacycle ( talk) 01:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 04:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 04:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back to MRI. I don't get why this has been created as a separate article because it's too short: just one issue with one source. VG ☎ 04:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge then delete - most of the information here is already in MRI#Acoustic noise. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 06:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge See no need for a separate article - Medical imaging is certainly not bursting at the seams in need of a break up otherwise MRI seems to cover most of it. Mvjs Talking 08:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge any useful information and then delete, no such article could be written that would not constitute Original Research. -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 10:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Delete Everybody has a different opinion about what are unsolved problems in medical imaging, I don't think this article could ever be encyclopedic. But please come over to the MRI page and help out - we could use some extra hands ;-) GyroMagician ( talk) 14:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 10:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Conflict neutral

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

Previously speedied for copyvio, stitll has major WP:POV and WP:RS issues (tag was removed by a SPA account) Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 20:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete is also a wp:neo with some soapboxing to boot. PHARMBOY ( TALK) 23:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - spam by Ethical Diamonds Ltd trying to establish "conflict neutral" as a neologism. Somno ( talk) 02:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A WP:COATRACK neologism to hang advertisement on. VG ☎ 04:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - sounds laudable, but no independent third-party sources given. A gsearch for "conflict neutral" gives about seven different companies in the first forty hits who all claim (with the same words) to have originated the term. Looks like spam to me. Most of the other ghits in the range are either duplicates, or blog-comments that appear to originate with the company concerned. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 06:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 10:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Saraswathi Sabatham

Saraswathi Sabatham (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Fails WP:MOVIE. Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 09:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep. I'd be inclined to turn it into a stub, but I can't find any sources to back it. An Indian film in wide release would be notable, I think - but the fact that it is a 1966 film hampers sourcing. Hell, I'll write the stub right now, and maybe someone can source it and salvage the article. "{{ Unreferenced}} Saraswathi Sabatham is an Indian film directed by A.P. Nagarajan. It was released in 1966. {{ India-film-stub}}" That's really it, I think. There is an IMDB page for it ( here), so we know it exists. Hmm. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This Google snippet shows that the film was a box office hit and this implies that it would be well-known to The Hindu's readership, but I can't find any substantial coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger ( talk) 19:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt ( talk) 04:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, film starred Sivaji Ganesan, who is notable, and was directed by A. P. Nagarajan, who is notable. According to Nagarajan's article, this film "started a trend in Tamil film making" (however, that claim is unsourced). There must be sources out there for this; just probably not many in Google due to the age of the film. Somno ( talk) 02:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
While cleaning up the article, I found it stars a number of other notable actors, so hopefully that's enough to keep the article while sources are found. Somno ( talk) 02:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 10:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Destination Sex City

Destination Sex City (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

I don't see how this meets Notability for Magazines. -- Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 18:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - references are two blogs and a mention in passing, and I can't find any independent, reliable sources on Google. A DVD magazine that's only been released in one issue isn't worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. Somno ( talk) 02:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. VG ☎ 04:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Now that the copyvio has been removed, and per the sources provided by User:Megaboz Lankiveil ( speak to me) 04:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

George Wallace's 1963 Inaugural Address

George Wallace's 1963 Inaugural Address (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This is probably copyrighted, but if it isn't, it should be posted at Wikisource. Little Red Riding Hood talk 17:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - It's inevitably 'copyrighted', since copyright doesn't need to be asserted in order to apply. AlexTiefling ( talk) 21:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Clearly doesn't belong at Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, even if released into the public domain (which I doubt, and the author has not claimed). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Stubbify. Remove the posible copywrite violation and keep the introduction. The "segregation now" comment is famous and notable. JASpencer ( talk) 09:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Since the intro is so short, I wonder if a separate article is motivated. What about just merging this into the George Wallace article? Bill ( talk) 06:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as an article about the speech, which is easily notable enough to warrant its own article. Everyking ( talk) 06:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect to the Wallace article. WillOakland ( talk) 01:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Redirection now, redirection tomorrow, redirection forever! To George Wallace as he would say. MuZemike ( talk) 16:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep His speech is notable enough to have an article of its own. There are sources available which cover the background and history of the speech itself such as [70]. Sources can also be found for the impact and results of the speech [71]. Martin Luther King Jr. specifically responded to it in one of his own speeches: [72] -- Megaboz ( talk) 04:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The speech is a famous incident in American history, and of significant historical import. RayAYang ( talk) 04:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep based on the info from Megaboz. Edward321 ( talk) 22:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 03:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Harry Tietlebaum

Harry Tietlebaum (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
  • Delete - minor criminal, did not do any famous crimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lansing3456 ( talk • contribs)
  • Weak keep. The article doesn't have much information, but the references suggest that he may be notable enough. I'd suggest a merge with Bug and Meyer Mob but this individual was also associated with other crime gangs. It's only a 2-sentence article, so maybe it could be merged with all of the other articles mentioned. = Axlq 03:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the sources can be supplement by the many in GN archive [73], [74] . Its better to check these things before nomination for deletion. I note this resource was not widely available when the article was written--finding the material would have then meant actually going to a library. DGG ( talk) 03:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Seems to be notable (though arguably not famous). I found multiple references on the internet and there seems to be verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Eatabullet ( talk) 12:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Strong Delete Many people arrested for DWI will also be in the paper many times. They, like this guy are simply not notable. What did he really do? Committed some crimes? Big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowandpurple ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Keep He is a "major player in the underworld" according to [75] -- Megaboz ( talk) 04:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 04:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hyderabad Central

Hyderabad Central (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Article reads like a press release or spam. ("Mr. Biyani says that some 15 such malls will be opened in various cities across the country". Thanks Mr. Biyani for your spam). No references. Article author removed unref tag and prod tag without addressing concerns. - Nard 14:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Boy, they received a ticket for violating fire rules. That's some reference there. - Nard 01:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Are you being sarcastic? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
No, I'm not being sarcastic. A link to a Google search does NOT INDICATE NOTABILITY per WP:GOOGLE. Those references aren't even all about the mall. Malls are not inherently notable. Sure there's a lot of businesses in them, so they make the papers once in awhile, but my hometown mall isn't even in Wikipedia. Let me ask you "keep" voters, do you actually intend to fix the article or are you just saying keep on principle? - Nard 10:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  1. I don't think you analyzed my google link correctly. I filtered only news sources. And WP:GOOGLE does have provisions for such a filtered search.
  2. I provided a generic link to prove that 1. reliable, 2. verifiable, and 3. independent secondary sources exist, not as a means to provide a condensed list of references. From this compendium of possible references, a claim to notability can be ascertained.
  3. With regards to malls your hometown, I don't see how that is pertinent to this discussion.
  4. AFD is a debate, not a pledge to take up cleanup tasks.
=Nichalp «Talk»= 20:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
So you are endorsing keeping crap in Wikipedia then? "Oh yeah keep the article, it's crap, but maybe in 20 years someone will write a better article." The article, as it stands, is spam and should be speedily deleted. It does not meet any of the criteria for inclusion. Merely asserting, with a search engine list of results, that someone could write a better article is not sufficient. And incidentally, a good half those results were for entities other than this mall. - Nard 01:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I wish you would stop making fallacious assumptions, and stick to the point. AFD serves as a platform to debate the grey areas of notability, not a forum to dunk all articles because they are poorly written by authors unfamiliar to the wiki process. If notability is sufficiently ascertained, anyone can just courtesy blank offending "spammy" or unencyclopedic text to leave it as a stub article. May I once again point out that spammy text is not sufficient grounds to delete. To answer your comment on "in 20 years..." You might want to read WP:DEADLINE and also check the Wikipedia logo on the top left, that serves to remind us that the project is work in progress. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I believe the reason that they recieved the "Ticket" and the entire "Plan 4 but built 5 theatres" fight makes this perticular mall notable. Exit2DOS2000• T• C• 05:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment :Wow! They have WP articles on malls too!!(On a personal note, Hyderabad Central was the first mall I visited :-)) I'll not vote at present without verifying if there are some rules regarding notablility of commercial establishments. But I take exception to Nard's "Thanks Mr. Biyani for your spam" line. I hope he is not suggesting that Kishore Biyani is directly or indirectly involved in editing this article as a promotion for his mall. Kishore Biyani is one of India's most respected retail giants and among the first in the organised retail space. He features regularly in Indian business magazines(and quite frequently on the cover too). There is also a book about him. -- Deepak D'Souza 06:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 10:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

For the Fallen Dreams

For the Fallen Dreams (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
For the Fallen Dreams (album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:MUSIC. No chart hits, no extensive media coverage, only one album released, no proof of major national tour Nouse4aname ( talk) 11:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Hmm. There's actually quite a lot of google noise out there, loads of lyrics and torrents and whatnot, so they can't be total nonames. There's actually one in-depth review of the album at PopMatters, which I'd consider a reliable source. All others I turned up weren't published by reliable sources though, so I agree with the above and say
    Delete, with no prejudice against recreation if more reliable reviews can be turned up. If it ends up being kept the album article should be renamed to Changes (For the Fallen Dreams album). -- Amalthea Talk 01:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 10:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

B-Valentine

B-Valentine (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Musician of questionable notability. Bringing it here after declining an A7 speedy tag.  Sandstein  11:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was {{ csd-a7}}. Deleted as A7. Housekeeping. ( non-admin closure) Protonk ( talk) 03:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Brian allen ksfy

Brian allen ksfy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

TV journalist of dubious notability, bringing it here after declining an A7 speedy tag.  Sandstein  10:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Unanimous Keep. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 03:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Lacey Mosley

Lacey Mosley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Concerns about the sheer amount of unsourced bio info and cruft that has no relevence to notability if in fact there is any, has been tagged for clean up for sometime and not much is happening. Maybe a possible redirect. neon white talk 10:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article is currently in poor shape, with unclear notability and WP:BLP violations. However she has received enough coverage in reliable source (for example [76] and [77] ) to be considered notable. -- Megaboz ( talk) 15:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Neither are those show any independent notability from the group she belongs to, both are about Flyleaf not her. Remember notability is not inherited. To be considered notable there must be evidence of coverage independent of the group. see Wikipedia:Notability (music) --neon white talk 09:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Please explain further. --neon white talk 17:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep This article contains some non-trivial coverage of Mosley apart from Flyleaf. (Section beginning "Hey Dad, come over here", for about 1000 words). Source has been introduced to the article. CJPargeter ( talk) 13:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
As i pointed out before the coverage is not independent of the band. The question that you have to ask is would she have featured in this article had she not been part of a notable group? i think the answer is a definite no. It's reliant on her being part of a notable group with no suggestion that she is otherwise notable. --neon white talk 23:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Merge was considered, but given that none of these flavours are cited anywhere, I decided not to. This isn't to say that cited information on flavours cannot be added to Pringles at a later date. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

List of Pringles products

List of Pringles products (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

I know this list may be useful, but I don't think encyclopedias need a list like this, in the case of listing flavors of snack products. This is one of the lists that do not have a place in an encyclopedia. Mythdon ( talk) 08:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

It's a valid piece of information, just as much as the list of Coca-Cola varieties is in the article for said product. Does it need its own article? Probably not. Could it stand to be integrated into the main Pringles article? Definitely. -- 70.236.71.244 ( talk) 09:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I will take your opinion as merge then. Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 12:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to main Pringles article, which is pretty short. VG ☎ 04:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No verification. People can add some pretty silly flavors to this list without question, especially in smaller foreign countries. Any flavors for which a source can be found, (press release, Quarterly report, whatever) can be added to the Pringles article (so, possible partial merge vote, I guess). - Verdatum ( talk) 20:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and merge Topic is probably a weak notable but the article lacks any citations and probably contains WP:OR. Any particularly notable flavours/products (with citations of course) could be added to the main article. Mvjs Talking 08:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Emmalina

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

The person is not notable. The page lacks WP:NPOV and WP:RS and contains a lot of peacock terms. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - the article does contain reliable sources, however I'm leaning towards deletion of this article. The article subject has previously requested the article be deleted also [78]. -- Longhair\ talk 00:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    She also made comments at her talk page about the article. See here, here and here. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Those comments were made well over 2 years ago and before the article was significantly cleaned up. JRG ( talk) 07:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Cleaned up? She complained back then that editors were invading her privacy by adding such detail as her surname within the article. Her surname is still within the article to this very day, right alongside her middle name. -- Longhair\ talk 07:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Well - I didn't do that. The article has been added to by unregistered users since then. We could easily take it out and that would stop the privacy concerns. JRG ( talk) 07:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep seems to have gotten national coverage, e.g. the Washington Post, though not a great deal of it. JJL ( talk) 01:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    To quote WP:1E "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." TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
It's not a news article per se - it's an article talking about some notable early Youtube memes. These were actually put in a single article as a spinoff from the Youtube page (which I did) and which had a much better claim to notability - but people didn't like that - they put it back to the single pages such as this one. JRG ( talk) 07:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I suggest all these types of pages be put back into a single article like "Youtube memes" or something. Just have their name, YouTube name and a paragraph of why they were notable on that site. I don't think a whole page should have been created about her. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I certainly don't object to that. YouTube phenomena is certainly a notable subject for an article. JJL ( talk) 16:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't object to this either - I think it would be a better way to go; while I think the subject of this article is notable there isn't any way we can get a Good Article length article out of this. Is anyone willing to do this? Longhair and the Yellow Monkey certainly aren't when I asked. JRG ( talk) 22:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I didn't offer to help because as far as I care, the job is already done. She's listed at List of YouTube celebrities, and that's all it warrants IMHO. Compared to the likes of Tay Zonday, this girl hasn't really done anything notable. -- Longhair\ talk 22:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - was a notable early Youtube meme when she first started blogging (and had one of the highest viewing rates) and there are verifiable sources showing that. She indicated the security concerns posed by Youtube itself when her account got hacked. The page has been fixed up multiple times in response to previous AfDs. The practice of repeatedly nominating for deletion should stop - there have already been 3 AfDs and the page has been kept (the third AfD was overturned). At the very least this should, if deleted, rate a sentence or two on the main page indicating this. Please note also that there are other Youtube memes on Wikipedia who are just as notable as she is and whose pages have been kept previously (and don't quote me OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I am very aware of it). JRG ( talk) 07:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Consensus can change. -- Longhair\ talk 07:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
And your point is? Why don't I quote policy for the sake of it too? JRG ( talk) 07:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The point is, another AfD on this article is not disruption in any way. I said what I said, consensus can and does change. The article has problems, and we're here to discuss those problems, again, just in case consensus has changed and all... -- Longhair\ talk 07:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The last AfD was about 2 years ago in which time Wikipedia has changed considerably. I don't see how the page has been kept for so long. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
That is not a reason for deletion. Why are you so in favour of deleting everything? The person is a good example of an early Youtube meme who was forced to leave the site because of privacy concerns - that's what the articles indicate. Whether she is notable or not in two years' time is of no concern. JRG ( talk) 07:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm not. Look at all the articles on my watchlist- about 5000 and a whole pile of other stuff. What has this person done that is notable? Nothing. BEing in the newspapers doesn't make one notable, else we will have all manner of car crash victims, random people who opposed a housing development and people who did well in high school competitions and got top marks in Yr 12. YellowMonkey ( click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
But this is different - internet memes are different from a one-off car crash victim. The articles don't just cover a one-off incident. JRG ( talk) 07:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
She was stalked at YouTube, and she's being stalked here. We aim to do no harm to living subjects, remember? -- Longhair\ talk 07:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
That's not a reason for deletion. The page should be semi-protected and watchlisted to keep out the vandals if that's the case. Other pages get attacked by fans too but they don't get deleted. JRG ( talk) 07:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Which "other pages" are these? Most likely they are very well known celebrities who have archived global or at least national success. That's why they don't get deleted, they have actually done something notable where millions of people know about their work. Emmalina however, was only notable inside of the YouTube community and for one thing only, a video. Even if the video was a "success", doesn't mean a wikiepedia article should be made for her. There are plenty of people on youtube who have had a "successful" video that don't have wikipedia pages. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - according to my Factiva search, the October 07 edition of Wireless week magazine says that her videos were in the top ten most watched on the whole of the site over a 2006-7 period. JRG ( talk) 07:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, more or less per Longhair. Just being at the centre of a mildly successful internet meme (that everyone seems to have more or less forgotten about now) doesn't add up to notability, in my view. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC). reply
  • Delete flash-in-the-pan youtube meme that clearly had no memorability or cultural impact, even on youtube. Subject also wants it deleted, and there is no reason we shouldn't respect her wishes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
There's no evidence she still wants it deleted. That was 2 years ago. You need to stop quoting that like it was made last week. JRG ( talk) 10:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per WP:BLP1E. Notability is not temporary, so just deleting the title and content of Emmalina is out, but the usable content is more appropriately merged as part of other articles about internet fame phenomena or internet security, per BLP:1E. The bio pic should be deleted as a courtesy per her talk page wishes. I don't know for sure, but I imagine the previous Afd results concluding she warranted a bio pre-dated the creation of WP:BLP1E specifically (but WP:BLP was created in 2005). MickMacNee ( talk) 17:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply
She's not just notable for a one-off incident though - she had long-standing following as an early Youtube meme. And possibly still does (I can't find any 2008 figures). Thank you for being reasonable though and suggesting what everyone else should have done - that this information does belong somewhere. JRG ( talk) 10:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
She is not an internet meme, her profile has not entered popular culture or parlance like star wars kid. She is notable for her rapid rise to attention from a virtual nobody simply because of youtube and her unique style of video, and that led to a notable act of hacking and withdrawal from Youtube. But these two incidents do no amount to a notable bio, and are arguably 1 incident per WP:BLP1E, hence why just delete is not appropriate. In terms of notability and references, she is no internet celebrity, we don't use just youtube rankings to determing that sort of notability. MickMacNee ( talk) 14:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E, clearly not notable - simply a popular user at Youtube who pulled her account for understandable reasons. Orderinchaos 08:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
More than just popular - 9th most viewed user according to sources. While OTHERSTUFFEXISTS could be quoted, it is an important consideration that the other popular Youtube memes have WP pages. As I've said earlier, I'm not against a single page for this - but the information needs to go somewhere. JRG ( talk) 10:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy please - because most people here I don't think could care less about improving the encyclopedia when policies such as WP:NOT#PAPER exist for potentially less relevant articles, and I believe have simply voted keep for the sake of following others without properly researching the notability, I would like to have the content userfied to find out a better place to put all the content on this page. JRG ( talk) 10:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete Come on guys. This is an easy BLP1E situation here. A you tuber is not going to be notable unless the event was extremely huge. This wasn't. Undead Warrior ( talk) 12:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Define huge. The event she is notable for reached reliable sources, and deserves addressing per BLP1E: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. ... In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person". MickMacNee ( talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • What I'm stating is that she was known for one thing and then she was gone. Are there any news stories about her today? Is she still the focus of attention on the web? No. She did one thing and was recognized for it for a while. She is not a notable person. It's a simple one event case. Undead Warrior ( talk) 22:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Read everything I've already said, I have not said she is a notable person. But you are reading BLP1E wrong with regard notability for an event, you said it yourself, this was a recognised (notable) event, hence it does not get wiped off the face of wikipidia in the name of 1E. And it bears repeating, notability, either as a person or for an event, does not fade away over time, what that is is fame. They are not the same. MickMacNee ( talk) 01:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
          • No this is silly. Then some high school kid who gets in the news for winning two different science competitions will get an article. Not notable. YellowMonkey ( click here to choose Australia's next top model) 01:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
            • Two high school science competitions? What has that got to do with anything I said? MickMacNee ( talk) 01:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
              • What he's saying is that if anyone does one event and it gets a decent amount of attention, then they would get an article by your rationale. If someone does one thing that is notable, and only one thing, that is not worthy of a page on an encyclopedia. It might be worth mentioning in a large article that encompasses many one hit wonder you tubers, but, it does not deserve it's own article. Undead Warrior ( talk) 17:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - clearly a flash-in-the-pan in the news world and a simple case of a person known for one thing alone. Simply being in the news to the extent she has does not make here notable. She is not part of a meme, just another youtuber recovering from their 15 minutes of infamy - Peripitus (Talk) 02:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Undead Warrior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatabullet ( talk • contribs) 05:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no notability beyond the one event, even if that event streched over a long time. Yobmod ( talk) 09:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • It's not one event though - did you even read the rest of the page? She was in the top ten youtube viewings for several years. Hardly "one event". And as I have said before I have no problem with a single article. JRG ( talk) 23:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a disappointing article. Considering it's well-written and reasonably large, that's really saying something. I thought of nominating it a while ago, but I held off because of the inevitable "reliably sourced" comments. I'm sorry, but this is the first article I've read that has told me "there's nothing remotely interesting about the subject". Since the reliable sources are there, a blurb in List of YouTube celebrities would properly sum up the topic. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 12:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • The point being the result should then correctly be merge, not delete, as people don't seem to understand in here. If you delete it, then typing in Emmalina into wikipedia will get you nowhere, not List of YouTube celebrities or anywhere else that the sourced information belongs, per WP:BLP1E. MickMacNee ( talk) 12:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • No offense, but Emmalina is NOT a notable person so typing her name in Wikipedia should not take you anywhere. If she were notable, then she would be able to retain a page, but, her one event is not a notable one anymore. It was notable for a small while, but not anymore. And, if the result is delete, you can always redirect the page ti the list of youtube celebrities. Undead Warrior ( talk) 22:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
        • That's your opinion only - but like most people on this page you haven't done a scrap of research - you just go straight off your own thinking. People spent time putting in work finding verifiable articles that show she had more than just "flash-in-the-pan" notability - but despite this good work it has to be spoiled by people who couldn't be bothered helping and improving the encyclopedia. You have no right to say things like that. JRG ( talk) 23:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
          • This article reads like nothing more than a myspace profile. What screams at me when I read this is "Why is this person on Wikipedia?". -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 23:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply
            • NO offense, but I have the right to say things like that. It's not degrading to anyone in terms of notability guidelines on Wikipedia. She is not notable. It's simple. Tell me how she passes WP:RS. Undead Warrior ( talk) 00:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare contact me My work 16:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

List of Bratz products

List of Bratz products (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Not too encyclopedic or of value, any information of interest is already present at the article Bratz, though even that article could do with some improvement - but this one is not encyclopedic or noteworthy and not worth retaining. Cirt ( talk) 10:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka ++ 00:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I've restored the contents to an intelligible version. VG ☎ 04:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 10:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thayillum family

Thayillum family (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Unverifiable, provides no reliable independent sources, and none locatable via google. Delete. Horselover Frost ( talk) 03:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No sources in sight. VG ☎ 04:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. YellowMonkey ( click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unsourced. Eatabullet ( talk) 08:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I suggest that the editors who are all saying "no sources in sight" and variants read the article again. The second paragraph explicitly states the title, author, publisher, and year of publication of the book that this information is taken from. Note that the nominator here is addressing the reliability and independence of that source, not saying that the article does not cite anything. You are not helping the closing administrator by supplying weak rationales that are quite obviously contradicted by the article at hand. Please evaluate the source that is already cited, and also look for other sources. That is what will help the discussion to come to the correct decision. Uncle G ( talk) 09:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Being one of the oldest Christian families in Kerala is an insufficient claim for notability. Clarityfiend ( talk) 10:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 10:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Nassim Ait-Kaci

Nassim Ait-Kaci (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Seems to fail WP:N ~ L'Aquatique talk 01:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete. I have a great deal of respect for the achievements sound designers have made for computer games (their art really enhances the experience of playing). Unfortunately there does not appear to be any independent coverage of this person per WP:BIO. Being in the end credits is standard for being part of the production, but it is not notability. The closest thing to an adequate source is this article this one, but it's a blog and not acceptably reliable, especially for a BLP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 10:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Ballyhoo! (band)

Ballyhoo! (band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
Cmt. sorry, but i don't think that amounts to anything more than a puff piece (non- reliable source) and i can't see anything to meet any of the WP:BAND 12 in there. tomasz. 08:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply

La Vie Theatre

La Vie Theatre (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

I don't believe this small Minnesota theatre company passes WP:ORG standards. The BackStage.com coverage cited in the article is for the Minnesota Fringe Festival and is not a profile of the theatre itself. Ecoleetage ( talk) 00:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment My apologies for this relist. I was on the wrong log page -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply


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

The result was speedy delete as A7 by Keeper76, who apparently is back. Yay. Non-admin closure. -- Amalthea Talk 01:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Christensen Farms

Christensen Farms (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

No notability asserted and no references. Clubmarx ( talk) 00:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_October_13&oldid=1081072304"