Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 9

< November 8	November 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Moth (band). Other articles left to editing discretion Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big League Fantasy Camp

I don't think the article meets critera for notability, it's completely unsourced (and I can't find any sources in a search). The only "reference" is a link to where the album can be bought. Proposed deletion tag was removed without any comment or improvement to the article, so I'm bringing it here. Raven1977 (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. There is one source in the article [1]. It isn't much, but it does seem to verify the fact that this is an album by a notable enough band. The fact that it was released in 1996 on a not very notable label might account for the lack of online sources. xschm (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a link to buy the CD, and basically proves that it exists, but nothing else; I'm not sure that qualifies as a reliable source. Besides, the notability criteria says, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." This Wikipedia article has basically just that, plus when/where the cd was recorded. The CD is already mentioned in the Wikipedia article about the band, so I don't see the need for a separate article about the CD. Raven1977 (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to merge and redirect. But that's not the same as deleting, which I don't think is the right thing to do here. xschm (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, officially released album by a notable band. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to Moth (band) and Like a Butterfly 'cept Different should be merged as well, the references are not sufficient and there is just not enough info available for it to warrant its own page. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 17:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I missed Provisions, Fiction and Gear and Immune to Gravity. Drop Deaf seems to have an independent source. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 17:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't tag the other albums because at least they had reviews (in the infoboxes) which seemed to be referenced. But I agree there's not much info other than that. Raven1977 (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by me. This is obviously a hoax/test. The subject is not demonstrated to be notable. Even if the subject is notable, the article's author appears to be the subject of the article and that part of the text that is not hoax is irretrievably tainted. So I'm deleting the whole lot. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Spezzano

This article is troubling for a number of reasons. The creating editor is "spezzano" suggesting a conflict of interest; the article is entirely unreferenced whilst making some fairly bold claims, and now the creator has added obvious nonsense to it suggesting that perhaps it is all complete nonsense: "John also won the nobel peace prize for eating more ice cream than Billy Balistic, this saved over 500 BILLION cows in Amish country. Once he did an animated movie about a dog named Scott Jarome and voiced the lead, what a coincidence that Scott Jarome is also his older brother's name". Something ought to be done to the article; I considered cutting it back to bare facts but was left with nothing. Delete, unless someone wants to rescue it. Ros0709 (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDILY DELETE per WP:N. No references and 218 Google hits (1,420 with the variation "John Spezzano"); clearly not notable. ~ Eidako (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 towards merge. Seems to me like it's between the merge and the deletes. Many of the sources I noticed was passing mentions. It's enough to warrenty a merge somewhere but just not enough for a own individual article. I'll let the merge be discussed on the talk page. Right now there isn't any consensus here. Secret ^account 14:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens for a Canadian Republic

The article is barely referenced and it has been around for awhile and yet there are no references from "reliable third-party sources). Until I came across this page, I never even heard of it. I have since been doing some research and still there is not much information (there is barely no mention of this org in my home province of Quebec or in francophone publications). There appears only be some protests associated with this organization. In my opinion WP:N is not being fulfilled here. My suggestion is to delete and move all pertinent verifiable info (not much) to Republicanism in Canada, which itself is written like an essay and is also barely referenced. To note, a member of this organizations executive committee [2] User:J.J. created an article for himself J.J. McCullough and has edited the vanity page for his website, Filibuster Cartoons. He is in my opinion definitely not notable. He also originally created this article [3] which is a definitely conflict of interest. In my opinion the user in question should be sanctioned for creating all these useless articles and wasting peoples time and energy. Laval (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm forced to agree with the nomination. The Wikipedian in me trumps the republican in me. PS- If anybody's interested? they may console me at my talk-page. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Republicanism in Canada. G2bambino's idea is better. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it any less notable than Monarchist League of Canada? Carolynparrishfan (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've leaned towards keeping. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- This is like comparing apples to oranges. The history is easy to research as I have done right now. Monarchist League is an old organization, founded 1970, the guy who started it was a disciple of John Diefenbaker, a Prime Minister of Canada. They have connections to the Canadian monarchy and Rideau Hall (Governor General) and pro-monarchy politicians. They regularly invite members of the royal family to events and they are tied to the Lieutenant Governors of the provinces and so on. They have been involved in public policy debates and have had communications with Prime Ministers (most recently Stephen Harper) and successfully challenged the federal governments attempt to change the Oath of Citizenship. So there is a long and turbulent history here with the Monarchist League. "Citizens for a Canadian Republic" was started in 2002 by a person of no notability and has achieved nothing notable. And again, there are no reliable 3rd-party sources. Notability cannot be established. And its article was started by a member of its own executive committee (User:J.J.) who also created a self-serving article for himself. See conflict of interest. Laval (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 16:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete There are a few mentions such as here but they seem mainly trivial or in passing to me. All the google news hits simply use them as a passing example of Canadian Republicanism or use them for a one sentence quote on some issue related to Canadian Republicanism. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per G2bambino. I'm finding a few sources. The most compelling are:

Jonathan Ritchie and Don Markwell. "Australian and Commonwealth Republicanism." The Round Table. Volume 95, Number 5 (October 2006): 727-737. ISSN 0035-8533
Laura Anderson. "Gendered and Racialized Portrayals of the Governor General: Newspaper Coverage of Canada’s Head of State." Prepared for Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science. Association, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. May 30- June 1, 2007.
Allison Henry. "An Australian Head of State: Where Are We At?" The Sydney Papers. Volume 17 Issue 2 (Autumn 2005). 20-32. ISSN 1035-7068
Hyung Gu Lynn. Bipolar Orders: The Two Koreas Since 1989. London: Zed Books, 2007. ISBN 1842777432
Glenn Patmore "Choosing the Republic: The Legal and Constitutional Steps in Australia and Canada." Queen's Law Journal. Vol. 31, 2006.

These are all academic sources that reference Citizens for a Canadian Republic. There are also apparent mentions in the Ottawa Citizen and sceneandheard.ca. As such, I think there are enough third-party sources to keep the article. A great deal of work is needed to improve the article, but with the international focus of these sources, I think this is a start. WHen I have a bit of time tomorrow, I'll work thses into the article. freshacconci talktalk 04:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some mention at CBC Radio, Kitchener-Waterloo Record, Canadian Press, Toronto Star, Citizens Centre Report, CanWest News and CTV News. Now, these are all brief mentions, but nevertheless, these are 3rd party sources that establish some legitimacy for the group. freshacconci talktalk 04:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brief mentions in a few journals and newspapers doesn't fulfill notability requirements. Those references don't add anything because they all say the same thing - talk of a few protests, Canada should dump the Queen and become a republic, etc. That's not notable. None of those sources offers unique insight or notability. Lots of frivolous and insignificant organizations and people are mentioned in books, journals, television shows, etc. but their articles always get deleted because they simply don't belong in a resource like Wikipedia. Those sources you mention, all that they do is establish the group exists. That's it. They don't establish notability. This article has been tagged since February of this year and it has not improved. No new sources have been added. The above editor (Freshacconci) has also edit warred on the article, removing legitimate information that is critical of the group, thus making it difficult to even improve the article. The article has gone through 2 previous AfD's with no consensus reached. Obviously the article is useless and needs to be junked because we will constantly end up here again and again. Laval (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you've gone through every article I've mentioned? Read each one and know exactly what's written in them and what they say about CCR? Interesting: you say there are no 3rd party sources, and when several are brought to the table, you deem them not good enough. Regardless of your feelings on the matter, these are legitimate third-party sources, which clearly establish notability by Wikipedia standards (if not Laval's). How about letting other editors decide for themselves? And as for my edit warring, let's remember you were the other party in that little battle. And then you ignored my request for concensus and reverted my edits, restoring controversial information that violates WP:UNDUE and most importantly WP:BLP. freshacconci talktalk 04:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are other editors supposed to read those sources when they are not available online? If they are, provide links. Back up your claims and assertions. As I stated, whatever articles I have read online clearly say the same things as CCR says, which does not establish notability. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of guidelines, based on your trolling habits and facetious arguments. Laval (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now you've decended into personal attacks. I am expecting an apology for the above remarks. And as for the sources, as I've remarked, when I have a bit of time (AFDs take 5 days), I will add these sources and provide links when available. I am now officially fed up with you and will be making a formal complaint about your uncivility and personal attacks. freshacconci talktalk 05:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been fed up with you the moment you began your ill conceived attacks on me. I was the one who first reported you. Don't ever forget that. I have already informed the adminstator that you had better not troll, stalk, harass, or otherwise threaten me. Laval (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems ok to me...Modernist (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BTW User:Freshacconci's sources above help..Modernist (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - funny enough, for the exact same reasons as GoodDay, though coming from the opposite side. [roux » x] 10:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands, lack of reliable independent sources, and those listed above (not in the article, by the way) do not seem to be primarily about the group. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just started adding some of the refs I mentioned above. I would like to expand the article a bit as well, and will do so (working in some more of those refs), a little bit later today. I have actual work to do now (earning a living, paying bills, buying food...). freshacconci talktalk 13:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the notability has now been established with valid references.--Ducio1234 (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources basically say the same thing. None of them give us any particularly 3rd-party analysis of what the organization is about - no academic study of the groups politics has been made and they have never even been discussed by any major (or minor) political party. From the viewpoint of WP:N, the article still fails the test. It is also noteworthy that none of the 3 lawsuits brought individually by 3 members of the group involved the group itself - CCR never initiated any lawsuits or legal proceedings but the article makes it seem as if CCR was directly involved, which it was not. Charles Roach is the only remotely notable person with the group, while Pierre Vincent and Tony O'Donohue have some minor notability. Tom Freda, who started the group, has no notability. Laval (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Actually, these sources do not say basically the same thing and they give evidence for the general guidelines for notability. freshacconci talktalk 21:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most of the sources you list talk about republicanism in general, not the CCR or its views on republicanism. There has been a lot written about republicanism in Canada even though it has no popular support, especially in French. I can show you tons of French materials about republicanism. Most Quebec parties support some form of republicanism. None of them has any mention of CCR. Laval (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Actually, that's not true. Every single reference I included mentions Citizens for a Canadian Republic by name and not in a trivial manner, unless it was the section on republicanism in Canada which contains sources for both CCR and republicanism in general. freshacconci talktalk 21:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you seriously telling me that those books listed in the article and the journals listed (which are obviously not available online) actually discuss and analyse the CCR??? The links you provided in the article are all newspaper articles which only report CCR's involvement in protests, and the involvement of 3 members in lawsuits, none of those lawsuits directly involving CCR. I can guarantee you that no serious journal or author is even going to give CCR the time of day to mention in their book, even in passing. Laval (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Yes, Jonathan Ritchie and Don Markwell; Laura Anderson; Allison Henry; Hyung Gu Lynn and Glenn Patmore all mention CCR by name. And print sources are completely valid (I can't believe I need to say that!). I found all these sources through Google Scholar and the actual articles through JSTOR and other academic databases. This is what I do for a living. I research academic sources. There is no requirement for sources to be available online. I've provided links when possible. Everything else can be backed up. I am perfectly willing to send a neutral editor all the sources I have as a PDF (did you notice I included page numbers where CCR was mentioned?). CCR is the only republican org. in Canada and academics focusing on republicanism, colonialism and other similar subjects do know about them.freshacconci talktalk 21:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No there is no requirement for only online sources, but the burden of proof regarding print sources is upon you to show some evidence that they do significantly prove notability for the CCR. Brief mentions in a few journals do not account for anything. I could claim right now that I have a bunch of print sources that prove CCR is a fringe group of lunatics - I could even use real articles as the basis for this claim since they are not available online. The only way for anyone to see if I am telling the truth is to go out to a library and look them up, and then they would see that I was lying. So there has to be some accountability and trust. If you make claims that print sources say somethat that proves notability, then the burden is upon you to show us some evidence. Otherwise it is just a claim without any backing. Laval (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        In other words, you claim that these journals provide some evidence of CCR's notability. But we do not have access to them. The fact that Google searches do not bring up any articles that prove such notability makes it unlikely that any journals significantly analyse CCR to the point of proving notability. Laval (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I'll ignore that last comment. However, you'll need to point to the guideline which says that the burdon of proof is on me. Please read what Wikipedia:Citing sources says about this, which states in part: "If your source is not findable online, it should be findable in reputable libraries, archives, or collections. If a citation without an external link is challenged as unfindable, any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably findable (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN or OCLC number; linking to an established Wikipedia article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher); or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context". These sources are acceptable and I have offered to provide PDFs of all the articles to a neutral editor for verification, which is more than I'm required to do. freshacconci talktalk 22:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am currently seeing 16 references (basic citations, no quotes), however, as they are used in the article, they do not prove notability. I am not asking you to give PDFs or show evidence that these references exist. What I want to know is how do these sources prove notability? Read the article again yourself since you worked on it. How does it establish notability? There is nothing thus far to demonstrate notability. Laval (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Republicanism in Canada. CCR is the country's only republican organisation, but it is not very widely known or influential. --G2bambino (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I could see how that would be a good idea. I've been working on the article but I think I've hit a wall. It can only be expanded so far without starting to talk about Republicanism in Canada instead. I'd support merging. freshacconci talktalk 20:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am so done with this now. I added sources, expanded where I could. Not a great article but worth keeping either on its own or merging per G2bambino. freshacconci talktalk 21:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what's sourced as per G2bambino's suggestion above. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems fine to me. It is sourced adequately, and it is a significant organisation in the public life of Canada. At least as significant as the Monarchist League of Canada. If it is the only Republican mobvement in Canada, then there is its notability!--Gazzster (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, while the MLC may not be a household name in Canada, it is more significant than CCR. A comparison of what each organisation has achieved and the coverage each has received will illustrate that. --G2bambino (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that's true (which I can't judge- though I would've thought a monarchist leaugue in a monarchy doesn't have much to acheive!) that would not demonstrate that the CCR is not significant in its own right, especially if it is the only organised voice of republicanism in Canada.--Gazzster (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It did in the 70s! Anyway, being the only republican organisation was about the only notable thing I could come up with for CCR. Hence, I said to merge the info into Republicanism in Canada, rather than get rid of it outright. --G2bambino (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see why. It is notable. The article is adequately referenced. I've had a peek at Monarchist League of Canada. It is not footnoted at all, and the references are to the League's own sites. I've no objection to that, but it has been objected that CCR has no third party references.So those objections can be levelled against MLC also. Which leaves notability. Both are notable, as far as I can see. Certainly being the only republican body (if that is true) in Canada is notable in itself, regardless of its size or influence.--Gazzster (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a stub, though; and freshacconi, who's dug up the most references on CCR I've ever seen, said he's found all he can. So, it seems unlikely that the article's going to grow much any time soon. As for the MLC: all I hear you saying is that the article needs to be better sourced. Not much of a challenge, I'd wager, if anyone wants to take it on. --G2bambino (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the MLC, should be given an AfD. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a wicked thought!--Gazzster (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(To olast post of G2) Well, this exercise has been good for getting the article referenced. It's done. That was the main objection to the article. Where is the problem then? It's a lot better in that respect than MLC. It's a stub? Wikipedia is full of stubs. Being a stub, is not, in itself, a criterion for deletion or merging. Why does it need to grow?--Gazzster (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm only speaking about my view, of course, but I made my decision on two interconnected matters: notability and quantity of information available. There doesn't seem to be much of either, so I thought a merge was the best idea; stubs do seem to disappear or be merged into larger articles freqeuently enough. As I said, just my opinion. --G2bambino (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. As I express my opinion, as everyone has the right to. The community will decide it's fate, no doubt.--Gazzster (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. On a further note, I've just looked at the article again and see a new section was recently added; I don't think it belongs there, and, without it, the article is shortened further by a good quarter. --G2bambino (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, as I have explained, there exist no reliable 3rd-party sources which prove CCR's notability. There are only brief mentions here and there. None of the 3 lawsuits that were filed by individual members of the CCR were sponsored by the CCR or even involved the CCR. Freshacconci basically found all the sources he could and added the information to the article - in other words, this is as big as the article is going to get unless we use information from blogs and personal websites (as I tried) but which apparently are against WP policy. So, that means this is it. The CCR is simply not notable - they have never been involved in any political lobbying, campaigning, etc. Again, the lawsuits that are mentioned did not even involve the CCR. Its quite silly really. As for the MLC, it is off-topic to say, "If the MLC has a page here, then so should CCR" - thats a very absurd argument. One does not equal the other. Anyway, there is a long history behind the MLC and its connections to the political elites and the royal family. If you bothered to look up the MLC in a simple Google search, you would find that the MLC, founded in 1970, is far more notable than CCR, which has zero notability except for the fact that it is the only nationalist republican group in Canada. That fact alone doesn't make it notable. Laval (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not comparing CCR with MLC, are we? CCR must stand on its own merits. I only brought MLC myself because it was used as a comparison. And btw, MLC has no third party references either, and zero footnotes. If we judge subjects by comparing them with subjects of contrary ideologies, we will end up deleting Sarah Palin because she's not as significant as Barak Obama, or Seventh Day Adventists because they're not as significant as Roman Catholicism.--Gazzster (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gazzster has a point about CCR notability compared to MLC. One has to ask (as Gazzster did): Why is the MLC more notable then the CCR? Being in a monarchy, ya'd think it should be the opposite. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference lies in influence, I would guess; the MLC has had more. Hence, I said that sources for the MLC article should be relatively easy to find, compared to those for CCR. --G2bambino (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I put further evidence on the discussion page. It is mentioned in the media and has an international scope via Common Cause. --Lawe (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Google news search reveals limited coverage but article gives indication there is probably more out there. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it is the only republican organization in Canada, and because (pace GoodDay), the Wikipedian in me trumps the Monarchist in me. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So may we conclude that there is no clear consensus to delete or merge? May we close this?--Gazzster (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 23:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TriShell

appears to be a pretty non-notable windows shell replacement.Google hits. humblefool ® 22:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. Failing deletion, the correct name for this seems to be "Simplify Desktop", based on triCerat's website. triShell is listed as a feature, not a product. ~ Eidako (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear cut no consensus here, there is plenty of non-local sourcing avaliable, and being a obituary (which it isn't) isn't a reason for deleting. AFD is not a vote Secret ^account 23:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Pick

No evidence of notability has been established. No citations of any kind have been provided. Previous suggestions for speedy deletion or standard deletion have been deleted without comment by unidentified users. Ultimately, this is a woman with a regular job who had the misfortune to pass away ahead of her time. Sadly, this happens to many people and it provides no particular notability.--Tailkinker (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not believe this meets notability standards. A morning news anchor who supported cancer awareness after her diagnosis is simply not enough. I am not diminishing her accomplishments or impact on her viewing audience, simply that Wiki has standards for inclusion and this woman does not meet them. OneHappyHusky (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a fine obituary, but it doesn't suggest any notability for an encyclopedia entry. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - unless she has some journalism background that can be added. That might get her into the notable range. -WarthogDemon 23:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - for reasons stated by User:Umbralcorax. -WarthogDemon 23:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- I'm torn. On one hand, I get what nom's saying. On the other hand, I did find some reliable sources about this woman and her passing: [4], [5], [6], [7] and potentially less reliable ones like this: [8]. Offhand, I'd say she achieved some local notability because of her illness and her passing, and that the article should probably be kept. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a figure of purely local interest, with no particular claim to notability in her field. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still Delete What User: Biruitorul said so succinctly is what I meant to say but in too many words.OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person does not meet the standards for notability - the combination of her dying from breast cancer and being a morning news anchor is insufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.231.88.7 (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. "Notability" is not something that can be "established." There are varying degrees of notability. Umbralcorax has provided evidence of notability. There is also an article by Tim Feran in The Columbus Dispatch[9], a later article by Tim Feran in The Columbus Dispatch[10], an obituary in the Associated Press[11], an article in The Rockford Register Star[12], and several more articles can be found via Google News. A TV news anchor, being a public figure, does not have a "regular job." It looks like she worked for ten years at WREX-TV [13] and several years at WBNS-TV. This woman is obviously notable in Illinois and Ohio. This says in February 2008 readers of The Columbus Dispatch Online picked Heather Pick as their favorite local TV personality. Also, "She was honored by the Illinois Associated Press for a documentary on breast cancer survivors."[14] If "local interest" was a reason to delete, Wikipedia wouldn't have any articles about villages in Romania or towns in Moldova. Having said all that, if her husband or someone close to her says they want the article gone, I say delete it. --Pixelface (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as the original nominator for speedy deletion, I believe this article can be speedily deleted. While as a fellow broadcast journalist, I am saddened by her passing, this is, by no means, a ticket to an article here. At the end of the day, Pick is just a normal broadcast journalist, working for one television station in a country with hundreds of television stations. Mindful of such, she is only one of many people who died from Cancer every year, nowhere near having enough notability to have an article here. I know it is a sad story, but emotions cannot be the reason to having an article here. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge You get someone who watches 10tv and ask them who Heather Pick is, they will know exactly who you are talking about. Heather Pick was notable in Central Ohio, especially for her courage to still continue to be a news anchor during her breast cancer. She even tried on wigs during a broadcast, and last night, 10tv make a whole broadcast about her and Breast Cancer awareness. Not everyone knows who Robert Hyde Greg is, yet this dude has his article. Many family members and friends of Heather Pick is devastated and I think that they would agree that Heather Pick deserves an article. If someone happens to look in a category of those who fought breast cancer, they might click "Heather Pick" and say, "wow, interesting" and add more information. How common is it that a news reporter with a terminal illness still continues doing her job with that illness? Keep this article. Look on 10tv's website and it may help you change your mind about this wonderful woman. At least merge with the WBNS article.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seem notable,plus sources to back the article up.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zobin Baygan

I think this is a hoax, but it's a curious one. Most of it has been around, completely unsourced, since April 2007 when it was posted by Nochod (talk · contribs), who has no other edits.. A year later the second half of the last paragraph, an attack on one AzKurd Bakhu, was added by an IP, 85.225.96.240 (talk · contribs). Google finds about 50 hits; any kind of practising musician gets far more than that. The hits are either Wikipedia mirrors of this story or about a Swedish player of "BJJ" which seems to be something like judo. At any rate, there is absolutely no confirmation for this story of an Iranian "national superstar" guitarist. Maybe it's a joke by the friends of the BJJ-player? Anyway, Delete as either a complete hoax or absolutely non-notable. JohnCD (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There's nothing on the net about this person that I could find. Looks like a clear hoax. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Given the claims in the article about major hits and so on, the lack of any locatable references is telling. As an aside, BJJ refers to Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, which is, in fact, something like judo. gnfnrf (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. El on ka 02:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by The Sword

Useless article, all information here can be accessed via the album articles, no need for this. – Jerry^teps 22:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is just a list of songs from an album. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ CSD G7 per article creator request (see below post by Andre666): The list is really a list of other lists. A track listing for a release is a list of material on an album and this "List of songs" is repeating information already contained on the articles about those releases. In this case the information contained on the list is redundant for many reasons. The Sword, the parent article, has a "Discography" section which contains Age of Winters; Gods of the Earth;Freya (song) and Fire Lances of the Ancient Hyperzephyrians. This same section also contains the following comment: "Main article:The Sword discography". This is a list of "all" releases including demos, singles, promotional singles, music videos and "other". This includes links to, in addition to the already mentioned albums and songs, The Sword (2004 demo);The Sword (2005 demo);The Sword/Witchcraft split andInvaders (album). In all articles there are track listings. The List of songs by The Sword is not mentioned, or linked to, in the parent article or any of the spin off articles. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article creator. Andre666 (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Alexnia (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boomhauer

This character does not establish notability independent of King of the Hill through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the coverage in List of characters in King of the Hill is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Boomhauer has 156 references [15] over the past 11 years at Google News archive. Cleanup is needed, but deletion is not, since the character has references outside the program which are independent and reliable. "The Hindi"(India) [16] tells us that "Boomhauer is a ladies’ man who speaks unintelligible English." Boston Phoenix [17] says "Boomhauer, who's the closest thing Arlen has to a hipster, stutters and mumbles his way through some incomprehensible, vaguely laudatory patter about how Seinfeld is "a show about nothing." He may yet turn out to be King of the Hill's Kramer. If nothing else, he's blessed with one of Judge's best voices since Beavis's out-of-control "Cornholio" alter ego." Other sources also provide information on the character. USA Today [18] says '.. because the Boomhauer brothers are relentlessly inarticulate, their feelings are mostly expressed through terms like "dang," "dad-gum" and "bowm chicka bowm bowm."' The Austin American Statesman [19] says"Boomhauer is showing signs of becoming a break-out character.." AP [20] says he is "an Army barber and sloppy bachelor, and mushmouthed stud." Since many of the articles are behind paywall, it is hard to be sure how extensive the coverage is. Edison (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion Boomhauer is pretty notable even outside of the show. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMO it can't be said that the character is less notable than some others. I would clean it up and keep it, otherwise, there are an awful lot of other articles that need to be deleted also if this is a standard. Mjpresson (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did some cleanup. Mjpresson (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standardized, added refs/reflist, el's, sectioned, removed fan entries and unnecessary details, restructured. Mjpresson (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Keep per above. 72.145.4.193 (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep another demonstration that for all types of subjects not just this type, when the claim for deletion is fundamentally that of no sources (for notability, for content, etc. ), a previous check is advisable, and should in my opinion be required. I wonder how many articles we would rescue if everyone did the sort of work Edison does. DGG (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 characters in King of the Hill Secret ^account 23:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ladybird Hill

This character does not establish notability independent of King of the Hill through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the coverage in List of characters in King of the Hill is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Merge to [[Hank Hill] It's his dog. Does throw a light upon his character, but inappropriate for a separate article. Not everything possible makes much sense as a separate article. It helps to be reasonable on all sides. DGG (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect. I personally think it would fit better into List of characters in King of the Hill, but I think we all agree that there simply isn't a point in having a separate article for this fictional, unimportant pet dog. DARTH PANDA ^duel 14:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The dog? Are you serious? HiDrNick! 23:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Hank Hill This is Hank Hill's dog, but it does not need a separate article on it's own, as he is not that notable. It would be better for it to be included into Hank's character page rather than it's own. VandalismDestroyer | Talk to me 03:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mere trivia. Eusebeus (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Alexnia (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Redcorn

This character does not establish notability independent of King of the Hill through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the coverage in List of characters in King of the Hill is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yet another template AfD nom out of TTN's long running campaign of spite. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
keep on the basis of adequate referencing, but I see no reason for ascribing this campaign to improper motives. It's just a substantial difference of opinion about what should be included in Wikipedia, & that's the way to deal with it. If most of us think such content is proper when referenced it will be kept. If most of us think otherwise, it won't be. DGG (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator attempting to AfD all King of the Hill character articles on basis of single issue. Mjpresson (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mentioned in two other 'pedias. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reference on the LOC is more than sufficient and there are no grounds for asserting independent notability. So expunge it. Eusebeus (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opposing mass nominations isn't a policy based reason Secret ^account 23:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Dauterive

This character does not establish notability independent of King of the Hill through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the coverage in List of characters in King of the Hill is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I oppose template based mass AfD noms on single issues. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Keep Nominator attempting to AfD all King of the Hill character articles based on single issue. Article currently being edited and improved. Mjpresson (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article has inline citations, valid external links, and notability is clearly established. Mjpresson (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and non-notable. HiDrNick! 23:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources demonstrating any notability, and for a miserable failure of WP:PLOT (the article has a single sentence that says anything with a real world basis, the rest is just the plot arc of the character.) gnfnrf (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kahn Souphanousinphone

This character does not establish notability independent of King of the Hill through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the coverage in List of characters in King of the Hill is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did TTN get bored today? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Weak keep Major character in notable show, and there's already some sourcing. That's enough reason. DGG (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dont really see any reason to get rid of him User:Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.198.60 (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kahn Souphanousinphone - the one source currently in the article is pretty trivial, and I do not believe that this character has enough real-world notability to be worth having a standalone article for him. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J.J. McCullough

This article was created by the subject himself, User:J.J., which is against WP guidelines. It looks like a vanity page as a consequence. The organization itself is not really notable in Canada (we are currently debating whether to list for AfD there) but that is a different matter. He claims to be a politician but has not run for public office - university positions don't count. Anyway, with respect to WP guidelines, strong suggestion for delete. User:J.J. has also edited Filibuster Cartoons, a vanity page about a website he runs, and he created and has edited Citizens for a Canadian Republic, a non-notable organization which he represents. In my opinion the user in question should be sanctioned about this behaviour. Laval (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:BIO. There are no third-party sources and this was created by the subject, violating WP:NPOV. freshacconci talktalk 22:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Freshacconci. --G2bambino (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete with salt as per nom and good faith investigations by other editors.ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm actually pretty sure it was not created by him, because he has not announced his direction for office —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.53.255 (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See [21]. It is clearly him. Laval (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- non-notable individual promoting himself. Reyk _YO! 03:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Closing Admin: If you can merge this AfD with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filibuster Cartoons, it would be much appreciated. They are interrelated as the subject of this article is also the author of that non-notable website which totally fails WP:WEB. Laval (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be too late to merge the AfDs. People will just have to vote in both, if they have an interest. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Has been the cartoonist for a student newspaper. That's about it. Even this claim lacks a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity page. Even if he was notable he should not be writing his own article. That stands against guidelines.--NAHID 07:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. inadequateluy sourced for an independant article Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley the Loon

This character does not establish notability independent of Tiny Toon Adventures through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the section in the main article is enough. TTN (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main article calls her a major character, so a separate article is appropriate. The show actually won an few Emmys so I guess its important enough for that, & it does indicate there are sources. DGG (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, and has a reference. Another should be readily found. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and all nominated Tiny Toons characters into a "List of characters in Tiny Toons" article. Jonny2x4 (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to an LOC. No basis for an independent article. Eusebeus (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not assert notability with real world context through significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. The source listed doesn't provide any information other than the name of the voice actress. Jay32183 (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, possibly a merge, the article does not give any real world context but the series is notable and this is a relatively major character. Of course, the article needs to be greatly improved. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 18:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contra nom due to notability, coverage in reliable third party sources, and as necessary unoriginal research. Suggesting that any article can not somehow be improved is a salutary gesture of pessimism, but not a serious argument. Thus, the nominator is quite wrong.--63.3.1.1 (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 snow, IAR and common sense. Will final warn creator StarM 01:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday (Hilary Duff album)

Included in this AfD are Holiday (Hilary Duff song) and Heartless (Hilary Duff song)

Potential hoax. I have been unable to find any information online about a new Hilary Duff album entitled 'Holiday' (the title song itself apparently exists and appears on a recent 'best of' - not as presented here in the album or song article). Duff's MySpace blog claims nothing of the sort regarding a new album. Nothing on her official website either. Much of the rest of the content is unreferenced/unsourced speculation. Delete per WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur on all 3. We edit conflicted on adding the second two articles. Since the 3 articles constitute the fourth, fifth, and sixth hoaxes by this editor, I recommend a block for the creator as well.—Kww(talk) 21:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My finger *was* hovering over the block button - but on reflection (and now that I've started this AfD), I'd prefer it if an uninvolved admin were to review the situation and block if appropriate. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Possible hoax, no references, unable to find references. The user also seems to have a fair knowledge of wiki mark up, potential sockpuppet? – Jerry^teps 22:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your suspicion, but the one checkuser I had run came back negative. If you have any good clues, I'm willing to do some research.—Kww(talk) 23:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: at best WP:CRYSTAL, at worst a hoax. Obviously if someone can come up with some legit sources to support this release, then fine, but the August 2009 date is what makes me suspicious. 23skidoo (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Please, let's do something about the creator if possible. Everyking (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Korn (album). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ball Tongue

Does not satisfy music notability guidelines. Never released as a single, one of the lesser known songs off the album, does not assert notability (no refs whatsoever). Suggest redirecting to album. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album for now until refs can be found. I think we can speedy close this since the nominator wants redirection. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I want to make sure that everyone'd be alright with it. Admittedly, I'm wary of being bold with articles, largely because I want to make sure I'm acting uncontroversially. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:BIO and WP:RS are explicit, Our inclusion threashold is the existance of independant non-trivial secondary sources that discuss the subject. Appearing on TV does not make you notable if you are not discussing youreself in a non-trivial way and there are no secondary sourcing about you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Xuma

Delete - there do not appear to be independent reliable sources that are substantively about this person, thus he fails WP:BIO. Otto4711 (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is an ad for its subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, been on TV and radio many times. But I won't disagree however the article needs be heavily pruned, but that is no reason for deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 01:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on TV and radio many times. Just being on TV doesn't make me notable and it doesn't make this guy notable either. The standard of notability is not "has been on TV and the radio." It is being the subject of independent reliable sources that are substantively about the person. Otto4711 (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, "just being on TV" doesn't make someone notable. But a TV program by a news organization can be an independent reliable source, and coverage in a TV segment can by "substantively about" a person. If you are the subject of an interview by a TV news source that discusses your activities, then I would argue that you are notable on Wikipedia. So is Xuma (see my vote for keep below). --SecondSight (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep frivolous deletion - Otto4711 is attacking all current seduction related articles at the moment Sedcom (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to your abject failure of civility and your appalling lack of assumption of good faith, not to mention your attempt to color this nomination with falsehoods. I am not "attacking" anything. I am reviewing these articles and searching for sources that substantiate them before nomination. I have not, for example, nominated nominated most of the similar articles for deletion and have no particular intention to. Your obvious bias in favor of these articles, as evidenced by your user name's being an abbreviation of seduction community, is perhaps clouding your judgment and your interest in the subject is perhaps leading to ownership issues and blinding you to the requirements for Wikipedia articles. Find the independent reliable sources that are substantially about this person. Otto4711 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always assume good faith as my first instinct, however when I find obvious apparent reason to no longer assume the best of a person in that there is an innocent explanation then it would be wrong for me to carry on being blind to what is happening. While you have yet to nominate all the articles for deletion, the sheer number of them and the continually increasing number of them you have nominated as time goes by, makes the question of if you are nominating every single article a worthy point to consider. Mathmo ^Talk 05:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, it's not, because as I have explained repeatedly I am not nominating every article for deletion. Saying that I am or suggesting that I plan to is nothing more than a petty deception. And even if it were my insidious plan to nominate them all for deletion, unless you have evidence that I am acting in bad faith in making the nominations whether they all get AFDed or not is irrelevant. Each article must stand or fall on its own and the fact that a series of similar articles are all nominated does not excuse the individual articles from meeting our standards. There have still been no reliable sources presented that are substantively about this person. By the way, I note that you're responding to a comment I made to Sedcom. You accused me of sockpuppeting in another AFD. Should I be asking for a checkuser on you now? Otto4711 (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm glad that you're not nominating every article for deletion, you really need to work on your civility. Tone it down a few notches. Alansohn (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal. You tell the person being subjected to repeated acts of incivility to be more civil. Is this Crazy Backwards Day or something? Otto4711 (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Xuma's frequent appearances as an expert on the field establish his notability. This is an article that needs drastic improvement, but that is never a valid argument for deletion. I would have replied to our nominator's argument re TV appearances with the customary inapplicability of WP:WAX, but in this case I look forward to seeing the Otto4711 article. Alansohn (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "been on TV" argument is not WP:WAX. It is a statement that having appeared on television, even having appeared a bunch of times on television, does not, per WP:N, establish notability.

When a person is being interviewed on TV then that appearance is naturally about that person, just the same as when a journalist interviews a person and the article gets published. Exactly the same, the only difference is the medium: TV or Newspaper. Mathmo ^Talk 05:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually no. Not everyone who is quoted in a news story is the subject of that news story. Example: who is the subject of this story? Is it Dana Perino? No? Oh, I guess your "whoever's being interviewed is the subject" theory has been exploded then. Otto4711 (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree most certainly with everything stated by Otto4711 (talk · contribs) and ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) in their delete rationales. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with most of the criticisms of the article, and I disagree that the critics are acting in bad faith. I just wish they would start by suggesting improvements on the talk page, rather than hitting the AFD button. In this case, criticisms of the article notwithstanding, there actually are reliable sources available on this subject. Five minutes of Googling revealed a mention of Xuma in this news article; it requires a library card # to access, but the relevant text is here:

The wingman phenomenon is not new, but it is garnering more attention than ever before. The media - particularly the online media so beloved by twenty-somethings - are rife with wingman news.
Carlos Xuma, a contributor to the online newsletter "Dating Dynamics," says wingmen have four major duties. Here you go:

Wingmen get you out of the house. They motivate you to get dressed, get moving and put yourself in a position where you can meet other single people. Wingmen are generally more skilled at the art of the pick-up, so they become Yoda to your Skywalker.

Wingmen help ingratiate you with a group of people. Apparently, it looks less desperate if two people approach a group instead of one.

Wingmen capture the attention of the person (or people) you emphatically do not want to attract. The wingman keeps this "no-go" busy for the evening so you can focus your attention on the object of your desire.

Wingmen validate you. In other words, he or she talks about your fabulous sense of humor, your work ethic or anything else that will get you points with the group.

Additionally, I found a video from ABC News about Xuma that discusses Xuma's activities and interviews him. ABC News is an independent reliable source, and the coverage is substantively about Xuma. Since there are multiple independent reliable sources available on this subject, the article should not be deleted, but rather aggressively pruned down and re-written. --SecondSight (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 23:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Baptism of Jesus Christ - A documentary film (2007)

Spam-like; also doesn't appear to have garnered significant coverage outside blogs and other self-published sources. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be more promotional than anything. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and the investigation by Dennis. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article fails to establish notability and does appear promotional; all the external links are either to first-party sites or sites that don't even mention the movie. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Fayenatic (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some copy-editing on this in the past, but you're probably right. All needed encyclopedic content on the underlying subject is already in Baptism of Jesus#Location. Delete. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:MOVIE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This documentary has not (the only relevant hits being from Wikipedia), and seems to be written like an advertisement. Delete. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- This sounds like a TV programme, probably propounding some one's theory as to the location. If there is anything in this article worth merging (and there may not be), it should be merged with Baptism of Jesus, which mentions the film briefly. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Neutral and give it a MAJOR sandblasting. Per WP:ATD, if an article can be improved to be properly encyclopedic, it should be so tagged.... not sent to AfD. I did a quick search and found enough that shows notability. It needs lots of work, but Voice Tribune, Appalachian Festival of the Arts, Baptism Site, andStelthelburgas, suggest that this might be possible. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of those are mere screenings, and two are interviews - the coverage doesn't seem that substantial. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was not digging deep. Just posted the first few that popped up. Perhaps widening a seacrh with varied parameters will find more. If the article can be gutted and made healthy, then it should be so tagged. This is not one I will be working on myself... was just pointing to an open door. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This seems to be a "coatrack", about the qy of where the baptism would have taken place, not the film. DGG (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Gass

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable biography Abstrakt (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable biography. Abstrakt (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CRYSTAL for notability. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no indication that this person is competing in the top echelons of rowing. FISA, the world governing body for rowing does not have her bio listed in its athlete database. That isn't conclusive as I don't know how comprehensive the database is. However, searhcing for other sources only turn up youth and junior competition results. If somebody can find references to show her competing at the top level of rowing, I'll happily change my !vote. And no prejudice to recreation if she does compete at the Olympics, but at this point, that's just speculation. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Djing Software

Unreferenced — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I need time to improve this page and to complete it, to add references etc. If you suppress it yet, how could I ever do a decent work? --Borisln (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC) (copied from this edit. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

In that case, I suggest userfying the article until it is ready for publication. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CHANCE. This is way too early to go to AFD, not to mention is serving to bite a newcomer as a result of said nomination. MuZemike (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep actually tagged for deletion the very same minute it was started. Give editors a chance to write the articles. DGG (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Don't bite the newcomers, simply suggest developing the article in userspace. _David ^WS _(contribs) 18:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have found sources online for this type of software, so it is notable. I will work on developing the article now. _David ^WS _(contribs) 18:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above comments, lack of sources is not enough for a speedy delete, and articles not candidates for speedy delete should be allowed a little more time to develop before they are nominated for deletion. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 23:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chroma key ,miami

Would be candidate for redirect to Chroma key but it is an unlikely search term. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — there is nothing content-wise that is different than in the abovementioned parent article. MuZemike (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and speedy if possible. Not only is there nothing in here that would bear any new information from Chroma Key, the article seems to have little to do with anything of this sort in Miami. It almost looks like an essay explaining it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Took a second look at, and realized that the only thing this has to do with Miami, Florida is that the person who created it runs some sort of studio in Miami. I want to say spam, going on a weak speedy delete accordingly. Anyone wanna tag? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam & cross wiki too. I just cleaned up Commons which led me to this. Speedy as far as I can see. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbottsfield Mall

No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the sources added by Eastmain. Hammer, your nemesis strikes again :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. -- OceanWatcher (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the mall's being the site of a police shooting and of a robbery is its best claim to notablilty. No WP:RS reliable sources about the mall itself (which is what would be needed to establish notability) have been adduced. Deor (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established the usual way. No special circumstances here. Wily D 15:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there aren't any reliable sources that isn't about the mall itself. As for the current sources Wikipedia isn't the news Secret ^account 23:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Young Dracula characters

Contested prod. None of the characters depicted in this list are notable enough to warrent this list, which borders on fancruft (and, not that this counts for anything, this is coming from a huge fan of Young Dracula). Those that are remotely notable (main characters) are already covered to a sufficient depth in the parent article, Young Dracula, and as such not only is this article a violation of WP:N, it's plain not needed. _Talk Islander 20:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 22:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 22:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The noteworthy characters are already covered in the main article. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one way or another . It's true that in most cases the main article contents is at least as good as the list, but there are a few cases (I noticed . Professor Cheney where this list catches a character that should have but isn't included. I don't personally think it matters where the material is, bit once is sufficient. Ether merge the missing information into the main list, or vice versa. Either works just fine. It's a matter of judgement whether the material is long enough to be kept separate, and in my opinion doesn't have anything at all to do with notability. DGG (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to pick you up on your example, Professor Cheney appears in one episode (out of 26-odd), and is not at all important to the overall plot of the programme. He is a plot device for this one episode, and nothing more - he's not notable (incidently, I don't quite understand why you feel that notability isn't relevant here). _Talk Islander 09:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. --63.3.1.2 (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Err... DGG gives a reason for merging, not keeping. Also, any particular reason you're hiding behind an IP? _Talk Islander 18:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's supposed to be 63.3.1.1 you're supposed to be using. MuZemike (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Keep per DGG" is technically correct, because merge is a form of keep, according to deletion policy. Maybe its time to change that and admit openly we have 4 altogether different outcomes, plus no consensus. Might be much less confusing. :) DGG (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd probably agree with you on that one :P _Talk Islander 23:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, as per nomination. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Articles not reliably sourced from secondary sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grupo Mayan

The following articles were all created by two users, Delia Moran (Talk|Contribs) and Lauracampero (Talk|Contribs):

Vedanta Capital Group (deleted per speedy nomination)
Grupo Mayan
Mansions of the World
The Grand Mayan
Mayan Island (was redirect prior to new edits by Delia Moran)
Mayan Palace
Albatross Golf Courses
Sea Garden
La Jolla de Cortés
Nayar Town (deleted per speedy nomination)

Other than the first, all of these are properties in the investment portfolio of Vedanta Capital Group. None of the articles cites any bona fide third party sources other than promotional sites and one blog.

Bongomatic (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all (G11) — articles contain spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, and spam. MuZemike (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to mention the nice walled garden created. MuZemike (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim Grupo Mayan (company) and The Grand Mayan (principal brand), merge/delete the rest. The scope of operations is quite big to warrant an article. NVO (talk ) 19:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite Grupo Mayan and The Grand Mayan, speedy the rest as spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, no baked beans in this spam! Seriously, none of the sources I find in the main article seem to be verifiable in the slightest. The tone still comes off as advertising. In other words, I disagree. MuZemike (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Grupo Mayan, The Grand Mayan, Albatross Golf Courses They are all informational. Grupo Mayan page seems like an important organization worthy of more recognition than just self-promotion, I made a couple edits to the golf course page, appears informational now--Jlowenthal (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor: Above account created on date of its edits to one of the articles nominated here, and to its comment here. It has made no edits other than to that one article and this AfD. Bongo matic 16:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 23:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of The Phantom

Contested prod, with the suggestion that it should be merged somewhere, without indication where that should be. Original reason for deletion: WP:NOT#PLOT: this is a purely in-universe part of the plot without real world importance. Fails WP:NOTE as well. I don(t think including this in another article would be helpful in any way. The article Phantom (comics) has a section "Family", where the only contents are a link to this article. To include this family tree into the Phantom article would not help any reader in understanding the Phantom article, and the fictional character biography is quite long enough already. Fram (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This article is doubly mis-named, as the “The” should be “the”, and as we're talking about a Scandinavian variant of Falk's character. Of course, were the article titled “Family Tree of the Phantom in the Scandinavian Variant”, it would be immediately apparent that this is really minutiæ. I do not agree that the article should simply be deleted, especially as I do not relish the thought of forever being branded with a skull mark! —SlamDiego_←T 20:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think these minutiae should be kept anyway, even if in another article? Excessive detail is excessive no matter where you place it, I would think... 20:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete Unless one of the comics specifically printed this tree, it is synthesised and therefore original research. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With The Phantom article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources provided. No notability established the characters in the tree. No inclusion criteria for expanding it. xschm (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources so fails WP:V and also looks like WP:OR. (Emperor (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 harm for a rewrite though as this is a valid article subject. This isn't an article though Secret ^account 23:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refugees from Nazism

What a mess. This seems to be partly a word-for-word duplication of The King's most loyal enemy aliens (which is also a mess - possibly copied from some text book?) and partly long biographies of non-notable people Pince Nez (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check Copyvio? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suspect this article to be a copyvio of an off-line source - likely "The King's Most Loyal Enemy Aliens" which the creating editor may have a vested interest in (author perhaps??) as they have spammed it across multiple pages over the past few days. _{(Should also disclose that I have just blocked the author for spamming & username violation)} Nancy^talk 20:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't look good for this unsourced unreferenced piece that is almost certainly a copyio. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Most of User:Britishlocalhistory's (now-reverted) edits seem to be promoting the works of a Dr Helen Fry, which suggests that this article is a form of promotional spam. Pince Nez (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HEAVY DELETE Painfully obvious this is a cut n paste job that pushes copyvio at least. Not even sure if subject matter rates article of its own but that may be a matter of democratic debate. 65.184.233.16 (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy rewrite if not a copyvio? Danger of POV fork? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of trading card sets

It is a list that will never be complete or accurate. It is basically a waste of space, and it most likely will only wind up listing things primarily from North America. This article violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and should be deleted as soon as possible. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article because it was suggested here. Libro0 (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very few sources. Also, I took this as a list for something like Magic: The Gathering --Numyht (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion was to have these sets linked to their detailed description where the actual sources are. The sources can be added on this page also as can Magic: The Gathering. Besides it is a brand new page and as such is a work in progress and hasn't had its own proper discussion yet. Being on AfD is a bit premature. Libro0 (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the nominator and the starter of the article being engaged in an epic battle, this article is something that should have never been s

tarted in the first place. It violates What Wikipedia is not, it is something that would never be complete and if it was complete it would be absurdly long. There is a reason that there is a policy against articles like this. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article can be appropriately subdivided in a similar manner to articles such as History of Egypt. Furthermore it can be as complete and accurate as source information will allow. Incompleteness and inaccuracy arise only from neglect and vandalism. Libro0 (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way that this article could ever be complete or not violate the established guidelines for article creation. Please see What Wikipedia is not. This is nothing like the History of Egypt. This is just a list better served by having articles in categories. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the list article can never be completed then neither will the main articles they link to. It has been debated that no article is ever really 'complete', so that point is irrelevant. Additionally, I do not see where this violates anything under What Wikipedia is not. Libro0 (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong as always Libro0! You Ms. Wikipedia Policy Expert have never read this which says:

Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See [[new list]] link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. For reference see Lists of people, which is made up of specific categorical lists.

Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" will be of little interest to anyone (except the person making the list).

Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colours of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge.

Can you explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge? Baseball Card Guy (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the link I provided above you could ask Mike92591 yourself why he suggested the list. I did read Wikipedia:Lists and it also states as I mentioned earlier that subdividing it could be helpful. But to answer your question, I would say culturally it is a popular hobby, economically it is a lucrative business even in the secondary market, and historically it goes as far back as the 1870's. It also transcends several venues: consumables from tobacco to candy, sports from baseball to hockey, nations from UK to Japan ... Libro0 (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you do everything some random person on the internet tells you to do? You seemed to read the thing, but not comprehend it. Again, can you answer why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge? You have not answered the question. It is just a list of god dammed crap without any context or anything. It violates policy and should be deleted with extreme prejudice. Why do you create such things? Do you do it for the attention? Baseball Card Guy (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you two stop bickering? How much of the community's time have you wasted with your back and forth. The two of you should just be banned. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Call it what you will but I have made valid arguments in favor of the article without attacking anyone. Please reread everything above carefully. Libro0 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list is also useful for Navigation and Development. See Wikipedia:Lists. Libro0 (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not explained how this list contributes to the state of human knowledge. Personal attacks removed by either way Baseball Card Guy (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to close this as no consensus as AFD isn't the place to settle disputes by AFDing each other articles, after looking at the article, this is a clear cut Delete. Perfect violation of WP:NOT#INFO, just lists "trading card" sets, a term that is too broad and unmaintainable (there are many thousands if you are going though the guidelines of the list). Secret ^account 23:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unmaintainable list. A ni Mate 02:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. All forms of "keep" are undoubtedly related. Take these away and it's a WP:SNOW close. If anyone can find a source or three worth considering, drop by my talk page. — Scientizzle 16:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Gaming Tour

If you came here because the forum at http://www.igtour.pro.tc/, 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}}.

Fails Notability. SkyWalker (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources to verify the tour, and the tour's website is just a forum. Borderline for a speedy delete as a non-notable website, accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some quick Google sleuthing makes it painfully clear (if the article hadn't accomplished it already) that notability is absent.--Koji† 15:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Considering the proportionality of the 2008 StarCraft tournament, and the number of players participating in it (4k players), not to mention the article existing for a very long time now, it is notable. On a side note, please understand that Google searching is NOT used in debates anymore, just thought I should throw that out there for you Koji.--4.245.74.32 (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment. Do not remove the AFD from the article and adding an hidden comment "As a result of the debate held in 2008, this article was kept with a consensus of 2 to 1. " is not tolerated. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Google searching is no longer a viable tool? That sounds like a rather major change to me, might someone link me to which policy this change has occurred under? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While a sheer count of Google hits is not a valid rationale for keeping an article, the fact that a Google search was conducted and no hits were found would suggest that the subject cannot be verified. Of course, verification is a core guideline, and non-verifiability is a reason to delete an article. (At that point, IMHO, the burden is on the article's creators to provide sources.) —C.Fred (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I, too, cannot find any verifiable sources to establish notability of the tour; I get nothing but forums. It doesn't matter if the article has been hiding for years and someone just noticed now – that is not a reason to keep the article (neither is WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE). MuZemike (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recognized by Reenactor Entertainment, Blizzard Entertainment, and others.--4.245.73.195 (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Keep - I'd like to apologize if the article I spent 2 hours making is not good enough for Wikipedia, several other people will come and make it better however.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroFanMission (talk • contribs)
Delete. No notability asserted in article, nor found with a Google search. It's also pretty obvious that the above keep votes are forum-driven (and wrong, too - not using Google searches for AfDs? What?) Tan | 39 20:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save. Unless you can say "We don't care about the customer." on the main page, I suggest you keep it.--4.245.21.242 (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Save. I did not come from http://www.igtour.pro.tc/ but I learned about the IGT on another wiki and decided to look up more information on Wikipedia about it, if that designates any notability since other wikis have articles about it.--4.244.3.216 (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All four IP addresses !voting above come from the same ISP - Level 3 Communications, Inc. out of Colorado. Their netrange is 4.0.0.0 - 4.255.255.255. Clear canvassing and/or forum advertising and/or socking. Tan | 39 04:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sink - unnotable (WP:N), unverifiable through reliable sources (Wp:V). I have literally no idea how saying "We don't care about the customer." on the main page is related to this discussion. Marasmusine (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, as per nomination. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save. "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,550,000 for International Gaming Tour. (0.19 seconds)" -Google. CNET has a news article on the tour, so does Filefront & SS Free & Tech Republic & GameSpot and several other popular gaming news sites.--4.245.74.168 (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: no independent sources available to verify notability. And the amount of "save" comments coming from an IP range that makes it obviously clear that they are from the same person is frankly becoming disruptive. -- Sabre (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, and really no content other than a table. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While this is a real program, this requires that articles and information be verifiable, and that verifiability cannot be overridden by consensus. I cannot see sources which demonstrate notability, and therefore, deletion is the only option. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Django (program)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability in this search and this search. Schuym1 (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FIRM KEEP. This is a very important program in its (verry narrow) field.Galassi (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove that it's an important program. Schuym1 (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expand. No deletion.Lute88 (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you vote keep? Schuym1 (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I know a few things about the application, and its field.Lute88 (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How does the article meet WP:NOTABILITY? Schuym1 (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This really needs proper assertion of notability, but given that one wikipedian who is a composer seems to be vouching for the software's significance, I'm prepared to give benefit of the doubt. Just. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AFD should be based on notability. Schuym1 (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This AFD tag is based on ignorance.Lute88 (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The AFD is based on WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is, however, the issue of whether the software can be presumed notable. There more people are using the same piece of software (other than sockpuppets or meatpuppets), the more likely it is that they would have heard of the software through reliable third-party sources. I agree that citing the sources would be the best solution, but neither do I think it's helpful to delete articles that may well pass notability just because no-one has dug up a suitable source yet. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        An AFD should not be closed per it being presumed notable. The users that vote keep have plenty of time to find sources in the remainder of this AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Mostly everything that goes to AFD can be presumed notable. Schuym1 (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The rule I am observing, however, is WP:COMMON, or use common sense. Specialist pieces of software don't often get much coverage in third-party sources (at least not those that can be easily accessed through online sources). Sibelius (computer program), for example, is generally regarded as the leading score-writing music program, and no-one who knows anything about music would suggest deleting that article, but the coverage in third-party sources is at best obscure. Now, in the case of Django, writing notation for guitar and lute tablature is a significant niche in the writing of sheet music, and should Django be the leading provider, that would make it important. That is why I think we should listen to the opinions of music-writing specialists before dismissing notability out of hand. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not going to take someone's word for it. Schuym1 (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I know, you've made the same point at least six times now. Repeating the same thing a seventh time running won't reinforce it any further. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So far it only has the official site, a discussion group, and an unsourced assertion of notability. Schuym1 (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And a source that doesn't talk about the program. Schuym1 (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like a good program, and something I would use, but it doesn't seem to fit into WP:N. Anyone change my mind? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think this program is likely notable - perhaps the notable program of its kind - but agree some sourcing to demonstrate that from music industry sources would help. Have no clue which ones to look at or even if they are online but willing to extend good faith. -- Banjeboi 02:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam baines

Non-notable amateur athlete. Weak assertion of notability but fails WP:ATHLETE. McWomble (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whether we accept the U20 Commonwealth games as the highest level of amateur athletes. Can anyone clarify this matter? The peacock words need to go no matter what. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup This person is notable, but it needs verifiable sources. Also, he graduated from grammar school at age 17? What the hell is with that? Jonathan321 (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What age would it be more usual to finish grammar school? Ages 16-18 are quite normal here in the UK. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing school in Victoria is usually around 17-18 and dont forget Sam was born in Feburary so he's not that young. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.98.199 (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A wander through Google suggests subject fails WP:ATHLETE. He might get there one day, but... Agree that regardless of outcome, article needs rewrite and deletion or preening wording. Twilight1701 (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sega. MBisanz ^talk 13:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sega Australia

The fact that Sega set up a subsidiary rather than a branch in Australia is entirely non-notable (and is in fact not even mentioned in the references to this article).

The fact that Sega has significant operations in Australia is a possibly notable fact that (if notable) should be included (along with relevant additional details, which those in this article may or may not be) in the main article.

Recommendation: add whatever material from here may be of interest to the main article, and delete this one (agnostic on whether a redirect is kept, though it seems unlikely that anyone would search for this term). Bongo matic 11:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the Sega article. Whether if it's a subsidiary or branch it's notable for the Sega article but not on it's own. Bidgee (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sega.--SkyWalker (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sega. Branch of distribution not enough to require its own article. Master&Ex

pert (Talk) 21:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Merge with Sega. If there were more sources, there would be more stuff to write about but Sega Australia only started up late last year so not much has been written about them. If this is so insignificant, then delete Nintendo Australia then as well or Atari Australia. Maybe even Red Ant Enterprises. Tightarses.--Daftpunkboy93 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2008 (AEST)

Merge with Sega, a (so far) non-notable subsidiary entity. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Merge with Sega as there really isn't enough coverage in reliable third-party sources to create a quality non-stub article. Merging it with the main Sega article, they'd be better together than apart. Randomran (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since none to next to nothing of this info will be kept on wikipedia if merged --sss333 (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - blatant nonsense/hoax. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Fiji

Probable hoax. Isoroku Yamamoto could not have "commandeered" an invasion fleet in 1945 because he died in 1943. McWomble (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Yamamoto died in 1943, as the nom points out. Colonial Fiji#Fiji in World War II doesn't mention anything like this. A google search for "battle of fiji" leads to nothing relevant. The article reads like WP:NFT—Fiji has 322 islands, not one as the article implies, and why would Filipino troops be stationed in Fiji? Darkspots (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism: A hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twidge

This brief article describes what (at least for now, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) is a non-notable product. After searching for it, I have found no significant coverage in reputable sources (the referenced six-sentence description of the product certainly doesn't qualify). Bongo matic 11:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twidge is the first command-line twitter-client, and it's a first twitter-client written in Haskell programming languge. And, this program is versalite and can work in semi-authomated way, for example, via cron and can be integrated with mail system on Unix-like operating system. Also twidge was included in Debian distro. So, twidge is notable product. -- Roman Lagunov (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great . . . but can you find references that demonstrate notability as defined in the Wikipedia policies? I don't think that everything including in an OS distribution is automatically notable, nor is being the first in any number of categories. What is required is "significant coverage" in "reliable sources"? "Significant" has a specific definition in the above-referenced policy, so it might be helpful to review it if you want to make comments that have more weight.

My point was not about "first in category", but about "unique features" which twidge has. None of the twitter clients that exists today are offers features such as ability of integration with MDA or scriting capabilities that twidge has. But I see your point about "reliable sources". But twidge was released only in September, that's the problem - program is really young. So, I'm trying to find reliable sources. -- Roman Lagunov (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This software is new, and sounds wonderful, really, but I see no notability here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once notability is established, the article can be re-created with reliable sources. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yazak

blatant advertising TheMrDream (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion page for Yazak

Strong Delete Article doesn't indicate why this subject is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete: per both comments Alexnia (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Mexicans

Unverifiable and dubious. Title is a neologism. Pretty much the only things I can find on Google/GNews/GBooks are this Worldnetdaily piece [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44531] about Iranians using Mexico as a transit point for illegal immigration to the US, and this one [22] (Spanish) about how Iranians who want to go to the US to visit their Iranian American relatives but can't get visas instead go to Mexico to hold their family reunions there; it also mentions that fewer than two thousand Iranian citizens live in Mexico. Cannot find anything which confirms the contents of this Wikipedia article or attests to the notability of this migrant population.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsourced on its claims (concentrated up north, they're mostly Shi'ites, etc.). Iran is a large nation, and it's not surprising that some of its emigrants would end up in Mexico, but don't write an article unless you have something to back it up. Mandsford (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not again. JuJube (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable source for notability.--Boffob (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, possibly OR or unverifiable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse deletion- This is probably the dumbest thing to make an article on,that is like me making an article on a random mixed ethnic group like Russian-Canadians.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malays in Spain

Unverifiable and dubious. Even after removing the three-month old anonymous vandalism which claimed they're 50% Buddhist, we're left with a mess of unverifiable statements, original research assumptions about which Indonesian/Filipino migrants qualify as Malays (ethnic group) and which don't, and an extremely unlikely origin story about how they came as World War II refugees. Google/GBooks/GNews does not turn up any sources about immigration from Malaysia to Spain (whether of Malays or non-Malays), on searches either in English or Malay. No evidence of multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources about this population.

Deprodded [23] by unrelated editor. See also the AN/I thread I have initiated regarding the creator's editing. cab (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no source cited, seems to be WP:OR, and is written in such general terms that, while it would be hard to refute, it really says very little. JohnCD (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that Rex Harrison once said that Malays in Spain stay mainly on the plane. At least this article has a good excuse for being unsourced, because it has nothing to say. They're "a part of overseas Malay population"; they came from Malaysia and other countries; they "came from different ethnic groups"; more recently, they came from Malaysia and other countries (did I say that already?). "Most of these live as students, academics, professionals, and workers" (kinda covers it all). They "speak Spanish" (which makes life easier) and "may speak Malay language" (except where prohibited). My favorite part is that "Although Filipinos are also considered ethnic Malays, the Philippines is Christianized and the Filipinos who settled in Spain came after Spanish territorial control of the Philippines and were Hispanicized. Thus, Filipino Spaniards are never regarded by Spaniards as 'Malays'." Mandsford (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not again. JuJube (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable source to establish notability. Now I'm off to write an aritcle on Albanians in the Faroe Islands.--Boffob (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grumpy (web server)

Non-notable software. Zero relevant Ghits. Article created by the software author. McWomble (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see any possible chance of this meeting notability, looks more like an attempted advert to me. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and investigation by Chris Neville-Smith. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., this is clearly advertising and nothing more. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokemon Caught By Ash Ketchum

This is a straight copy from http://pokemon.wikia.com/wiki/Ash_Ketchum. That is not a copyright problem, because Wikia content is also available under the GFDL, but there is no point duplicating in Wikpedia this unencyclopedic level of in-universe detail from pokemon.wikia. Contested PROD. Delete per WP:IINFO. JohnCD (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know what encyclopedic relevance (both in-universe and in the real world) this list has or will have, other than being an unremarkable plot dump (WP:NOT#PLOT). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, as an unnecessary spinoff of the article about Ash Ketchum. After all these years, I'm afraid that we must concede that Ash has wavered from his "Gotta catch 'em all!" goal. Mandsford (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — pure in-universe Pokecruft. MuZemike (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT, element of fiction with no notability outside of the Pokémon universe.--Boffob (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Information covered in some Wikia. Wikipedia is not a Wikia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per MuZemike. ←Spidern → 15:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ash Ketchum, kinda like it was before, only this time, JUST list the Pokémon. No descriptions of how he got it or anything. Just a list. Matty-chan (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Health Education and Health Promotion Specialists

Strange one this. The external link given on the page is not relevant - a blog - and is certainly not an "Official website". A google search [24] produces 20 distinct hits, mostly either wiki type pages or directories which either simply list the organisation of repeat the Wiki detail. The exceptions are a PDF document from the UK Department of Health which lists the organisation as one of many invited to consult on sexual health (but with no indication it did), so not exactly a source or refrence. (And its even possible the DoH sent out invites to everyone on one of the directories already mentioned, whether or not they exist!) The other exception is a course syllabus from Ulster University, dated 1997, which states that "Continuing recognition by the Society for Health Education and Health Promotion Specialists will be sought" for the postgraduate course. There are no independent secondary sources to back up anything in the article. I have my doubts that it exists, or, at least, that it still exists. Emeraude (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I have found a book written on health promotion here. There also seem to be other verifiable sources referenced from Elsevier and Emerald Insight. MuZemike (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done, possibly. It's not a book though, it's a page from a 1996 journal article which says that SHEPS organised an "oddly named symposium" one weekend for 30 invited people. As I don't currently have access to subscription journals, I'm unable to read any more (the writer could go on to say......what?). The other two sources are equally impenetrable without a sub to the journals and there is no mention of SHEPS in the pages you have linked! If you have access, please quote directly so that we can assess the value of these journal articles. Emeraude (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 10:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - on present evidence, not notable. JohnCD (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established, and searches to find any notability come up empty for me. No prejudice against recreation if evidence can be found to establish notability. Frank | talk 13:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I am bothered by this one. Though there are several Ghits surely any reputable professional body would have its own website, and I can't trace one. Further, there are no news hits at all. Sorry, fails WP:Org and possibly WP:V. Smile a While (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and check, because at best there appears to be a problem about the right title--there is older material about a UK society by this name, but I cannot find current information. DGG (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - When I nominated this article for deletion, I mistakenly assumed the creator was an inactive user. Turns out I was wrong and I have today posted a note on their user page inviting a comment. Since making the nomination, I have continued to look for information about SHEPS to no avail. Having been involved in sex and health education in English schools for more than 30 years, I ought to have at least heard of the organisation; that I hadn't is what aroused my interest. Naturally, I am supporting delete. Emeraude (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to lacking context and since an article about an unpublished book you have written is essentially an article about you. Wikipedia is not a place to write about something you or your friends have come up with.

The Book We Wrote

Unpublished book. Fails WP:BK. McWomble (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BK#Not yet published books and WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kadoo

This page looks like spam to me. The site was launched at Fall 2008: it seems the site tries to get more hits using wikipedia rather than already having the necessary notabiliy Photoact (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Photoact (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails WP:CORP as it lacks non-trivial mentions in independent sources (NYT article cited). The article is borderline promotional, the assertion of notability is lacking per WP standards, relying on association and sourced lacking in independence. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable source with significant coverage to establish notability. Also promotional.--Boffob (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional article about a not-yet-notable company. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been watching it try to develop, and tried to fix the intro, but it appears it just isn't notable. Maybe someday, with no prejudice to recreate once better secondary sources exist. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per same ressons as User:Ohconfucius outlined above. DustyRain (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Muhammad Zulqarnain Aamir

Procedural nomination; article was left tagged with an incomplete AFD. I'm presuming that the nomination rationale is non-notability, because the article does nothing to suggest that the subject is at all notable. No vote. Bearcat (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7: no assertion of notability whatsoever, and so tagged Ohconfucius (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy declined. The article's original author does actually assert notability. See the ref from the edit summary - [25]. The person may still not be notable, but the speedy criterion does not apply. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable bio. --Lockley (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mount Cook, Wellington#Education as boldly carried out by dramatic. TerriersFan (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mt Cook School, Wellington

Non-notable primary school Closedmouth (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article states only that "Mt Cook School is a primary school that resides in Mt Cook, Wellington." Generally, primary schools generally aren't notable. Mandsford (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mount Cook, Wellington. This is the normal procedure for primary schools in New Zealand. I am slowly going through the whole country, writing articles or adding sections to articles on small towns/suburbs with a school, and redirecting the school articles to these where no article on the school already exists. However, it will be quite some time before I work on the Wellington area.-gadfium 18:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mount Cook, Wellington. May satisfy notability on it's own - NZ Herald has trivial mention, two articles with slightly more coverage from the Dominion Post: [26], [27]. No results from TVNZ. XLerate (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. In fact I've already added the information to the Mount Cook, Wellington#Education article if anyone feels in the mood for an early close so we can complete the redirect. dramatic (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The coverage in the citations XLerate listed is too slight to demonstrate notability, so the general rule of merging primary schools should be followed. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Significant coverage identified Bongo matic 08:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary A. Kowalski

After searching under the subject's name as well as his most recent book, unable to find any significant coverage (including editorial review) in reliable sources. Bongo matic 08:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I had no difficulty finding coverage of this notable author and minister in such sources as the New York Times and USA Today. The nomination is clearly faulty. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even including CWs edits, it still seems to fail WP:BIO - specifically the significant coverage part. Will review if CW or others find significant references Verbal chat 11:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the USA today article cited is MORE than in-depth enough. Given this level of coverage, I think it is likely more exists... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to a lack of any claim of notability. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note also: I contacted the Internet Watch Foundation. They have never blacklisted this website. The Google search results that were removed were not from this URL. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failcyclopedia.com

Fails WP:WEB and WP:N. No sources for verification and none can be found on google news. Heck, the website appears to have been blacklisted by google due to child pornography complaints! Themfromspace (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went ahead and removed all links to the website from the article to be on the safe side. Themfromspace (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I Googled the website and saw no mention of child pornography or any pornography for that matter. I have never whitnessed anything of this nature on Failcyclopedia either. Carbide20 (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well somebody has obviously complained enough to warrant the site being blacklisted by google. If you click on the google search above you'll notice that the actual website doesn't appear in google's rankings. At the bottom of the page is a notice that 10 results from the page (only 6 remain!) were removed due to a legal request submitted to google (read:child porn complaint). Themfromspace (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but it doesnt specifically say that Failcyclopedia was one of the removed websites. It is possible that google just does not have the website indexed. Carbide20 (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets hope that be the case, although it wouldn't bode well for the article's notability. Themfromspace (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear conflict of interest with the articles creator, and frankly the site doesn't seem notable in the least. However, the biggest problem is that it is unsourced and I honestly can't imagine anyone bothering to write anything about the site. A ni Mate 09:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable site. It can become interesing in the future if it manages to grow, but, as for now, it's not notable enough at all to have an article. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cousens

The person is a non notable player in a semi-professional league. Fails WP:Athlete. Jevansen (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:ATHLETE. The West Australian Football League is neither fully professional or the highest level of the sport. Given that there are no project specific guidelines developed for players in this competition and no sources have been provided, there is little else to go on. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't matter about the WAFL argument. This person has not achieved anything notable even at that level. Fails WP:N as a result. AFL-Cool (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certain WAFL players - eg winners of the Sandover Medal, or players pre-1990 when the AFL was instituted, would have claims to notability, but not in this instance. Murtoa (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Art (Genre)

A "genre" that hasn't reached any notability. Recently created, only "808s & Heartbreak" will follow the genre. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 07:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: West most certainly did not coin this term. ^Law_shoot! 10:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Seems like an intention to create a free ride for Kanye West on a dab page. Lots of entertainers like to coin a term to describe how fresh, different and innovative they think they are. The irony here is that a supposedly original music form is being described by a very unoriginal name. Mandsford (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Misleading non-notable neologism. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Very misleading, considering pop art's more important usage. And far from notable. Tris2000 (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A passing neologism for an old idea. Surprised we have no article for Poptimism, critical appreciation of pop music, though. 86.44.21.224 (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 23:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Garden

WP:Notability - IRC game/community with no secondary coverage, no Alexa rating, not recognized by Google ~ Eidako (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No third party sources of notability and the article ~~sounds like~~ is a advertisement ("please visit our site for further details"). Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and an advertisement. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:V and WP:N, should have been speedied as DB:spam. - DustyRain (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore All Things in Christ Party

Per what I stated yesterday in the prod tag:

Even if Wansink is himself notable (and I don't think he is - cannot find any significant coverage of the man), the "party" isn't. It has one member (who allegedly received "around 90 votes"), is not registered, and has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, or unreliable sources, for that matter (I found mentions in a couple of NZ blogs). Therefore I don't think Restore All Things in Christ meets Notability.

Further to this, I'd like to state that the only mention I can find of the party is in the ODT article given. Darimoma (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC

I know Mr. Wansink personally and he has told me several times about his party. There is a YouTube video of him giving a speech for the elections. The reason that there is very little Internet evidence for Mr. Wansink's party is that he is a traditional Catholic who believes that both television and the Internet are bad and can lead to sin.

And if you are considering this article for deletion, then you should also consider the Bill and Ben Party article for deletion too. They are a joke political party that does not stand for anything. At least Mr. Wansink has values that he believes in enough to start a political party over. User:Scottinglis (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC

Delete, non-notable party. The Bill and Ben party received about 11,000 votes - rather more than the 90 votes this party received. Yes, the Bill and Ben party are a joke.-gadfium 08:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That Wansink believes the internet is bad does not explain why there is not significant coverage from other sources of the party he founded. That Wansink believes what he believes very strongly does not make his party notable. Darimoma (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — there seems to be an apparent conflict of interest with the user in question regarding this topic. In either case, I only see one source from a newspaper regarding anything about him. The general notability guideline requires multiple reliable sources independent of the topic. All other sources I see from doing a basic Google search indicates no other nontrivial references. MuZemike (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. As the nominator points out, this is a party with one candidate, and he received 107 votes. Reviewing the source indicates that this was 107 votes out of more than 34,000 cast in the last election. Mandsford (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —gadfium 19:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are a number of single-person parties around in NZ, and none of them have proven notable. This article clearly fails to meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. dramatic (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this is not a party composed of a single person. Just it is this one election that just gone by that it only had one candidate, but it has been going on for many years & had other candidates in past elections. Mathmo ^Talk 00:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll note DPF covered this party [28] (kiwiblog is one of the major political blogs, often in the mainstream media) Mathmo ^Talk 00:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Dave Farrar's blog is a self-published source, and so not reliable by Wikipedia's standards.

Also, my source for claiming they only had one member was the article itself. I can't find any source backing that up, but nor can I find any source claiming they have more than one member. A search of past election results, however, indicates they have never fielded any other candidates, however: [29]

Weak delete The one source isn't significant enough coverage to demonstrate sufficient notability. It's notable enough to be included in a List of very minor New Zealand political parties page, if such a thing exists. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Parties such as these are just labels that candidates who are not part of registered parties fill in when they stand ( instead of "independent"). Party lacks membership, officers, policy, newsletters, etc to indicate it is anything other than a label the candidate adopted. If I stand for parliament every election for the next 30 years under the label "random name party" and get 100 votes each time then neither me nor the party qualifies. Compare WP:MICROCON perhaps - SimonLyall (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established the usual way. Ethical judgements about what ought to be notable are no substitute for an adherence to a neutral point of view. I'd like just the facts, m'am. WilyD 15:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Could you give some reliable sources to demonstrate its fulfilling Notability? Darimoma (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with SimonLyall, a one-man--band is not notable just because he calls himself a party (regardless of any fellow candidates that may have stood previously). Inclusion would make a case for including every Independent or fringe candidate that has ever stood in an election anywhere. Fanx (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Naw, just the ones whose notability is established by reliable sources. Wily D 15:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I proudly announce the formation of the Plan 8 Party. We will be standing on an unbeatable focus group-tested platform of common sense, zero tolerance, honour, justice, egalitarianism, fraternity and generous compassion for the trod-on, except where our polling indicates that our target audience would rather they go screw themselves. join now and get a free apron with boobs on the front. perfect for summer!

...by which I mean delete. The man is not elgible for an article. RATIC is the man, not a party in its own right. You don't have to say 'independent' on the ballot paper, but that's what RATIC means. plan 8 (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball Delete. Marasmusine (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA 2010 (video game)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTABILITY. The game was not even announced and most part is just speculation for ex:- the platforms and the release date. SkyWalker (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any reliable sources to back any of the information in the article. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 06:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — Dare I say crystalballery? MuZemike (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speed delete for crystal ball. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per above. Besides, it's not even 2009 yet. -- azumanga (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Immediately, due to no reliable resources and the article is totally based on speculation. Hairy Perry 17:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : Snowball delete. Wikipedia is not a place to write about things you or your friends have invented. (Being a deletionist, I am of the opinion that the article falls under the speedy deletion criterion A7 - no claim of notability, as an article about a drink you have invented is essentially an article about you.)

16 hour workday

Article is about a non-notable drink created by college students; no verifiable sources could be found. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course your call. There are no references because it was in fact just invented. However, a number of mixed drinks listed on Wikipedia are no more well known, and it will not become any more popular unless others can learn about it. I was under the impression that was what Wikipedia was about, spreading knowledge. --Qmajeski (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is about spreading knowledge, knowledge that had been collected, tried and proven and is supposed to be preserved. Spreading knowledge about new, recently invented things to make them popular is sometimes called advertising. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, delete as something made up at school one day. McWomble (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Refer user to Alternate outlets. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — There was something the Democrat Youth from the University of Colorado at Boulder made out of this — and that is SPAM. MuZemike (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I'm itching to speedily delete this, but it doesn't satisfy any of the criteria in my view. This is something made up ~~in school~~ one day. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wilderness (band). MBisanz ^talk 12:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(k)no(w)here

The article is new and a stub, it doesn't explain the notability of the subject (a just released album). It contains an infobox and a track listing. Synchronism (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wilderness (band). The band's article needs some serious expansion, anyway, to remain as an article. The one source I have found here can provide good notability for the band itself, but definitely not for the album article itself - at least to stand on its own. MuZemike (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wilderness (band). Does not satisfy WP:NALBUMS, which suggests that such articles be merged with the band. There's barely any coverage of the album for expansion, at least at present. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 02:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G3 by DGG. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dawgism

Possible Original Research, no refs, ghits for "Dawgism" show mostly blogs, unknown if this is our "Dawgism" thing. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stupid. JuJube (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it for now - the article is still under process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsp greenday (talk • contribs) 06:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I found was BlogSpot with a link to MySpace seems to be entirely OR and no chances of finding any reliable sources. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 06:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — same as above but also with blogspot. Are there any verifiable, third party sources establishing notability of this religion? I say because I cannot find any. MuZemike (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense neologism. Delete, and perhaps speedy/snowball delete on the grounds that an article about something you have invented is essentially an article about you. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a made up culture - but keep it for its humor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsp greenday (talk • contribs) 20:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Even if being funny was a reason to keep things, this is not funny in any way. JuJube (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as vandalism.

Synchronism (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Golod

I believe this article is a hoax and should be speedily deleted. There is absolutly nothing from Google. It is not on the official lists of South Sydney players, and I have attempted to located much on this person, but there is nothing. So I wish the speedily deleted, as there are no sources, orphaned (except to a number of users). The Windler talk 05:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a hoax article. A google search reveals nothing but this article and a facebook page. Fribbler (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a falsehood.Londo 06 19:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism, and possibly a personal attack if Wayne Golod is a real person. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keep voters didn't have one policy based reason Secret ^account 21:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Home audio

Not very useful, no references, seems to be largely covered by Home cinema. [roux » x] 05:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. With all due respect, is this a pointy nomination of some sort? I'd imagine the folks over at the HydrogenAudio forums would love to have a word with you here - as would anybody who's ever paid a ridiculous amount for those perfect, make-your-teeth-rattle speakers. The article is a stub - and not a very well-written one - but yes, despite the degenerate state of mass-market music, home audio is a notable avenue of research, completely independant from movie watching. Badger Drink (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er.. what point would I be trying to make, other than 'I don't believe this article is useful, it cites no sources, and I feel this information is largely covered by Home cinema'? Please AGF, ok? [roux » x] 06:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"With all due respect . . .". Back in the day, (when the albums were actually worth listening to), people would invest a retarded amount of money in getting the perfect turntable, the perfect amplifier, the perfect speakers - in short, the perfect "rig". That there exists a lot of crossover between the home audio and the home theater markets is entirely irrelevant - there's plenty of crossover between Karl Marx and communism, as well. The article, in its current state, sucks, yes - but it's a start, and it is in not such an absolute, unsalvagable state of sucktitude that there exists any purpose in starting over from scratch. Badger Drink (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of making a pointy deletion is pretty clearly not assuming good faith on my part. An apology would be nice. [roux » x] 06:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demanding an apology is a sure-fire way to ensure you won't receive one. Methinks thou art a wee bit too sensitive. Badger Drink (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a demand. You were rude; an apology for being so would be nice. [roux » x] 07:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly may be. On the other hand, throwing out apologies when I feel they are unwarranted would cheapen those apologies which are warranted - and, hence, not be so nice for me. Badger Drink (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure that this article is likely to cover anything that wouldn't be better covered by High fidelity, although if a case can be made for this being a distinct topic, I would support keeping it. It needs more content, however, before that's justified.--Michig (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just throwing the idea "out there", so to speak, but what are your thoughts (and/or anybody else's thoughts, of course) towards a move of high fidelity to home audio - the former being the goal (perhaps the obsession) of - and therefore merely a component of - the latter? I'm aware that this isn't WP:RFPM - just testing the waters. Badger Drink (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's almost impossible to distinguish between high fidelity and other audio, as manufacturers/retailers will describe any old junk as "hi-fi", so separating high fidelity from other audio may not have much mileage, but then again, hi-fi could refer to in-car audio or even personal audio (walkman, iPod, etc.), so "home audio" maybe wouldn't be the best place for it. Summary: undecided on that one.--Michig (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated as superfluous. Also this jargon appears to be a neologism derived from home video/home cinema whereas high fidelity is long a still used term.Synchronism (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: useless stub. It appears to be a neologism derived from 'home cinema'. Proponents have failed to demonstrate how this is a notable class of domestic equipment when hi-fi is the most widely used terminology by a long way. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons above, I agree completely.OneHappyHusky (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not useless, because it can be greatly expanded. To think that its covered by home cinema is a little narrow & ahistoric. there is a substantial differentiation from high fidelity--i think this term is used more for multi room setups and the like, but this can be discussed as it gets worked on.
Merge hi-fi to this article, re-direct hi-fi here, and expand article. Very limited in its current state, but the topic I believe deserves an article. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at very least Merge per Theseeker4. Home audio is certainly a notable topic; while home theatre/cinema/whatnot is much more prominent now, there is still a long history where the point of the system was the audio, without any visual part to it. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parks West Mall

I don't think even Eastmain can save this one. I know malls that have entire anchor stores bigger than this whole mall. No sources found, not surprisingly. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Walmart and a Safeway. Does that constitute a mall? Ten Pound Hammer is right...but considering this seems to be a local community mall, it is probably more in scale with that demographic. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 01:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, these kind of malls are common in Canada. Discounter at one end, grocery at the other, mostly service oriented tenants in the middle I bet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like one of our local shopping centres here in "middle England", except that doesn't even have a Walmart or a Safeway. In fact it doesn't have any supermarket at all. Delete nonetheless. -- role^player 02:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might not be a big mall, but it seems to be a pretty integral part of the town it is in. Canuck85 (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is now adequately sourced. It's obviously a pretty tiny mall, but why not have an article on it if the sources are there? Keeping articles like this is in line with WP:NOTPAPER. Amazinglarry (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references now establish notability the usual way. Wily D 15:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the reliable sources added establish the claim of notability. This article would benefit greatly from details on history, size, etc. Alansohn (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Elsecar Cricket Club. MBisanz ^talk 12:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Challenge Cup

An 1880s cricket cup. Notability? It's also not that wikified either. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 01:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provided references can be found to support it, merge the sections which are relevant to Elsecar Cricket Club, as it seems to be of some significance to their history, then delete, as it doesn't appear to be notable in itself. Warofdreams talk 10:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A purely local competition that is definitely non-notable. (And nor is Elsecar Cricket Club notable, for that matter.) JH (talk page) 10:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Elsecar Cricket Club, as per Warofdreams. TNP (formerly Jonathan)

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 12:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Zanetti

Marginally or non-notable motorcycle racer, was marked for speedy-deletion but there was a claim of notability that made speedy-deletion inappropriate. There is also a claim on the article talk page that since there are 50+ inbound redlinks the article should stay. That may be grounds to ignore all rules and keep an article about a non- or barely-notable person. Unlike most AfDs I am abstaining from the keep/delete: I'm honestly not sure if Wikipedia would be better off with or without an article on this person.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be a good deal of info about him at Google News, though most of it is in Italian. Zagalejo^^^ 05:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps someone who reads Italian can find enough information to establish notability, and, concurrently, write a decent article about him for the Italian Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he's truly notable, then he should have an article in every Wikipedia. That said, I don't know much about motorcycle racing, and I'm not sure how to judge the Italian sources, so I hope someone knowledgeable about this topic comes by soon. Zagalejo^^^ 06:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of how many inbound red links there are, this fails WP:BLP1E, WP:ATHLETE and WP:V. Ignoring WP:N on the basis of red links could pave the way for compromising notability requirements for other drivers in the future, this has already the case with baseball, any player with even a single major league at bat is eligible for inclusion, regardless of how short or insignificant it was. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm pretty certain Zanetti actually passes all those. Readro (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: This is a racer of very minor notability. He's a 125cc racer, clocked some fast practice times in a couple of races, but really that's about it. Deleting might be the right way to go. Drmies (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Engine capacity does not determine notablity. The fact remains that he has competed multiple times at the top flight of motorcycle racing for that engine capacity. Readro (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
? I never said it did. I'm a Hans Spaan fan from way back when. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough, I think I might have jumped to a conclusion there! Readro (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been posted in the talk page for the Motorcycle racing Wikiproject. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think the articles really fails the canons of notability, if he was a wildcard rider I'd agree but this is not the case. I think anyway that the article is not acceptable and should be deleted it if remains at its current state. With a detailed infobox and some more information on his past career I think it may be kept. Asendoh (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how the article fails on grounds of notability - he has competed multiple times at the top flight of motorcycle racing for that engine capacity. Readro (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's a professional international motorcycle racer and there seems to be plenty of coverage judging from Google/Google News searches.--Michig (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I quote WP:ATHLETE "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis". He appears to pass this. It would be useful to know more about the Honda Trophy which he won. PatGallacher (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article underwent extensive expansion at 13:40, 9 November 2008. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does anyone know for sure whether the Trofeo Honda 125GP is a fully professional league? Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since he's competed in 125cc MotoGPs, isn't that irrelevant for notability purposes?--Michig (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not fully professional. However, it is something that he has achieved and thus ought to be mentioned in the article. Given that he's competed in 125cc motorcycle Grands Prix then he is notable anyway. Readro (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per PatGallacher. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Readro. matt91486 (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 23:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Agius

Non-notable child performer. Article has considerable WP:COI. The only google hit I can find for "Jrock" AND "Emily Agius" together is one U-tube video. Several references have been added recently, but these are either to Wikipedia (and don't mention Emily) or to first party websites. When I search just for "Emily Agius" I get only this article and various trivial results from social pages, except for a couple that are for a different Emily Agius. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a conflict of interest if ever I saw one. There is an unhealthy (total) reliance on self-published sources. WP is not myspace Ohconfucius (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As non-notable ad. for subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequately sourced BLP of a person of marginal notability. RMHED (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyalya Bezhetskaya

Probable autobiography of Russian burlesque performer. Lacks reliable sources and none found via Google. (I don't see any claim of notability, but this was previously deleted as a speedy delete, then recreated with the CSD tag intact and an admin declined the speedy delete.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find any reliable sources that verifies her claim to notability. Perhaps someone can research russian reliable sources? Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources. I couldn't find anything else on Google about her. Since the article may have been created by the subject, we should be slow to trust claims of notability made in the article. Can't confirm from Google that a 'Shkatulka' burlesque theater ever existed in Russia. Our article on the American burlesque performer Dita von Teese makes no mention that she ever visited Russia, as claimed in this article. Burlesqueen has also added a paragraph about Bezhetskaya to our article on Burlesque, but without providing any sources. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in Cyrillic, seems to be Ляля Бежецкая. Some sources locatable, of difficult to determine notability. I'd be open to a second opinion from a Russian speaker on the viability of the various sources, of course. Wily D 13:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My Russian's a bit rusty, but I can see that these articles in a Russian newspaper and this one in a Byelorussian one are about her, and she gets another shorter mention in that paper plus some mentions in Komsomolskaya Pravda and this one in an Interfax report. I think there's just about enough there for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we work off the Russian-language sources, we can be slightly more confident that she is notable. But then we are left with an English article for which 99% of the content can't be verified from any source published in English. Are you (or someone in this discussion) qualified to provide enough translations of the Russian to substantiate the detailed biographical narrative that is now included in the article? Should we stub it down to a remnant? EdJohnston (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English-language sources are not now, and have never been, a requirement for sourcing. In fact, in our quest to write a good neutral point of view encyclopaedia, we need to lean less on them. Wily D 15:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vanityspam. What is about this claim of being the first burlesque in the entire country of Russia, ever? Extraordinary claims demand the most reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just because one claim in the article may be untrue it doesn't mean that the whole article has to be deleted. Notability is based on coverage in reliable sources, not the claim to be first in the field. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common Grant Application

No sign of notability apart from press releases in industry publications & most of the article is about why the concept of the company is good, rather than about the company itself. I initially CSD'd this as A7/G11, but decided to restore & bring it to AfD instead.. Versa geek 07:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable independent source for notability, also spammy.--Boffob (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Some of these points were previously discussed with Pedro : Chat before the initial posting and are part of Talk:Common Grant Application. It should be noted that the industry articles listed on the page were not the result of any press releases, but in fact were initiated in all cases by the respective authors/editors independently contacting the Common Grant Application. As a question, what additional information about the company do you feel would be helpful? Lulayellowlab (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple sources, important project. Probably could find a few dozens o more, but it does not seem necessary. DGG (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, references seem to amount to trivial coverage and/or unreliable sources. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Misleading title: not about a "common grant application", but rather about an online grant application and management system - i.e. a commercial business offering a programme to generate grant applications. Judging from the titles, the supplied references deal generally with grants. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 01:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Marler

Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of independent reliable sources, WP:SPA/potential WP:COI concerns, not helped by the fact that the author implies on my talk page that he is the same as one or more of the WP:SPA authors of the two previous speedily deleted versions. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. I am amazed at how Wikipedia works. Anyway, there may be some confusion about the article I submitted. I am not the author of the two prior deleted articles. I wrote an article today that was flagged for delete. I don't know what the prior articles included, or why they didn't meet inclusion criteria. However, I did include sources and references in the article I submitted today. Susan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adiostexas (talk • contribs) 18:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A little research on Google shows that he was a feature of a Washington Post article. See link. Also, I found this feature in San Fran Weekly link. He was in notable band, and while his books may not be the most notable ever, they certainly don't hurt. This research is much more important to me than any wp:coi speculation or WP:SPA. The refs need to be cleaned up, but the article was just created. Tag rather than afd/csd. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improve sourcing and keep. --John (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does this look?Adiostexas (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are at least two reliable sources (especially SF Weekly) COI is a reason to keep an eye on the article, not for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability now established the usual way. Good work on the improvements. Wily D 15:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 23:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Appleweed

This is one of a number of OR / COI additions to Wikipedia by Scott Miller, the artistic director of New Line Theatre. Newchaz64 (talk · contribs), the originator of the article, admitted that he was Scott Miller on Talk:Johnny Appleweed - [30].

The article is a description of a musical written and produced by Scott Miller. Aside from a couple of (presumably - based on form) cherry-picked review quotes, the whole thing is OR beyond any real hope of redemption, there being few or any accessible secondary sources to back up the assertions being made.

Combined with its unencyclopedic tone, I view the article as being unsalvageable. It would be fine for a theatre website - which is probably where it originated, judging by the OTRS ticket - but it fails on multiple levels within wikipedia. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article certainly needs a lot of work. But I see references. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC) I pruned a bit. More needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability established the usual way. Some editing may be needed, but that's not a criterion for deletion. Wily D 15:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything in the article that establishes notability other than the above-mentioned cherry-picked quotes. If those are enough to pass Wikipedia standards then keep, but I would vote that they don't. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been noted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre#AfD of Johnny Appleweed in the hope of more input. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Unless this article is completely rewritten to get rid of the promotional tone, I would vote to delete. BTW, how do we know that the copying from Miller's website is authorized? Scott Miller or whoever it is who copies and pastes materials from Miller's website to wikipedia is not doing these musicals any good, because all of these articles are either COPYVIOs or they COI and written in an unacceptably promotional tone. Please let me know if someone takes the time to write a real encyclopedia article here, and I'll be happy to reconsider my vote. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as withdrawn. Synergy 17:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dez Bryant

WITHDRAWN - No point in keeping this here since its gonna get shot down anyhow. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.

Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports.

neither of which this guy has done. Regardless of his heismann consideration for 2009 or 2010 or whether he is a top 5 college Wide Receiver, the fact remains that He fails notability standards for this category. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty clearly meets the general notability criterion (non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent sources): [31], [32]. In America, college football is just as popular as the major professional sports, and many individual players can achieve national recognition. Those two lines you've quoted from WP:BIO simply provide a poor means of judging people like Bryant, and should be dismissed in this particular case. Zagalejo^^^ 04:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is about one of the best players in college football and future NFL star who is considered a Heisman candidate this year and has been compared to Michael Crabtree who has an article, and it is sourced. The user that nominated it for deletion clearly knows nothing of college football and a deletion should not happen because of this--Yankees10 06:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as pointed out, collegiate football in the United States carries more prestige than many professional sports. This guy is at the top of his game. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Yankees10 has pointed out, rightly, I know nothing of College Football. Which is why we have guidelines to follow on things, but what is the point of having rules and notability guidelines if they are going to get ignored just because the subject of an article might become a professional? He isn't yet, and although the guidelines may be a poor way of assessing him, they are there for a reason. Can we get a little objectivity please? Thor Malmjursson (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say he's notable as he is right now, regardless of whether he becomes a professional. College football is covered by the mainstream media in the US (more so than, say, professional soccer, which is the most widely played sport in the world). If a professional soccer player from the US at the top of his game is notable, then this guy is too. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines clearly need to be changed--Yankees10 15:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The guidelines do not need to be changed they just need to be read correctly. The criteria set forth in the subject-specific notability guidelines are subordinate to the general notability standard, as is implicitly noted by duplication of the general standard in the subject-specific guidelines themselves (here, see WP:BIO#Basic criteria). Accordingly, meeting or not meeting WP:ATHLETE is entirely immaterial. The nominator should also note the many places in guideline and policy where those taking articles to AfD are advised to do at least a perfunctory search first to check whether the subject is patently not a valid candidate (here, here and here among others). Per any number of easily accomplished searches, it is shown that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources (and does so in spades), thus meeting the letter of Wikipedia's general notability standards. See, e.g. this Google News search; 120 New York Times articles. This is about as conclusive as notability gets.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 it seems that Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk · contribs) has been bold and redirected the article. Icewedge (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-language

non-notable Pig Latin like "code language". Being once used in a song is an insufficient claim of notability. No coverage in reliable sources. Icewedge (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I couldn't agree more. And that one song was from 1978? Drmies (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be any more notable if the song was recorded last Wednesday? Or if it was recorded in 1578? Badger Drink (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to B (programming language) 70.55.86.100 (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment someone redirected the article. 70.55.84.27 (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Vaughan (teacher)

Possibly non-notable individual. There is one article about Vaughan Systems [33] in El Mundo but not much else that I can find. Regents Park (RegentsPark) 04:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything on him and he's currently failing WP:TEACHER. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, either through WP:BIO or through WP:TEACHER. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO badly. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to comply the criteria laid in WP:TEACHER. --Efe (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Twilight1701 (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some additional references to support the subject's notability and the contents of the stub. The referenced elmundo.es 2005 article contains significant independent coverage of the subject and his teaching activities. In my opinion it passes WP:N. Wronkiew (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - fails the guideline for academics but narrowly meets the general notability guideline as has been the subject of limited coverage in reliable secondary sources, for example here ~~and here~~. The two guidelines are independent of each other - passing either one is sufficient. The article also includes some Spanish-language links from reliable sources which clearly feature Vaughan in some detail, though the precise content requires better language skills than mine. On balance, the coverage in reliable secondary sources is present if a little limited, and with some good faith re the Spanish language references it seems sufficient to meet the notability criteria. Euryalus (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment your 2nd reference above appears to be a self published source. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you're right, my apologies. I've struck it out and amended my view to Weak Keep. Euryalus (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 by Athaenara. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama India

Contested prod. I'm not sure how to categorize this, but it seems like a blantant violation of wp:npov - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:OR. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder. Blatant opinion piece, original research, your pick. Also, I am not aware of the existence of an entity called "Obama India." No mention of such an entity can be found in the article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, as the article appears to be cut-and-pasted from it's sources. Tagged as copyvio. Dchall1 03:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete per everyone. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 04:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--what a [deleted] piece of poorly written, unsourced/stolen, opinionated, fictional prose. Yes, all that at the same time. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The source can always be used elsewhere, doesn't appear to need a whole page. Mathmo ^Talk 04:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this essay. It's unsourced and appears to contain original research and unverifiable speculation. Majoreditor (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Per WP:POVFORK and WP:SNOW. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The American Drug War

FORK of War on Drugs, with liberal doses of WP:SYN. I would suggest merging to War on Drugs, but after the non-NPOV language is stripped out, there won't be much left. PROD tag removed by author. Recommend Delete. Dchall1 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete but Merge - Some of this stuff in the article can be used to supplement articles aforementioned: 'War on Drugs', etc. Furthermore, the phrase "The American Drug War" seems so threatening and ominous like an actual full-out civil war; it shouldn't really be denoted as such. I'd agree that the US is stepping up its control over crimes, but this article is somewhat too overemphasizing. WinterSpw (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's a fring-ish, synthesized essay. Majoreditor (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant POV fork. RayAYang (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant POV fork. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. We have a War on Drugs, already; anything else would basically be non-WP:NPOV. MuZemike (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. - OceanWatcher (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork -J3ff (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't see how this is any different from the "War on Drugs," and it seems extremely biased to me. H e mh e m20X6 03:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as extremely biased, with no useful information worth saving as an article independent from War on Drugs. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete, This is a truthful article. Wikipedia seems to have a lot of right-wing and elitist users on it that want to see this article deleted. Evidently some the people who want this thing deleted are trying to make the USA seem like a peaceful and prosperous nation when it is not. There is a REAL WAR being waged by the police against Black and Latino "gangs" in the cities. The police have killed thousands of people since 1986 either by shooting them or locking them up and denying them proper medical care. This is a major human rights issue. Deleting this article will not make the issue go away on Wikipedia! -Rockydesert8 (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. arguments for deletion based on notability have been refuted via evidence of RS coverage. Subject is notable by apparent consensus. While Consensus can change, it doesn't appear that it has. StarM 01:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Jeffries

Delete - fails WP:BIO and the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted. Sources noted are not substantively about the subject and there do not appear to be such sources. Otto4711 (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, last time this article was put up for deletion it only got one delete vote and all the rest were Keeps. Should go the same way this time, as he is clearly notable as one of the founders (arguably the founder) of the seduction community. Mathmo ^Talk 04:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the reliable sources that support the notion that he is notable are...? Otto4711 (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RMHED (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep frivolous deletion - Otto4711 is attacking all current seduction related articles at the moment Sedcom (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to your abject failure of civility and your appalling lack of assumption of good faith, not to mention your attempt to color this nomination with falsehoods. I am not "attacking" anything. I am reviewing these articles and searching for sources that substantiate them before nomination. I have not, for example, nominated nominated most of the similar articles for deletion and have no particular intention to. Your obvious bias in favor of these articles, as evidenced by your user name's being an abbreviation of seduction community, is perhaps clouding your judgment and your interest in the subject is perhaps leading to ownership issues and blinding you to the requirements for Wikipedia articles. Find the independent reliable sources that are substantially about this person. Otto4711 (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always assume good faith as my first instinct, however when I find obvious apparent reason to no longer assume the best of a person in that there is an innocent explanation then it would be wrong for me to carry on being blind to what is happening. Mathmo ^Talk 05:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's easier to hurl false accusations than it is to defend an indefensible article. Otto4711 (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Frankly, of all the various branches of pseudo-psychology, I find the seduction community the most distasteful, and I heartily wish it were not notable, that the social and psychological conditions that lead people to pay any attention to it did not exist, and that the followers and leaders in it had other approaches to life altogether. There is in many contexts a lot to be said for giving them the minimum publicity. But in the present context, we are a contemporary encyclopedia, and need to document the world as it is. He's notable as an author and a speaker, and the sources are there to show it. The success of his books alone is sufficient for notability. I do not doubt he is unhappy with the article,for the current version is somewhat biased against him -- earlier versions have had very different biases, and i in fact challenged an earlier version myself on its talk page as predominantly self-advertising. This is yet another good example of why we should not give the wishes of the subject of the article any consideration whatsoever in a decision about it, and why blp policy should be changed to absolutely prohibit doing so. It is a way by which they can censor articles to force only the ones favorable to them to remain. This one needs some editing back to NPOV, yes, but certainly not removal. DGG (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, the article does not meet any of the speedy keep criteria. Second, I have not suggested removing all discussion of the "seduction community" from Wikipedia. I have merely stated that articles related to that topic, like all Wikipedia articles, need to meet the relevant policies and guidelines, and suggested that this one does not. The sources listed in the article are simply not substantively about this particular person and he does not appear to meet the criteria set forth at WP:CREATIVE. The only possible guideline he meets there is The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors and frankly from my reviewing these articles and in searching for sources I find the "seduction community" to be so incestuous that I have an extremely difficult time applying that criterion (which strikes me as more geared toward academics in the first place) to anyone involved in it. They are all constantly referencing each other and accepting that each of these people think that the others are "important" for purposes of notability is a circular path into a walled garden. Again, let's see some independent reliable sources that are substantively about this particular person. Otto4711 (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the same person as the last user who was going on about this conspiracy theory of walled garden and thus trying to delete off every seduction community article? Should I be requesting a checkuser, as this person is a known Sockpuppeteer. Mathmo ^Talk 11:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to request whatever you'd like. Once you figure out that I'm not whoever you think I am, I assume that you'll apologize for defaming me, right? Otto4711 (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defaming you, I was simply asking you a question based on a striking observation. Mathmo ^Talk 15:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Ross Jeffries is creepy, and I want articles about creepy people to be on Wikipedia. Therefore, I vote to Keep. Thugz Without Undiez (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Above user's only contribution is to this discussion. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: AGF, MF. Thugz Without Undiez (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Clearly notable based on reliable published sources. 32 hits on Google News Archive include "Getting Screwed" in Metro Silicon Valley, "Dating game turns ugly" in The Guardian/Observer, and Care For Some Sleaze? Operators Are Standing By in The Seattle Times, and much more significant, non-trivial coverage. Sky Newswire says he is "known as the father of the seduction community". PopMatters says he is "rumored to be the inspiration for Tom Cruise’s character Frank T.J. Mackey in the 1999 film Magnolia." This guy's been on several TV talk shows, and hundreds of radio talk shows. Sorry, but you don't get to seek this much publicity and then complain you're not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. To prove notability beyond all doubt, he is featured prominently in the New York Times bestseller The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists. DHowell (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment I do not understand how the nominator could have looked at the cited sources and seriously say "Sources noted are not substantively about the subject and there do not appear to be such sources." The Guardian/Observer article was already cited and is about a court case between him and R. Don Steele, so is at least half about him, and mentions interviews in Playboy, Rolling Stone and late-night television (i.e. evidence of more reliable source coverage). The Houston Press article devotes four paragraphs to Jeffries, as well as an additional paragraph about the same lawsuit. DHowell (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and none on the horizon. Both sides make good arguments and there's ultimately no consensus to delete this. StarM 01:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Cook

Delete - fails WP:BIO as there is a lack of independent reliable sources that support notability. Otto4711 (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can only presume this editor is trying to push some kind of point, as Otto4711 also nominated RJ (the founder of the seduction community) and the whole category they are in. If you actually read the article you can see there are many multiple sources mentioned (the NY Times bestseller The Game , Edge Magazine, Men's Health Magazine, The Sunday Telegraph, David DeAngelo programs, The Times, etc etc...). Mathmo ^Talk

Thanks so much for your assumption of good faith. The article is actually sourced by blog entries and the subject's own DVDs, which are not reliable sources for purposes of establishing notability. The Strauss book is sourcing that the guy lived in a closet (which hardly makes him notable) and that he supposedly wrote stuff for a company (also doesn't make him notable). The Men's Health article is listed in a "further reading" section and is not linked, nor is it used to source any part of this article. The Times article includes about 3-4 sentences about this guy out of a three-page article. The Edge magazine link appears to be dead and is also not sourcing anything in the article. Again, no independent reliable sources that are substantively about this person. Otto4711 (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So in this case notability means making an appearance in a friends book—living in the friend's closet. This notable fact is further backed up by his name being mentioned—in one sentence—in the Times Online piece. Also, he's referenced too in his own blog and another mention in a university paper. And don't forget his DVDs. OK but what about the content of the article? The article states that the guy is most famous for being mentioned in his friend's book. He started a business—which went "overwhelmingly in debt"—and now he's getting out of that business to get "self help". Oh, and don't forget he's selling a couple DVDs. So in the end, the sources used are not independent, and even when this guy is mentioned it's just trivial stuff. Note the previous AFD stated the user who created this article (User:Sedcom 'seductive community'?) works for this guy's company.--Celtus (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequately sourced BLP, sources aren't reliable. Subject is also at best only marginally notable. RMHED (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability is not established by adequate third-party sources. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep frivolous deletion - Otto4711 is attacking all current seduction related articles at the moment Sedcom (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to your abject failure of civility and your appalling lack of assumption of good faith, not to mention your attempt to color this nomination with falsehoods. I am not "attacking" anything. I am reviewing these articles and searching for sources that substantiate them before nomination. I have not nominated most of the similar articles for deletion and have no particular intention to. Your obvious bias in favor of these articles, as evidenced by your user name's being an abbreviation of seduction community, is perhaps clouding your judgment and your interest in the subject is perhaps leading to ownership issues and blinding you to the requirements for Wikipedia articles. Find the independent reliable sources that are substantially about this person. Otto4711 (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep adequate sources for notability. But it needs some editing by someone who doesn't care one way or another about the subject. The section curiously called "background" is incomprehensible without a previous knowledge of the actual background of the various people and publications referred to there. I suspect that this --as with similar confusing passages elsewhere in Wikipedia, is due to the successive alterations to give a more or less favorable tone to the article. I initially adopted a similar approach to these articles as the nominator, but I now have what I think a more objective understanding of NPOV. DGG (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't appreciate your saying I don't understand WP:NPOV, especially given the numerous instances where you (as an administrator) have failed to understand relevant policies and guidelines. The nomination does not have anything to do with NPOV. It has to do with notability guidelines WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Since you are claiming that the independent reliable sourcing exists, please specify which sources you believe are both independent of the subject of the article and substantively about the subject of the article. Otto4711 (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Arguments against the article, especially in replies to comments here, are unpersuasive, and I might say, rude. Keep it cool guys. Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again, the independent reliable sources that are substantively about this person are...? Otto4711 (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How are you unpersuaded? Notability requires "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This article is hinging upon nothing but his appearance in his friend's book. The two web references are nothing but reviews of that book - one of these only mentions this person's name in passing (WP:BLP1E). The rest of the references are to his own blog and DVDs. The article was created by someone involved with this person and the 'seduction community', look at his contribs Sedcom (talk · contribs). The attacks of goodfaith on a nominator for pointing this stuff out isn't a counter argument, neither is calling an AFD discussion "rude". Notable should be proved without the aid of a friend's book or an associate writing up your bio.--Celtus (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you know little on this topic as it is very clear from reading the book that Neil Strauss did not depart from Owen on good terms. Even more so than this, him and all of Owen's associates were heavily attacked in the book by Neil Strauss. Your claim that this is just a simple case of an author including mentions of a friend in his book purely because he is friends is incredulous to say the least. Mathmo ^Talk 09:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A simple case of his personal connection with the author. Not an independent source. Very simple.--Celtus (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was an investigative journalist getting involved in a community in order to write about it. Saying this is a "personal connection" and therefore not "independent" is like saying Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had a "personal connection" to Deep Throat and therefore All The President's Men is not a reliable source about the whistleblower. DHowell (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Woodward and Bernstein had lived in the same house as Deep Throat the way that Strauss and Cook did, I might have to agree with you. Otto4711 (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the main point of how they were radically opposing each other which lead to the whole downfall of project hollywood? Just because a person is living with another doesn't mean they like them at all, as I'm sure you must know in many cases it can mean the complete opposite as they hate each other's guts. Mathmo ^Talk 10:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little independent coverage of him personally in the sources provided, certainly not enough to pass WP:BIO. The name is fairly common so googlesearching is not that easy as it tends to produce a lot of false positives. A googlebooks search for his name gives 269 hits[34] but as far as I was able to check, only one[35] (his own book) relates to him. A WorldCat search does not show a single U.S. library carrying that book[36]. Nsk92 (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will miss 99% of the mentions of him online by only searching for his real name rather than his pseudonym. Mathmo ^Talk 10:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in reliable sources including "The art of seduction" in The Queen's Journal and The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists (which covers him as the pseudonym "Tyler Durden"). The Queen's Journal article is clearly significant coverage of Owen Cook, and Otto4711's dismissal of The Game's extensive coverage, including 61 pages of mentions of "Tyler Durden", as "sourcing that the guy lived in a closet and that he supposedly wrote stuff for a company" seems quite disingenuous to me. DHowell (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A story about an alumnus on the college's site raises serious questions about its independence as a source. That Cook's pseudonym is mentioned on 61 pages is hardly impressive given that the book is 452 pages long. Otto4711 (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If SIXTY ONE pages is not enough to make you happy, I have to ask how many are needed. All 452 pages?! Mathmo ^Talk 10:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 television stations in Canada by call sign. (non-admin closure) Alexnia (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of digital television stations in Canada

This list is an unnecessary duplication of existing content. To clarify, Canadian television is not divided into stations that broadcast in digital and those that don't; while analog shutoff isn't happening quite as soon in the United States, a transition to all-digital broadcasting for all stations is already underway. There's no real need to maintain a separate list to distinguish "stations which have already launched their digital transmitters" from "stations which will be launching their digital transmitters in 2009 or 2010" — at its best, such a list is only temporarily useful and will officially become wholly redundant with List of television stations in Canada by call sign approximately 700 days from now. Such information can simply be integrated directly into the existing lists of Canadian television stations; we don't need a separate list for it. Delete as an unnecessary content fork. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the suggestion given by the nom. If this were a list of digital cable networks, then it would make sense as a delination does exist undet that criteria, but I agree a separate list is redundant. 23skidoo (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of television stations in Canada by call sign. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tohd8BohaithuGh1. Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 20:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 12:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Languages in Star Wars

Unreferenced for more than a year. No assertion of notability. Google Books search doesn't yield any significant treatment of languages, either specific ones or the clump as a whole. --EEMIV (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Notability is not the big issue (I think the topic *may* be notable). It isn't a bad piece of prose. As a matter of fact, it would make a great webpage somewhere. Unfortunately, it's a very bad encyclopedia article as it very long and uncited, and so woven with original research that you would have to delete it and start over. There is only one source listed, a book. Either this is plagerized from it, or it is pure original research. And, it might even be 100% accurate, but it would very hard to verify and take a couple hundred cites. I can't possibly see how to do anything with this article as it is. Not sure what to do with it. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gah. I'm going to ask for comment from the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars. RayAYang (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wookieepedia (or appropriate Wiki project of one's choice), Merge a brief summary into the main Star Wars article and the individual articles of the races involved, Delete the rest. While fascinating, valuable information for those interested in Star Wars, there's nothing about this that would be more encyclopedically appropriate than, for instance, Computer parts used in the movie Brazil, Personalities of Pokemon or Swordfighting styles of all the extras in Braveheart. As with all those hypothetical articles, some mention of the content would be appropriate - even, perhaps, desired - for the main article, but a discourse of this magnitude is not needed. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, no matter how nifty, interesting, or even useful it may be. Even if the material can be sourced (and, given the trendiness and enormous mass-market appeal of the series, it's likely that whole volumes have in fact been written upon this subject), it does not de facto render the content appropriate for a general-purpose encyclopedia, any more so than the vast libraries of information about what to see in Italy would make Things to do when visiting Italy appropriate (see: WP:NOTTRAVEL). Summarized: Italy okay. Star Wars okay. Leaning Tower of Pisa, with mention of the fact that it is a popular tourist destination, okay. Ewok, with mention of the fact that Ewoks speak a pidgin of Tibetan, Nepali and various Mongolian languages, okay. Things to do when visiting Italy not okay. Languages in Star Wars not okay. Badger Drink (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, just to head this one off at the pass (one would hope): The reason I compare this to Things to do in Italy and not Italian is because Italian is a real language of actual consequence here in the real world. Star Wars, fortunately or unfortunately, is not, in fact, the real world. The languages within Star Wars are a lot more primitive than examples such as Klingon and Elvish, and hence are of a lot less real-world impact than the slight, but still consequential, nature of the above languages. Badger Drink (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not an AfD case. Look, the worst outcome for the current content is going to be a "slight merge" and redirect into Star Wars or some related article. Any of that can be handled on talk pages. AfD is when you really want an article deleted. --Trovatore (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Unreferenced, in-universe original research should be deleted. There is no substantive content in this article -- to say nothing of it being unreferenced -- to merge anywhere. --EEMIV (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and no merge . Although I think that this would be a great essay for the Star Wars wiki, which isn't as rule laden as Wikipedia, it's still an essay. It's overly long and not that well-organized, but those fixable things are not the problem. What cannot be fixed is that, ultimately, this is a lot of observations made by a fan of the films and novels, original research in its purest form. The worst of it is drawing a conclusion about a fictional world from a filming detail: Obi Wan speaks with a British accent, not because Alec Guinness did, but because that's what some Jedi do. Luke and Han "have American accents" because that's how rebels talk, fortunately for Mark Hammill and Harrison Ford. "Spoken Galactic Basic is identical to spoken English", or at least it was a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. I'm not convinced that George Lucas was an all-knowing Creator in the Star Wars universe. Mandsford (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing from Wow to Delete I think Mandsford explains this perfectly. I was already leaning delete, but wanted to be sure I wasn't the only one who saw this as complete and utter OR. Transwiki is fine, but I am not sure that any kind of merge is appropriate. If a section on it was needed, it would be better to write from scratch. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article needs references. This is a very notable subject and a perfectly legitimate article. It already contains some good information, but needs clean-up and references. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously look at it, them image the number of cites it would take (ie:hundreds), and the amount of effort required to remove all the conclusions and other original research. This is one of those cases it would be easier to start over with, which is a valid reason to delete. The idea is cool enough, and this isn't a bad "essay", but just imagine yourself trying to source it. Really, try it. :) DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 12:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this article is full of original research, has no sources and reads like an essay. There are places for unsubstantiated fan speculation. Wikipedia is not that place. Reyk _YO! 19:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The millions of Star Wars fans clearly demonstrate this subjects notability. And I think it's a prefectly appropriate entry for Wikipedia. The problem is that the text is unreferenced. As far as being original research, I don't know if that's true or not, but as there are lots of books on the subject, anyone who wants to is welcome to add references and better source the material. But I think it's a terrific subject. Just be glad there isn't an article on each and every language it contains. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article also has two sources/ references now. And as someone is working to improve it I think it would be unfortunate to delete it. It absolutely needs more inline citations and better referencing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but userfy is recommended. I've been invited to look at revisions, including a verifiable source, and I appreciate the invitation. I'm withdrawing my delete !vote because it's clear that there is an editor who is making an effort to improve this article, and is on the right track. We have to look at why this is an OR mess. The page was created in 2002, when Wikipedia was taking all comers, and standards for new articles were lower than they are now. It started with OR, and many editors threw in their own original research observations over the last six years. There is room for an article about the use of language in Star Wars and its progeny. All I need to say is "Yoda's syntax" and what I am talking about, most people know. Certainly, it's been written about, as the Google Books search demonstrates. Where someone is taking the tough job of trying to make a good article about a worthwhile topic, I'm in favor of a reprieve. However, I recommend a userfy, since I expect that this will take awhile and that the editor, like the rest of us, is doing this in his/her spare time. Save it to your hard drive now before the discussion closes. Mandsford (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with your keep, but userfying would limit who could work on the article. It's been posted to several places where it may draw interest from editors. I've made some edits and may make more. If you'd like, maybe an under constrcution tag would be appropriate?ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Usefying does not at all limit who can edit it. I doubt anyone who'd be willing to userfy it would turn away help working on it. --EEMIV (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is sufficient material and potential resources for all of this. its not as if this series was ignored in published material. True, some of the people who have contributed to it have not paid attention to documentation. Just needs further work. There is no need to userify in order to work in an article--we only userify if the article is impossible to keep in mainspace. DGG (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Do you believe all the original research can be removed and all the content cited properly? I'm sincerely curious as I respect your opinion. I am just not sure how this article can be verified in any meaningful way. As I said from the start, notability isn't the issue to me. It is interesting but how could I trust the accuracy of the information and know it isn't just someone's "take" on what they read (WP:OR)? I know we don't have a WP:DEADLINE, but can we get it to 51% in a reasonable period? Finally, can you take an article this large, only have two sources, yet call it "verified" for so many factual claims? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you my take on this (of course, I recognize that you may have been posing the question to Midnight or to DGG). Yes, I believe that most of the original research can be removed and the remaining content can be cited properly. I think that many of us believe that the topic was worthwhile, but that this particular essay about the topic was crap from start to finish; that someone could write a Wikipedia-standard article about the subject, but that it should be in the form of someone starting from scratch rather than trying to clean this article up. However, I can also see that there are Star Wars fans who are equally repulsed to see an amateurish article from some of their own, who want a high-standard article, and who can recall where they have seen discussions of the subject of language. There are sources out there, of course, because film-makers began to seek the advice of linguists in helping to keep the depiction of an alien culture consistent. It's more evident in the Star Trek franchise, where someone literally "made up" a detailed Klingon language with its own linguistic rules, and it turned into a cultural phenomenon. I conclude that (a) it's a legitimate subject (b) there are editors, like A-Nobody and others, who care about the integrity of both Wikipedia and descriptions of Star Wars; and (c) those editors will have printed sources to draw from. Mandsford (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually addressing DGG, but I certainly respect your opinion as well. I agree the general topic is notable, but usually I say delete and start over when they are this borked. In general, we agree that it is always preferable to fix an article than delete it. I will take it in faith that you and DGG are correct in that it can be converted into something at least "marginal" in short order, and chock up my hesitation (still) to a simple lack of imagination on my part. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sole reliable source is a brief mention in a travel book. No evidence of notability. HiDrNick! 23:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Demolish. This is a horrible article, and a textbook case of what sucks about in-universe articles (and listy merges). It's a patchwork of random Star Wars trivia from a variety of origins and contexts. That said, there's a fair bit of usable content here that belongs in a non-sucky article with a more coherent topic. This needs to go somewhere that isn't article space; project space or userspace would work. From there, the bits of useful content need to be parceled out into the articles that would benefit from them, and the rest consigned to a subpage's article history for GFDL purposes. For the purposes of establishing a consensus, feel free to interpret this as merge, userfy, or delete (it can simply be userfied after a delete), but not a keep-in-this-form. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has references, and article quality is no grounds for deletion. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you're saying (that we should try to improve rather than delete); and the article you're looking at on November 11 is different than what was nominated on November 9. However, had this article not been nominated, I don't think that references would have been added. We should never become satisfied or complacent with bad quality, and poor quality should always be a ground for deletion. Mandsford (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changed from above, based on the fact that the subject matter is notable (no one is arguing against that), but the article as it was when the AFD started was fatally flawed. Because a number of trustworthy editors have made it clear they will start over and fix the article, this puts us in a position to keep and tag heavily. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I dispute the claim that the subject is notable. The two references offer citations to two trivial/passing references, and there's no evidence that "Star Wars languages" as a whole -- or even individually -- have been the subject of significant, third-party coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "languages ""star wars"" gets 18 million hits. Plenty of people have written about it, so the concept is valid. The current article is junk, but that is an issue of wp:v. The 'subject matter' itself can easily be shown to be notable, ignoring the content. Narrowing down the search to just the nytimes found a couple of articles talking about language and star wars as well. What can't be sourced is the original research that is currently being deleted. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those "millions" of hits rapidly degenerate into fan sites, fora and Wookieepedia. A more focused Google Books search yields nary much else; the best that comes up are references to Star Wars terms and ideas impacting popular culture (e.g. "Star Wars"/SDI), but that's bantha fodder for other articles. --EEMIV (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A search for 'Bracelets "Star Wars"' also turns up many millions of equally random sites. Waving vaguely at poorly-formed search engine inquiries does little to help us write well-sourced articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the argument isnt the search results, its the references in the article. As far as referenced material goes, there's no real argument for not having everything sourceable on a topic like this. We can leave the fanfiction and pure speculation to the wikia, but I cant see on what basis one calls this insignificant.DGG (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that there are published guidebooks about the subject means it is worthy of being treated here. --Polaron | Talk 18:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki/merge/delete per Badger Drink. As a single example of what would need fixing if this were to stay, consider the bit about the origins of characters' accents: we would need someone to cite Star Wars canonical sources for the "in-universe" facts, then cite real-world sources for the comparisons to actual ethnic accents, then justify the whole as being notable enough to cover in an article. There are many other similar flaws in this article. TheFeds 04:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 23:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anime: the abridged series

A poorly written essay that seems to have no direction. Not notable, not neutral, makes unverified claims and references that are vaguely connected to content, and lots of other things that other editors will be happy to point out. And I have no idea why it has this title. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR Personal Essay Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. JuJube (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly it is no good as it stands and the title makes no sense. Reading the refs leads me to believe that there just might be the beginnings of a notable phenomenon here, perhaps something akin to a Mashup. If this is the case then a new article under a new title would be the best approach. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also while you're at it, protect it from being recreated. Just like with Yugioh Abridged--Numyht (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lets not assume that the author has any plans to recreate the article. I don't see any signs of bad faith, just inexperience. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I'm warning myself for bad faith then, thanks for commenting --Numyht (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This was at least the third time this article was up for deletion--and it was deleted at one point in the spring of 2008.--Canada1776 (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alexnia (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lolo Soetoro

See immediately below $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 20:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A merge was previously discussed at Talk:Lolo Soetoro#merge redirect recommendation. Voters in this AfD may wish to read the comments made earlier in relation to that merge proposal.

Delete and redirect to Family of Barack Obama, since the article at its present length would fit nicely in the family article.

Here's the history of AfD's concerning extended Obama family members:

If some Wiki-editors would comment on what principles they believe apply to multiple family members across the board, I'd appreciate this too. Thanks.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 20:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just like during last AfD on same article (when the article was less developed). LotLE×talk 20:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought there may have been a previous one for Lolo but upon researching it was surprised to discover that there has yet to be one.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 20:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a merge discussion on Talk:Lolo Soetoro that was rejected. This AfD is really more like a merge request than an AfD proper. LotLE×talk 20:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the above mentioned discussion.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 02:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep stepfather of a US president? Notable. Article is ridiculously long, but that's another matter.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. While the stepfather of a US President is perfectly acceptable Wikipedia content in the appropriate place, he doesn't inherently merit his own separate article just because he married Barack Obama's mother. Merge into Family of Barack Obama; the talk page discussion opposing that seems to be conflating a merger with deletion as if merging meant that the information would somehow disappear. Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the subject has been covered in depth in multiple reliable sources. Sure its true that the only reason he received this coverage is because of his marriage to Obama's mother but every notable person has to be notable for something. WP:NOTINHERITED is more that a subject without sourcing does not merit its own article just because it is related or a derivative of something notable. Icewedge (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historians and amateurs are interested in the close relatives of historical figures. The Family of Barack Obama page is already kind of cluttered, and there's enough content here for a reasonably informative article, so we might as well just leave things as they are. Zagalejo^^^ 05:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the family article, since a merge requires edit history preservation, the delete request and merge suggested by the nominator cannot apply. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
at best merge into the family article. Merge discussions are not for AfD, hence speedy close. --dab (𒁳) 11:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saint Joseph has his own article and he is only known as the foster father of Jesus. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is present for close relatives of famous figures--I deliberately use the very restrictive word, "famous", rather than merely notable, and US presidents count as famous. (more so than losing candidates, and some of the article listed above were discussed before the election). This notability is shown by their invariable inclusion in considerable detail in biographies. In many cases of famous historic figures, we have difficulty writing the articles because there is simply not enough known about them--and this may well be the case for some of Obama's remoter relatives--at least at the present time. But a stepfather with a role in a child's upbringing is a very significant person in his life, which is why there is extensive coverage of such people in biographies--and the extent of sources already available shows it. I think for people as famous as Presidents, any relative with a significant role in the life is independently notable--and so are children, siblings, parents, and grandparents, even if they had no particular direct role--grandparents have at least an obvious indirect role. More distant relatives depends on the sourcing. DGG (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't merge. Notable and too long to be merged into that already-huge page. WP:NOT paper, etc. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, dont merge. Mr Tan (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, no merge. they are the family of future US president. before long, there might be some more info to add. no more comment from me w_tanoto (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, don't merge -- Scanlan (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 23:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sitemodel

Neologism, unsourced. Wikipedia is not for terms you coined during recess Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — neologism or straight dictionary definition, take your pick. MuZemike (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything solid to establish the notability of this subject. And the "article" as it stands now is just a definition.ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G7) by Elonka. Non-admin closure. Now let's all have a beer (or soda)! MuZemike (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moises Lino e Silva

This article is about a PhD student who received two scholarships and has written some articles. The article is an autobiography. (The reason that you don't see notability, COI, and reference tags are not visible is that the chief editor of this article has removed them five times consecutively.) Bongo matic 01:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bongomatic has been persecuting my articles. Bongomatic obviously doesn't know enough of the academic work to understand that for Gareth Doherty to have an article published by MIT is in itself something worth of notability. Not to mention that Bongomatic clearly doesn't understand the worth of the award given by Harvard to some teachers. 340 teachers received the prize out of how many teachers in the whole university?

Scholarships are something of notability by default as they always involve strong competition.

To get published is something of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.242.178 (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article was written by Linoesilva (talk,contributions), whose username coincides with the name of the subject of the article, does not mean anything has been biased.

Please, stop persecution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.242.178 (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment seems to be about Gareth Doherty, while the nomination is for the pate Moises Lino e Silva. Note that the article in question doesn't claim publication in any MIT-related journal, but in "Kerb Australia". Bongo matic 02:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bongomatic has been persecuting all my created wiki articles and I am defending all the articles from the persecutor. To get published by "Kerb Australia" is obviously also something of notability since it is very hard to be selected to publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.242.178 (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to state that Bongomatic has been persecuting you. You have made a number of edits that are not appropriate, and appear not to be willing to learn enough about Wikipedia to stop erring. You are FAR beyond the 3 revert rule, you are edit warring with multiple editors who are attempting to point you in the direction of help and information. You have removed warnings and useful comments from your talk page. You do not respond usefully to concerns about your edits. Also, please sign your posts. Letting Sinebot do it for you wastes resources and is hard to read.

On the subject at hand, this is article appears to be an excellent candidate for speedy deletion, and both your IP and ID seem good candidates for temporary blocking so you can study the Wikipedia guidelines to be sure you want to "live" here. sinneed (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not want to live here. Thanks very much. Persecution of the type Sinneed is helping Bongomatic to make does not interest me at all. By the way, why do you want to live here yourself Sinneed? You should be constructive, not destructive, this should be the wikipedia ethos. Please, editors, delete both articles: "Moises Lino e Silva" and "Gareth Doherty". It is your loss and a real shame that people like Sinneed and Bongomatic are making wikipedia an environment of terror. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linoesilva (talk • contribs) 03:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Perhaps speedy, as suggested by sinneed. Lacks sufficient notability, plus an obvious case of WP:COI. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 03:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, speedy! Please!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linoesilva (talk • contribs) 03:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note — User:Linoesilva has been indef blocked for harassment. MuZemike (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--but this probably comes as mustard after the meal, as the Dutch say. Thanks, MuzeMike, for the block. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't thank me, thank Tanthalas39; he did the block. (I have no power to block anyone, unfortunately as I don't have nor really want the necessary "power tools.") I'm just doing a courtesy note to the closing admin, whomever that may be, for this AFD. MuZemike (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — 138.251.242.178 has also been blocked for the same reasons as above. MuZemike (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 23:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crash (Decyfer Down album)

This is an article about a future album, with no sources, and I can find no reliable sources in a search either. It appears to me to be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL and therefore doesn't satisfy the criteria for notability for albums yet. Raven1977 (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A future album that is not notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - G7. TerriersFan (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Addison High School Newspaper

This seems to be entirely non-notable. It is a long unsourced article.Schuym1 (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not non-notable. I just need the span of a few days to properly acquire routes for the appropriate sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goglobalinfo (talk • contribs) 00:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have the remainder of this AFD to add sources so that gives you 5 days. Schuym1 (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so I will admittedly say I am very new to wikipedia. What would be suficient for a source? Mention of the newspaper in question in a larger local media outlet such as a daily newspaper? Goglobalinfo (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Do you have any suggestions Schuym1? Goglobalinfo (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for help here: WP:HD. Schuym1 (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to answer the user's question, the answer is 'yes'. TerriersFan (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. An article for a school newspaper? There is no article for the school! The village of Addison, Michigan has a population of 627 going by the article? I suggest Goglobalinfo try building a school article and that might incorporate a section on the school paper?--Sting Buzz Me... 01:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- May as well delete The Panther Patriot along with this too.--Sting Buzz Me... 02:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Sting Buzz Me... 02:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: The creator requested deletion of of two of his articles. I will tag them as csd-g7 with a link to the request. Schuym1 (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 23:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SingSong

Despite good faith Google searches ("SingSong"; "SingSong karaoke", and "SingSing karaoke review"), I was unable to identify any significant coverage or reviews in reliable independent sources. Given that this is software that was published in 2008, the Internet is a suitable place to seek to find references of notability.

The only third-party references identified are in catalogs of products available for various platforms lacking any editorial comment.

If this product subsequently becomes notable, it will be ripe for inclusion at such time, but WIkipedia is not a crystal ball. Bongo matic 00:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete, did a search through the first few google hits and the best source I could find it this: http://www.linuxgames.com/archives/11085 Hmmm... even that is no good really, so delete. Mathmo ^Talk 04:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--per above, and of course the fact that the article is really just an ad. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More third party coverage of the game: http://baixaki.ig.com.br/linux/singsong.htm Note the text is not a translation of the SingSong website, but someone's own, new text. http://www.linuxgamingworld.com/index.php?q=node/340 I realize this may not be enough to include in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball makes sense. Would it be possible to undelete if the product becomes notable in the future? How? Also, for my own education, please cite the portions of the article that are written like an advertisement. N4te (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the two links you provided quite qualify for WP:Reliable sources. However, there's certainly no prejudice against recreation in future. I don't understand the addition of the {{advert}} tag either - the article reads about as neutrally as they come. Marasmusine (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I understand why WP:Reliable sources are needed. This is only my second article, but I'm learning! I've saved off the text in case the game becomes notable enough in the future, since I'm not sure how/if it can be undeleted. I don't see how to delete the article, I guess I leave that to you guys? Also I was wondering why clicking "this article's entry" from the SingSong page takes me to the *edit* portion of the "Articles for deletion" page. I had to remove "&action=edit" from the URL in my browser so I could more easily read comments here. I was thinking if this link comes from a template, maybe the template is incorrect and needs fixing? N4te (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some sort of Merge seems appropriate here, given the three articles, but discussions are ongoing. Black Kite 11:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FCS Control Systems

No claim of notability. Ownership by notable companies does not confer notability on a subsidiary. References cited prove that it's a real company with owners and business, but don't actually cover the company itself in detail--contract awards are not "significant coverage" of the company awarded the contract. Jane's is meant to be a comprehensive compendium, which doesn't limit its lists to notable entries, so its existence doesn't demonstrate notability either.

Bongo matic 00:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it equally does not merit spearate coverage ~~(and seems likely to have been created in response to this AfD nomination)~~ (misread "October 9" as "November 9" in history):

Recommendation: Merge contents of both of them into Moog Inc. Please see the merger discussion.

second article added at 06:58, 9 November 2008 by Bongomatic

Delete--I agree. The sources are quite minimal and prove really the existence of a company and its product, and one notice (in the middle of a bloated list of awards and other news) of a small award. And without those meager sources, the article is really just an ad. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the new name Moog FCS 70.55.86.100 (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator seems to not check histories, his/her claim about the creation of the Moog article is wrong, since it's existed for a month already. 70.55.86.100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep notability established the usual way. No need to make an exception just because it's a commercial enterprise. Wily D 15:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To Moog Inc. Well, I think that was the page. Hell, I'm tired. Goodnight. But merge them. I think... ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know where the nominator gets the idea that Jane's doesn't count as a reliable source for notability purposes - the existence of such a source is what counts, not the motives of its publisher. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago White Pages, IMDB, Allmusic, the Schwann catalog are all reliable sources, independent of the subjects of almost all of their entries. That doesn't mean that inclusion of coverage therein makes something notable. Generally, the notability guideline is intended to capture whether editorial judgments on the notability of subjects have been made by other editors. Inclusion in any publication whose goal is to be an exhaustive list of items of a particular category does not demonstrate such a judgment. Bongo matic 23:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FCS Control Systems and merge content into Moog FCS. The references (including Jane's) relate to Moog FCS, not the company formerly known as FCS Control Systems. So too does most of the article content - the list of applications is actually Moog FCS's applications lists and is duplicated in that article. The "Industrial Controls" section even states the motion controls are provided by Moog FCS and not this former organisation. The company formerly known as FCS Control Systems fails the notability guideline as it has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (unlike Moog FCS, which potentially has). Euryalus (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; sorry, if we are to merge content then the source page cannot be deleted since the history must be preserved for GFDL reasons. Smile a While (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect FCS Control Systems to Moog FCS; Keep Moog FCS. Since this is essentially the same company, we don't need two pages but the combined company is notable. Smile a While (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N, and a coverage is Janes is quite significant for sourcing. AFD should not be used to expedite or publixize merge discussions; merge proposal may still be discussed by interested editors on the article talk pages after this article is kept at AFD. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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