Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 1

< June 30	July 2 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy keep and trout the nom if they do this again (kidding). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chike and the River

There is no context and almost no content. Schuym1 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Do you know who Chinua Achebe is? It's a stub at the moment, which is allowed and is not a reason for deletion, and there are plenty of reliable sources for the future: see here. --JayHenry (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know and I also just noticed that I acted like a jerk when I nominated this for deletion. Can someone end this dicussion? Schuym1 (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 19:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahamandaleshwar Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda

Religious leader that is a non notable with only passing references in scant sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)</small[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Check the reference section again. He seems to be a noted person. Deserves a keep with need of further referencing. --gppande «talk» 09:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There isn't a reference section for the article, it was a lack of references that led me to question this article. The statements made are unsourced. Also, are you suggesting that he is a notable author? I will add this discussion to the author deletion sorting page to try to get more comments. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even though not all users approve of this, the Bibliography section lists a bunch of sources. For example, this article has examples of bibliography, but then again, it also has in-line cites. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 17:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply After reviewing this bibliography, it seems that this is a list of books he wrote. As he wrote them, they are not helpful in establishing his notability. There needs to be neutral third party sources. Presently there are none. If you would like to help this article, please do add references to the article to back up any claims to notability. I have found none and believe the subject to be non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A1 by User:Lectonar. (Non-admin closure) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sour Puss

Delete unsourced oneliner on a potent potable, with no indication of its significance, notability, or what liquor it contains... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A1 Almost no content/context. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources --T-rex 00:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is the single line tells the reader absolutely nothing, there are a multitude of drinks made with said ingredients. The only way it would be noteworthy is if more information could be added to tell why it is different from other drinks and the origin of the drink, otherwise the article makes no point.--Chef Tanner (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, A1. Lenticel ^(talk) 03:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Theater, Hogansville, Georgia

Delete nothing to indicate that this edifice is notable; Hogansville has 2,774 people and therefore very unlikely that their city hall in a disused theater is notable... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A1 Virtually no context to speak of, barely even stub class and not notable anyway (per WP:V). So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard as Nails (Static Shock)

This is an un-notable episode of Static Shock. There is no real world significance and no context. Schuym1 (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Static Shock episodes, as per WP:EPISODE.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Static Shock episodes, as it is a static shock episode. Happyme22 (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per 2 above ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I redirected the episode. There was no need to merge because there was enough info about the episode on the episode list Schuym1 (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no need to keep this redirect. If a reader types in "Hard as Nails", he or she is redirected to Nothing Exceeds Like Excess, which has a link to the list of episodes. If a reader searches "Hard as Nails (Static Shock)", the first three results are Static Shock-related. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, that actually makes a case for it being a valid redirect. I vote Redirect, but since that's contested I'm not gonna close this. JuJube (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close discussion - nom has already boldly redirected the article to List of Static Shock episodes, the most appropriate action as the target contains the name of the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 20:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TheSaurus (rapper)

Unable to locate any non-trivial third party publications about "TheSaurus" the rapper. JBsupreme (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC created by a WP:SPA, possible WP:COI. Only sources are to the homepages of two websites that aren't reliable sources. Links to his MySpace. This seems to be a case of someone using Wikipedia as a social networking site Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of evidence of WP:N requirements. This article from Soundslam turned up in a Google News archive search, but it's not clearly a reliable source and it's just a brief mention. I was unable to find anything in a library database of newspaper articles. Winning the World Rap Championships certainly sounds notable—yet it does not appear to have been reported in mainstream media. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was not displayed due to template errors. It is now completely listed. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, does not meet biographical guidelines for inclusion, fails WP:MUSIC as well. RFerreira (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 20:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Core worlds

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that is all this article consists of, with examples that do not demonstrate the term or its origin. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the primary entry for the concepts such as homeworld or homeplanet. Perhaps a move is in order, but the subject is highly notable and encyclopedic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems a notable concept to me. The article is not a dictionary defintion. --neon white talk 01:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no citations to reliable sources. Use of the term across media is just a collection of trivia/plot summary. Unless someone cites a secondary source asserting the term across franchises has an underlying, common use, then it's just original research to suggest the term in one franchise means the same/something similar in another. --EEMIV (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's comment: This was one of my very first creations, and has lasted this long. I've long since forgotten about it, and it has grown all on its own. Now, of course, I understand the need for sources. I think this term is a bit more than trivial, and a search here should not simply go to Star Wars; the term is even now used in certain video game circles, suggesting the usage is understood by more than just hardcore scifi fans. I think this article is in need of {{rescue}}! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Subject is significant enough to be in the title of published books. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- significant enough to be in the title of published books - Hardly sufficient to establish notability. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? --EEMIV (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I would not discount the subject of motorcycle maintenance as a possible article; it would not necessarily need to be written as a how-to. (I think GRC mentioned that criterion because it has sometimes been actually asked for by extreme deletionists). DGG (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Sufficient enough by any reasonable standards and as usual, apples and oranges. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 regions of space in the Honorverse. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talbott Cluster

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot points from the Honorverse franchise. As such, it is repetitive and trivial, and should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the List of regions of space in the Honorverse.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Piotr 70.55.85.154 (talk) 05:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge into a list of locations. This should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close and keep, AfD withdrawn by nominator after evidence provided that WP:CORP criteria are clearly being met. -- The Anome (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GOOD Magazine

No independent evidence of notability supplied. Only external links are to magazine's own website and YouTube channel. Was previously deleted after first AfD: has anything changed in the intervening time to make it meet the notability criteria? -- The Anome (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well part of the reason the last AfD resulted in a deletion was because the magazine had only just rolled out (nearly 2 years ago). It's possible that things have changed, but I'm not seeing much notability. There are some mentions in the blogosphere, but even those appear cursory at best. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit I may be partisan, as an employee of the company. We are a magazine with almost 50,000 subscribers, hundreds of thousands of visitors to our website, and we've given nearly $1 million to charity. We were the first outside company to curate the homepage of YouTube. We have been written about in Foreign Policy , Boing Boing The New York Times numerous times (among many other places in print and online). This last year, we were nominated for two National Magazine Awards. I'm not sure what other threshold of notability we could possibly have to meet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.106.34 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The National Magazine Awards are a reasonably big deal, and it (and its articles and business structure) have been the subject of non trivial coverage in respected third party sources. It definitely passes WP:N and WP:CORP. We do need to work all those great sources into the article, though. Vickser (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vickser makes good arguments, unfortunately the article does not provide this valuable information. Since the vote is based upon the article, I must vote no, but if editors were split, I could give it 2 more weeks. GaryECampbell (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, WP:AfD tells us "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." That said, I'm going to go ahead and try to do some clean up on the article. It's not too bad as is, but with all the other sources out there it can be much better. Vickser (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article does actually provide information about the National Magazine Award 2008 nomination. And also provides a link to non-trivial, published LA Times coverage of the business and its founder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.120.34 (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've substantially expanded the article. I'd encourage you to head over and check out the new reference section. 2 NYT articles, 3 NPR pieces, one WashPost, one Foreign Policy, NMA awards, and the LATimes piece. Plenty of coverage. Vickser (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from Vickser's comment posted on User talk:The Anome: "I've found a bunch more sources about Good magazine and was wondering if you'd consider taking a look at the new article and seeing if you still feel it should be deleted. Among the highlights are three NPR pieces [1] [2] [3], two New York Times stories [4] [5], an article in Inc. Magazine [6], a Foreign Policy Magazine feature [7] and a short piece in the Washington Post [8]. That's on top of the original Los Angeles Times piece [9] and two National Magazine Awards [10]. If that's enough to persuade you, or you just want to comment and say why you think it still need to be deleted, the afd is here. Thanks! Vickser (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
- The above is sufficient to convince me that the article's subject now meets the WP:CORP criteria; accordingly, I'm withdrawing my nomination, and closing this AfD. -- The Anome (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 20:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damián A. Fernández Beanato

Fails to meet these criteria. Working as a common journalist in an important magazine doesn't make you notable. Besides, this guy is the person who created this page (User:Damfb and I have reasons to think that he is also User:Paleofreak, who created the pages Buenos Aires International Book Fair and Fernando Novas). But, apart from that, he doesn't meet these criteria. I'm a journalist from Argentina, I work at Clarín and this person "is NOT regarded as an important figure nor is widely cited by their peers or successors". Besides, in the Newsweek Argentina article in Spanish wikipedia, it says that this guy works there as a "corrector". I keep looking: this guy says he published articles in Clarín, but I searched Clarín.com (you can search by article author), and I didn't found any article written by him. PeterCantropus (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: You can find thousands of ANSA articles in Clarín, the newspaper does not give credit to individual writers. But you are right there is no way to check it out. --Miotroyo (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so everybody that works in an International News Agency could say that he writes articles for Clarin, and it's not like that. If you work for ANSA, you work for ANSA, not for Clarin. So, this guy is saying that he works for Clarin, when he isn't. That alone should be enough to delete the article: is an article written by the subject himself, full of exagerations trying to acquire notability. He says he wrote the novel La Orden de los Mundos Libres. Maybe that novel is written, I assure you it isn't published. --PeterCantropus (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, don't say what's not true: the article never says that Fernández Beanato works for Clarín.--Miotroyo (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says "he published several articles in Clarín", and that's misleading. Of course, maybe some article he wrote while working for ANSA were reproduced by Clarin (you can't prove it), but that's part of working at a News Agency. "Publishing articles in Clarin" means you work for Clarin. If it's not a lie, it's an exageration. But even if you worked at Clarin, that doesn't make you notable either. I DO work at Clarin (if you search my surname in clarin.com archives you WILL come up with a lot of articles), and still I'm not notable, and writing an article about myself in Wikipedia would be very stupid. --PeterCantropus (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looking: the user Damifb was expelled from the Spanish wikipedia, you can check it here. And Miotroyo probably is the same guy. He's the only one that edited this article, along with Damifb and Paleofreak, and he removed the notability tag that Nancy added to the article. Besides, according to this section in his talk page, he tried to list this guy as an atheist in List of atheists article. Of course he couldn't prove it, because his opinions weren't published anywhere. (For the English speaking wikipedians: "Miotroyo" means "My other self") --PeterCantropus (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable journalist. And his other accomplishment, winning a minor short-story contest, does not make him notable either. Qworty (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable journalist -- notability not proved. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the award is not for his journalism. Nothing else relevant to notability. DGG (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think he can be notable under criterion number 3 of WP:CREATIVE, and if the award is not for journalism, so what, he's also listed as an author.--Paleofreak (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think there's something you don't (or don't want to) understand about WP:CREATIVE. In the point 3, it says that your work should be "the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". It doesn't mean that if you wrote "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" you are notable. It means that if "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" were written ABOUT YOU, you are notable. Got the difference? --PeterCantropus (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources about the subject to indicate notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is just an average journalist almost unknown in Argentina. By the way, Newsweek Argentina is also a non mainstream publication in Argentina. Barcex (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per well-reasoned arguments for deletion, contrary to the vague and/or non policy and guideline based arguments for keeping. Disregarding all delete arguments because either the policy or guideline involved is in your view disputed, or because the opinion doesn't follow some essay, is not really constructive and rather self-contradictory (if you don't want people to use policies, you certainly shouldn't start using essays in your arguments). And if you disregard "pernom", perhaps it would be fairer to add the same to "per le Grand" opinions as well... Fram (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House of Acorn

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is as such an in-universe repetition of the plot of various Sonic the Hedgehog comic books and cartoons. It is therefore duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Le Grand.Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Combination articles like this for minor characters are appropriate. This should become the standard practice at wp for all notable fiction. what counts in the world as notable fiction may be unfortunate, but that's the RW for you.DGG (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article meets the stalled compromise at WP:FICT and the discussion continues at WP:NOTE. Please join us there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG.Hobit (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Contrary to Le Gradne, I saw zero real world assertion of notability in that article. It's three pages of fancrufty plot summary and listy character coolness bios. Burn it. ThuranX (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM and WP:ITSCRUFT are illegitimate reasons for deletion. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is. Responding to minor portions of an comment and disregarding the bulk of it is illegitimate as well. Please don't try to be deliberately misleading. JohnnyMrNinja 03:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually it isn't. It says, "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'." And a look at its talk page suggests that it is most likely to fail, which is why citing it as policy is either deliberately misleading or just not actually reading it. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - However, JohnnyMrNinja's clain of it being plot summary is a perfectly legitimate reason to delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 13:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You are correct that Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is not an active guideline but a proposed one, I was referencing it because it is more forgiving towards these sorts of AfDs than Wikipedia:Notability (which is an active guideline), so I'm not sure how that helps your case. I don't care which one (it could be Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)), if notability can be confirmed it should be kept, if not, deleted. JohnnyMrNinja 14:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Notability is also heavily disputed and undergoing massive disagreement overhow to revise (or even replace) it. Because notability seems obvious it should be kept. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki this to http://sonic.wikia.org if it is not already there, then delete it from Wikipedia. There are no sources present, this article constitutes trivial information as a non-notable part of the series, and it violates WP:NOT#PLOT in that the most of the article is excessive plot summary. It doesn't matter if it can be called cruft or not, this is what the article is made of and I believe it should be deleted on these grounds. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 03:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The real service that this article provides is as a well-organized and coherent portal to other articles and thus is valuable in that context. Best, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So just because it links to other articles and provides a little context that completely fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT#PLOT, etc means it should be kept? No offense, Le Grand Roi, but I see that as being absurd. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 05:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Deleting it would be absurd as it does more good than not. It unquestionably passes notability (you can't get much more notable in the video game world than Sonic with the exception of say Mario), the characters can easily be verified in the many Sonic publications, and something that is organizational as a list or portal is not restricted by the disputed plot guidelines. --Happy editing! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If that's the case, then why is it not verified on the article? Pardon my language, if you find this comment offensive, but "put up or shut up". Now, I didn't say I wouldn't reverse my decision if you can fix it by the end of the AFD period. And unquestionably passes notability? First-party sources cannot be used to establish notability per WP:SELFPUB. Also, I seriously doubt this is a "list or portal" or has any function similar to it. Who looks up "House of Acorn" expecting to link to a bunch of Sonic articles? Only someone seriously acquainted with the comics. I don't think that's definitive enough to make this similar to "a list or portal". Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 13:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Like a table of contents, you get the verification when you go to the chapters. If you doubt it's function, then why not ask those who worked on it to come to this discussion to see what use they get out of it? People seriously acquainted probably count in the thousands or millions, which makes this article a valuable research tool for them. I am far more interested in that thousands of readers look at the article on a monthly basis and plenty of our editors also see value in devoting their spare time to working on it over the span of years than just a few thinking it should suddenly be deleted now during a mere five day discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to House of Acorn - I agree that the format is acceptable, but the subject is not. I have not been able to find "Real World" (not Mobius) notability of the house itself, or any of the members. If any sources are provided that confirm such notability, I'll vote keep. JohnnyMrNinja 03:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to get sufficient sources from a search, but as I said above, the article works great as a coherent means of navigation to other articles as well. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coverage from fansites (considering the first three links are Wikipedia/Wikia, as well as the rest of sites that I saw) does not make this notable, per WP:VG/S. Le Grand Roi, perhaps you should really look into what you turn up with a search first before claiming you've found reliable sources that show coverage by third parties. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 13:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sources don't "seem" to be. They are or they aren't. Searching for anything will result in hits, that means nothing. As for navigation, whichever articles aren't deleted (if any) can go in a category. JohnnyMrNinja 14:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The results show clear Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That is plain silly. Searching for something in Google means absolutely rubbish. The search I put in above was for "cupcake hat moon". Should I start that article now? You have made little to no sense throughout this discussion. JohnnyMrNinja 07:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Apples and oranges. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced drek. This would be unacceptably bad on a project that had readers' guides for longrunning comic series, but the fact that this is a bad example of something Wikipedia doesn't even do should mean that there's no reason whatsoever that we need it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently these [11] and [12] people think we do need it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Chewbacca is a wookiee indeed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per JohnnyMrNinja. Salavat (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People who come across the name should be able to find some information in Wikipedia The specialized fan wikis are appropriate for the fans, but someone who does not know what this is associated with will not know to look there, but should still be able to find information--and here is the place. The fan wiki can take the further details. The cure for poorly written articles is to spend some time on improving them, not spend tim on deleting them. DGG (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with content, at least not for me. No part of it is Notable. Sonic is Notable, Princess Sally might be, but her extended family is not. JohnnyMrNinja 07:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no desire to attempt to argue the disruptive nonsense that User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles keeps putting forth. From badgering people and continuously referencing misleading WP links that in no way validate the argument, to misrepresenting editor's comments, to saying that WP:Notability is not a valid reason to delete an article. I cannot see how these arguments can be made in good faith. Wikipedia:Gaming the system makes a strong showing here. Good luck, logic. JohnnyMrNinja 07:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I really wish you would argue constructively in this discussion and not badger people who disagree or refer misleading to invalid arguments; I would like to assume good faith and hope that you are not gaming the system by focusing on editors rather than the content under disucssion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 11:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, your conduct here, and in other AfDs, is disruptive. You are, whether intentionally or not, being misleading, badgering editors, referencing WP pages that have no relevance, and at times being completely nonsensical. Your comments are not conducive to a consensus, but rather so confusing as to distract from the conversation, or possibly derail it completely. It may be completely unintentional, but your conduct seems aimed at not allowing a consensus to form. Whether this is intentional or not, it is not appropriate behavior and I ask you to please stop. JohnnyMrNinja 05:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your conduct in this discussion is actually turning quite disruptive and misleading, because we are supposed to be discussing the content in question and not other editors. In discussions we interact with each other, we don't simply vote; that is how we come to a consensus. Please do not derail the discussion by focusing on editors instead. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others above me. In-universe plot summary of non-notable figures. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:PERNOM and WP:JNN. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Noted. Thanks for the links!!! :):):):):):) Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're welcome! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and unverifiable plot summaries, synthesis, and other non-encyclopedic nonsense. Not so much as one reliable source. No redeeming value whatsoever. HiDrNick! 11:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:JNN and WP:UNENCYC. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Non-notable and unverifiable plot summaries, synthesis, and other non-encyclopedic nonsense.
    Policies (instead of, you know, one essay) bolded and linked for Le Roi's convenience. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Severely disputed policies though, and the thing is the article concerns a verifiable notable fictional royal family and is presented in a manner consistent with a specialized encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you severely dispute WP:V, WP:NOT, or WP:NOR, this may not be the project for you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The topic can be verified (the characters in Sonic the Hedghog appear in numerous sources), a coherent portal/list to other articles is akin to a table of contents and is therefore a helpful element of a specialized encyclopedia of notable fictional topics, and the article is presented in a neutral or straightforward point of view by simply presenting information about notable characters and providing internal links to their articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You say it's notable, without explaining why, after you linked WP:JNN in your previous comment. Don't say "The need for notability is severely disputed!" in one breath, and "This is notable!" in the next.
        I'm beginning to understand these accusations of disruptive gamesmanship levelled at you. Can you offer any reliable third-party references to write this article, or are you going to continue linking essays, making irrelevant links to Google searches and hit counts, and just generally gumming up the works uselessly? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It is notable in that it concerns aspects of a fictional universe that is recognizable to millions of gamers, comic book readers, and cartoon watchers worldwide, although I of course concede that our standards of notability in general are currently disputed. The article provides an immensely useful purpose for our project as a navigational page and thus in that sense the sources for the members linked to on this article are located in their own articles as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you offer any reliable third-party references to write this article, or are you going to continue linking essays, making irrelevant links to Google searches and hit counts, and just generally gumming up the works uselessly? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You are of course welcome to help in that effort instead of just generally gumming up the works uselessly by telling others to do so. In any event, such sites as "The world's largest comic book encyclopedia" include pages on "Princess Sally's friends and family". --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comicvine is an anonymously-edited wiki, which is not a reliable source (plus most of those articles are completely empty). Can you offer any reliable third-party references to write this article, or are you going to continue linking essays, making irrelevant links to Google searches and hit counts, and just generally gumming up the works uselessly? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The value I see in the page is primarily as a role similar to a disambiguation page or portal, i.e. as an outstanding means by which to navigate other articles and as such, just as a disambiguation page or portal is not itself overwhelmed with links and footnotes, lists to other internal links really do not need to be overly weighted down in such a fashion when they do link to other articles that are referenced. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This is neither a disambiguation page nor a portal. It is an article. Can you offer any reliable third-party references to write this article, or are you going to continue linking essays, making irrelevant links to Google searches and hit counts, and just generally gumming up the works uselessly? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What have your own searches turned up? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Absolutely nothing of value. It's such a ridiculously narrow subject that nobody has seen fit to comment; it's difficult to find sources covering the licensed works at all, other than in passing (e.g. "Including television shows and comic books" with no further mention). Hence me arguing to delete and all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I do agree that it is difficult to navigate through the Google searches, because of the overabundance of fan sites; however, I wonder if there are published comic and cartoon related magazines that do not have online archives that need to be considered as well for the appearances of the characters collectively seem significant enough (it is a notable franchise after all) that I think it's not unreasonable that such sources exist, but again, I still see other navigational and organizational value in the article as serving a beneficial purpose to our project anyway. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The comic- and cartoon-related magazines tend to cover material aimed at older audiences, or are childrens' magazines of very little value for sourcing. (Disney Adventures and the like.) If it's so reasonable that sources exist, why can't you find a single one? Without one single source (I suggest a library trip), your "This is notable!" argument is baseless fluff. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Were I to make a library trip, what publications would you recommend looking at? And yes I agree that saying WP:JNN is not really a compelling argument either way. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know. No publications that I know of regularly offer useful commentary on bit characters in licensed-property childrens' comics. You have magazines like Disney Adventures, which are aimed at children and offer exceedingly little in the way of useful commentary on anything, and magazines like Wizard, which are aimed at an older audience inclined to be scornful of childrens' and licensed-property comics. You were the one who was arguing this was notable; I assumed you had read WP:N and had some sort of sources in mind.
        Or were you arguing that this was notable without actually knowing of any sources, any sorts of sources, or without even a basic knowledge of the subject matter? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, the multiple appearances of the characters on the list in recognizable and popular primary sources suggested a kind of notability (I don't know what to make of the guideline, i.e. Wikipedic "definition" itself given the varied proposals and what seems to be upcoming request for comment; plus, I don't know if it's a good thing or bad thing that the guidelines themselves are edited by anyone like articles, but there have been times that I look at that page and it's changed from the last time I looked at; obviously, I'm not going to and wouldn't expect anyone else to re-read the same page every day) and the liklihood (or Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state) of published sources. As I said above, I see navigational value to the project with regards to this particular article that really makes me feel inclined to an Wikipedia:Ignore all rules regarding additional sources although I am of course willing to keep an eye or even look at any likely publications should time permit. We obviously disagree and I'm not confident that we'll likely persaude each other on this one, but one thing I will say is that I thought for better or worse AfDs were supposed to go for 5 days. Now, I know it's a holiday weekend and all, but shouldn't it have been closed by now? It's not as if in this case only two or three people commented. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you offer any reliable third-party references to write this article, or are you going to continue linking essays, making irrelevant links to Google searches and hit counts, and just generally gumming up the works uselessly? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Have a pleasant night; time to prepare for lecture already! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summaries with no claim (or evidence) of notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, excessive trivia and material more appropriate for a Sonic-wiki, if one exists. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 20:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sector (Star Trek)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot points from the Star Trek series. It is therefore both duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article itself even admits it is non-canon. L0b0t (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete - a few Trek spoofs have goofed on sector names/numbers/weirdness, but I doubt in any sort of critical mass, or in any sort of spoof-centric way, to yield reliable third-party coverage. Any passing references to spoofs' sectors could likely be rolled into Star Trek or Cultural impact of Star Trek#Parodies and tributes. --EEMIV (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a useful way of organizing the material. Encyclopedias can cover subjects from multiple viewpoints & aspects-- and we are NOT PAPER. DGG (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This Star Trek cruft belongs elsewhere. No notability is shown, and it just appears to be Star Trek trivia/cruft. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I would be more inclined to keep if there was canonical referencing because this does come up a lot in the films/series. As it is, it almost becomes anti-useful. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 20:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris (album)

Future reason album without a confirmed release date or any sources, let alone reliable sources, per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums Aspects (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL & WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. No prejudice to recreating the article when the album is released. Bláthnaid 19:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per two above ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 / merge to List of minor characters in the Teen Titans animated series#The Punk Rocket, which has already happened. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Punk Rocket

The Punk Rocket is an non-notable villain that has only appeared in one episode (plus a few cameos) of Teen Titans. Schuym1 (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable minor character --T-rex 00:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge into a list of minor characters. This should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I would merge and redirect the character articles that I put up for discussion, right now, but I don't understand how to redirect. Schuym1 (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::I figured out how to redirect and now it's merged and redirected. Schuym1 (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Hethke

Nobility issuesE E 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless printed sources turn up to show notability. Gnews/gsearch only coming up with a couple of non-wiki mentions, neither of which show notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability asserted in the article, and, like Fabrictramp, I could find none.--Kubigula (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Static Shock. Non-admin closure. JuJube (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nails (Static Shock)

Nails is a un-notable character that has only appeared in one episode of Static Shock. There is no real world significance and no context. Schuym1 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge into a list of minor characters. This should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It has been merged and redirected. Schuym1 (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12, by User:Alexf. (Non-admin closure) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sivashankar Baba

Biography of a non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a candidate for AfD but CSD. The article is complete copyright violation and I have nominated it as per Template:db-copyvio. --gppande «talk» 09:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Soxred 93 00:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemount global software center

Can't find any sources which would afford this company notability inline with WP:V. Россавиа ^Диалог 22:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found only 17 hits on this company with a small number of employees. It doesn't meet WP:N guidelines as of July 2008. Artene50 (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-consumer tech business, subsidiary of a larger firm. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The software center seems to be (no references) an in-house development group for the parent. - can't find anything notable. - GaryECampbell (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Result was speedy delete under criterion A7: no assertion of notability. (Non-admin closure.)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 22:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian gil

Apparent WP:HOAX as IMDB lists no actor in the cast, certainly doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER notability Madcoverboy (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CSD A7 speedy delete The nominator is right. The article is a hoax. Here is the IMDB list of cast members for this movie and there is no one named Christian Gil. Why do some people have to post hoaxes on Wikipedia and waste other people's time? Artene50 (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test (not to mention its a hoax). RFerreira (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete fails WP:NOTABILITY.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 revert. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virality

Seems to be someone's personal invention. A search yields no results [13]. meshach (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please revert back to the original text (simple dab page without all the crap). "Virality" is a commonly used term. — Pengo 22:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Virality is not an actual word see http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=Virality&x=0&y=0 as an example. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to the disambiguation page. Were it possible to expel neologisms by fiat from the English language, I would have sanitized this one with bleach a long time ago, along with viral phenomenon itself. Phrases like viral phenomenon are fungal phenomena in any case. But virality is a regular formation, people are going to use it, and as such the disambiguation page is likely useful. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to DAB - Whpq (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and expand. We do not limit ourselves to what less comprehensive information sources include--certainly not to a school dictionary for second language learners like the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. DGG (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not in the Oxford English Dictionary either; is that more to your liking? If you'd bothered to read the words "as an example" you might've saved the sneering. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viswamji

Religious leader that is non notable and has no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable third party sources. All the sources provided are from websites of the person himself. --gppande «talk» 09:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Gppande. No reliable third party sources sums it up perfectly. Gizza^Discuss ^© 00:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moved this draft rewrite to a subpage of the talk page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Energy economics/new

An unneeded subpage that was copied from the original. Tavix (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy move to talk and delete --T-rex 00:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of types of facial hair

Trivial and unsourced list based upon original research. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, this list is built upon unsourced dictionary definitions and clearly violates Wikipedia:No original research policy. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --T-rex 00:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the basis that this can be sourced, and that expressions of personal appearance (haircuts, body piercing, makeup use, grooming) are an encyclopedic subject. It needs to be trimmed, but not shaved off. Rather than having a list, I'd be more in favor of merging this back into facial hair. Mandsford (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unnecessary list which fails WP:FIVE as loosely associated trivia items. RFerreira (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Posner's "Enlightened Despot"

OK, question here is, is a book review notable? The book, its author and the author of the review are, without a doubt, but I don't think that confers notability to the review itself. The claim that it's "much cited" appears in reality to be that it was reprinted. I find no evidence the review has been discussed and is anything more than a book review. I doubt the title is a valid search term so I don't see the need for a re-direct elsewhere. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —_{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have advocated merging into the article of A Judge in a Democracy as a criticism section, but as the book itself doesn't actually have an article, that's impossible. I have heard of the article and it's received a decent bit of attention, but I don't think it's to the point where I think it should get a wikipedia article about it. Vickser (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand I'm not saying that a book review can't be notable. Thomas Huntington's Clash of Civilizations was a book review after all, and it caused such a stir that it would've been notable before he published a book on it. Posner's Enlightened Despot article, while sort of a big deal, is nowhere near Clash level. Vickser (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because its WP:NN and violates WP:NOTOPINION. IZAK (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IN truly exceptional cases a book review can be notable--the destructive review of Keats' poetry in The Quarterly Review is notorious in English literature--there's a less than adequate discussion of it in [Endymion (poem] but it would be a very unusual book review indeed. This is nowhere near it. If the book were important enough for an article the review could be mentioned there. Alternatively, it should be worth a mention in the article on Barak. DGG (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was close, pending separate relistings Waggers (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Asante

Players do not sufficiently satisfy WP:ATHLETE in that they have not played for a fully professional league, noting that soccer is a professional sport. In addition, players do not sufficiently satisfy the notability criteria as outlined by WP:FOOTY in that they do not play for a professional team, have played in a competitive fixture, or have senior international caps/Olympics caps. GauchoDude (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons provided above:

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GauchoDude (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they all fail WP:ATHLETE because the USL Premier Development League or the MLS Reserve League are not fully professional leagues. To pre-empt claims that it counts as "playing at the highest level in amateur sports", it doesn't because football is not an amateur sport. Also, consensus is that youth caps or reserve appearances do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:ATHLETE - as Number 57 notes above, reserve matches do not confer notability. --Angelo (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Out of interest for our American friends, minor league (which I suppose is the equivalent of these MLS development leagues) baseball players are only notable if they are named to an all-star team or win a notable award. None of these players have done something like that. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for failure of WP:Athlete and not other claims of notability. Vickser (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close AFD and relist - One of these previously survived an AFD. Another has been named as a substitute in first team matches as recently as Tuesday. This AFD doesn't meet the guidlines for bundling in WP:AFD ("If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately."). Nfitz (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can any of them stand on their own merits? They all fail WP:ATHLETE and consensus is that youth caps are do not confer notability (the one AfD you refer to was before the youth caps issue was resolved). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Relist - actually, four of the six of them have been in previous AFDs (one, even started by the nominator of these articles): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Hughes (soccer) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Espinoza are the previous discussion. As for the youth caps issue, where has it been decided that national youth teams are not notable? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability#Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability has some discussion, but, it is seems evenly split to me, and that discussion is definitely not strong enough to build an AFD case on for the players above which have played internationally for their country. While WP:ATHLETE is often cited as an exclusive reason for deletion, reading the section heading at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria is instructional. quote Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. Waving around WP:ATHLETE criteria as if notability established in normal ways (non-trivial coverage in multiple reputable sources) can be ignored is simply bad for the project. Neier (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See the concurrent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhys Williams (footballer) (2nd nomination) for more evidence of the youth caps issue. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I see many of the same comments and commenters there; but, so far as I know, the status on the project's notability page regarding under-23 and other national youth teams is not decided despite claims above. Neier (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as as they have not competed in a fully-pro league/competiton yet thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Youth caps do not confer notability either. --Jimbo^[online] 17:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and per Jimbo. Youth football is emphatically not the highest level of international football, that is the senior team. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Giant Snowman 16:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three of these players can be found on the current MLS roster. Some of those have been named as substitutes in recent games. Nfitz (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that they have been named as subs is irrelevant to the guideline - they haven't actually played. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It goes to their notability. It also supports that they should be considered for deletion separately rather than bundled. Nfitz (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close and relist separately, or procedural keep all. Bundling these might make sense normally, but given that several have already survived AfD's, it is far better to discuss each article on individual merits. Reso lute 15:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close and relist separately - It's just too hard to go through this when articles have survived on their own, especially when the nominator doesn't link to past discussions as is generally expected. matt91486 (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Jimbo et al., except Justin Hughes (soccer), who appears to be professional per this. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huckapoo

Defunct band that never released an album or single. Fails WP:MUSIC. Only possible claim to notability is soundtrack appearance, which can be mentioned in the relevant article. Unable to find any reference to supposed Disney album appearances online. The only substantial mention of the band I can find is that New York Magazine article - which appears to have a promotional tone. Contested prod. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was all over the Delete vote for this one, but I don't think I can. New York Magazine's feature profile of them is substantial, and they were profiled not just once, but twice, in the New York Times. [14] [15] So, that's WP:Music#1. And then this article from a Maryland newspaper (albeit one I've never heard of) mentions that they've had several songs in rotation on Radio Disney, which would qualify them for WP:Music#11. As much as I'm tempted to fudge it, meeting two parts of WP:Music means a keep from me. Vickser (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keepthere really isn't a discussion- the NY TIMES article alone makes it a keep- I'm removing the template. They are notable.TremblingVassal (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are sufficient sources for the WP:N standard, or WP:MUSIC criterion #1. (Thanks to Vickser for finding them.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reincarnation (sairai)

Contested prod. This is an unreferenced article for what seems to be non-notable fiction. The only hit I see for this with a Google search is the Wikipedia page. Doing further searches for the author in relation to writing fiction provide very little information. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible hoax - I can find no information on this in Japanese, it is not listed on Amazon.jp, and the link to the Japanese wikipedia is either fake or links to a deleted page. Doceirias (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems it was deleted. [16] —Dino guy 1000 21:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, looks like an attack page, to me. Corvus cornix_talk 21:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this makes me think of another article that got sent to AfD and deleted. —Dino guy 1000 21:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted material. Just another version of "Goat and Wolf" from the same editor. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of demonstratable notability. Doesn't qualify, I think, for speedy as the article is sufficiently different from the deleted Goat and Wolf piece -- indeed, this is a better, more coherent article than the one I remember. —Quasirandom (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While certainly better written than Goat and Wolf the lack of publisher, publication date, length, and uncertainty about the number of pages seems to indicate this is an intended self-published work. Self-published works are seldom notable and there's no indication this is an exception, besides Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Edward321 (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (default keep). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eggman Nega

AfDs for this article:

Alright, let's try this again. From what I'm noticing from the Eggman Nega article, all the information is nothing more than just plot info. The only sourced outer-universe info is the storyline confusion section with Taylor Miller. If it has nothing more to offer than it has now, then it has no reason to be here, plain and simple. ZeroGiga (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Doctor Eggman. While most of the article is cruftish, he certainly should be mentioned somewhere in the Sonic series. The main Eggman article is naturally the best place for a non-cruft version. MuZemike (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:ITSCRUFT. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Doctor Eggman - there is no reason for this article to exsist --T-rex 00:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article need sourcing, but notability seems clear from the article. (Main villain in three hugely popular games). Hobit (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per decisive outcome in AfD just a few months ago, also per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does it pertain to this article exactly? Not trying to be the devil's advocate, but I can barely remember what I had for dinner last night let alone some "decisive outcome" that happened several months ago. Please elaborate. MuZemike (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier AfD ended in an unambiguous keep earlier this year. As the above suggests as well, it does not seem that consensus has changed much in so short an amount of time. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eggman Nega and Doctor Eggman are different characters. In the last five or so days, there's been a person nominating all of these Sonic characters. WP:RFC, anyone? Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 16:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's part of a coordinated effort: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Sonic the Hedgehog Cruft and User talk:TTN#Sonic comic characters. Also, you should be aware of User talk:TTN#I have a question and User talk:Sephiroth BCR#Hey.2C I need your help.. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, WP:AGF. MuZemike (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have faith that they are doing what they think is best for WP. I have no doubt that the same was true for TTN on the episodes. But it may be the case that their actions need to go to a wider audience for discussion. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you want to keep it, improve it. By the fact that it already went through an AfD and still lacks any reason for it to be an article. And to people calling him a separate character, how separate it is really? He's an "evil twin" type character who is always copying Eggman or allying with him. Basically, since everything he does is directly related to Eggman, so all events related to Eggman Nega would likely be mentioned in Dr. Eggman's article anyway. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I for one will indeed work to improve it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Previous AFD insisted it was notable on subjective feeling, and no sources have been found to show that this is actually true. The article has had time to improve, but the lack of references indicates that this article cannot be improved. Requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Google reveals self-published unreliable sources, or first party / non-independent sources. Does not meet the general notability guideline, and cannot. Would change my vote if there were evidence otherwise. Randomran (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sufficient sources exist for inclusion on Wikipedia, but also look to relevant publications not simply found with a quick google search. We do not delete legitimately mergeable and redirectable articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Notability. Even one million unreliable or self-published or non-independent sources does not assert notability. If you find a source that actually meets the general notability guideline, that would have an impact. But a google test doesn't change anything. Randomran (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I encourage you to help in that effort. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've given it a legitimate try. Randomran (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Where did you look? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Unfortunately, not an exhaustive search between the four corners of planet Earth. If there's something I haven't found, feel free to find it. But don't tell us. Show us. Randomran (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll of course keep an eye out, but it is a group effort and enough have already been presented to justify a merge or redirect at worst. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Where were they presented? I haven't seen any. Randomran (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The key is to not simply type "Eggman Nega" in a search but other key words that turn up such things as interviews with the creators that provide some out of universe commentary by the creators about the characters or to look at reviews that comment on the character. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Here is the entirety of the information found in the article that is not explicitly a duplicate of information found elsewhere: "Eggman Nega is Doctor Eggman's dimensional counterpart. He has been the main villain in every game he has appeared in, and is fought as the final boss in Sonic Rush, Sonic Rivals, and Sonic Rush Adventure." Everything else in that article is simply a retelling of the plots of four games. Nifboy (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles that are duplicative is redirected, but not deleted. Outright deletion is reserved for extreme circumstances, i.e. when no potential redirect location exists. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Doctor Eggman previous AfD had very few votes, and consensus can change. I'm not going to be convinced that this article is worth saving, so don't bother. JuJube (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article has improved since nomination. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An improvement of two refs? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a start. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect echoing the above, improvements, er sorry, "improvements" notwithstanding. Eusebeus (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Doctor Eggman. The information is worth disambiguating on the Doctor Eggman page for those not familiar with the subject - which is what distinguishes wikipedia from a fansite... we should assume our audience is unfamiliar with the subject.Icemotoboy (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Le Grand Roi. Major character of indisputably notable video game series. GlassCobra 22:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

U-Phonic Records

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A1. A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn record label Mayalld (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Martin

Delete nn music producer Mayalld (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The combination of this and U-Phonic above make it clear that this is advertising spam. With the best I can get out of google, his claims to producing those songs are false as well. There's absolutely nothing from WP:RS that I can find about this. Delete, delete, a million times delete. Vickser (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regular delete. Sorry I cannot endorse a speedy delete as there are vague claims to notability, but a regular delete will do just fine as there are no reliable sources about the subject that I can find. RFerreira (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, if any editor who doesn't have WP:COI issues thinks they can address the problems noted here, drop me a line and I'll userfy it for you.Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CDS International

Unashamed COI - article written by user:CDS International. Speedied once as spam. Are they notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in its current incarnation, this is spam. Corvus cornix_talk 21:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. I'm inclined to say salt as well, but I'll leave that open to discussion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not entirely spam, this could possibly be stubified and fixed. {{db-spam}} removed. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. No business notability shown. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think WP:SALT is entirely necessary at this point. If it gets recreated, that's a maybe. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for 2 weeks, then review to AfD - The article currently notes a 3rd party reference (USNewswire). Google "CDS International" "student exchange" -wiki -cdsintl yields 350+ matches, there is an abundance to draw from. I believe there is proof of notability and international recognition. Let’s not bite this newcomer too hard, an experienced editor could rewrite and reorganize. This article has a chance. GaryECampbell (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Coment: I get 104 hits, none of which seems to be a reliable source, but I'm curious as to why you chose -wiki instead of -wikipedia. And by the way, the article has been here since June 16, that's more than 2 weeks. Corvus cornix_talk
:: Comment to corvus: ensure you are using google.com to not limit to Canada etc. -wiki filters out anything that starts with wiki, whereas -wikipedia will return content from emowiki, aboutwiki, etc. Add additional filters as required to filter out common unrelated results. 2 weeks can be tough, summer holidays, learning curve, etc.. GaryECampbell (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neıl 龱 10:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Echidnas (Sonic the Hedgehog)

This article has no chance of asserting notability. It is filled with NOTHING but in-universe information. It is just a parade of cruft that needs to be tossed out the window. Anyone else agree? ZeroGiga (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I certainly don't agree. If the work is notable (which is apparently the case, though I am not one to judge) then the major characters are individually appropriate for articles, and the less important ones for inclusion in a combination article or a list--just like here. such combination articles and lists should be the default way of handling these situations. Calling something cruft in this sort of way is exactly equivalent to IDONTLIKEIT. V is met, for sourcing can be derived from the work itself--it should be explicitly done, of course. In-universe information about a work of fiction can be relevant content though, as policy says, it shouldn't be our entire coverage of Sonic the Hedgehog. I dont think it is--this is just one aspect. DGG (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and the WP:GNG, a notable work does not necessarily have notable major characters. Notability must be asserted on a case-by-case basis. Randomran (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Cruft? How is any of this cruft. This article is about different Echidna characters and where they live. This article is informing anybody who wants to know more about the Echidnas. Unknown the Hedgehog 21:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. I see that images were removed due to a lack of fair-use justification, but I for one can't tell what these things look like without them. So maybe one picture? Also, given that Sonic the Hedgehog is clearly notable, this article seems reasonable.

Neither are great sources for this, but they are a start. I assume there are plenty of primary sources that can and should be cited by the article. (not a Sonic fan, so don't know them). I'll bet there are secondary sources too... Hobit (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those sources say anything about the subject of this article, but rather speak broadly about the series they belong to. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lack of articles establishing out-of-universe notability. It is also too much information that a "Sonic layperson" may want to know. MuZemike (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a poorly sourced dumping ground for anything related (or somewhat related to the subject). Wikipedia isn't a guide to trivia, and certainly isn't the guide to every aspect of popular video games. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate list of very minor characters sorted in an in-universe way.
Uhhh...delete Sonic is totally notable. The host of echidnas in the games are not. If this article had ONE reliable, independent secondary source suggesting that echidnas in sonic the hedgehog were notable, I would change my mind. As it stands I see lots of video game and video game manual citations. Protonk (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic as a whole doesn't assert any notability. Any of the minor topics within it should already be covered within other articles if they're important. TTN (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars. Besides you couldn't put this article any where if you merged it. Unless you made a new one like List of species in Sonic the Hedgehog. Actually that's not too bad an idea.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article does not meet the general notability guideline of coverage in multiple secondary sources that are independent of the subject. As per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, every article must assert its own notability. Randomran (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete near-zero real world relevance. This is gamecruft of the lowest form. JuJube (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List_of_characters_from_Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(games). Seems odd no one has suggested this. -Rushyo (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Long, overly detailed plot summary in the form of character bios and locations where they live with no real-world information. Additionally, no assertion of notability via significant coverage in reliable secondary source - I doubt any even exist for this topic specifically. Listed sources are all primary or non-reliable fansites. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Oh lordy! what a wide range of opinions, (some involving chainsaws!) but howsoever I look at this, there does not seem to be anything remotely close to a consensus. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog)

Look, I know the chao are adorable creatures and one of the current staples of the Sonic series, Cream has a chao (Cheese), even Chaos is a mutated Chao, but let's face it, this article is filled with almost nothing but in-universe information and has no chance to assert notability. It has no reason to be here. ZeroGiga (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Same rationale as with Echidnas. MuZemike (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources Schuym1 (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,but clean up. Take away the life cycle section and Chao races section. Unknown the Hedgehog 02:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 477 news sources [17], nearly 300,000 web links, [18], and about 15 relevant books come up when searching for 'sonic chao'. While none of those numbers proves notability in the WP sense, they do in the "common sense". At a random guess, somewhere out there is a paper book called "history of Sonic the Hedgehog" or some such that would cover all this material.
Keep and maybe merge after cleaning up with a chainsaw. Awful article. Decently major part of the series. Not sure how much we can say in the way of referenced claims, but this will belong to same game or series merge in the worst case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remodel If they're that important, why do they need to go out the window? I'm really wanting to file an RFC today, and you might be the victim. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 16:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"(I) might be the victim." Is that a threat? If it is, then you better prepare yourself. I already told a mod about it (and I do take uncivilty SERIOUSLY). And another thing, it doesn't need its own article at this rate. I could easily fit just fine when it's merged, per TTN. I actually forgot to mention that. ZeroGiga (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article certainly needs some serious consolidation, but I look at it this way: they're a long-standing peripheral element of Sonic games which have apparently been included in the new Bioware RPG. I popped over to the Escapist and searched Chao, it spat out this. That's not even about one of the Sonic games, but the writer felt compelled to have a two-paragraph ramble about Chao before reviewing Viva Pinata. This Sonic Adventure 2 interview contains some interesting nuggets about the artificial life software. There's probably more, but I'm not spending the next hour yucking snatches of quotable text out of google. They've been spread over numerous games (not just the Sonic Adventures), there'll doubtless be snippets of reception from each game they're in, it'll do fine as a tight standalone article. Someone another 17:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, here's a Eurogamer Sonic Advance preview. We've got the character themselves, their functions, connectivity with the Dreamcast VMU and between gameboys etc. etc. It can be more than an in-universe gameguide. Someone another 17:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This can easily be cut down and inserted into the series article. It has no reason to function as its own topic. TTN (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you 100%, friend. ZeroGiga (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars. Besides there's no where you could put this article if you merged it. Unless you made a new one like List of species in Sonic the Hedgehog or something like that.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could merge it with the main series article like we did with the Chaos Emeralds and rings. Ever think of that? ZeroGiga (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As per someone another. There's some decent sourcing for this character, which is the exception rather than the rule. Meets the WP:GNG. Although it's unclear if there's enough coverage out there to make for a complete, not in-universe article. Might advocate for a merge somewhere down the line. But evidence suggests this article should not be deleted. Randomran (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and clean-up with a chainsaw - Just taking another look at this article, and it's in bad shape. The topic itself is barely notable, but a lot of the information in here violates WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:V's preference towards secondary sources. After cleaning it up, it might be a candidate for a merge... Randomran (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps Merge into new article per Fairfieldfencer's suggestion. This is a bit more valid than the meaningless "Echidnas", but it still has little real world relevance. JuJube (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but needs a massive, massive gutting and clear out, with as many references as we can lay our hands on. ^Synergy/_{Blades (Talk)} 23:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep, but needs a massive update and added info about Chao Karate, Chao Kindergarden (Fortune Teller, Health Checkup, and list of lessons) , The Black Market(A list of items and prices) , All Gardens and how to get them, and info about Chao Adventure and the Tiny Chao Garden, and info on Tree Seeds and Chao eating habits, and the different kinds of animals and skills. I would do the edit myself only I would prefer to have permission. I have researched this stuff and had many experiences with it. Most of my knowledge, however, does not come from resources, it comes from my own experiences with the game and Chao. WooWooTrain (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically? No. This article doesn't need to be written as a game guide written from your personal experience. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now – Unlike, Echidnas this actually has a chance. If there are editors willing fix this mess, the amount information outside of the game itself may suffice in Chao being a decent article. If not then merge into respective articles. « ₣M₣ » 15:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Skipp

Non-notable actress. Her relationship to Michael Richards does not make her notable. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete it doesn't have enough credits to keep. --Kipof (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited and there is no verifiable sources for the subject. Artene50 (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable (by my eyes) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, notability is not inherited unless you're the King. :) RFerreira (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zulhaidi Omar

While there is some news coverage of his desire to change names and religions, this appears to be a case of BLP1E. Being in the news for being switched at birth and the religion issues does not appear to be encyclopedically notable if it hasn't actually created new legal precedent. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a news item -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this may seem to be a minor thing, it did get quite a bit of coverage in media around the world. The case has the potential for causing major change in Malaysia, which is what pushes me to say keep.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - possibly important precedent. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see that something that potentially or possibly might cause precedent (no evidence that this is even close) isn't a clearcut crystal balling issue. An article can always be re-created if and when it does set precedent. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's close to being merely a news item, but I think there is just enough here to justify an article. The fact that he is received coverage for two separate attributes (for being switched at birth and for attempting to convert in a country where that is illegal) is just enough to convince me that this is more than a simple case of BLP1E.--Kubigula (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G11 - non admin close. ukexpat (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forex rebates

WP is not a howto, not sure that this is salvageable. ukexpat (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom as a how-to --T-rex 20:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G11. It's a disguised advertisement for www.fxrebates.com as well as a howto. --Ka renjc 20:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well spotted! Now nominated per G11. – ukexpat (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Static Shock. Non-admin closure. JuJube (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She-Bang

She-Bang is a non-notable superhero that only appeared in three episodes of Static Shock. There is no context and there is no real world significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schuym1 (talk • contribs)

Delete - minor character --T-rex 20:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly redirect to Shebang --T-rex 21:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Static as it gets. I watched the program like five times or something, but I never remembered this one. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 17:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I merged it and redirected it to Static Shock#Other Heroes. Schuym1 (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close) RMHED (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide booth

AfDs for this article:

This is a non-notable topic about a non-notable device from Futurama. It is only notable in the first episode when Fry almost got himself killed with it, but other than that, it serves no other purpose of mention here. DELETE.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroGiga (talk • contribs) 20:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - range of article is larger than just futurama --T-rex 20:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Saying these concepts are related is a stretch, and a violation of WP:SYN. Until a reputable source writes an account of suicide booths throughout history and popular culture (which is just what this article is trying to do), this article does not belong in an encyclopedia. -Verdatum (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Like User:T-rex said, the article covers more than just the suicide booths in Futurama. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 22:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a common concept in fiction. I was sceptical, but did manage to find an external reference discussing it [19]. the wub "?!" 23:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its not synthesis, its about the concept, not the actual name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an interesting verifiable article about suicide devices in multiple universes. Vickser (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per clear close in previous AfD and per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Vickser. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No comment --SkyWalker (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by G7 (outside of this discussion)

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination). When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

Emile Riachi

Bio for non-notable person. Damiens.rf 20:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD was blanked by the page's author. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's just not enough out there. His mention in an article on the saudi aramco site [20] is the only thing that's even close to reliable. Part of me thinks, "maybe if I read arabic I'd be able to find more" but it looks like he doesn't have a page on arabic wikipedia, and there's simply no real assertion to notability deserving of a wikipedia article in the sites linked on the page. Vickser (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CVomment . wiered goins on here. This user originally voted to delete, then an IP changed the vote to keep and Visker didn't notice or care. The IP could be him I suppose but even so voting on the AFD is the only contribution that the anove account has made. There is also lots of wired vandalism in the page history of this discussion that the closing admin may want to take a look at. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is enough, vandalism is very suspect with apparently fake usernames and IPs. I request immediate deletion of this article, I CREATED. I am tired monitoring this thing to see what else is going to happen. Is int there a policy where auser can delete his pages he created?

administrators, please help !

 — Preceding [[Wikipedi

- Some weird stuff is going on. I voted delete, and that's still my vote. An imposter by the name of User:Vikser has been editing my comments. I'd encourage the closing administrator to take a close look at the afd history before counting votes. Vickser (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being the author of this article, I wish to say that I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia in a topic I know very well, which is Lebanon and skiing in Lebanon. The reason why this article was tagged by Damiens is because it was linked to an article about skiing in Lebanon on which there was an editing conflict. After having successfully deleted it, he is tagging related articles and vandalizing others. I wish Wikipedia will be able one day to identify undercovered vandalism but tracking his activity in july 1 and 2 should help understand what i am talking about. I wish this article is deleted as soon as possible and I suggest you do not accept topics and bios from countries outside U.S. or Europe because obviously there is an issue about young computer freaks assessing notability of foreign people. By the way, yes I tried to blank the page as I thought this would lead to accelerate its deletion. I do not want honorable peoples names being associated with a discussion they dont even know about and their notability questioned by people who dont have enough background and culture to assess it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebprofiler (talk • contribs) 07:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible merge; Doesn't seem to be enough substantial coverage about the individual, but should be written about in an article for any of the organizations that he is president of (Lebanese Ski Federation, Lebanese Orthaepedic Association, if either are notable.) Marasmusine (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Marasmusine is a nice guy but he knows this is not the issue. Apparently this article was patrolled and Ok'd. Then, becuse of a conflict of editing, Damiens.fr tags all article linked to Skiing in lebanon and vandalize another one on Faraya Mzaar, asking for sources that are actually provided. He wants a source for the height of a peak !(what is funny is that it is mentionned in several of the websites cited). Lebprofiler is wrong. This is not an issue of condescendant racism.It is a vengeance from Damiens.fr. Maybe being a Wikipedia editor make him feel he is God. My suggestion is that he takes some holidays. Now, I suggest that this article is deleted quickly because really this discussion is of no interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabuchodonozor (talk • contribs) 19:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Damiens.rf started an AfD on Skiing in Lebanon by claiming it was blantant copyright which is not very true because the info in the site http://www.skimzaar.com/faraya-mzaar/ski-resort/history-skiing.asp is of public knowledge. This webpage is all about history. Then he commented that there was a lack of notability, when editors protested the AfD for Copyright issues. Then there was comments that skiing in Lebanon was an notable topic so Damiens.rf claimed that he has issues with reliability of the history part. Check the site and some others by Googling : Ski lebanon History, you will see that all info posted exist in the internet. Mr Damiens.rf you have vandalized articles related to the topic of Skiing in Lebanon and individuals associated with it. I dont know who you are, but I think you are the problem. Is there something personal ?

Let us promptly delete this article and all the others you have tagged for deletion. Anyway, people can find the info about the topic and the related individuals all over the internet, if they need some references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabuchodonozor (talk • contribs) 19:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I ve tried to close the discussion with a delete but apparently and ended up staying there. I want to delete it immediately and I dont know how to do it. I am the author and I dont know if Nabuchodonozor is right (by the way, hi !). SO i am now going to blank page, until it is deleted. So please Damiens.rf or any administrator dont revert it!It is my work, I am free to do what I want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebprofiler (talk • contribs) 19:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there were any reliable sources, it would have taken 1/10th the effort to cite them that various accounts have put into vandalizing this page, the article, and associated articles and talk pages and harassing the nominator. [21] This leads to the logical conclusion that the subject is not notable and thus should be deleted. Edward321 (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the author of the article, I have tried to delete by closing the discussion and putting the word "delete" (I saw a notice about how to close a discussion)but it did not work. Why cant somebody just close this discussion. The opinion of the author should be enough for deletion. Is it not in the policy?

Meanwhile i wll keep on blanking the page and, sorry, this is not vandalizing when you blank your own work ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebprofiler (talk • contribs) 23:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment Lebprofiler, the Afd tag clearly says 'Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed.' In spite of that specific instruction, you have repeatedly blanked the article, which is vandalism. Edward321 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:Comment This author should not be edited by anyone other than the author until it is delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebprofiler (talk • contribs) 17:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Static Shock. Non-admin closure. JuJube (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anansi (Static Shock)

Anansi is a non-notable superhero that appeared in only one episode of Static Shock. There is no context and the is no real world significance. Schuym1 (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn minor character --T-rex 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Static Shock#Other heroes. It's already there; no potential or desire for this article to expand beyond that. -Verdatum (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It has been redirected. Schuym1 (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Netster

Non-notable; spam/ad entry; poor quality. Jkorbes (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is an ad, it's a really poor attempt. I wouldn't say, "Netster is considered spyware and adware," to help advertise the product. SashaNein (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A7 An article about an organization or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. -Verdatum (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This is a spyware program that is advertising website services. DELETE - GaryECampbell (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luma-

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MADEUP Mayalld (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect if appropriate to Non-SI prefix. NerdyNSK (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Non-SI prefix. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourced. Also, should be removed from Non-SI prefix if not sourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not listed here. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nashville Star (season 6). (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee Hewitt

Unless this contestant wins the "Nashville Star" contest, the subject isn't notable enough. StaticGull Talk 19:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per A7, so nominated ukexpat (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I declined the speedy, because being a contestant in the Nashville Star show is an assertion of notability, no matter how weak that assertion is.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nashville Star (season 6), the season of the contest she is associated with. Until such time as she wins the contest or achieves other success in life, her 15 minutes of fame are intextricably linked with the existence of this season of the show. Also, by redirecting, people searching the name are taken to where the relevant information is. -- saberwyn 21:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per to "Nashville Star (season 6)" per the policy on articles about people notable only for one event. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nashville Star (season 6), not notable enough yet. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Design Miami

Although the sources indicate the subject's notabilty, it still doesn't seem notable enough to have its own entry. StaticGull Talk 19:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for meeting WP:CORP#1. In addition to the NYTimes article that's linked, another big NYTimes article back in 2006, [22], there's coverage by the NYTimes blog [23], a substantial article in the WSJ [24] (subscription req. I have one, it's over 700 words about the show), an article in Financial News[25] (which I don't have a sub for and actually can't see), and plenty more coverage. (2008 is a bit thrown off by the Brad Pitt visit, but there's still bunches in 2006 and 2007.) The page should probably be renamed to Design Miami/Basel, which is the name it's called more often. On the whole, very clear keep per WP:CORP. Vickser (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vickser. Here's another good source from The Times.--Kubigula (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if/when Ms. Joi has her own claim to notability (her own song/album charts, for example). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Joi

Fails WP:MUSIC, does not meet musicians' criteria. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm actually not too involved in WP:Music, so if it's been established that songs billed as "featuring whoever" don't count for both their main person and whoever, then apologies and I'll bow to consensus. If not, it seems like Ashely Joi would pass WP:Music #2 for charting with Body (song) and pass WP:Music #11 for being in rotation on national radio stations for the same. Again, if there's precedent I'll bow down to that, but to me it would make sense that she's notable by radio stations around the country announcing "and that last track was Body by Ja Rule featuring Ashley Joi." Vickser (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being "featured" on two tracks on another artist's album is insufficient to meet WP:MUSIC. Should either track be released as a single and ~~it appears~~ becomes a hit on a national chart, it would then be enough to qualify. B.Wind (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, Body (song) on which she is featured was released as a single and did chart. [26]. Vickser (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A peak of #71 on the Hot 100 is not considered a "hit" by many, if not most sources; so I had to re-read WP:MUSIC#2: Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.. So now (after amending my comment above), the key question is whether merely making it onto the lower regions of the Hot 100 would qualify it as a "hit" in the "eyes" of Wikipedia, and this, unfortunately, is subject to interpretation by the various editors (as a person who was in "the biz" for about a dozen years quite a while back, I can tell you that most radio stations would simply pay attention only to the upper 40-50 positions of the chart covering the station's format, while the record companies would simply use whichever interpretation that was in their best interest). With that viewpoint, I must remain committed to the delete option, albeit much more weakly than before. Oh, if Vickser can name (and show) a national radio network (as stated in WP:MUSIC#11) that had the recording in rotation - and not just a few local radio stations working independently - he/she might just tip the seesaw over to "keep" for me. B.Wind (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very fair. As I said, I'm not too experienced in WP:Music and had no idea if charted songs would qualify a featured artist at all. I was just trying to be helpful by letting you know that it was indeed released as a single, since that was the issue at hand. Out of curiousity, do you by any chance know where you can find past records of radio play? The only place I've been able to get rotation is from the current playlists that radio stations have on their websites, but the ones I've seen don't have archives. I'd love to have a few more databases to sleath for future afds. Vickser (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - musician with no released music --T-rex 04:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - non notable on her own. I could buy a redirect to Body (song). Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nekto-

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to BIPM, these are not in official use. The prefixes, as proposed, seem to exist solely on somebody's mindspring.com web page. This isn't the place for things made up one day. I can't even call WP:CRYSTAL on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect (if appropriate) to Non-SI prefix (albeit I'm not suggesting right now whether the redirect is the correct action to take or not). The proposal seems to be from someone who describes himself as a computer scientist in his online resume. It is not a proposal from an organisation and it does not appear on the official SI website. NerdyNSK (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliably sourced. Also, should be removed from Non-SI prefix if not sourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John254 00:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nena-

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to BIPM, these are not in official use. The prefixes, as proposed, seem to exist solely on somebody's mindspring.com web page. This isn't the place for things made up one day. I can't even call WP:CRYSTAL on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (if appropriate) to Non-SI prefix (albeit I'm not suggesting right now whether the redirect is the correct action to take or not). The proposal seems to be from someone who describes himself as a computer scientist in his online resume. It is not a proposal from an organisation and it does not appear on the official SI website. NerdyNSK (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourced. Also, should be removed from Non-SI prefix if not sourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John254 00:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ocha-

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect (if appropriate) to Non-SI prefix (albeit I'm not suggesting right now whether the redirect is the correct action to take or not). The proposal seems to be from someone who describes himself as a computer scientist in his online resume. It is not a proposal from an organisation and it does not appear on the official SI website. NerdyNSK (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourced. Also, should be removed from Non-SI prefix if not sourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to BIPM, these are not in official use. The prefixes, as proposed, seem to exist solely on somebody's mindspring.com web page. This isn't the place for things made up one day. I can't even call WP:CRYSTAL on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John254 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otro-

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect (if appropriate) to Non-SI prefix (albeit I'm not suggesting right now whether the redirect is the correct action to take or not). The proposal seems to be from someone who describes himself as a computer scientist in his online resume. It is not a proposal from an organisation and it does not appear on the official SI website. NerdyNSK (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourced. Also, should be removed from Non-SI prefix if not sourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to BIPM, these are not in official use. The prefixes, as proposed, seem to exist solely on somebody's mindspring.com web page. This isn't the place for things made up one day. I can't even call WP:CRYSTAL on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John254 00:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pekro-

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think the official prefixes are described as far as yocto. The linked reference is really a proposal by a person, not even an organisation. Note that we also have Nekto- etc... NerdyNSK (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliably sourced. Also, should be removed from Non-SI prefix if not sourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to BIPM, these are not in official use. The prefixes, as proposed, seem to exist solely on somebody's mindspring.com web page. This isn't the place for things made up one day. I can't even call WP:CRYSTAL on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John254 00:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quekto-

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to BIPM, these are not in official use. The prefixes, as proposed, seem to exist solely on somebody's mindspring.com web page. This isn't the place for things made up one day. I can't even call WP:CRYSTAL on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (if appropriate) to Non-SI prefix (albeit I'm not suggesting right now whether the redirect is the correct action to take or not). The proposal seems to be from someone who describes himself as a computer scientist in his online resume. It is not a proposal from an organisation and it does not appear on the official SI website. NerdyNSK (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourced. Also, should be removed from Non-SI prefix if not sourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John254 00:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete vote for all three articles --JForget 23:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quexa-

Co-nominating the following as well:

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even an official proposal, just some random personal web page explicitly saying, "Here is my proposal for extending the system all the way to 10⁶³" (emphasis mine). There's no indication that this set of prefixes was ever under serious consideration for adoption by a proper standards body. Hqb (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to BIPM, these are not in official use. The prefixes, as proposed, seem to exist solely on somebody's mindspring.com web page. This isn't the place for things made up one day. I can't even call WP:CRYSTAL on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (if appropriate) to Non-SI prefix (albeit I'm not suggesting right now whether the redirect is the correct action to take or not). The proposal seems to be from someone who describes himself as a computer scientist in his online resume. It is not a proposal from an organisation and it does not appear on the official SI website. NerdyNSK (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourced. Also, should be removed from Non-SI prefix if not sourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not listed here. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John254 00:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rimto-

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to BIPM, these are not in official use. The prefixes, as proposed, seem to exist solely on somebody's mindspring.com web page. This isn't the place for things made up one day. I can't even call WP:CRYSTAL on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (if appropriate) to Non-SI prefix (albeit I'm not suggesting right now whether the redirect is the correct action to take or not). The proposal seems to be from someone who describes himself as a computer scientist in his online resume. It is not a proposal from an organisation and it does not appear on the official SI website. NerdyNSK (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourced. Also, should be removed from Non-SI prefix if not sourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John254 00:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rinta-

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to BIPM, these are not in official use. The prefixes, as proposed, seem to exist solely on somebody's mindspring.com web page. This isn't the place for things made up one day. I can't even call WP:CRYSTAL on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (if appropriate) to Non-SI prefix (albeit I'm not suggesting right now whether the redirect is the correct action to take or not). The proposal seems to be from someone who describes himself as a computer scientist in his online resume. It is not a proposal from an organisation and it does not appear on the official SI website. NerdyNSK (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourced. Also, should be removed from Non-SI prefix if not sourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John254 00:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. May be restored for a merger if anyone feels like it. Sandstein 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No War For Israel

I added a PROD tag, but the author removed it. I do not believe this meets WP:N, as it has virtually no coverage from independent reliable sources. Enigma ^message 18:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Fringe website, doesn't meet WP:WEB. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to David Duke, per discussion below. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a link from the KKK doesn't indicate notability --T-rex 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Merge It's been covered in Front Page magazine. I'm willing to bet that it may be dealt with by SPLC or ADL, too. More research to follow. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WEB requires that the website be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". One article isn't enough. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's an organization (or at least, a rallying cry) with a website, not simply a website. Google "No war for israel" and "david duke" and you get [27] [28] [29] [30]. It's clear the Israeli press takes the phrase and association seriously. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The threshold for including slogans hasn't been met either. Just because David Duke says it a lot isn't sufficient reason to devote an article to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is there a special guideline for slogans? WP:slogan is certainly not it. Still, I see significant coverage in multiple RS's independent of the subject--that would meet WP:GNG, the way I see it, even without mining Google for more sources. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Passing mentions of the slogan aren't sufficient to support the notability of the website. t=This article isn't about the slogan. References need to be about the website. It appears that only person who uses the slogan is David Duke, who is also the owner of the website. Perhaps this should just be merged into his bio. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Agree that merging into Duke's article would make sense. Enigma ^message 22:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I can live with a merge, too. It does feel more like a chapter in his story than a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it violates WP:NPOV; WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and even, strangely, WP:CIVIL in its tone and stridency to advocate its own POV. IZAK (talk) 07:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is not a reason for deletion, but rather for cleanup, although I'm not seeing where it's POV. I'm unsure how WP:CIVIL or WP:NOT#SOAPBOX could be improved here--every epithet and label seems to be used in a completely neutral and descriptive way. If racists hate Israel, how can you report that without saying "racists hate Israel"? Jclemens (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The creating editor should also be taken to task for numerous grossly biased and politically extreme edits elsewhere. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without disputing (or even examining) the claim, comment on the article, not the author, please. Without a dispassionate examination of the merits of controversial topics, Wikipedia is lessened. Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. --Shuki (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable from what I can see. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorta-

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Maybe you're right. They could be just an opinion from Jim Blower. I would still like to ask that the articles not be deleted until they are proven to be false.User:Veraladeramanera (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. They aren't official SI prefixes and the proposal comes from Dr. James V. Blowers, a computer scientist (according to his resume), not an organisation. Everyone could think of various prefixes to apply, and I don't think we need an article for each imagined prefix. For me it would be fine to have an article proposals for extended SI prefixes or something like that, but maintaining individual articles to describe something that does not really exist is not appropriate I think. NerdyNSK (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We already have the article - see below. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did someone get paid to come up with this label for a number? In addition to "sorta-" how about "kinda-, woulda-, coulda-, shoulda, and why-I-oughta-" ~since there is an infinite series of three place orders of magnitude. Edison (talk)
- It gets worse! See non-SI unit prefix for groucho-, harpo-, etc. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to BIPM, these are not in official use. The prefixes, as proposed, seem to exist solely on somebody's mindspring.com web page. This isn't the place for things made up one day. I can't even call WP:CRYSTAL on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourced. Also, should be removed from Non-SI prefix if not sourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rediect to non-SI unit prefix. I would prefer to say delete as something Jim Blower thought up one day but we do have it in an article so no harm in redirecting. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Toolen

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John Toolen (2nd nomination)

Subject appears to be notable only for being shot; WP:BLP1E (although as he's dead, I'm not sure if BLP applies, even though he was alive at the moment he got shot). There's also WP:NOTMEMORIAL and it seems a bit propaganda-ish ("Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented") so WP:NOTADVERTISING, too. While it may be a tragedy, it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. Article has just come off an AfD, but the closing admin said he had no objection to an immediate re-opening, as long as each article was nommed individually. I should also add that I created the article. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty. Notable only for being shot; lack of substantial or continuing coverage. Although there was probably more coverage at the time, temporary notability is not sufficient, however a redirect would be useful. I have copied the references from the individual article into the list article. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sotro-

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Maybe you're right. They could be just an opinion from Jim Blower. I would still like to ask that the articles not be deleted until they are proven to be false.User:Veraladeramanera (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to BIPM, these are not in official use. The prefixes, as proposed, seem to exist solely on somebody's mindspring.com web page. This isn't the place for things made up one day. I can't even call WP:CRYSTAL on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (if appropriate) to Non-SI prefix (albeit I'm not suggesting right now whether the redirect is the correct action to take or not). The proposal seems to be from someone who describes himself as a computer scientist in his online resume. It is not a proposal from an organisation and it does not appear on the official SI website. NerdyNSK (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourced. Also, should be removed from Non-SI prefix if not sourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treda-

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Maybe you're right. They could be just an opinion from Jim Blower. I would still like to ask that the articles not be deleted until they are proven to be false.User:Veraladeramanera (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to BIPM, these are not in official use. The prefixes, as proposed, seem to exist solely on somebody's mindspring.com web page. This isn't the place for things made up one day. I can't even call WP:CRYSTAL on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (if appropriate) to Non-SI prefix (albeit I'm not suggesting right now whether the redirect is the correct action to take or not). The proposal seems to be from someone who describes himself as a computer scientist in his online resume. It is not a proposal from an organisation and it does not appear on the official SI website. NerdyNSK (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourced. Also, should be removed from Non-SI prefix if not sourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trekto-

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Maybe you're right. They could be just an opinion from Jim Blower. I would still like to ask that the articles not be deleted until they are proven to be false.User:Veraladeramanera (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to BIPM, these are not in official use. The prefixes, as proposed, seem to exist solely on somebody's mindspring.com web page. This isn't the place for things made up one day. I can't even call WP:CRYSTAL on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (if appropriate) to Non-SI prefix (albeit I'm not suggesting right now whether the redirect is the correct action to take or not). The proposal seems to be from someone who describes himself as a computer scientist in his online resume. It is not a proposal from an organisation and it does not appear on the official SI website. NerdyNSK (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourced. Also, should be removed from Non-SI prefix if not sourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uda-

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Maybe you're right. They could be just an opinion from Jim Blower. I would still like to ask that the articles not be deleted until they are proven to be false.User:Veraladeramanera (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to BIPM, these are not in official use. The prefixes, as proposed, seem to exist solely on somebody's mindspring.com web page. This isn't the place for things made up one day. I can't even call WP:CRYSTAL on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (if appropriate) to Non-SI prefix (albeit I'm not suggesting right now whether the redirect is the correct action to take or not). The proposal seems to be from someone who describes himself as a computer scientist in his online resume. It is not a proposal from an organisation and it does not appear on the official SI website. NerdyNSK (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourced. Also, should be removed from Non-SI prefix if not sourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't see that anyone else has made substantive edits, so this probably could have been a speedy G7.--Kubigula (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. E. Browning

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/J. E. Browning (2nd nomination)

Subject appears to be notable only for being shot; WP:BLP1E (although as he's dead, I'm not sure if BLP applies, even though he was alive at the moment he got shot). There's also WP:NOTMEMORIAL and it seems a bit propaganda-ish ("Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented") so WP:NOTADVERTISING, too. While it may be a tragedy, it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. Article has just come off an AfD, but the closing admin said he had no objection to an immediate re-opening, as long as each article was nommed individually. I should also add that I created the article. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability asserted, WP:BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Unless the crime he was trying to stop or the shooter was notable themselves. Livitup (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vunkto-

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Maybe you're right. They could be just an opinion from Jim Blower. I would still like to ask that the articles not be deleted until they are proven to be false.User:Veraladeramanera (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to BIPM, these are not in official use. The prefixes, as proposed, seem to exist solely on somebody's mindspring.com web page. This isn't the place for things made up one day. I can't even call WP:CRYSTAL on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (if appropriate) to Non-SI prefix (albeit I'm not suggesting right now whether the redirect is the correct action to take or not). The proposal seems to be from someone who describes himself as a computer scientist in his online resume. It is not a proposal from an organisation and it does not appear on the official SI website. NerdyNSK (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourced. Also, should be removed from Non-SI prefix if not sourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vunda-

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the prefix is already in use and like all the SI prefixes it deserves its own article. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 18:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete the article claimed it was an official SI prefix but I see now that it is not. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 20:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to BIPM, these are not in official use. The prefixes, as proposed, seem to exist solely on somebody's mindspring.com web page. This isn't the place for things made up one day. I can't even call WP:CRYSTAL on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (if appropriate) to Non-SI prefix (albeit I'm not suggesting right now whether the redirect is the correct action to take or not). The proposal seems to be from someone who describes himself as a computer scientist in his online resume. It is not a proposal from an organisation and it does not appear on the official SI website. NerdyNSK (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourced. Also, should be removed from Non-SI prefix if not sourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pepta-

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Maybe you're right. They could be just an opinion from Jim Blower. I would still like to ask that the articles not be deleted until they are proven to be false.Caleb Levi Burns (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of presence here tells me it's not in official use. Good enough for me. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to BIPM, these are not in official use. The prefixes, as proposed, seem to exist solely on somebody's mindspring.com web page. This isn't the place for things made up one day. I can't even call WP:CRYSTAL on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (if appropriate) to Non-SI prefix (albeit I'm not suggesting right now whether the redirect is the correct action to take or not). The proposal seems to be from someone who describes himself as a computer scientist in his online resume. It is not a proposal from an organisation and it does not appear on the official SI website. NerdyNSK (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourced. Also, should be removed from Non-SI prefix if not sourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abul Kalam Azad (doctor)

Notability not established. Tagged as non notable since april. Also no references. Anonymous101 (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete His CV lists three publications, which look to be a department published techreport, a peer refereed article in a journal (Dhaka University Journal of Science), and a paper in a conference proceedings. The claim to notability stated in the article would seem to be that "He has been instrumental in establishing some educational establishments in the UK and Bangaldesh" and that "He plays key roles in other organisations and institutions" of which the first two mentioned in the article "Foundation for Quality Education" and "Talent Education Trust" aren't mentioned in his CV, making the claims hard to evaluate properly. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any claim of notability in the article appears to rest on the establishment of "Quality Education School" and "Quality Education College" in Dhaka, but Google finds nothing on them. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Pete Hurd and David Eppstein. --Crusio (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hypnotize (album). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vicinity of Obsenity

Wikipedia is not a lyrics repository Madcoverboy (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Hypnotize (album). proclaims to be single (well a radio promo anyway) but was not released as neither a retail single nor a radio airplay promo and never charted on any chart. Incorrectly states it was the single issued after "Lonely Day" when that distinction goes to "Kill Rock 'n Roll". Most of the article is the lyrics to the song, and Wikipedia is not a lyrics website. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Doc Strange. And, nonsense though they are, aren't the lyrics probably copyright? JohnCD (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. Allmusic Guide is also not showing that this was a charting single from the album.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And neither does Billboard Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Hypnotize (album). Article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O'Rorke Hall

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/O'Rorke Hall

Individual university residential halls is not notable enough, merge to List of University of Auckland residential halls or some such thing Madcoverboy (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Auckland#Accommodation. Section can be expanded to include basica information, I agree there is no need for a separate article as notability (any references that are found during this debate will change my mind) is not established. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect first paragraph only to University of Auckland#Accommodation. The Hall has a long history but not enough to make it notable in its own right, and most of the current article is just a repeat of the University page on the hall. I think there's potential for an article to be spun off from University of Auckland#Accommodation on all the residential halls, but that article would have to deal with the history and development of each rather than being a list of current facilities.-gadfium 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - Individual residence halls are not notable. Sources are very week --T-rex 20:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Don't redirect, that would be silly. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects are free. Obviously, there's at least one person that thought that typing "O'Rorke Hall" should lead them somewhere other than a "this page does not exist". It helps stymie recreation of a non-notable residence hall down the road as well when faced with a redlink. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The !votes seem to support adding a redirect, so one should probably be created -- but I don't think one should be; it's far too trivial. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is conspicuously absent. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chip tha Ripper

This artist has released a number of mixtapes, but I don't see any evidence of non-trivial coverage by third party publications or that he meets WP:MUSIC guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 09:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont kno how to start a discussion on here. But i watch over all of chips social networks... what can i do to fix chips wiki so it follows the guidelines. The last thing i want is to have this account suspended. Alot of our fans rely on the wiki page and compliment it all the time, so we dont want to take that away from them. Everything on his page is accurate information, please let me kno what I am doin wrong, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevslab (talk • contribs) 22:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly fails WP:MUSIC. Just being accurate isn't enough, he has to have a chart single or multiple reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails WP:Music on every count. A google news search [31] turned up one article where he receives significant coverage, but one article in a local paper does not pass WP:Music #1. Vickser (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The artist has lots of high-caliber collaborations, a chart single seems to be a matter of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.52.227 (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A number of users have expressed an interest in improving the article. If they don't do so soon, it can be relisted Waggers (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia MM

Delete nn software Mayalld (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wouldn't be surprised if this software has historical signifigance, but for now I don't see it. If such signifigance is discovered, the page can easily be recreated. -Verdatum (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - MM is somewhat obscure, but is notable if only for the ways in which it influenced Pine. I have added some notes to the page to that effect. Tim Pierce (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Did Columbia MM really influence Pine, or was that its predecessor, TOPS-20 MM, a different program written by Mark Crispin who later went on to write Pine? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Similar reasons to Tim's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.2.168 (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mainly for historical value, to document how email clients didn't start out as Netscape, Outlook. Articles like this show (or with some editing and a nav-box, would) the gradual evolution of clients. Since this was co-written by Mark Crispin I'd like to link the articles. I added a ref to rfc 1203 which mentions Columbia MM. I don't think WP:RS is a problem and this article can be built upon and wf'd to help document the history of email. Faradayplank (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by Athaenara per CSD G11 and CSD G12 as blatant advertising and blatant copyright infringement. WilliamH (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ski Lebanon

Fails WP:N. Although google search shows several ghits [32], there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. No hint in google news [33]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyright violation. --Damiens.rf 18:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Most definitely copyright infringement, tagged accordingly. WilliamH (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Geist

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nathan Geist

No established notability as actor or soldier Linkkennedy (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete career as actor shows no significant roles. Notability as a soldier is resting on an uncited claim to be the youngest NCO. -- Whpq (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was apparently simultaneously listed as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Geist, where it received no comments. That other AfD has now been deleted. Sandstein 15:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Note:I also moved this back to the first title, as it is technically the first (only) nomination. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Geist (2nd nomination) up for WP:CSD#G6 to make room for a possible eventual 2nd nomination. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the original author of this page, and everytime I add a citation about Nathan Geist's military history, someone takes it off without explanation. I urge that this page is not deleted as it is extremely uncommon for any military personnel to have any ties with the film industry, let alone as an actor who gets credited roles in the small film market in Chicago. Less than 1% of ex-soldiers ever contribute to the film industry, and even less concurrently serve while maintaining status as a credited actor. I am not understanding how that is not notable. Linkamo (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC) linkamo[reply]

Reply - see WP:NOTABILITY for more information about how notability is ascertained for wikipedia articles. -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability from quality sources. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imma Get Mine

Non-notable single per WP:MUSIC; only one title appears in searches (here) and it's not even the right artist; no charting, etc. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability and is just a small article Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-1-2008 • 17:25:46 17:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per complete and utter failure of WP:MUSIC criteria for songs. Vickser (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The track has only been leaked, which does not show notability. The article can be recreated if and when it is released as an official single and peaks on notable music charts. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pubsumer

Propose deletion on grounds of WP:Neologism, WP:Dictdef and WP:Notability (only 3 ghits). Prod removed by contributor without comment. Marasmusine (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ASAP. Deb (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- TIND Dusti^SPEAK!! 19:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 17:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-1-2008 • 17:26:56 17:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Numyht (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Rasadam (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nominator's right on. When there are 4 ghits, one's wikipedia, and one's unrelated, and it's claiming to be a neologism, it's time to delete. Vickser (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neıl 龱 10:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000)

This article does not cite any reliable sources which attest to the notability of the subject matter, a comprehensive list of every weapon and vehicle included in any of their numerous codexes and Games Workshop-sanctioned expansions is not notable. None of these items have any real world notability, either individually or as a collection, nor have any of my attempts to find sources to the contrary borne fruit. The notability of this topic cannot be verified by reliable sources, and should deleted as has been done in the past in this area and in areas such as video games. Allemandtando (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Article has potential and isn't a stub. Though I would like to see the article have some sources, the article is large enough to say there must be quite a few people who ascertained the information. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-1-2008 • 17:30:40 17:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It just doesn't exist - it's all in-universe. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki then delete, it's a fictional universe so you can't expect much more than self published sources. However the issue here is the quantity of information, too much detail for Wikipedia, this is better off at a dedicated Wiki site. Rasadam (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep someone said they would attempt to transwiki the data this weekend. Whether or not they begin on time or manage to get around to this particular page is a different matter. I'll try to contact the IP with express priority for the three pages that Allemandtando nominated for deletion despite the fact he knows full well his actions will disrupt the transwiki process. I am intrigued as to why you consider the codex and White Dwarf magazines not to be reliable resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.152.81 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are created by the game maker. If we had some secondary source talking about how notable and awesome the Weapons and Equipment of the Tau Empire are, we could use the GW sources to flesh out the details (see WP:SPS, and WP:RS). As it stands, all we have to assert notablity (not that they do) are the works of the article subject. How, if we use the GW sources, do we draw a line forbidding other promotional entries into the encyclopedia? As it stands, the notability and sourcing guidelines provide that rather neatly. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just needs fixing, not deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.62.65 (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC) — 70.17.62.65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Just needs fixing, not deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.62.65 (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.40.183.144 (talk) — 206.40.183.144 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Nominator seems to have some sort of burr under his blanket about the 40K articles. L0b0t (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the NOMINATION, not the nominator, please. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about bad faith nomination to make a point. Nominator is on some sort of dark crusade to cleanse the wiki of Warhammer 40k articles. L0b0t (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about assuming good faith. He appears to be about the business of methodically nominating articles in the 40K project which (he feels) fail to meet the guidelines set by this encyclopedia for deletion. That is his prerogative. He appears to truly want these articles deleted, so I can't see how this is a POINTy nomination. You may disagree with the nominations. Please do so vigoruously. Or better yet, find independent sources for the articles in question. Give me an independent source asserting notability and I will fight with you. Until then, please assume good faith and refrain from attacking the nominator. Protonk (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Seconding this sentiment. I say that this article is worthy of inclusion into Wikipedia. Lonesoldier 21:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonesoldier (talk • contribs)

Based on what reasoning? Could you please find one independent reference for this article to demonstrate notability? --Craw-daddy | T | 23:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Primary sources are generally acceptable for fictional works. Given the popularity and scope of Warhammer universe, this should be kept, albeit with appropriate cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Consider transwiki, if it benefits the warhammer 40k wiki) in-universe overview. Looks to be a subpage of a subpage of a fictional work. Wikipedia is not a game guide. -Verdatum (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable third-party sources. --Carnildo (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit and Merge This could be combined into the article "Vehicles of the Tau Empire", which could also be edited and both pages merged into the article "Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000)" or be turned into a subpage thereof. While I agree that the article is in serious need of editing, total deletion is not the answer here, as it makes ALL of the information unavailable, not just the irrelevant or inconsequential parts. Also, carefully consider the motivation behind this article's nomination for deletion. Allemandtando made several Warhammer-related articles into unusable stubs, and when others reverted them back, he put the articles up for deletion. He seems to have some sort of grudge on fiction of any sort, going by what he has been deleting lately, and Warhammer is just one of his victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.40.183.144 (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki/Merge into another article, then delete Allow ample time (Say a month) to allow such material to be transferred off Wikipedia or to another Wikipedia Article for consolidation. That way, the material can be properly reverted and kept intact elsewhere. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It took me less than 10 minutes, and I didn't even know the right address to the 40k 'pedia with the correct license. How was this going to take a month? Protonk (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 'not notable' argument is inconsistent with standards of notability observed elsewhere on Wikipedia, with articles such as Defiant_class_starship, Beholder, Brooke_Davis and Light_Saber not flagged for notability, let alone deletion. Nominator has displayed animosity toward members of Games Workshop-related forums and has deliberately antagonised them, suggesting personal issues with the topic unrelated to its suitability for inclusion on wikipedia. Recommend editing article to meet quality standards or merging with another article as appropriate. --80.42.240.7 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC) — 80.42.240.7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

the Light saber article is actually the remains of this and light saber combat which was also culled and merged. You'll notice that the article IS still tagged and its notability issues are addressed by multiple reliable sources that are independent of the source. So I'm really not sure why you mention it. --Allemandtando (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that would be obvious, since I mention above that I welcome editing and merging of the article to meet wikipedia standards. Perhaps you could explain why you nominated this article for deletion, but not any of those above? Do you have a personal issue with the topic or its fans? Incidentally, one does not use an apostrophe when using 'its' in the possessive sense, let me fix that for you. -80.42.240.7 (talk)

There are only so many hours in the day! I am concentrating on one domain area. This area came to my attention when someone mentioned it to me. There are 100s of articles here that should not exist - it is entirely unrealistic to expect ME to notice them all! --Allemandtando (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which confirms the impression that your standards of 'notability' are substantially different from those of the average wikipedian, thank you. -80.42.240.7 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why Warhammer 40K instead of the numerous and blatant violations done by The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, South Park, Futurama, Star Trek's numerous incarnations, and Babylon 5, namely the numerous Episode Articles. This article is peanuts compared to the massive Wikipedia:Television episodes violations these shows have.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then Nominate them. Other stuff exists. The afd is about THIS article. If you mean to use these articles as an example of how the nominator's idea of notability is outside the norm, I invite you to look at how many simpsons articles are substantiated by independent sources. That is the critical point. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one guy - someone mentioned problems at AN/I - I had a look and realised that the wikiproject for this area seems to have died six months ago. I decided to have a go at clean-up because nobody was doing it. Are we now saying that editors cannot concentrate on trying to clean up one particular area unless they at the same time try to clean up ALL areas? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --Allemandtando (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have completely misunderstood the point of those examples. -80.42.240.7 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "standards for notability" used by the nominator are in agreement with Wikipedia's explicit notability guideline. You're welcome to disagree with it, or claim it does not match concensus, but I reccomend you argue for policy/guideline changes there, not here. -Verdatum (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki then delete. Lexicanum is the perfect place for this. --86.88.18.236 (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually it's not - their licence is incomptable with ours. --Allemandtando (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you could clarify Allemandtando, what do you recommend be done with it, if not transwiki to lexicanum? -80.42.240.7 (talk)

transwiki to the wikia warhammer 40k site - they have a license that matches ours. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make no further replies here as all of the IP questions are being co-ordinated offsite to try and badge me.--Allemandtando (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that make the points they raise invalid? For that matter, how do you know about this 'coordination'? Is it not the case that you've been antagonising Games Workshop fans on their own forums, as well as vandalising wikipedia articles on the topic? -80.42.240.7 (talk)

*Transwiki then delete I find it interesting that during the beginning of your editing, you had various respected editors whom you consorted with previously resort to reverting articles into stubs rather than opening dialog with the people who you are arguing with. Regardless, this article should not be deleted since the transwiki process was jumpstarted yesterday, a day before you nominated almost eight articles for deletion. 141.117.181.141 (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)— 141.117.181.141 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You think too highly of yourself. The fact that the vandalism was happening was noted in several 40K areas of the internet, but nobody is targeting YOU. You get defensive because enough separate people saw what you had done. I'm not logged in now because I don't remember my password (stored at home) but my username is GameJunkieJim, and I've been on wikipedia for years. But coordinated is a strong term anyway. Especially when you consider you yourself have 3 different logins in order to coordinate attacks on things.72.73.220.147 (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making personal attacks. The nominator is referring (as you know) to the 4chan page organizing attacks on his talk page (which ended up totaling over 40k of data, including responses) and the comments on the 4chan page specifically, which don't need to be repeated here. Protonk (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete. Article has no independent references to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither source referenced is independent of the creator of the game. Notability is not established by reliable, secondary sources. Transwiki is a perfectly good option. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki then delete - Simply due to lack of independent sources. No complaints regarding notability. -Rushyo (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, little worth saving that isn't reiteration of primary sources. Dedicated wikis already cover it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire While transwiki-ing is a good idea in theory, the only people who have expressed any interest in actually doing so are making unreasonable requests (a month to transwiki a single article?!), do not understand the licensing issues involved, and in many cases I believe are purposely disrupting the encyclopedia in retaliation for what they perceive as a personal affront. If a serious editor volunteers to transwiki to the WH40K wikia, I would change my vote to transwiki and delete. But given the caliber of the people volunteering to transwiki, I do not believe it to be anything but a stalling tactic. (Also, I will not be responding to any of the 4channers here, because when I did previous interact with one of them, he turned around and bragged on 4chan about how he had successfully trolled me. Fool me once, shame on me, etc.) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikied There is already an article on the subject so the current WP article went into the talk page here. *stretch* That was hard. Almost took me a month to do. Protonk (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit and Merge I think the notability argument needs to be clarified a little here. The game itself passes the test easily. But information about the game that is referenced by publications outside of the creating body could be summed up in a single page or a handful of pages. It is not the sort of thing that generates a lot of outside publications because of how Games Workshop handles its own Intellectual Property. That is not a comment on its notability. This is does not effect 40k alone. Warmachine would be a single (short) entry if we applied the same policy there. So would the vast majority of fictional settings, regardless of their scope. Notability should not have the same definition when applied to fictional material as it does when applied to nonfictional material. The way outside sources address fictional ideas is very different. I think this section could probably be merged with a larger section on the Tau. That would be easier to defend, since it is easier to support the idea of notability for the Tau in general given Fire Warrior and other media that has expanded the background beyond the tabletop game.

Keep Unless we can get a verification for a Transwiki, the article should be kept as-is. The article is useful. I would say that the language could be edited a little to fit the wiki context better though.

The link is right there. Protonk (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that route is chosen, I think the information also needs to be transferred to the Lexicanum entry. I am not sure why the license is relevant to this question, and that was not explained above. This information is part of GW's IP. Using it to bolster the content of an openly ad-supported page might not fly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.110.123 (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If what? That isn't our problem. The content is moved to a wiki whose license is compatible. And I certainly hope none of GW's IP is here. That would mean that content on this page violates copyright. the content on this page is SUPPOSED to be property of the contributors and licensed under the GFDL. That license forbids copying the material to certain other projects. I'm not a lawyer, but I assure you it isn't trivial. And frankly it isn't up to you to decide whether or not to delete this article. We are not required to transwiki anything prior to deletion (and an admin would probably userify this article for transwiki after, anyway). If the page violates policy, it will be deleted at the end of the AfD, regardless of whether or not it has been transcribed to your satisfaction. Protonk (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Requirement" has nothing to do with it, nor does the "satisfaction" of any one user. It is not up to individual users whether or not to delete or to transwiki. Wikipedia is supposed to be about information. It works best when users keep that in mind rather than indulging their egos about what should or should not be included. The way the IP is used on wikipedia falls within the bounds of fair use under GW's own IP guidelines. That may not be true for wikia or other ad-supported sites. So it is a little irresponsible to be suggesting that as an alternative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.206.92 (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hammerwiki shares the same license as wikipedia. Furthermore, if the intellectual property of Games Workshop exists on this or any 40K page in any form, it needs to be removed (with the exception of images and quotes covered by fair use). The content of this article should be property of the user creating it and licensed freely through the GFDL. As such, as long as what is on this page is proper, it is proper to be on hammerwiki. And this AfD is not an indulgence of anyone's ego. You may feel that wikipedia is all about collecting information without limit. If you feel strongly, please discuss it in WT:N. Our guidelines can be change and will change with community consensus. That being said, the current set of guidelines dictate that articles which are unable to establish notability from reliable, independent sources should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no reliabe sources to establish encyclopedic notability. Which is to bad, cause it seems pretty cool article, otherwise. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of independent sources, a lot of this content has been presented in more than one format. It exists within the tabletop game and background of Warhammer, but also within the content and background of Fire Warrior published by THQ. It is more difficult to assess how independent that is because the fictional setting is the IP of Games Workshop, but it is possible for users to become aware of it through many different paths. It is certainly fictional, but it is a fictional setting that has had exposure outside of its original context. If you search wikipedia for entries about Lord of the Rings, you will find dozens of pages about fictional concepts within that setting. What we have here is essentially the same thing, so I do not believe it is consistent with existing policy to remove it outright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.206.92 (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but you understand that (using your example) lords of the rings has been critiqued and reviewed by a multitude of reliable sources independent of the text - from books on literature to film studies books to magazine articles to magazines that explore literature. we must be talking thousands of sources that are not connected to the source or the publisher. we could literally put thousands of 3rd party sources to each and every lord of the rings articles? Would you agree (and this is a straight forward question) that there is difference between the level of coverage between the two? The other thing is (and again it's a straight question) - if you know of any notable 3rd party coverage of this subject - could you tell us? because if it exists, then I'll pull my nomination - no questions asked (two sources would be better... and it still needs clean-up :-) ) --Allemandtando (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord of the Rings is notable. "Rhûn", however, is not. "Gothmog" is not. Not under the strict definition being applied here. They are minor fictional entities within a fictional setting. Wikipedia retains independent pages for them because wikipedia is dedicated to providing well-organized background information about a larger entity that "is" notable. You can not put independent sources for each and every one of them, because many have only ever been analyzed as part of something else. They have no notability except as part of something else. That is also the case here. On the other hand, I can with enough searching find a review or an article about the game "Fire Warrior" or "Dawn of War" that will contain a passing analysis of the weapons used by the Tau described here, since they are the weapons found in the game. It won't be particularly useful to the article itself, but it would be a 3rd-party source. I think we should be honest here. The only reason this is seperate from the main Tau:Empire page is that it was easier for someone to organize by shifting it. And the only reason the Tau:Empire page is seperate from the 40k page is that the main page had grown too large. At some point we are not discussing a question of notability, but of how much information is appropriate to include. And if we include it, how should it be displayed? This is not a question of fame. If it were, wikipedia would not be populated by thousands of pages relating to real but largely irrelevant things. Notability is not just a measure of fame, but of how an idea may be approached. If you can come upon the same fictional idea from many different directions, you will seek information from those other contexts, and the idea is thus notable, as with Lord of the Rings. And in the case of this Warhammer 40k stuff, you have the background from the tabletop game coexisting with the spin-offs into computer gaming and literature. The only hitch is that they aren't exactly third-party given how GW maintains its license. But if that is far enough remove, all we need do is reference the games Fire Warrior and Dawn of War, and the books Fire Warrior, For the Emperor, and Kill Team, or any independent review of such. As I said earlier, I don't think this page should be seperate. But I do think it should be merged into a new heading under the main Tau page. Since Warhammer 40k is about war, the information about weapons is really the most notable aspect we can include. If someone plays Tau in Dawn of War, they may be curious about how those weapons are supposed to work. If Dawn of War was the only place those weapons were found, the idea would not be notable. But since they came from a larger and older setting, we have a sort of notability simply due to scope.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.110.123 (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. As this discussion has shown, there is clear wikipedic interest and effort regarding this article. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- more notable than a LOT of other articles. Or would you delete any of the various Wiki entries on video games that exist, or perhaps board games? How about Dungeons & Dragons? Oh, you mean they're notable too? I thought as much. Kuroji (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Warhammer 40,000 is notable. Dungeons & Dragons is notable. What isn't notable is a detailed listing of the game mechanics, and that's what's being discussed for deletion here. --Carnildo (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real-world relevance indicated, excessive detail on a fictional subject, largely unsourced or without reliable sources, written completely from an in-universe perspective; in short, cruft. Sandstein 21:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki. Although the subject is significantly lacking in notability outside of the Warhammer 40,000 series, this may as well be transwikied off Wikipedia to one of the Wikias where this level of detail is appropriate. -- Sabre (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or come up with even one reliable source to even attempt to demonstrate a teensy shred of notability here. Unlikely. HiDrNick! 00:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Excessively detailed, in-universe information which has no real-world significance. Wikipedia is not a fan site. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has no non games workshop sources and deleting this article will inrage sevral thousands of people. Also, deleting this article could be considered censorship of something that dosn't break any of the wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.84.34 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 7 July 2008
Textbook example of a reason not to keep. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens and Le Grand Roi. ~~However, I would not object to have this page and Vehicles of the Tau Empire merged into a general Tau page.~~ Check that, these pages would be far too long to merge. GlassCobra 22:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reasons for keeping ("needs fixing", "bad faith") are not reasons based on Wikipedia's inclusion policies. Neıl 龱 10:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons, equipment, and vehicles of the Necrons

This article does not cite any reliable sources which attest to the notability of the subject matter. , a comprehensive list of every weapon and vehicle included in any of their numerous codexes and Games Workshop-sanctioned expansions is not. None of these items have any real world notability, either individually or as a collection, nor have any of my attempts to find sources to the contrary borne fruit. The notability of this topic cannot be verified by reliable sources, and should deleted as has been done in the past in this area and in areas such as video games. Allemandtando (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only is this action is a direct interference to the transwiki process slated for this weekend, but I am also puzzled why the codex and guidebook are considered by you to be insufficient to fulfill the criteria of 'reliable sources'. 76.71.152.81 (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just needs fixing, not deletion. And I'd argue the same for Star Wars or Star Trek technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.62.65 (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator seems to have some sort of burr under his blanket about the 40K articles. L0b0t (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing wrong with wanting to find and remove non-notable articles. Often, as is the case here, when you find one, you often find links to related pages. -Verdatum (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Primary sources are generally acceptable for fictional works. Given the popularity and scope of Warhammer universe, this should be kept, albeit with appropriate cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki Looks to be a subpage of a subpage of a fictional work. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Anon above mentions an effort to transwiki in place, sounds good to me. -Verdatum (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independant sources; Wikipedia is not a game manual. --Carnildo (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no independant sources anywhere. Where is a single secondary source writing about this topic ? See the bit under original reasearch where it is rightly said "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.". If there are no secondary sources then the subject should not be written about here - Peripitus (Talk) 22:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The keeps predominantly stem from opinions that do not appear to be supported by policy, guideline or any established precedent/ consensus. There is also clearly some confusion over the applicability of primary sources. PS can not be used to establish N but can be used to V non-controversial information in an article on an otherwise notable subject. In the final analysis, I determined that the nom/deletes presented sound arguments that were well-supported by policy/guidelines. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000)

This article does not cite any reliable sources which attest to the notability of the subject matter. Yes, the Imperium is probably notable; however, a comprehensive list of every weapon and vehicle included in any of their numerous codexes and Games Workshop-sanctioned expansions is not. None of these items have any real world notability, either individually or as a collection, nor have any of my attempts to find sources to the contrary borne fruit. The notability of this topic cannot be verified by reliable sources, and should deleted. Allemandtando (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to deletionpedia I found all the information I was looking for about the "stub pistol" and the "shotgun". This article was the only universal source of information on weapons on the whole wh40k background (merging for example info from Dark Heresy). Sergio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.7.17.82 (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are is a long list of sources and references, how is it that you can simply shrug every single one of them as non-reliable/notable? There is a discussion going on the page; the article requires rewriting and not deletion. Additionally, I am aware that you know full well that a few editors have been forced by your hand transwikify all wh40k articles this weekend. They only ask they you cease in deleting the articles until then. Yet you are continuously removing lines from various articles despite the agreement, in direct contempt of the efforts of said editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.152.81 (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be aware that these articles have been tagged for cleanup and sourcing for months, literally. Also, it takes like 50 seconds to transwiki an article and not "all 40k articles" are under the threat of deletion. Protonk (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just needs fixing, not deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.62.65 (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propse fixing it then? If you could find some independent references to demonstrate the notability of these items, then please add them to the article in question. Attacking the nominator does you no favors here as the deletion rationale follows WP policy. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator seems to have some sort of burr under his blanket about the 40K articles. L0b0t (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm compelled to repeat myself. If you are going to assume bad faith, then don't do so in identical fashion across all of the AfD's brought up by this nominator. If you have a reason the nomination should end in keep (or better yet, a source), please present that. It does not help to comment on the nominator. Protonk (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Primary sources are generally acceptable for fictional works. Given the popularity and scope of Warhammer universe, this should be kept, albeit with appropriate cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't supported by any policy (or proposed policy) for notability concerning fiction or toys. Protonk (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Primary sources can be used to verify non-controversial content in an article on a fictional topic, but it does not establish notability. This content goes in a game guide or a fansite, not an encyclopedia. -Verdatum (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki Wikipedia is not a game guide. Anon above mentions an effort to transwiki similar page. -Verdatum (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete. The sources for this article are entirely primary, i.e. nothing indicates notability of these weapons independent of Games Workshop publications. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Transwiki. There's a huge debate going on at WP:40K. I don't think the article should be deleted, it's huge and there's lots of info. --Leedeth (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok - it's huge and there is lots of information - which bits are notable or relevent in accordance with our notablity policies or our sourcing policies or the MOS. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources are primary and will likely remain that way indefinitely. Dedicated in-universe wikis which aren't as concerned with the accumulation of material which is tantamount to copyright / trademark violation are a much better place for this; there are plenty of 40k wikis with this level of detail already. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Bad faith nom. L0b0t (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Whoops, thanks for spotting that Neil. Nom. has AfD'd so many articles at the same time but not bothereed to lump them together it's hard to keep track. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Duplicate vote. Neıl 龱 13:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for transwiki, this is already on the Warhammer Wikia site. The article is comprised wholly of cruft from primary sources. Neıl 龱 13:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. "Cruft" is never a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A word I don't use in the nomination - being sore because your cruft AFD is going down in flames shouldn't affect how you !vote on other AFDs. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to read all of the posts in these discussions. You will notice the post above mine does in fact use the word "cruft." As for the MfD, it has actually served quite a useful purpose... --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a note (in case people haven't seen the other 40K nom's), White Dwarf (magazine) is not independent from Games workshop (this is clear from the references), neither are the manuals for play. Apart from those two sources, I can't find independent claims of notability of the subject of this particular article. It doesn't matter if there are a hundred sources in this article, if they are all from the game manufacturer, it isn't enough. Honestly one independent, reliable source discussion the weapons of the imperium would be enough for me to reverse my stance on this. Protonk (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability asserted through coverage by independent sources. As it stands, the article is a textbook failure of WP:WAF, and the whole article is excessive weight on the topic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Once in awhile it makes sense to make an exception for a borderline notability issue (WP:N is a guideline, repeat after me). This article is well written and extensively sourced (even if with few independent sources, as has been pointed out). Let it stay, and ask that editor to help out on some other articles as well. Avruch 17:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Few? it has *none*. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of references to verify the content and confirm some degree of notability, and it's far too much info to merge anywhere. Everyking (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how is "some degree of notability" confirmed when the article doesn't have a single 3rd party source and none seem to exist? --Allemandtando (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On closer examination, I see you are correct, they don't appear to be third-party sources. However, Wikipedia aims for comprehensive coverage of notable subjects and this article is necessary for broader comprehensive coverage of Warhammer. Independent notability of the weapons would make the case stronger, but I don't consider it necessary to justify the content. Everyking (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what is notable about those weapons in the game and why explanations of how to construct fictional bullets is needed for comprehensive coverage? In all fictional areas such as video games - such lists have been removed? why do you think this is important to this "broad coverage"? --Allemandtando (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject - the sources listed aren't independent. PhilKnight (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool-Manchester megalopolis

This article must violate about half a dozen guidelines (NPOV, OR: being the main 'violations') some examples are, respectively, "Both Manchester and Liverpool have a 'china town', however Liverpool's is Europe's oldest", "Places of natural beauty, but also homes of the rich and famous". etc. The only references supplied are those to one other page that is a Wikipedia article. Overall the article seems somewhat like someone's interpretation of several articles on-wiki, written into one large piece that makes no sense and is in no shape to be referenced or accurately sourced since the "megalopolis" (which is the whole point of this page) doesn't actually exist. Rudget (logs) 16:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources please? I've lived in the area all my life and have never before heard of the "Liverpool-Manchester megalopolis", and a google search for that term yields only one hit, suggesting that this is indeed an invented idea. Also, where is the evidence to support the notion that people referring to the "North West" mean only the urban areas of Liverpool and Manchester? PC78 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As User:PC78, I have never heard of the area being reffered to as a megalopolis, nor for that matter Manchester and Liverpool being reffered to as the whole of the NW. I think it might also be disputable that Manchester and Liverpool are growing, the evidence with regards to population would suggest the reverse. Most material of that doesnt break numerous guidelines such as original research etc appears to be little more than duplication of various other articles relating to the area. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose that half-a-dozen may have been a little too much, but the point stands: I initially thought that the article was infact little-by-little copies of some existing material, however, I was unable to find this anywhere in the relevant articles (example, text on Manchester in the Manchester article) leading me to believe that this is leaning more towards a personal interpretation and thus original research, since the new material is different to the older version, its probably unreferencable. Proven in the case in point. Rudget (logs) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - unsourced, OR, SYNTH. I also have lived in the area and never heard the term, or even the idea discussed. JohnCD (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A megalopolis is similar to a conurbation, except that it involves the meeting of two or more metropolitan areas. It isn't necessarily related to issues of population size, a very large city is often referred to by the term megacity.

The urban part of the North West is a megalopolis according to both definition and the reality of the area; the article is a work in progress intended to help understanding of the metropolitan nature of the region, versus self-contained city regions such as the West Midlands, Glasgow, etc, which currently operate in metropolitan isolation. "Megapolitan" is rarely an official title in the same way as "metropolitan", but is instead a physical event with associated socio-economic outcomes (ie. increased labour pool, larger market, increased cross-region mobility, etc).

The Liverpool Manchester megalopolis has been referred to by others previously; other terms that have been used are North-West city region, North-West megalopolis, North-West conurbation. Liverpool-Manchester megalopolis is the most appropriate for this article, as it accurately describes the phenomena in an understandable format. It has been difficult to choose a title for this article, but the phenomena is worthy of note.

Incidentally, I was also considering authoring articles on other such urban areas, such as the West Midlands, which also has a unique and interesting background and history.

Regarding points of view, there are none in the article - again, it is a work in progress and references will be added as time goes by (I don't work on Wikipedia full time). Liverpool does have Europe's oldest Chinatown; little known fact perhaps, but there you have it - part of Liverpool's history (which has its own entry on Wikipedia). Alderley Edge etc, is a nationally known beauty spot very popular with hill walkers and the like, it is also home to the rich and famous and is one of the UK's most expensive places to live (so you'd have to be rich, at least).

I have been in discussion also with people at Wikipedia_talk:GM who raised points regarding verifiability but are actually interested in seeing the article complete in order to add a reference to Wikipedia for something that is consequential.

I would like to say that the article is not meant to be offensive in any way or do anything other than document an event and consequence of urban growth.--Genolian3 (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's just an original research based article that advances the creating editors view that the north-west urban-sprawl area is a megalopolis. The subject of the article (i.e. Liverpool-Manchester megaloposis) is not a notable entity as it is not verified by second or third party reliable sources. It's an interesting idea but it is not suitable for inclusion in a encyclopedia. If references are supplied (I can't find any and I live in said megalopolis) then I may change to keep. Cheers, Nk.sheridan Talk 22:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the current article is OR, and google and google news tell me there are reliable sources to turn it into anything but. Vickser (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's on the way to being an interesting essay, but it's original research and thus not suitable for an encyclopaedia article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You can't just make stuff up, then stick it on here. This is the most blatant form of Original Research I have ever seen. Get some credible sources to even confirm the theory of such a "megalopolis", and include verified info. This could be classed as misinformation. -Toon⁰⁵ 19:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Interesting article - had it been referenced mind. --Jza84 | Talk 22:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 23:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR unless other sources can be found. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia shall not be used to originally publish your stuff. -Nard 01:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Liverpool and Manchester are separate cities each with theri own article. Even if tnhey are nearly connected by urban sprawl, my impression was that there was considerable country between them. 30 years ago, I remember some one telling me of the Liverpool-Hull megacity, but this is merely a geographers' construct with little reality. However some one should ensure that there is no useful information in this article that should not be transferred to the articles on the two SEPARATE cities. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The main deletion argument was the subject was non-notable, and those arguing keep were unable to effectively counter this. PhilKnight (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Orion Baptist School

Doesn't seem to be a notable school. No sources, school was founded only six years ago. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've not yet googled, so to speak, the school but it already fails notability standards. The fact that "The school employs 14 faculty members and two secretaries", probably indicates that the school is unlikely to reach scope by any sort of reasonable time frame. Sourcing is on the poor side. What's up with the edit-warring? Rudget (logs) 16:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with all above plus I note that the article is a vandal magnet with very little legitimate editing going on recently. I did Google them and they appear to be a minor local school with no notability beyond appearing in directories of schools. Their homepage does not contain any info to make me think there is historic significance. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of the school includes a high school, and we usually end up keeping those. Cleanup? Sure. Add more sources? you bet. Delete it? No. This is a surmountable problem--the article should be improved and not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs)

How can you add what doesn't exist? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your comment on my talk page came across as a bit rude to me. As to the actual quesiton, User:Friejose below points out that indeed some online sources do exist... not many, but some. Therefore, sources can be added because they do indeed exist.

Are they reliable and/or credible sources? Maybe, maybe not--why not discuss it? Are there offline sources available? Possibly. Would they be considered reliable? Maybe. Anyway, I say we keep the article and give the editors time to rustle up these sources and then if they are not found after a period of time, we would then delete the article. As to its notability, it's common practice to keep pages on high schools: see WP:WPSCHOOLS and for more detail go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Guidelines. You'll find that the consensus is that high schools get an article, and no real reason has been given for this to be different except that it's small. Before making that argument, please read WP:NOTBIGENOUGH, where it states that notability is not determined by the quantity of numbers.

Something to think about.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above Rasadam (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google turned up next to nothing as DanielRigal states; in fact, the highest entry is for the school's Wikipedia page, and the school's own website is the only other site of note. --Friejose (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Lake Orion#Private schools. I am in the process of creating this section and will merge in the key content. TerriersFan (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - what will you reference the main points of the school section (not yet created) with? Rudget (logs) 18:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - having thought about Paul McDonald's comment. There are plenty of assertions of notability in the article and time should be given for off-line sources to be found. If they cannot be then a merge/redirect to Lake Orion#Private schools will be the way to go. TerriersFan (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing notable I can find, it seems to be a small baptist school with no history. delete - GaryECampbell (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan. Redirect if not kept.--Sting Buzz Me... 23:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 17:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Play

Article about a non-notable film, that has no references, other than an IMDb link. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 15:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. imdb link is less then convincing --T-rex 16:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lack of references does not necessarily equate to non-notability. The IMDb link alone indicates that this is an award winning film by a notable director. A preliminary google search yields an article, a review, an interview and a festival screening, so clearly sources do exist which can form the basis of a more detailed article. A bit of research before bringing an article to AfD wouldn't go amiss. PC78 (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article included references I wouldn't need to research! I'm glad you managed to find some reliable sources - you can only imagine some of the websites that emerged when searching Google for "Girl Play"! If, as you say, sources exist and are reliable, why not add them to the article? -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appeared (to me) that this nomination was based solely on the lack of references in the article, so apologies if that was not the case. The sources I found came from a google search for "Girl Talk" + the director's name. But it's really not my responsibility to add them to the article. For one thing I'm not overly familiar with the film, and I've got plenty of other articles to work on. PC78 (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rotten Tomatoes [34] links to a decent number of reviews of it in national papers, more than the two required by WP:MOVIE to establish notability. Vickser (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per PC78 and Vickser. Notability seems evident and references available. Banje boi 15:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Pinkkeith (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely needs some expansion but definitely a very notable lesbian film which has also aired on Logo multiple times. Nate • (chatter) 22:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The union of Iranian library and information science student associations (ADKA)

Non-notable student group, Wikipedia is not a webhost Madcoverboy (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ow this article hurt my eyes, Delete per WP:N, and WP:V TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 15:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personally I find this funny. The article could not have been a native English speaker, and was definately trying to advertise. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-1-2008 • 17:39:19 17:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD#A7. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racebannon

Was tagged for db-band and a hangon was placed, because they had two albums on a borderline notable label. However, I'm finding no sources whatsoever for this band, not to mention the WP:COI and overly promotional tone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no assertion of notability, no sources, and reads like a promo piece. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 15:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional tone, seems like an attempt to use WP to publish a puff piece. JuJube (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some websites that have press pieces/reviews on Racebannon. They're a very popular cult band and I don't see why they wouldn't feature on Wikipedia.

http://www.smother.net/interviews/racebannon.php http://www.punknews.org/article/29366 http://www.naughtysecretaryclub.com/racebannon.htm http://betterpropaganda.com/artist_page.aspx?id=343 http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/6869612/a/First+There+Was+The+Emptiness.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southern records (talk • contribs) 16:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CD Universe is not a reliable soures. Interviews are okay but only if other sources are present. The only other sources I see are very independent reviews on personal websites and/or MP3 download sites, which are not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "very popular cult band" press release-ese for "not a popular band"? ^.^ JuJube (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADVERT, possible for speedy delete --Numyht (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)—Reason: Thanks for the mild trouting. :) I assumed that all the articles had identical merit, based on preliminary research of a few. I'll dig deeper and nominate any individually that warrant further discussion. Livitup (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DHI Water • Environment • Health

A single author, Qiy (talk) (contribs), has created pages for this company and several software products created by this company. The user has repeatedly deleted CSD tags from the articles (see user talk page for examples). Neither the company nor any of its software seems to be noteworthy. The top 100 Ghits are all press releases, announcements that the company is working on some project, or publications of OR. I'll be listing the articles of the software products as part of this AfD, so everyone can get the whole context. This is the first time I've AfD'ed on such a grand scale, so if this is improper or stupid please trout me and I'll go away. Livitup (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following additional articles should be included in this AfD. These are all articles on software products produced by DHI. The same user created these all these articles, including the one on DHI. Livitup (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I started at least one of those articles (FEFLOW) since it is software used for simulating groundwater flow. The company is one of the oldest water simulation software companies in the world (1973), and they are internationally known. It would be silly to delete all of these (in particular: the company page, FEFLOW, MIKE SHE and MIKE 11. I can't comment on the others, since I don't know much about them. I imagine a few can be merged). However, I did express my comments on the article name for the company here, and the articles probably need a bit of copy editing. +mt 18:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist individually. Some (FEFLOW) have many Google news/scholar/books hits, others (Temporal Analyst) have practically none. (Best if you just relist the ones with few G-hits, obviously.) Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - copyright infringement (CSD G12) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick J. Peters

Fails WP:BIO notability, reads like a WP:RESUME Madcoverboy (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment User:Edco0o has created several articles like this relating to the Italian American Network which I have also nominated for deletion since the whole thing smells of Astroturfing. Please combine the AfDs if possible: Chris Lonergan, Anthony DiPilla, Patrick J. Peters, John Mancuso, Mark Kozaki, Tony Ceglio, Jim Picinich. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It further appears that all of these bios are copyvios from their references which means they should be speedied. Sorry for clogging up the system. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete All as SPAM (blatant advertising) and add Italian American Networkto AfD as it is also blatant advertising. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all sickening spam. JuJube (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinbots

Only independent source is an interview with Biota; I'd prefer to see multiple coverage as suggested by WP:Notability guidelines. Contested prod earlier in the year with notability concerns, but contesting editor then admits a lack of secondary sources. I'd be happy if someone can find further significant coverage but I'm drawing a blank. Marasmusine (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: This looks interesting and potentially promising, but as of now, both subject notability and source reliability are issues. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per following comments. Article looks promising. Deletion would be premature. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: First, I'm the article author, so I'm biased :) Second, the correct home page is Darwinbots.com. Third, notability is established with the interview on Biota.org (notability doesn't need multiple sources, though they are preferred). Last, if I'm outvoted, I would recommend merging the article as it stands in to a broader article on artificial life simulators per: Wiki policy instead of outright deletion. --Numsgil (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just found another source and added it to the article: Darwinbots review. Is this enough sources to confirm notability? --Numsgil (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that deletions are not granted by voting, i.e. how many users say "Keep" versus how many users say "Delete." Deletions are granted from judging from the arguments put forth by the users. If there is no rough consensus on deletion, then the article is not deleted. MuZemike (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Exactly. For more information on how this process works, see WP:CON. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That review is actually self-published. It's a reader review on a public website. Still, I think this article deserves a chance to assert its notability. Keep looking! Randomran (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the review is fine, as to submit a review you need to be a member (which entails being employed full-time in science research) and it must be approved by the editorial staff. Marasmusine (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial oversight is key for a source to be reliable. So that helps. Randomran (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's substantial and independent. In terms of reliablity, it looks promising with editorial oversight on review submissions [35]. Marasmusine (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent coverage --T-rex 23:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Biota.org and scienceboard.org look independent enough to me. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - blatant copyright infringement (CSD G12) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Ceglio

Fails WP:BIO notability, reads like a WP:RESUME Madcoverboy (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment User:Edco0o has created several articles like this relating to the Italian American Network which I have also nominated for deletion since the whole thing smells of Astroturfing. Please combine the AfDs if possible: Chris Lonergan, Anthony DiPilla, Patrick J. Peters, John Mancuso, Mark Kozaki, Tony Ceglio, Jim Picinich. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It further appears that all of these bios are copyvios from their references which means they should be speedied. Sorry for clogging up the system. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete All per my comments at above AfD. It is a circle of blatant advertising with no reliable 3rd party sources at all which meet the criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Tale of My Girlfriend

Fails WP:NF. Minimal ghits are limited to listings on commercial websites such as Amazon, while a search for the Korean language title (내 여자친구 이야기) yields nothing of relevance. No listing on IMDb, or on Korean film websites such as koreanfilm.org, HanCinema, or KMDb. A request for further information on the koreanfilm.org forums supports what I already suspected, that this is merely a non-notable, straight to dvd, soft porn film. PC78 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and with no references. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 15:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this particular tale does not meet notability. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and with no references --T-rex 16:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - copyright infringement (CSD G12) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Picinich

Fails WP:BIO notability, reads like a WP:RESUME Madcoverboy (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment User:Edco0o has created several articles like this relating to the Italian American Network which I have also nominated for deletion since the whole thing smells of Astroturfing. Please combine the AfDs if possible: Chris Lonergan, Anthony DiPilla, Patrick J. Peters, John Mancuso, Mark Kozaki, Tony Ceglio, Jim Picinich. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It further appears that all of these bios are copyvios from their references which means they should be speedied. Sorry for clogging up the system. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete All per my comments at above AfD. It is a circle of blatant advertising with no reliable 3rd party sources at all which meet the criteria Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - copyright infringement (CSD G12) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Mancuso

Fails WP:BIO notability, reads like a WP:RESUME Madcoverboy (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment User:Edco0o has created several articles like this relating to the Italian American Network which I have also nominated for deletion since the whole thing smells of Astroturfing. Please combine the AfDs if possible: Chris Lonergan, Anthony DiPilla, Patrick J. Peters, John Mancuso, Mark Kozaki, Tony Ceglio, Jim Picinich. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It further appears that all of these bios are copyvios from their references which means they should be speedied. Sorry for clogging up the system. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanicruftispamvertisment. L0b0t (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete All per my comments at above AfD. It is a circle of blatant advertising with no reliable 3rd party sources at all which meet the criteria Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - copyright infringement (CSD G12) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kozaki

Fails WP:BIO notability, reads like a WP:RESUME Madcoverboy (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment User:Edco0o has created several articles like this relating to the Italian American Network which I have also nominated for deletion since the whole thing smells of Astroturfing. Please combine the AfDs if possible: Chris Lonergan, Anthony DiPilla, Patrick J. Peters, John Mancuso, Mark Kozaki, Tony Ceglio, Jim Picinich. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanicruftispamvertisment. L0b0t (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the possible conflict of interest in the creation of this and related articles, this executive appears to be notable. See this Google News archive search. The article reads as if it was copied and pasted from somewhere. If this is the case, I would ask that it be rewritten to eliminate the potential copyvio rather than speedily deleted. --Eastmain (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that all of these bios are copyvios from their references which means they should be speedied. Sorry for clogging up the system. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - copyright infringement (CSD G12) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony DiPilla

Fails WP:BIO notability, reads like a WP:RESUME Madcoverboy (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment User:Edco0o has created several articles like this relating to the Italian American Network which I have also nominated for deletion since the whole thing smells of Astroturfing. Please combine the AfDs if possible: Chris Lonergan, Anthony DiPilla, Patrick J. Peters, John Mancuso, Mark Kozaki, Tony Ceglio, Jim Picinich. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It further appears that all of these bios are copyvios from their references which means they should be speedied. Sorry for clogging up the system. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanicruftispamvertisment. L0b0t (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete All per my comments at above AfD. It is a circle of blatant advertising with no reliable 3rd party sources at all which meet the criteria Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant copyright infringement of [36]. So tagged. He removed my original CSD tag without changing anything. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All tagged as copyright violations. If any of them are notable (and I doubt it) someone can create a legitimate article about them. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyright violation. nancy ^(talk) 17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lonergan

Fails WP:BIO notability, reads like a resume Madcoverboy (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment User:Edco0o has created several articles like this relating to the Italian American Network which I have also nominated for deletion since the whole thing smells of Astroturfing. Please combine the AfDs if possible: Chris Lonergan, Anthony DiPilla, Patrick J. Peters, John Mancuso, Mark Kozaki, Tony Ceglio, Jim Picinich. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It further appears that all of these bios are copyvios from their references which means they should be speedied. Sorry for clogging up the system. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanicruftispamvertisment. L0b0t (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete All per my comments at above AfD. It is a circle of blatant advertising with no reliable 3rd party sources at all which meet the criteria Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I concur with above definetly blatant advertisement. BigDunc^Talk 15:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lenticel ^(talk) 06:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Side (2008 film)

The notability guidelines for future films stipulates that a stand-alone article should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. This project is no different - preproduction is still ongoing and anything could happen before the proposed filming date. The article can be recreated when principal photography begins. Steve ^{T • C} 15:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.
Delete per the nominator; casting had been done as early as July 2007, and now, a year later, no progress into production. Variety had indicated for filming to begin in November 2007. This never happened, and so WP:NFF applies. No problem with recreation if filming ever begins. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sourcing beyond IMDb. Actually its more or less an exact copy from IMDb --T-rex 04:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. No one other than the nominator wanted it deleted, and just saying delete doesn't count as an argument. — _Maggot^Syn 13:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MyHammer

Delete advert for nn company Mayalld (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.28.102 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They used to advertise on German national television a lot (I still have the ring in my ear after all these years). I'll try to find some notability-establishing sources. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Found it on youtube. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found significant mentions in Der Spiegel [37], Die Welt [38], and Focus (magazine) [39] [40] [41], then I stopped looking. Clearly notable. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The articles linked by Sgeureka establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources in article indicate notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Computing Impact Organization, Inc.

Fails WP:CORP, reads like WP:ADVERT or news release Madcoverboy (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like an WP:ADVERT; fails to show notability per WP:CORP—news search shows nothing. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as an advert --T-rex 04:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Speedy deleted as re-creation of deleted material (G4). AngelOfSadness talk 18:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Glanfield

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER Madcoverboy (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nominator Overlooked previous AfD. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YellowApe Films

Fails WP:CORP Madcoverboy (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Several Times (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, strong conflict of interest is apparent.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS (not are shown or have been found) and WP:COI.--Les boys (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2012 (film)

This is an article about a planned film by Roland Emmerich. While there has been casting and other preparations, it has not yet begun production. Per the notability guidelines for future films, a stand-alone article is not yet warranted. There can be delays to production, and a noted potential delay is the actors' strike, as noted here. Films like Shantaram (film) (merged) were affected by the writers' strike, so the possible actors' strike adds more uncertainty to the production of this film. If production does begin, the article can be recreated. Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this until it can be confirmed that principal photography has begun. The notability guidelines suggest it can be created then, as too many factors (script issues, director issues, sheer bad luck) could influence beforehand whether the film is even made. Steve ^{T • C} 14:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No crystal balls permitted. B.Wind (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dariusz Burkowski

Fails WP:BIO, reads like a resume Madcoverboy (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like it's just by him or his agent or something. It doesn't have any sources and it doesn't look that notable. --Kipof (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added independent reference from the University of Gdańsk corroborating the text content about Borkowski having been a theatre actor and translator of its features. greg park avenue (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing notable. getting college degrees and parts in plays does not make the requirements for wikipedia --T-rex 04:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails WP:BIO because the article does not include references to significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Sandstein 08:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:BIO Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Williams (games designer)

Non-notable person. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Scott who? MuZemike (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—No awards or well-known releases listed, not to mention a lack of independent sources. Fails notability; possibly vanity article.—RJH (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no reason to believe that reputable sources exist that establish notability. -Verdatum (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G11 by WBOSITG. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The owl service (band)

Another MySpace band that fails WP:MUSIC, also likely WP:COI Madcoverboy (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Doesn't even assert notability. Author has WP:COI and refuses to follow WP:MUSIC. So tagged (hangon notwithstanding). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to National Health Service (England) where content has already been merged. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bed Blockers

Neologism. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge/Redirect if there is an appropriate article where the information could be successfully incorporated. Would need reliable references though. Otherwise Delete.

Redirect I've just transwikied the content from this article to National Health Service (England). No need for a discrete article on the neologism. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect The BBC returns 99 results for bed blocking [42] including many article titles while the Times reports over 200 [43].The term 'bed blocking' is certainly very well understood in the UK and as a deriative of this 'bed blocker' would be as well understood as well so I think it's a likely search term (although possibly stil a neologism). That said it's not worthy of it's own article and a redirect to a small section in another article (e.g. NHS) about the problems it causes seems more appropiate. I'd also suggest creating a 'bed blocking' redirect as well. Dpmuk (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources. Content has now been merged and sourced into National Health Service (England), redirect away. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a general page on Hospital discharge or Discharge planning or some such article, which will cover this specific issue as well as others. It's a big topic, and I'm a little surprised that I can't find a Wikipedia article on the topic. "Bed blocking" may be a UK term, but the problem is not at all a UK-specific problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a more general article on bed management. Not a neoligism as reliable secondary sources. Aside from those who might refuse to be transfered elsewhere (but unsuitable for discharge home and UK NHS has moral duty not to discharge onto the street - i.e. evict) also huge issue as to separation in welfare state of medical care from social care (hence if no provision made for social care in a nursing home for patient who nolonger needs medical care, then patient languishes in hospital). Whilst very much notable, not that much to write in an encyclopedia without it being an essay (vs encyclopedic entry).
- Better therefore on merged into Hospital bed management (eg >100% bed occupancy in UK and how such turnaround increases rates of MRSA (this reported on just last week), also issues transfering patients between hospitals when facilities full, especially an issue with Special Care Baby Units) - all these have issues of bed management & planning and interection between hospital/other services/community.
- Whereas Hospital discharge seems more the processes that should routinely occur vs the underlying organisation/service-planning issues. Hence Hospital discharge would be about arranging discharge medcation drugs in good time, arranging outpatient (US=Office) followup arrangements, someone writing a meaningful discharge letter for community General Practitioners & District Nurses to allow them to understand what has occured and provide seemless transition of care etc. David Ruben ^Talk 20:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially a dicdef. No merge until suitable candidate extant. JFW | T@lk 22:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women Authors of Southern Africa

Delete blatant op-ed piece Mayalld (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a series of OR interviews not an article on a specific topic. Reads like an op-ed piece. L0b0t (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above... possibly reasonable category and candidate for eventual article but, this is definitely not it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an odd probably copyy-vio essay --T-rex 16:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g3, vandalism, clear hoax, part of pattern of hoax articles. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia LaMonica

Article appears to be a hoax (no sources provided) by user who has only contributed this single article. Lady Lynx website has no indication that such a person exists, and no google hits except the wikipedia page. Jogurney (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I can't find anyevidence of her existence Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparent hoax. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete smells like hoax - the subject's name sound more like belonging to an Italian-American than a subject from a former Spanish colony of Africa. --Angelo (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate later when sources are found. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete along with Carolina Galati‎, Katarina DaCosta‎, Caroline Frolic‎, Sandra Sardinia‎, Zrinka Naglic‎, Carmen Dominica‎ and Dena Lansdowne‎ which User:Whu2000 has also created today. They all appear to be hoaxes. --Jimbo^[online] 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it were true she'd be rocking the notability. However, it's not. Delete per WP:HOAX Vickser (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is beyond the AFD process. This user, and IP's 74.12.20.137, 74.12.32.174 , and 74.12.31.182 have added many Lady Lynx players, and edited national pages to support there existance. 05:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete as G3. Complete and utter bullshit. I've speedied the rest, reverted the vandalism, and placed notes and warning on the relevent user pages. Nfitz (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. (there was content, the content was already deleted as copyright infringement). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knoxville Chamber

Reads like an advertisement, fails WP:CORP Madcoverboy (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article is empty. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - history shows no content besides the AfD nom --T-rex 16:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get Him to the Greek

This article is about an announced project by Judd Apatow. Per the notability guidelines for future films, a stand-alone article is not yet warranted with no guarantee of production to ensure a full-fledged film article layout. If production begins, the article can be recreated. In the meantime, a sentence or two could be mentioned at Judd Apatow#Upcoming projects. Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. This project is a prime example of this; Apatow is attached to about 600 projects. The article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 13:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Full agreement with what's said above. Might be appropriate to mention in the Judd Apatow section on Upcoming Projects -- Quartermaster (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied as copyvio. --Stormie (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search for identity in Nuruddin Farah's Maps

Contested PROD (PROD notice removed without comment or explanation). Nuruddin Farah is certainly a notable author, but this article is simply not an encyclopedia article, it is an essay, original research. Stormie (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article appears to be largely an OR essay. Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyvio from http://literatureenglish.unblog.fr/2008/06/19/4/ -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes

AfDs for this article:

Article was previously nominated in February but was kept in a no consensus decision. Since then the article has remained stagnant and there have been few, if any updates to the list, which hasn't been updated in nine months (note that the first season of this show ended in May). Also a list which is basically a rotating list of talk show topics which have nothing beyond the title of each program to differentiate them from each other, and are not unique in the subject matter dealt with. Nate • (chatter) 09:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I honestly cannot see any encyclopedic value whatsoever in a list of episode titles for a talk show. --Stormie (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --T-rex 16:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, not encyclopedic Rasadam (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question, strictly for purposes of educating me. How is this list different from the hundreds of other lists of television episodes here? I'm not invoking WP:OTHERCRAP, I'm just curious because WP:EPISODE recommends making this type of page, and I'd like to know why this one isn't encyclopedic. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That guideline really applies much more to episodic television in my eyes, where only one or two episodes air per week and the list can stay in relative control (see my other arguments in the first nom as to why I feel this overwhelms that guideline). This list wants to catalog every episode of a five day-a-week talk show, where as many as 200 episodes may be produced in a year. Usually with a talk show, you get a sense of the basic issues dealt with and listed in the parent article and there is no need to list every topic for every day because they usually rotate around and never get out of their targeted topic range; here for instance you're not going to see Steve Wilkos talk about makeovers, crash diets, or economic policy anytime soon, he pretty much sticks to domestic strife and crime issues. Thus my reasoning as to why a talk show like this does not need an episode list. Nate • (chatter) 01:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So if I could summarize (to make sure I understand correctly), it's the large volume of entries with little potentially useful information per entry? That does make some sense -- the only sticky issue I see is where to draw the line (as is true with so many things in life *grin*). Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I say in my userpage, I can get very verbose (blushes). This is exactly what I'm trying to state. I'm glad I could help you out with this. Nate • (chatter) 06:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the short The Steve Wilkos Show article, as it is not quite at "Once there's enough verifiable information independent of the show itself, then: Create a page for … a 'List of episodes' page" from WP:EPISODE. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't feel that this standard can ever be met. Usually the only publicity for a talk show outside of the show's PR department comes when either the show premieres, there's some controversial event to occur on the show (Tyra's "Kiss My Fat Ass" speech for instance), or it's on the heels of perhaps topping Oprah in the ratings. Nate • (chatter) 19:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since when is updates a reason for deletion?. Mythdon (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I completely agree with the assessment by the nominator and those who support deletion of this list. I am not convinced, however, that deletion is the proper course of action. We are indeed encouraged to split such listified information from main articles, and there seems no question that the main article is notable. I see no harm in keeping this list, and believe that interested editors could work through formatting this list differently and/or establishing some inclusion guidance to make the list more relevant. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same rationale that I gave last time. Unmaintainable, non-notable list. Do we have List of Oprah Winfrey episodes? List of Maury Povich episodes? Both hosts are much more notable that Steve Wilkos. Delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Air Force in 2015

Personal essay dealing in pure speculation about an institution's position in 7 years time. WP:CRYSTAL if nothing else Ged UK (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, not an encyclopedia article. Also the initial edit summary has the creator's mobile number and email address and should probably be deleted for that reason alone. --Stormie (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay and WP:CRYSTAL ball gazing. • Gene93k (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Speculation, no references. --Andrew from NC (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speculation, essay and crystal ball. Ironho lds 11:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Trippz (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially pure WP:OR. Nsk92 (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Suprised this wasn't prodded. Dpmuk (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. -- Quartermaster (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the rest; looks like WP:SNOWBALL applies here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminium wedge of Aiud

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aluminium wedge of Aiud

Non-notable; article itself mentions only a single article was written about it and it has been tagged since december of 2007. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. According to the article itself, there exists only a single article about it, by a Hungarian paranormal researcher (although it is not mentioned where this article was published). Even assuming that the sources passes WP:RS (which is unlikely), this is a far cry from satisfying WP:N. Even a plain Google search returns only 60 hits[44], with nothing in GoogleBooks[45], GoogleScholar[46] or GoogleNews[47]. Nsk92 (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mainly WP:RS. Note from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paranormal "To seek out and apply verifiable mainstream sources to pages within the projects scope with the aim of A) addressing any issues of verifiability and reliability that have been highlighted in existing entries, and B) ensuring that new entries are of sufficient quality that their verifiability and reliability do not become an issue." I'm not quoting a policy, just showing that even though the article is within the scope of the project I don't think it meets the project's standards. Faradayplank (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete heh, sounds like a wannabe Iron pillar of Delhi. recreate if Reliable sources are found. -Verdatum (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself states that there is only one "sole article" on it. No reliable sources provided in the article, and none were found on Google. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interface vertigo

Non-notable neologism Ged UK (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rasadam (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V and the WP:NEO guideline, and on top of that, if it was any shorter it'd be a borderline candidate for WP:CSD#A1 (little or no context).--Les boys (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A1. JuJube (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism with no assertion of notability; Google reveals one single use (on a blog - [48]); and I can't see any sign that the coiner of this neologism (and creator of the article) Saar Shai is anything other than, no offence intended, "some guy on the internet". --Stormie (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is written like a dictionary definition and does not cite any sources or assert notability. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiln Phosphoric Acid (KPA)

Queried speedy delete. How much is this spam, and how much a valid industrial product? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following article are also being nominated in this AfD because they are redirects or just WP:Coatracks to advance the same marketing points, and have turned into substantially the same articles recreated with similar names before:

--Closeapple (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Closeapple (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Oops! Appleyard beat me to the AFD discussion!) These are attempts to recreate the JDC Phosphate spam article. Patents are not inherently notable; being named on a patent is not inherently notable. The terms "Improved Hard Process" and "Kiln Phosphoric Acid" are WP:Neologisms with no use outside of this company. No proof this this process is implemented outside of lab experiments — indeed, the tone of the articles strongly implies that this industry process hasn't existed long enough to even be implemented in real industry. Only reference appears to be Fertilizer International, an trade magazine whose editorial guidelines are not clear and so is not known to be a WP:reliable source for notability. These pages are all back-door attempts to gain "Wikipedia legitimacy" for a company named JDC Phosphate, which is a company apparently formed by this Joseph Megy guy, who is trying to gain traction for this chemical trick he just got a patent on this year. JDC Phosphate has been speedy deleted twice, despite the author's repeated attempts to delete the speedy tags in violation of Wikipedia policy. Same author has recreated the same basic information under multiple titles. Since the user has also cleared his user talk page and the diffs on the other articles are reset, you'll probably want to check Geoseh User Talk as of 222422115 for the warnings. Tired of playing Whack-a-Mole with this guy. --Closeapple (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Notability cannot be established as I cannot find coverage of either Mr Megy or the terminology in multiple, independent reliable sources. Also WP:NEOLOGISM concerns per Closeapple. nancy ^(talk) 10:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, non-notable, self-promotion. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources do not establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. If and when this process becomes notable, we can have an article on it. Similar arguments as in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/7-Acetoxymitragynine. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have a PhD in Physics and have been aware of Dr. Megy's work for the last 25 years. There is no self-promotion here. The facts presented on Dr. Megy's bio are real and are in no way intended to be self-interest promotions on his part. He is not involved. I happen to be aware of him and looked him up and noticed this mean spirited discussion. One of the comments indicated that "patents aren't inherently notable." Since when? Dr. Megy has 17 patents and that is significant. It is a very thorough review process in Chemical Engineering. Furthermore, the current process was funded by an SBIR grant and reviewed at all levels for thoroughness. The KPA process has been in existence for over 25 years and was patented by Drs. Hard and Megy as noted in patent list. The reason for putting Dr. Megy's name in play is that he has been a contributor to the advancement of both the science of production of chemicals (mass production as measured in hundreds of thousands of tons per year) and the engineering detail required to make large processing plants work. Amen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drelbie (talk • contribs) — Drelbie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
OK. Specifically addressing these claims by Drelbie:
1. "There is no self-promotion here" part 1: The author's creation of multiple articles saying practically the same thing, and always making Joseph Megy and/or JDC Phosphate's involvement the main thrust of the article, indicates that it is quite definitely (self-)promotion. The original draft of the JDC Phosphate article made it quite clear what was intended: indeed, the JDC Phosphate article got speedy-deleted as WP:CSD#G12 Blatant advertising — the fastest level of removal on Wikipedia, reserved for only the most obvious cases — then speedied again (as WP:CSD#A7) 3 hours later when it was recreated by the same author.
2. "There is no self-promotion here" part 2: If this isn't for self-interest promotion, why have you (Drelbie) cut-and-pasted the clearly copyright-labeled corporate promotional bio from JDC Phosphates as his biography? (This is a violation of Wikipedia:Copyvio.)
3. "There is no self-promotion here" part 3: I noticed that the copyright violation from the promotional bio says "Dr. Megy was SBA 'Small Businessman of the Year'". (This was the only statement in the whole article that even caught my attention as maybe defending notability, so I went looking for it.) Just out of curiosity, I searched for "Small Businessman of the Year" and Megy on Google and it doesn't come up. Granted, the US Small Business Administration website doesn't seem to find that title at all. It may exist somewhere, but apparently the SBA doesn't talk about it much. So apparently it's not important enough that the SBA issues news releases about it. So much for that avenue.
4. "Patents aren't inherently notable." Since when?: According to USPTO publication EIP-3131P-OL: "Patent Counts By Class By Year - Independent Inventors Patents Granted: 1977 - 2006", there have been 597,842 patents by individual or unnamed (not corporate) owners between 1977 and 2006. According to EIP-3130P-OL: "Independent Inventors By State By Year", 2,880 patents were issued to individuals just in California (Megy's home state) in just 2007 alone. Again, I stress that these numbers don't even include corporate patents: these numbers are just ones originally issued first to individuals. Having some (or "17", or "over 20") original ideas in ones life does not inherently make one notable. I highly doubt that having an SBIR grant is notable in itself either. It may lead to kudos for insiders in a specific industry or specific sector of the scientific community, but it's not especially notable in a general-interest encyclopedia.
These AfD topics can be re-added later when the IHP/KPA process meets its manifest destiny of worldwide fame without a boost from Wikipedia based on listing people who have patents: "Wikipedia is not a directory ... directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business." --Closeapple (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as a neologism. Davewild (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xware

Non-notable neolgism. Can't find any refernce to it in a couple of pages of google results. Ged UK (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT - page was created by word creator. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism, and self-promotion by the way. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NFT --T-rex 16:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ganglands

Non-notable film still in production. From the article: "Although its unknown if the film will be released nationally, even internationally, just yet" Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This is a disputed PROD, no reason given for disputing. Mattinbgn\^talk 08:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This movie contains a fair amount of stars with Wikipedia articles of their own. Article also needs formatting and more information. – Jerry^teps 08:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More than a few of those articles were created by the creator of this article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable amateur film that does not appear to satisfy WP:MOVIE criteria. References provided all appear to be self-written. --DAJF (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a 17yr old actor who makes short films. Good luck to him but, until it's successful noone writes about the film and neither should we - Peripitus (Talk) 09:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films" guidelines at WP:MOVIE. --Stormie (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find anything on IMDB except for a 2007 film of the same name (with a different cast obviously). And that such a busy American actor like Brett Cullen (Goodwin from Lost) should appear in a minor scene in an Australian independent film sounds slightly hoaxish to me; neither IMDb nor his official site mention Ganglands at all. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of notability; no problem with recreation later if there is significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete through lack of notability. Steve ^{T • C} 13:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wishful thinking. I've also slapped db-person tags on several of the supposed 17 and 18 year old actors in this film, although one has the claim of having appeared in 11 episodes of Neighbours, so I've only removed Gangland from his credits. Corvus cornix_talk 21:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- with a budget of a mere AUD$1000 and a handful of unknown actors, I suspect this is just some amateur filemaker looking for exposure on their uncompleted film. - Longhair\^talk 01:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was not able to find enough reliable sources to convince me that this project is not a hoax. Seems to fail the verifiability criterion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Good exposure for the makers until this afd ends... Five Years 18:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball fight!. Oh, and can I suggest that when this is deleted, the article is recreated as a redirect to organized crime or similar? Steve ^{T • C} 18:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Does This Look Infected?, AfD discussion not necessary for an editorial decision like this. Stormie (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anic

The Sum 41 song fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Songs. Not a single and a short 38 second song that never charted. Also it is unreferenced information. I propose to redirect to the appropriate album: Does This Look Infected? Orfen ^T • _C 06:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to the album, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Does this look infected?. If you want to redirect it, just do it, this is articles for deletion, not articles for redirect. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 08:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per deletion nomination. and merge any reliably sourced content. -- saberwyn 09:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Creosote

Delete - no reliable sources attest to the independent notability of this character. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:FICT and WP:N. A few random mentions in various pop culture items does not equal notability. Otto4711 (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another lazy nomination which does not make the slightest effort to demonstrate that the article cannot be improved as our editing policy specifies. I made a quick search and soon found a reliable source which discusses the topic at length. I may now improve the article accordingly but the chilling effect of threatened deletion is a disruptive obstruction to this. The nominator failed to discuss the article's problems on its talk page and has made no attempt to improve the article himself. Such superficial drive-by deletion should be censured since it disrupts our essential process of article development by slow accretion. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A definitive character from a major award winning film. Plenty of reference work available on the net and in printed media. A worthy subject for expansion, not deletion. M♠ssing Ace 09:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major characters in major works of fiction are notable.DGG (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I would not say that being a character in a major film automatically confers notability (WP:FICT does have more specific requirements), in this case there are indeed plenty of secondary reliable sourses regarding this character and his influence outside of the film. Apart from the source cited by Colonel Warden, here are a few more random examples from a GoogleBooks search:[49][50][51][52][53][54][55], etc. While these are fairly short mentions, they do demostrate that the Mr Creosote has become something of an iconic cultural character, an archetypal glutton. Nsk92 (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An iconic and notable character, I look forward to the improvement of the article based on the above sources. The article as it stands has (currently unreferenced) significant real-world content and is not a plot rehashing and list of random pop culture references as implied by the nominator. This content is specific enough in its detail to make referencing of these not too difficult. --Canley (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete and~~ Comment Look. We all liked this movie. The movie won awards. The creators of the movie are the gold standard for notability among comedy troupes. But the article contains one reference where the character is discussed my a principal creator of the film. Sources (as Col. Warden shows above) may exist which impute notability to the subject. that isn't really an excuse for haranguing the nominator over the substance of the nomination (or accusing him/her of being lazy). Also, some honesty needs to be exercised about the "chilling effect" of deletion nominations. While a giant template warning of impending deletion may dissuade the novice editor from making marginal changes to an article it cannot really be claimed that it dissuades a veteran editor who is familiar with the deletion process. Many articles which come to AfD unsourced but ARE SOURCEABLE become speedy-closes as reliable sourcing is introduced. I've personally saved three articles like this one from deletion. Once sourcing was introduced in the text of the article, the nominator withdrew the nomination. I'm not advocating the use of deletion before doing a cursory check for references. In this case the nomination may have benefited from a sentence testifying that the editor looked for sourcing but felt the sourcing imputed limited notability. Furthermore, it is the burden of the editor adding the content to source it. Good faith on the part of the nominator does not amount to an obligation to source contentious claims. If and when the sources listed above make it into the article, I'll change my vote. Protonk (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My experience of improving articles during AFD is not encouraging. For a relevant Monty Python example, see the Rabbit of Caerbannog. I went to some lengths to save that article, citing over 20 sources and yet there were several editors who obdurately clung to their delete vote in the teeth of the evidence. The nominator in that case has since been sanctioned for bad behaviour and yet here we are again with editors such as yourself refusing to accept good sources when they are pointed out. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. One, that article seems to have survived the deletion debate. Two, show me WHERE in my comment I "refused to accept good sources when they are pointed out." The fact that editors may hang on to positions in an argument is nothing new. An editor that refuses to accept reality wholesale and is later cited by the community for disruptive behavior is a particularly poor example upon which to base a view about all editors in a deletion debate. I am not the last editor you clashed with. Neither is Otto. We are all distinct individuals whose opinions need to be respected on the merits of evidence and who personally need to be respected regardless of the merits of our opinions. Just because some other article was nominated in bad faith doesn't poison the well for future nominations of different articles. Protonk (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly merge A very memorable character, and I take such long lists of "in popular culture" mentions as a sure sign of notability, even if it just serves for merging. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I don't know of the character is as deserving of the article as the entire scene. Either way, I think the name would be the same anyway. Needs a rewrite and many more refs regarding its notoriety, but they are certainly out there. The scene itself contains a very rare example of menstrual comedy that has been noted as well - [56]. Jim Miller (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Clear editor interest and effort as well. Plus, it is hard to fail the fiction guideline that looks like it won't be improved, just as the notability guideline is currently weighing multiple dramatic proposals for revisions. Finally, aspects of Monty Python are indeed encyclopedic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; quite coincidentally I had typed "Mr. Creosote" in the search box, having just watched this absolutely amazing skit again on YouTube, and wondered what Wikipedia would have to say about it. Up for deletion was quite a surprise. Not notable? Seriously? This is one of the most infamously disgusting, and hilarious, comedy scenes ever filmed. Sources abound: some are listed above, and there are Monty Python documentaries as well. Quite a bit can actually be added to this short article. Antandrus (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is probably snowing. But I note that the article STILL has only one source that might considered reliable currently referenced. If those that support or oppose a merger could indicate as much on the talk page, it would be appreciated. Protonk (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A reference for every one of our keep and delete votes could easily be added. I'll add one for my keep. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously keep - Mr Creosote is one of British TV's most famous characters. What numpty thought it was worth deleting? Sigh! Tris2000 (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Monty Python and Philosophy link provided by Colonel Warden, clearly belies the "no reliable sources" claim. --Stormie (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, either a joke or certainly fails notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K Ice

Notability is not asserted and appears to be low. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not even an assertion of notability, let alone any evidence supported by reliable sources. --Stormie (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V and WP:RS, and I tried looking for sources on Google.--Les boys (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a joke. Read carefully. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Anna Lincoln, it sounds like a joke. A search for "K Ice" and "Oxford" returned no relevant results so with no citations the existence of this item seems to lack notability if the article isn't a joke.--Chef Tanner (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lucas Cruikshank. PhilKnight (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fred (webshow)

Notability not asserted and seems of very low. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant to Lucas Cruikshank, which is well-written and cited. • Freechild'sup? 05:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Lucas Cruikshank, content is copy/paste redundant Faradayplank (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lucas Cruikshank, this article only features some of the information found in that article, and is also much more poorly written. Delete if not redirected. gm_matthew (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Do not merge, as there is nothing appropriate from this article to merge. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ParentLocker

Non-notable software. Attempted G11 speedy-delete (listed by another user) was refused by the administrator. ~ Ameliorate _{U T C} @ 06:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The news article it puts forth does represent media coverage. The problem is that the reference it gives doesn't appear to be verifiable. It gives the publication, but no other info, and the link only points to another Wikipedia article. I might back off on calling for deletion if this were corrected, but as-is... - Vianello (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete that as blatant advertising. Tagged it again for speedy. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination; another software package with no showing of website or business notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Discussion with the author has led me to believe that this article can never progress to encyclopedic nature. Fails WP:NOTE, no sources, COI problems. Livitup (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per my discussions with the author. As Livitup notes, there's no way this article can ever reach the point of being encyclopedic. S. Dean Jameson 21:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.175.27 (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 09:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The first reference provided doesn't even mention "parentlocker", and the second one pointed to an article which only provided a link to the ParentLocker web site. Also only 18 hits on Google. Definitely not notable enough for Wikipedia. gm_matthew (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyvio from here. TerriersFan (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KMMIPS

Non-notable fo English WP -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as I also stated here, it is my understanding that if an article subject is notable in any language, it is notable in every language. Non-English language sources can be used in articles - I've seen them many times - and vice-versa. I'm not saying anything here about the notability of this particular article's subject, though.--Les boys (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It might be notable, and even notable for English WP, but this particular article just looks like advertising. --Several Times (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article appears to be notable, but there's no content. Deletion may be appropriate. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - article has been updated, no more link spam in article. Withdrawing decision to delete.. A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gasoline price website

~~WP:NOT a list of external links, non encyclopedic A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 05:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gasoline price websites for first AFD. --A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 05:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete leaning towards Speedy via WP:CSD#G11 This is utterly unacceptable content. The topic may be notable but I doubt it at this point. Regardless, this article is simply spam and a personal essay. Let's get rid of this. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC) I've changed my opinion, see below.[reply]
- Keep The article's been significantly rewritten since I voiced my original opinion, and appears quite encyclopedic. It definitely needs expansion, but I feel comfortable that's coming. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising which only promotes several entities. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially a directory page. Rasadam (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep, article has changed significantly since nomination, worth keeping in my opinion. Rasadam (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existence of such sites, in general, is most certainly notable. As the article notes correctly, there are a number of such sites that have been created in recent years as the price of gasoline has risen. While an article about any individual such site would correctly be described as advertising, this is no different than online music store. I suggest a rename to "Gasoline price websites", since some would see the current name, incorrectly, as a specific business. Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Mandsford notes: the introduction to the article, as it stands, could be reworked and referenced to be the core of a decent article. It's definitely a notable topic. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the valid content which is only in opening paragraph into Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing and leave redirect (exterminate link spam!) -Hunting dog (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn spam listing --T-rex 16:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Mandsford. This is hardly spam when it clearly aims to list every single site in the genre. Ros0709 (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I thought it was understood here that articles may not be mere collections of external links. WillOakland (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:CSD#G11. L0b0t (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that speedy deletion via WP:CSD#G11 got declined as the article does not promote a single website. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Mandsford. Editors are encouraged to delete any content that its advertorial in nature. This topic of this page is notable, however its content is poor and encyclopedic. Cleanup job, not delete job.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford. Use of these websites are a big issue in Australia, as the Federal Government is considering forcing fuel providers to supply prices to a Government-run website. Western Australia already has implemented this policy on a state basis. Metao (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone deleted the laundry list as advertising (which is fine!) but removed the West Australian State Government site. Since that site is not interested in revenue, and is in fact a free service provided to consumers, and is central to the Federal Government FuelWatch debate, Ive re-added a section on the Australian site. Definitely with the spam listing gone, the page looks a lot better. Still plenty of room for improvement though! Metao (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In addition to my keep !vote above I also add restore list of sites which was removed before concensus was reached. The ones I looked at were not commercial; a partial list is worse than a full list or no list because that makes the article location-specific. Ros0709 (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being location-specific is a concern. Its why I moved things around to create the "Commercial" section; it was too Australian with just the Government section there. Id love to know of more Government-sponsored sites, but I doubt you'll find any that are free but not Government supported. All websites have to have a revenue model somewhere. Metao (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: I've added additional sources to the article. These websites have been covered by legitimate news sources as venues of public information regarding gas prices. There's no point in splitting each site up into its own article. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ill Repute

This band is not notable, and there are no sources at all. Dave Foster (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nonsense nomination, the band is clearly notable. A quick search finds coverages in the mainstream media as well as albums under major record labels in prominent stores. The article needs help but this is no reason to delete. Rasadam (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, seems to meet WP:MUSIC, although frankly not by much: a lot of independent releases, being reckoned one of the leaders of the "nardcore" scene, and this piece from the SF Weekly just push it over, for me. --Stormie (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — _Maggot^Syn 12:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maino

This upcoming artist fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep The coverage of his appearance at Summerfest with Alicia Keyes doesn't pass the trivial mark. He'll probably rightfully have an article at some point, but he's not there yet. Delete per failure of WP:Music and WP:Crystal Vickser (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gosh, can't believe I missed that. "Hi Hater" is currently #41 on hot R&B/hip hop airplay. [57] That would have him passing #2 and #11 of WP:music. Definitely a keep now for me. Sorry! Vickser (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC#C2. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC criterion #2, a charted hit, verified. (I also found an article in The Morning Call (2008-06-26, p. GO.24) that confirms that "Hi Hater" is a national hit. There's also a mention in a New York Times article I added.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capone (Chicano rapper)

Musician who fails WP:MUSIC, and the article has requested references since August 2007 as well (making it a WP:BLP problem to boot). JBsupreme (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article does need work but looking through searches, he appears to have a very strong underground presence which would qualify his notability under WP:Music Rasadam (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources for your claim of notability. Corvus cornix_talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Capone also has an article at Capone (rapper). So, at the very least they need to be merged, but it's possible they should both just be redirected to Capone-n-Noreaga. WP:Music states that "Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band." I'm not sure if getting arrested for pot possession [58], being present at the Lil Kim shooting incident [59] and sundry other law breaking and rap feuding grants solo notability. Verdict's still out for me until I can do more research (damnable Al Capone and his google ruining way) or hear from others who know more about rap. Vickser (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the discussion at Talk:Capone (rapper) these are two different people. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, some more searching shows me that they are indeed separate people. It seems he's been included in a compilation of Chicano rap [60] but I'm having problems finding reliable sources. While I don't doubt that he exists, until we have some WP:RS he's outside the realm of wikipedia. I think I have to !vote Delete barring presentation of evidence otherwise. Vickser (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not the same person as Capone (rapper). This specific artist does not meet WP:MUSIC at this time. RFerreira (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, due to notability and crystal ball concerns. Davewild (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Howie Day third album

No third party sourcing at all. No firm release date. No title. Tracklist "leaked". Pure crystal. Kww (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:V and precedent set with all of these untitled future projects. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 05:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MUSIC and TPH's Law. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Untitled future album. Lugnuts (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Rasadam (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreleased album with no reliable sources. --Stormie (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - album lacks a title, and a release date --T-rex 16:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that is not a notable topic. Davewild (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North American Brazilian

Basically exact same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danish Brazilian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgian Brazilian and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luxembourgian Brazilian - absolutely no content other than the fact that a fringe, made-up ethnic group exists. Not to mention the article is a misnomer as it would have to include Canadian Brazilian and Mexican Brazilian, 2 articles made by the same author which are also either up for deletion or have already been deleted. JuJube (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Oh no, not more of this! Reyk _YO! 04:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination history of similar categories Rasadam (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this repetitive creation of junk non-notable no-information no-value articles must stop. No, really... it must stop.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unworthy. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this qualifies (or comes darned close to qualifying) as patent nonsense per CSD G1, because it opens the door to absurd inclusionism. You can come up with countless categories (e.g., Djiboutian Asthmatics or Lichtensteinian Thumb-twiddlers) that alert us to the existence of real people, but for no intelligible reason whatsoever. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob McCauley

Contested speedy (db-bio) from a week ago. Fails WP:BIO. A vanity article about a member of a band that's borderline notable at best. Reyk _YO! 03:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity article on a non-notable user Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-1-2008 • 04:29:51 04:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course. Who in their right mind contested this speedy? It totally meets the CSD-A7 criteria. A textbook example if I ever saw one, actually. JBsupreme (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether I am in my right mind is, of course, debatable. However, speedy criteria say that as long as there is a claim of notability (even if it isn't sourced and it might not be true), the article should go to prod or AfD instead. Karanacs (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy tag seems to have been removed based on this sentence "Jacob has also won 1st place in the 1st annual Canadian Celtic Music Compeition in 2008(Fleadh) as well as winning an award in the Detroit Fleadh in 2008." but, I can't find any evidence of such a competition even existing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be notable. Rasadam (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to be notable. Karanacs (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete non notable A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 20:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Let us not cut off our nose to spite our face, shall we. RFerreira (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Heart Of Life

While the album and artist are notable, this particular song is not. It was not released as a single and hasn't had any notable presence in the media that I am aware (and I am a JM fanatic and am the number one contributor to his WP article). Esprit15d • talk • contribs 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is poorly written and un-necessary. Fails WP:NOTABLE Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-1-2008 • 04:30:53 04:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs and WP:COPYVIO for printing the lyrics. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete artist/album notability or not wikipedia is not for hosting lyrics and doing such may contravene various copyright issues. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having no references and no apparent independent notability.--Les boys (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally I'd say "redirect to Continuum (album)" but virtually the entire article is a copyright violation and shouldn't really be left hanging around in the history. --Stormie (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 / snow delete, take your pick. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Abdul Hayi Mansoor

Self promotion. Badly done. Watchsmart (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete nine pages of ghits, and no evidence that he has ever been the subject of coverage by a reliable source. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I have been his client for 8 months . He is very skillful and understandably there in top ten for the key term SEO Specialist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.54.201 (talk)

Delete Fails bio criteria, and notability standards Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-1-2008 • 04:33:30 04:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete He is a Business partner with Microsoft - one of the most reliable link https://solutionfinder.microsoft.com/Partners/PartnerDetailsView.aspx?partnerid=2180c0fd12d84092b6e7482fbe94490b — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.80.153 (talk)
Do Not Delete He is one of the leading seo of Pakistan with massive online presence having so many clients accross the globe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.110.163 (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Saman Rashid is a colleague and client of SEO Consultant Specialist Hayi - He is certainly a SEO industry leader here in Pakistan. Being a Copywriter, I am impressed by his quality articles on major ezine sites.He is just wonderful to work with —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.37.65 (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not DeleteHe is quite famous here in germany as well. Very knowledge able and uprising SEO of Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.32.173.156 (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as SPAM for his service(s) as are the majority of the sources I can find on google (either advertisements or mirrors of advertisement), , google news has absolutely nothing (including the archives) & I even checked foreign language sites not just the english one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasynnash2 (talk • contribs)
Delete Pretty much speedy under G11 as this is nothing but a self-promotional article. The assertions from multiple IP's above will no doubt be disregarded by the closing administrator as they are self evidently skewing the debate to make it look like there is more support than there really is. M♠ssing Ace 09:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if there ever needed to be a SOCK example. Rasadam (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a clear WP:ADVERT case with no reliable sources providing independent coverage of the subject. Fails WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Here are 2 links where only clients / service providers has great comments about him http://www.getafreelancer.com/users/feedback_211194.html ; http://www.odesk.com/users/SEO-Consultant-and-Specialist_~~8485502d589d08a2 Also following link very intersting on microsoft site https://solutionfinder.microsoft.com/Partners/PartnerDetailsView.aspx?partnerid=2180c0fd12d84092b6e7482fbe94490b —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmansoor (talk • contribs) 13:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do-not Delete - I have been his client for 8 months . He is very skillful and understandably there in top ten for the key term SEO Specialist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.54.201 (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11 Clear advert. Created by a user named User:Ahmansoor whose userpage confirms that it is the subject of this article, so it's a WP:COI self-bio as well which means its speedy deletable per G11. All "keep" votes above are all variations of "I Like It". Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Apparently "SEO" stands for "search engine optimization", and guess what! - this fellow wants a Wikipedia article to promote his business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, self-promotion. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are the search results for the key term seo specialist - you can see him along with other industry leader. If google is saying him seo specialist why should we urge against it.

SEO Company - Search Engine Optimisation & Marketing SpecialistUK's No.1 search engine placement, positioning & promotion expert service offering website SEO optimisation to improve website rankings and increase ... www.smart-traffic.co.uk/ - 72k - Cached - Similar pages

SEO Generalists vs. SEO Specialists - ClickZDoes it sound like I prefer SEO generalists to SEO specialists? ... A top-of-the-line SEO specialist has a wide variety of skills. ... www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3597321 - 82k - Cached - Similar pages

STAR: SEO consultant & SEO specialist, a 7-point job description ...STAR offers a 7-point SEO consultant & SEO specialist job description. If you need an SEO expert, call 888-743-9939 now! www.star-optimization-design-hosting.com/seo-consultant-specialist.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

SEO Consultant Specialist - Top SEO, SEM Consultancy – SEO ...Hayi is a top freelance SEO Consultant & SEO Specialist with proven record in Search Engine Optimization, SEO, and Search Engine Marketing, SEM. www.seo-consultant-specialist.com/ - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

Higher search engine rank, organic optimization firm, Atlanta SEO ...Capture Commerce comprises a team of experienced Internet marketing professionals, an Atlanta SEO optimization firm, who do business ethically, ... www.capturecommerce.com/ - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

Big Oak Search Engine Optimization Services Company : Richmond SEO ...Big Oak offers search engine optimization (SEO), Internet marketing, seo copywriting, website design ... Search Engine Optimization Specialists & Marketers ... www.bigoakinc.com/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

Agence de Référencement Montréal SEO SpecialistLes billets futurs de mon agence de référencement se retrouveront dorénavant chez SEO ROI services. This SEO specialist is moving his blogging activities to ... cityseo.blogspot.com/ - 86k - Cached - Similar pages

Professional SEO Specialists | SEO PhilippinesWe specialize on Link Building SEO. Our SEO services include Copywriting, Web Site Promotion, Website Development and Internet Marketing Consultation. www.seoglobalpro.com/ - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

Razvan Marian Jr - SEO consultant & professional specialist ...Not the regular SEO blog... this is me... this is my life... this is my work... www.razvanmarianjr.com/ - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

SEO Company UK - SEO Manchester, York, Leeds, WarringtonKeyword: SEO Specialists Manchester – Position: 1 Keyword: SEO Specialists Leeds – Position: 1 Keyword: Search Engine Optimisation York – Position: 2 ... www.senopsis.com/ - 28k - Cached - Similar pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmansoor (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as self promotion, plus the fact that Google results can't really be trusted if one is looking for anything involving search engine optimization. Since, er, it'll probably be biased. --Several Times (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No More Dead Dogs

I can't find any reliable sources for No More Dead Dogs. Fails WP:FICTION Schuym1 (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book is notable, and is well known Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-1-2008 • 04:34:40 04:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This leads me to assume that you have access to WP:reliable, published sources indepenant of the author and publishing company which can be used to WP:prove or verify the article contents and demonstrate that it passes the WP:notability inclusion guideline for books. Care to share? -- saberwyn 09:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as copyvio of [61] and redirect to Gordon Korman. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as above. Eusebeus (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete per Jasynnash. As noted, this is copied off of the website for the library in Portland, Oregon. I don't think I'm alone in having zero tolerance for plagiarism. Mandsford (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I deleted the copyvio material. Not much left. Deor (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate later if sources are found. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate later if sources are found per Anna Lincoln. No need to keep a "dangerous" page history like this around. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per A7, no assertion of notability. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concert4Kingston

Non-notable organization, with no coverage in reliable sources and very few ghits. Possible conflict of interest, as the article was created by User:Rupertcheek, the founder of the project. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locws International

Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant self promotion by nn org Mayalld (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly - an arts related charity ought to have some kind of showing in the press, and Google News knoweth it not. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion. Google News archive actually brings forth what appear to be a fairly large number of relevant citations, some of which sit behind paywalls, unfortunately. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think most of those are for a different organisation with same initials, the UK Arts Org seems only to have local news hits and passing references in artists CV's -Hunting dog (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 25 June 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}^{the Busy Bee} 02:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only claimed as local in scope and apparently not notable. -Hunting dog (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not proven. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as vandalism. It is also not verifiable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tonqué

Probable hoax. I can find no online references, and some of the links from within this article are clearly incorrect, eg Maxime Weygand would have been ten years old at the time claimed, and Paul Reynaud was not yet born. I can find no online reference to Jordane Elias either. Britannica doesn't appear to know anything about this tribe despite being cited as a ref. Tatau Island does exist. gadfium 02:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- A hoax. Well spotted, gadfium. I can't find any evidence that Paul Gemmanti or William Governor, two of the "sources" for this article, exist either. Reyk _YO! 03:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This says it all really, as pointed out by Reyk above - it doesn't meet verifiability standards, and the sources given appear to be bogus. If we can be a hundred percent sure it's a hoax, we should delete it under the WP:CSD#G3, which includes "blatant and obvious misinformation".--Les boys (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, surely a hoax. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like a hoax, albeit a (fairly) subtle one. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I know it's real, I met them. --user: j3nnilee —Preceding comment was added at 23:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The author has 3 edits, of which only one (the creation of the subject of this AfD) is in the project space. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines at this time. Davewild (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Red

The subject of the article seems to fail the notability criteria under WP:MUSIC. The band has released 1 album under an independent label (WP:MUSIC requires at least 2 albums on a major label or a notable independent label), there has been no non-trivial media coverage from independent and reliable sources and the band has not charted a hit on any national music chart although there is mention of having a hit single on a local radio station. All in all, it seems to be a band that may be known locally but, again, it fails the basic tenets of WP:N and WP:MUSIC. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:31, 25 June 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}^{the Busy Bee} 02:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Recreate without prejudice if notability is established. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Stormie (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that the article is notable and has been rewritten to remove the copyvio. Davewild (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Fry

Fails WP:BIO. Google does turn up a few references (as well as a lot about a different Pat Fry) but these are all either trivial, or not independent of the subject. Reyk _YO! 02:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing turns up on google. Buc (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an average engineer. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The Guardian "Chinese grand prix: The McLaren family" lists just six "senior personnel" of the McLaren team, one of which is Fry. So we can have trivial, fancruft articles on characters in soap operas but we can't have an article on a senior member of an organisation with an annual budget of $400+million? Ridiculous! Mark83 (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - senior member of McLaren, Chief Engineer of the race-winning F1 cars McLaren MP4-20 and McLaren MP4-22. In response to comments above, Googling '"Pat Fry" McLaren' produces 1,380 results, and the first result for just 'Pat Fry' is a biography of him produced by an independent media source. [62]--Diniz (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Mark and Diniz's comments. Also, one has to note that the two race cars Diniz mentioned won Grand Prix in their respective years. Btw, Anna Lincoln please may you elaborate on the "average engineer" point, thanks. ;-) --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 13:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. D.M.N. (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - [63] is a second independent biography from a reliable source (along with the grandprix.com biography already mentioned above) about Fry. I believe that means it can be assumed to be notable per WP:N. Of far more concern is the fact it's a blatent copyvio of his profile on McLaren's website. I'll blank it, and rewrite something with sources now. AlexJ (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is a main spokesman at McLaren and his article is needed. Chubbennaitor 17:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Because of the copyvio, I have rewritten the article from scratch and it's state is now quite different to how the article was when the above comments were made. AlexJ (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar Girl (Batman: The Animated Series)

Calendar Girl is a minor Batman villain. Fails WP:FICTION Schuym1 (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable character who appeared all of one time. Article makes no assertion of real-world significance or even context. Eusebeus (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's a minor one-shot character so there shouldn't be an article about her at all. Schuym1 (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, What Wikipedia Is is just a bunch of stupid essays that I think shouldn't be used in AfDs. Schuym1 (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor should the failed fiction guideline. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't I use the fiction guideline? Schuym1 (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a compelling reason for deletion, because it is not an actual policy or guideline. If you click on it you will see that it is merely proposed and if you look at its talk page you will see that it is moving toward being marked as historical. To delete articles we need actual and compelling policy based reasons to do so. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read through it several times, and I did not notice that at the top. Schuym1 (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, you are not the first to overlook something; we all do sooner or later, but it is key to note that it says, "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'." You are of course welcome to add your own thoughts to the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction). It, like an essay, is perfectly reasonable to cite as part of your argument, i.e. to show where you are coming from in the discussion. And essays and proposed guidelines do reflect sometimes interpretations of policies, but in order to outright delete something we need a compelling policy based reason to do so. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The people who created and worked on the article as well as the thousands who view it each month disagree. At worst in a situation like this we would merge and redirect with a list of characters or the relevant episode, but we only outright delete when there is a copy vio issue, it is a hoax, it is libelous, it is not from a notable series as this one is, or there is absolutely nowhere we can redirect too--all of which are not the case here. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if she was in a notable series. She is a one-shot character. Characters have to be notable themselves, not because they were in a popular series. Schuym1 (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It matters when she was in a notable enough series that she is covered in reliable sources (reviews of the relevant episode and other sources on DC characters cover her) so that she is part of a significant work of fiction that is notable to millions of people and for which we can at worst cover in a character list or as part of the relevant episode's article. In such cases, we just redirect, but that is not an AfD discussion, rather a talk page discussion. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles should userfy this article, where he will be free to add reliable secondary sources at his leisure and hopefully get an improved version of this article reinstated. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If worse comes to worse it could be, but since there is no valid reason to delete, it should just be kept in mainspace. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable character, Article makes no assertion of real-world significance or even context. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article concerns a character that is notable enough for at least a merge and redirect and is significant to people in the real world. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:N. There is no evidence that this character is notable outside of Batman: The Animated Series. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is heavily disputed and as it is notable to that franchise, it is at least worthy of a merge and redirect. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the best real world content that can be asserted is a page hit counter? Delete as the article lacxks any amount of real world notability, includes OR/SYNTH Violating sections (about the deliberate push to female villains), and reads like so much fancruft. ThuranX (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cruft" is never a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somewhat to my surprise, this article actually is more about the significance of the character outside the episode. DGG (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: since she appears in only one episode, it might be worth considering making this an episode article; however, it would still need some kind of source backing it up. Is there one available? Everyking (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as patent nonsense. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Fraggle Rock

This is a work of fiction. Although it's enjoyable to read, I don't think it belongs on the wikipedia. Mblumber (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At least that's what Marjory The Trash Heap told me to say. Cute story, though. Livitup (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. JJL (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Good story, but this does not belong in an encyclopedia.Schuym1 (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolute trash. JuJube (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Rasadam (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creative and would be a featured article on Awesomeimaginationopedia. Here though, it's silly, untrue, and just doesn't plain make real-world sense (or has RL context at all). Nate • (chatter) 10:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. Wikipedia is not host for creative writing. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not your personal webspace Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that this should have been a speedy delete instead of being put up for discussion. Schuym1 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by Lectonar per CSD G12 as blatant copyright infringement. WilliamH (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maryanne C. Petrilla

Not sure subject satisfies WP:BIO (only a county commissioner). The article is also unreferenced. Article has a prod request (not by me) on same reasoning in its past history (prod was removed by article's original author, no further action taken to improve article concerns). umrguy 42 01:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G12. Notability not established anyway. Copyvio with minor sentence reordering from her county web page, copyrighted. So tagged. • Gene93k (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE as a copyright violation. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether or not to place a redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 08:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terror Titans

Article about a non-notable fictional 'team'. It consists entirely of a plot summary, unfounded speculation about the nature of the characters (At least two may well be the same characters, and not successors), and the only non-comic citation uses a solicitation about a possible upcoming event, thus a speculative cite. The characters are non-notable, and represent a single story arc which lacks real world critiques and citations about its importance. ThuranX (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Teen_Titans#"Terror_Titans", which already gives more detail than this article. – sgeureka ^t•c 05:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted, redirect to Teen Titans#"Terror Titans" as plausible search term, so that people looking up the phrase are taken to where the information is. No stance on actual deletion. -- saberwyn 09:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment the above linked section no longer exists. The Teen Titans article suffered from a brutal overload of plot prose, and seeing that, through this debate, i shaved a bunch down. I'm working on what little needs merging now. ThuranX (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would there be an appropriate section of the publication history to redirect to instead? -- saberwyn 21:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just the fictional history. it's a short story arc, and completely non-notable relative to the real world. I've shaved it to about two paragraphs in the context of the overall series history, and that's plenty. ThuranX (talk) 04:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the nominator--that's what he's really asking for. DGG (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm... the fresh taste of words in my mouth. No, I'm looking for a deletion. That's why I came to WP:AFD. ThuranX (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per What Wikipedia is and Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world). The key when looking for out of universe sources on Google is not simply type in "Terror Titans," but to also include a word like interview, which helps to find the out of universe context that can be used to add sectins on character creation. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Le Grand has added the same boilerplate to every fiction deletion going. No one has added such context, nor is it still particularly notable. ThuranX (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - All the more reason for you to try Wikipedia:SOFIXIT by using the information found on such searches. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You spam, so I should fix it? Why don't you fix it? ThuranX (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You should fix it per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. And I have begun revising the article in question. There's no reason to outright delete something that at worst could be redirected anyway. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You want it saved so bad, you go fix it. Not my job to fix every shittastic article that comes up on AfD, especially fancruft. And I couldn't give a turd about a non-policy inclusionist essay if I squeezed hard. How about WP:NOTYOURFUCKINGSLAVE? ThuranX (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Because it's a cooperative project on which we should help each other out. Plus, please Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone want to Delete without a redirect--that would mean that someone coming here wouldnt even find out what fiction it belonged to. DGG (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- i think a better question is why would you tell me what I want? I'm not fighting against a redirect, it makes sense, but that's not how I nom'd it, and I don't appreciate you telling me what I really want. ThuranX (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's excellent analysis. His points are comprehensive and detail almost exactly what I would say, so there is no need for me to essentially copypaste his nomination here. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:PERNOM. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:PERNOM? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - he's saying your vote doesn't count because you said you agree with me. That you took the time to make clear that you thoroughly read my reasoning and agree, to him, only makes it worse. ThuranX (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh I know, but thanks. I've encountered Le Grand before in numerous AFDs, and I wanted him to explain PERNOM and how it applies to my !vote in his own words since he has a tendency to just throw guidelines/essays around when they don't apply. Unfortunately though, he will likely reply with another misleading, vague, offtopic, and/or terse statement complete with more links designed to frustrate editors and bait them into arguments. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic is not covered in reliable sources, so it is unnecessary to cover it within its own article. TTN (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the topic is covered in reliable sources is why it is necessary to cover this legitimate search term in its own article or merge and redirect without deleting. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Material can equally well be applied to the relevant section in the Teen Titans article, without ridiculous undue weight issues. There's hardly enough material there to validate this fancrap (since calling things fancruft is bad). ThuranX (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the section be included in a relevant section of the Teen Titans article we would redirect without deletion as keeping contribution history public is useful for RfAs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is the comic book version of WP:BLP1E --T-rex 04:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fortunately there is no equivalent policy for comic books. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is all she wrote for sourcing: google news. Google. I'm not including google books because the search returns only things unrelated to this topic. If someone can find a reliable, independent source in that bin of usenet, blogs and db's, they are welcome to. But as it stands it is pretty thin gruel. And by pretty thin gruel let me be perfectly clear. there isn't a reliable source in the lot that I've seen so far. As usual, I would be happy to be wrong and have there be some reliable source in there that I've missed. If someone finds one and either adds it to the article or posts it in this discussion I'll help save the article. Protonk (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canyon of the Vaginas

Don't look for this with your GPS. Clearly one of the more interesting hoaxes. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete but not until I call my travel agent. ThuranX (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable fictional place. This isn't a hoax so much as a poorly written article about a fictional place, but it's not notable enough by any means. --TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... not a hoax, but a fictional location that is apparently mentioned in the sources given in the article. It doesn't appear notable as a fictional place, though. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence of extensive coverage in reliable sources by authors other than Tim Robbins, fails WP:N. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete yes this article is (was) written poorly but that English is not my first language. And the article was labeled as poorly written by me to get the stylistic firs aid as soon as possible instead this label was removed and get AfD. This is not hoax in article is written that it is about fictional place. Article and Book was written by novelist Tom Robbins not movie star Tim Robbins, this typo happened during corrections by user Michael Hardy. Book Wild Ducks Flying Backward was published at last in these countries USA, UK, Germany and Czech Republic and probably some more. I'm not sure if this is non-notable. Because every reader of this when wonders if this place exist or not could use Wikipedia. This place isn't know that well as El Dorado but I will still say that is not non-notable. --Aida (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax or non-notable. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm glad you enjoyed the book, but a fictional place mentioned in a story is generally not notable. Emerald City it ain't. Mandsford (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete actually there are a few RS about this, but none I can find where it is the major focus. Given the date of publication, I suspect that any good sources that do exist aren't on-line. If someone can find one good one, I'd go keep as there are enough weak sources to back it up. Hobit (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fictional place; fails WP:V and notability for fiction. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as well as there seems from the discussion some evidence of not being a hoax (maybe something is merge and redirectable), but I am persuaded when I also see a fellow inclusionist such as Hobit arguing to delete and as I cannot argue legitimate search term or substantial effort to justify inclusion. Plus, title is a bit odd. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that this is a neologism. Davewild (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romber

Reason Neologism and not encyclopedic material. Poor Poor Pitiful Me (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a definition of a word not encyclopedic. I not even sure the word should exist.PB666 ^yap 01:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but we do have Brangelina as a redirect, and should burn that too. ThuranX (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can TomKat go too? None of these are remotely encyclopedic. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per unanimity of responses. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 23:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Sincerity

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:OR and makes claims that are not backed by independent sources. Keep it all, there is not much academic or verifiable research yet due to this movement's infancy. let this be what Wikipedia, at its core, is all about, re-taking credibility from the oppressive institutions that dictate transmission and validity. There IS a transition occuring in our collective esteem that is and will continue its movement from that of postmodernity, and it is about sincerity, simplicity, compromise, and collaboration. Ecoleetage (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. But cut substantially, even almost to the point of a disambiguation page. After a little research, I am fairly confident that the music and Jesse Thorn parts of this page are sufficiently notable and real. The rest, maybe not. “New sincerity” (loosely, in the sense of post-irony) was widely used to describe a group of critically-acclaimed, commercially-unsuccessful bands in Austin in the 1980s, and I’ve been working on articles about some of those bands, which led me to this article. As for the “philosophy” parts of this article: The Jesse Thorn/Sound of Young America part is verifiable and citeable; I had not heard of this (or him) before I found the page and it’s not clear to me whether his “new sincerity” is a put-on or “sincere” (or maybe it’s both), but it certainly exists and is widely commented on. (But on this page, it could and probably should be a very brief explanation with a link to Jesse Thorn#New Sincerity.) The rest of the material in this article seems very difficult to document and should probably be cut as WP:OR except if and where directly verifiable. By the way, if it is not already obvious, this is my first participation in a Wikipedia debate; I apologize for any inappropriate prolixity.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - book and scholar searching seems to show it's a valid topic though the current article is poor and filled with original research - Peripitus (Talk) 22:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current article needs a great deal of work to cut down OR, but AfD is not a forum for cleanup. Sources have established the notability of the topic and, as other editors have pointed out, other works exist that could be used to expand the article. Gimme danger (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anandwan

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't see why you've included this in Hinduism-related deletion discussions. This is not an ashram in a religious sense at all. The word "ashram" has several shades, and when referring to Anandwan, it is used in the sense of a community, not as a religious retreat. In fact, your interpretation is ironic because Baba Amte, the founder, was an atheist (ref: [64]). - Electronz (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of ashrams and unless reliable sources are found to prove its notability, there is no reason why it should have its own article. Gizza^Discuss ^© 05:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this (1, one, uno, ichi, mu) newspaper article on the founder Documenting a legend That mentions the institution.PB666 ^yap 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a "notable example" of a public international community according to Encyclopedia of Community: From the Village to the Virtual World by Karen Christensen, David Levinson, and subject of a chapter plus much more of Baba Amte: A Vision of New India by Hans Staffner S. J..John Z (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above sources are only passing references. As such, I still feel the article deserves a delete vote. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an unusual definition of "passing reference" that calls an entire chapter in a book a "passing reference." (Actually more than one chapter, based on mentions in the text, it looks like around a quarter of the book is about it.) Such a definition, used for article deletion, would result in the deletion of most of the articles in Wikipedia. So it is unlikely it could form the basis of a consensus to delete any article at all. The encyclopedia reference is of course much shorter - it's a specialized encyclopedia, our goal is to incorporate elements of such. It explicitly calls this community "notable". Those are only two references found on a cursory search. According to [65] and [66], one third of another book, D.K. Oza's Voluntary Action and Gandhian Approach is devoted to Anandwan. This is a clear - "speedy" keeper, as a notable and well known as notable, community.John Z (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its establishment by Baba Amte, and points mentioned above indicate notability. There is also good scope for further development of content as it has a history of several decades. --Bhadani (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The "strong keep" is not just because I'm the creator of the article. I admit that the article may have come across as somewhat non-neutral in tone when I first wrote it (I saw that Ism schism had earlier nominated it for a speedy under G11, "spam or blatant promotion"), but the subject is most definitely notable. I included sources that I thought were reliable, for example the government website for the district of Chandrapur and the Albert Schweitzer Hospital Fund, UK. Of course, John Z has brought in much better references than mine (thank you John, for your argument and excellent sources). In addition, I have edited the article for neutrality, and concerned folks may take a look at the same. - Electronz (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Dharmsamrat Paramhans Swami Madhavananda

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability existance and notability of his books is established, or personal notability.Yobmod (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-1-2008 • 01:23:37
Delete WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If in future The Young Werewolves gain more fame and more references become available, the article can always be recreated. Neıl 龱 10:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Werewolves

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music): no claim to major-label albums; requests for verification or references on even non-notability-qualifying items have only resulted in reference links that don't verify the facts they're used for. Biggest claim to fame seems to be a one-liner in The Village Voice that mysteriously doesn't even appear on the Village Voice website. Closeapple (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is the only album by this band:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Closeapple (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Items that will qualify for speedy deletion if the articles above are deleted: Young Werewolves (WP:CSD#R1); Category:The Young Werewolves albums (WP:CSD#C1); Image:Cdcoverlarge.jpg (WP:CSD#I5); possibly Image:Youngwerewolveslogo.jpg (WP:CSD#I3) if license isn't clarified by then --07:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per my nomination above: see Talk:The Young Werewolves#Bad citations everywhere! AfD imminent! for details of my wild goose chase trying to track these references down. --Closeapple (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, both articles fail to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both for not meeting the music notability guidelines, as per Closeapple's well-documented efforts on the article talk page to verify and track down resources. Not opposed to recreation if it can later be proven that the band and album pass WP:MUSIC.Maybe I should actually sign this? -- saberwyn 21:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Passing of WP:MUSIC by this article is too close for me to call... abstaining. -- saberwyn 21:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC, even putting aside the problems with verifiability of sources. --Stormie (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meets Wikipedia:Notability (music) : 1. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.12.51.124 (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]
I don't think this band has met musician criterion 10 (the one quoted above) in either case:
1. The band has not "performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme ..., performance" as far as TV unless (1) that single episode (#10) of The Real World: Philadelphia meets notability in itself (which it doesn't) and (2) the band's song was actually what normal people would view as an active performance or theme song, not just background music that MTV paid a fee for because the slightest use is a technically "broadcast performance" for licensing purposes. A passing use of a song in a non-notable episode of one season of one series does not make the performers notable.
2. The band has not "performed music for a work that is notable, e.g. ... inclusion on a compilation album" unless that work (compilation) is itself notable: Pledge Your Allegiance... To Satan! is the only album that has an entry on Wikipedia, and appears to fail WP:Notability itself; its record company doesn't even pass WP:Notability. Again, if an album itself doesn't meet WP:Notability (music), a song can't meet notability just from being on the album, and the band that performed it can't meet notability for performing the song.
As User:Wenli said below: even if it were to barely squeak by on either of those two, "it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article" as Wikipedia:Notability (music) says.--Closeapple (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Sorry, random IP above, but having a song featured in an episode of The Real World is nothing to hinge notability on. Also it states their music was licensed for used. It says nothing about it being used and no reliable sources are given either. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to meet verifiability and notability guidelines as per above. --Several Times (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep New revision/edits posted in order to establish WP:MUSIC It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1]--random IP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.12.136.37 (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources given. I don't think that being broadcast on a single episode of The Real World meets criteria #10, but even if it does, WP:MUSIC states that "But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article." — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 20:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: 70.12.51.124 has removed the AfD template from top of these articles; and 144.226.230.36 removed it a second time from The Young Werewolves (album) after it had been restored once. (Yes, even the part that said not to remove the template.) --Closeapple (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just restored the AfD templates and put warnings on the anonymous user talk pages. --Closeapple (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
closeapple, et al i removed AfD template because new/improved references were added. No disrespect, (in fact I have a great respect for the 'scrubbing' done in wiki) but after researching other musical acts' articles and updating young werewolves article, wanted to provide neutral setting. Please see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Also, upon researching other articles marked for AfD and noting how other editors rely on google, i couldn't understand how young werewolves could be lumped with others that have little presence online and otherwise. A semi-comprehensive or cursory google search on 'young werewolves' denotes and yields significant notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.4.14.194 (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note okay i just read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion...but it is frustrating when someone does their honest/best at being neutral in trying to provide content...but if the content is inappropriate, then so be it. It is additionally frustrating when Allmusic, Fangoria, FEARnet, Legends Magazine, Ol' Skool Rodz all notable publications (worthy of wiki articles) have all deemed ‘young werewolves’ worthy of consideration/review/notability. Also, licensing placements were provided via youtube but were taken down after youtube scrubbed all copyright infringed material. How can a musical act ‘verify’ licensing placements when the medium is television/cable? If scans of checks cut for the use of licensed materials are permissible, they can be provided but would that be appropriate for wikipdedia?173.4.14.194 (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)random IP[reply]

Comment I did find an empty Allmusic artist page, withone review. I'd like to see more reliable sources (with links) before I change my vote. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for checking Doc Strange. I recreated wiki article with several more links to reliable sources. See newest version. I tried to limit sources to publications that had wiki pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.14.7.231 (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple sources have been added to the article proving notability. I've verified several of the given sources; even if the ones I didn't get to fail as reliable sources, notability has been established. Blogs, fanzines and the like are considered reliable sources when the information being backed up is the opinions or statements of the blog or fanzine itself, by the way. Gimme danger (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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