Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 20

< October 19	October 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G1. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frontload

Seems to be a hoax paragraph followed by a list of neologisms. References aren't relevant to claims. Not notable or encyclopedic. KCinDC (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article was tagged for speedy delete several times. Each time the author removed the tag (which is vandalism, by the way). At some point, one editor decided that a speedy delete was incorrect, and placed a {{prod}} tag instead. When THAT was deleted by an anonymous IP, the article ended up here. The article should have been speedied, but here we are. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the author has since been blocked for disruptive editing. Perhaps WP:SNOW could be applied. —KCinDC (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete trash. JuJube (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G4 as article is a substantial recreation of The Mark Tom and Travis Story, which was deleted via AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mark Tom and Travis Story. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blink-182 book

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so that next time this user recreates this page, WP:CSD G4 will apply. Newsaholic (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 01:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dragon Rider

Contested prod for an upcoming self-published book printed by a print shop lacking editorial oversight. While a search for the book title produces a large number of false hits (probably due to the popularity of the Inheritance Cycle), a search for the book's author finds no apparent matches. Delete as per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day unless the independent third-party sources needed to create a verifiable neutral article are provided. --Allen3 ^talk 23:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a non-notable book by a non-notable author. Clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (books).Nrswanson (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the lack of notability, Wikipedia is not crystal ball: the book will be launched in December 2008. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and allow back once the book is actually published and gets a few nice reviews. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 01:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scream (Zac Efron song)

Apparent hoax. No source for release as a single. All references in the article lead to dead-end pages, and one (since deleted) to a trojan download. —Kww(talk) 22:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Evident hoax, fails WP:MUSIC either way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Something is not right with the sourcing, or lack thereof. I don't think this exists. ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 23:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TravellingCari 01:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nauru-United Kingdom relations

Trivial relationships described. Not every couple of countries need this article. Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo–Nauru relations. Magioladitis (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given history of Nauru and the UK, particularly in relation to the phosphate mines on Nauru, and the joint-administration of Nauru by Australia, New Zealand and the UK, there are notable relations to be expanded upon on this article. A WP:STUB is not reason to delete. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: unlike Kosovo Great Britain indeed has non-trivial relations with Nauru. There is a potential for a good article Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Just because you don't live in Nauru doesn't mean its relationships to other countries don't matter. Fumoses (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the UK has had historic links with Nauru since WWI. It was part of the British Western Pacific Territories between 1914 and 1921. Smile a While (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nauru was a former German colony until it was invaded by Australia in 1914. In World War II it was shelled by the Germans and occupied by the Japanese, almost leading to the decimation of the Nauruan population. After achieving independence Nauruans were amongst the wealthiest people in the world per capita, for a while owning the tallest building in the Southern Hemisphere and running a play in the London West End. Collossal mismanagement led to hard times, forcing the Government to do the dirty work for the US concerning North Korean defectors, and Australia concerning Afghan asylum seekers. In short, for a country with a population of around 10,000 it has a pretty wild history, and thus I cannot believe that something important cannot be found concerning UK-Nauruan relations.
Delete, trivial intersection of countries and part of a very long list of non-notable X-Y relations articles. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has potential to be a reasonable article given the history of relations which is not just a trivial relationship.Davewild (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - merely being a stub at this time is not a criterion for deletion. Wily D 12:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, can be expanded in the future, relevant topic. --Soman (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. the two keep !votes don't show how the band meets WP:MUSIC. No prejudice against recreation once they meet the criteria TravellingCari 02:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proud Simon

Non-notable unsigned band that fails WP:MUSIC. No assertion of notability, no independent sources. Recreated by author after being speedy deleted, listing at AfD to garner wider community consensus. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -This band has been growing on the New York City/Brooklyn Indie Rock Scene for almost 5 years now, with multiple professional album releases (I've been told printing has been in the thousands) and performances in high-profile venues such as the Bowery Ballroom in Lower Manhattan. I agree with user yrletter that this is content that is relevant towards the emerging Indie Rock scene of Brooklyn, NYC, and thusly should be allowed as an addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The443 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC) — The443 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

reply - WP:EMERGING is another version of the ol' up-and-coming, next-big-thing argument. We cover subjects after they have emerged into notability, not before.--Orange Mike | Talk 16:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article could use improvement, but the band appears to have worked with a number of notable musicians and I don't see any real reason to delete. Fumoses (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Collaboration with a famous musician is not by itself enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC or establish notability. If this band's collaborative efforts are its only claim to fame, its likely in the WP:UPANDCOMING category. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, or so I'm told. Fumoses (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply true; but what's your point? As friend Senseless says, notability is not contagious; you can't "catch" it by collaborating with a notable person. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsigned band of purely local fame; printings "in the thousands" of their self-released albums(!}; fails WP:MUSIC badly. Just another "up and coming" band. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI This exact same article (word for word) was speedied a few days earlier under CSD A7 (non-notable band). Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by another admin while another editor was noming it here. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Cocksworth

A water polo player who was selected for the Olympics, but did not attend due to being HIV+. As he didn't attend, the general assumption would be that he's not notable - am I correct? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 19:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howshua Amariel

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Subject is not notable; no third-party references Itsmejudith (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This article is lengthy, detailed, reasonably well-sourced, and interesting. Most importantly, you haven't made any real argument for deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fumoses (talk • contribs) 23:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = I found a lot of the references were either published by people related to Mr. Amariel, or were not about Mr. Amariel at all (for instance, one reference is a photo of Danny Glover at a protest). There were a couple of what looked like human-interest stories in newspapers about his activism, but that's it as far as sources that don't seem to be Mr. Amariel himself. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are enough reliable third-party sources for a short article. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 04:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i've added a list below of the sources that i think are good enough that the article shouldn't be deleted. a reasonable article from these sources could be at most a few paragraphs in length. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are hardly any reliable third-party sources. We have a 419 word article in the Jerusalem Post and a couple of mentions about his actions during the 2001 Republican National Convention. (One problem is that there is so many of the references are pretty much junk it's hard to separate any wheat from the chaff). There is certainly no evidence of notability for his self-published translation. Being lengthy, detailed or interesting are not relevant to whether it should be kept. I think it fails WP:Notability (people) which calls for the person to have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[which multiple coverage of the same thing is not] and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. So far as I can see, the subject clearly fails these criteria. Doug Weller (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doug Weller and nom. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 17:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 17:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good sources
- Cohen, Aaron (2008-09-11). "Unique Translation of the Paleo-hebrew Tanach". Retrieved 2008-10-21.
- "This report : the Hebrew-Phoenecian history called The Bible". Copyright Catalog. United States Copyright Office. Retrieved 2008-10-21.
- Frenkel, Sheera Clair (2005-02-16). "A headdress of many colors. Would-be Black Hebrew traces 'Jewish heritage' via Cherokee roots". The Jerusalem Post. p. 05. Retrieved 2008-10-21.
- Shepard, Paul (2001-02-11). "Reparation Idea Gains Support Among Blacks". Los Angeles Times. p. A-25. Retrieved 2008-10-21. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
- Shepard, Paul (2001-02-11). "U.S. slavery reparations: Hope that a race will be compensated gains momentum". Seattle Times. Retrieved 2008-10-21. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Capoccia (talk • contribs) 19:29, 21 October 2008

- - Comment Your first source is someone's self-published article. Your second source is just an entry in the Library of Congress copyright catalog -- a copyright claim, it certainly doesn't prove notability. Then there is the 419 word article I already mentioned, and 2 references to the same article by Paul Shepard (ignore the titles, didn't you read the article?). These don't meet the criteria for notability I describe above. Doug Weller (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - the two ap articles are different. you must have only read the beginning. the last paragraph of the one in the la times isn't in the one from the seattle times, and the last 18 paragraphs in the seattle times article aren't in the la times article. but regardless, i think i could pick just one of the ap articles and meet the notability guidelines. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was only interested in the bit about the subject of the article, and for that purpose they are one article (and I suspect what you see as a difference is just 2 editors's versions of a longer article. The coverage is trivial, and If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability;. Doug Weller (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        yes, you've quoted that sentence a few times now. what you haven't done is show where the line is for substantial and not substantial and why the Frenkel and Shepard sources are below that line. the notability guideline you're quoting from sure doesn't give a firm line. it says a 200-page biography is good enough and a birth certificate or a 1-line listing in an election ballot aren't. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 04:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        OFF TOPIC
        
        all you deletionists should head over to the 36 thousand french commune articles. about 90% of these should be deleted. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 21:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I changed the formating on some of User:Chris Capoccia's comments so that the log page would be correctly formatted. I have no opinion on this deletion in particular. --Phirazo (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, and because "Howshua Amariel" is promoting a self-created cult that is quasi-Judaic with his own concocted theories that would violate WP:NEO and WP:NOR. The article itself violates WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:BIO as well as Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. IZAK (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Not notable, and this is not the place for advocacy, soapboxing and OR. Verbal chat 18:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The debate over this article's deletion is silly. It's presence on this page is only because the author of the article kept the underconstruction sign up pass the seven day limit, yet did do serious changes to the page. The person who put this up was only doing what policy stated. The individual is obviously notable because he has enough 2nd and 3rd party sources that cover his story. From the Jerusalem post, Seatle times, Israeli News, and etc.

Aaron Cohen's article is posted on a page under editorial review (as respected by Wiki policy), not to mention that the source itself mentioned several Israeli scholars to back it up. His notability is seen in not simply one area but the various areas in which he deals with or in other words... reparations, Hebrew translation, I guess something about civil rights for Black Jews and recently something with the Obama campaign and Rabbis for Obama.

The article doesn't come under the NOTMYSPACE thing because it wasn't made by Amariel himself and from the Talk page I would say that the author applied Wiki policy of a netral point of view.

Izak statements have a obvious bias to whoever Amariel is with. I saw videos on from Israeli news that disprove all that. I think it should be consider that the issue is simi-controversial and may effect some judgements on this discussion; that may be seen from this discussion or more surrounding the activities and issues of his son.

As for the remark about advocacy, the article doesn't influency anyone's positions on the issues mentioned and I think that this discussion page alone proves it, but this article does state particle issues that one subject has or is dealing with and received media coverage based upon, yet not limited to. The blanks are filled it with the second party source of the organization he works with and the first person source of his website (both of which are allowed).

The fact is that the page should remain based upon its real connection to the various subjects it touches upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.123.59 (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 77.125.123.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment The under construction sign was gone before the page was tagged for AfD. To the closing Admin, I note that the IP editor above has never edited anything other than this page. And what does Aaron Cohen have to do with this? Doug Weller (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uhm… newsflash! there is more than one aaron cohen in the world. the one who's important for this discussion is not your israeli special forces dude. he's the guy who wrote this article about amariel. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 18:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than one Aaron Cohen? What a shock. But I should have remembered it. How can a self-published article be important for this discussion? Anyone can write an article and have it posted there. It's basically an advertising site -- "Submitting articles has become one of the most popular means of generating quality backlinks and targeted traffic to your website.". Definitely not a reliable source. Doug Weller (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I detect a degree of bias on the discussion page where the first person to challenge this article raised "the rather important fact that Howshua Amariel is a "Black Hebrew" and a Messianic Jew, and hence not accepted as either a rabbi or even a Jew by the vast majority of Jews." This may be true but is irrelevant to his notability. Depending on your religious beliefs you must believe that at least some important religions began as "self-created cults". You can get notable cranks. PatGallacher (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sash!

Artist doesn't appear to be notable. OpenSeven (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if a source can be found verifying the figure of 17 million records sold. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My German's a little rusty but [1] the German Wikipedia article seems to show that they have significant hits in Europe and South America. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiplicity of charting singles and albums in a number of countries easily satisfies WP:BAND. (Tied, with the Beatles and others, for most number-twos on the UK singles chart.) Deor (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn After conducting further research, I have concluded that Sash! is a very notable artist, due to his high degree of success in several major charts. As a result, I would like to withdraw my nomination. Sorry for making the error of nominating in the first place. OpenSeven (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While there may be reasons for the subject to request this deletion, there are reliable sources that establish his notability. An article needing to be cleaned up and/or monitored for IP edits is a reason to protect it and or/monitor it, not delete it. This AfD has been relisted and subject to some controversy but when it comes down to the end, there is no consensus here to delete. Numerically, keep outweighs delete, but both sides present their reasons, especially regarding notability and privacy. What this close comes down to is that BLP issues (which don't seem to be prsent) can be solved by vigilant monitoring and sourcing. There is no way to make him non-notable since consensus is that he meets the standards for notability. TravellingCari 02:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Ross (consultant)

For a year and a half now I have made a standing offer to nominate Wikipedia biographies of living persons for courtesy deletion upon two conditions: I receive a credible request directly from the subject, and the subject must not be notable enough to have a biography entry in any reliable encyclopedia, including specialty encyclopedias. The biographies of living persons noticeboard and reliable sources noticeboard have been unable to resolve the problems surrounding Mr. Ross's biography. It is my understanding that he has also contacted OTRS without improvement to the dilemma. Mr. Ross has given me permission to quote from his email request for courtesy deletion:

I would like my biography removed from the Wikipedia Web site. The entry about me in Wikipedia is used by cult [his term] members and others who wish to attack me.
Recent additions… is [sic] taken from unreliable sources…and contains false statements and/or misleading statements selectively quoted without any meaningful historical context for the purpose of character assassination. This…reflects poorly on Wikipedia and supports the growing criticism that the Web site is often biased…
Please see if you can have it removed.

So requesting (first choice) deletion, or (second choice) merge/redirect to deprogramming. For the record, I have no opinion about Mr. Ross himself, his beliefs, or his career. Having also been the nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd), it is at least a remote possibility that Mr. Ross may someday agree with Mr. Finkelstein's thesis that Wikipedia is a cult and attempt to deprogram me. This sort of irony is the occasional byproduct of acting upon a consistent principle. And regarding off-wiki encyclopedias, this is a passing mention rather than a distinct biographical entry. Durova^Charge! 00:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes WP:BIO and WP:RS and Mr. Ross is clearly notable in his niche field. If there is incorrect information in the article, Mr. Ross should point it out and any responsible editor will be happy to remove it. But to remove the entire article doesn't seem logical. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Ross has pointed it out to OTRS without success, and two noticeboards have also failed to resolve the problem. I agree things should work the way you describe. In this instance, apparently it hasn't. And Mr. Ross meets my standard offer for AFD nomination. Durova^Charge! 00:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Durova, please have Mr. Ross contact me (I am e-mail enabled through Wikipedia) and I will be very glad to help him remove information that is inaccurate while keeping the article up to the editorial standards required by the project. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Ecoleetage--this is a very notable person, and he's public enough without WP. I do agree that the last part of the article could do with some serious editing; it smacks a little of the kind of long list of critiques, not always equally relevant, that follows controversial people around (like Arundhati Roy, for instance. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Stubify. Looking down the list of sources, many of the negative ones appear to be from sources that are questionable at best. However, I also believe that there is enough coverage from reliable sources that he passes any notability bar. I'm sympathetic to Mr Ross (I have a great deal of respect for anyone that goes to such lengths to fight cults), but I do not believe that removing a bio just because the subject wishes it is a good way to build a complete, neutral encyclopædia. Stubifying will hopefully get rid of any of the material here that Mr Ross finds objectionable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep While it appears that some of the sources are biased to a particular POV (see the talk page), subject is still notable for more than one incident. If "better" sources can be adduced for the Scott case, fine. Nonetheless, the article as it stands seems to be reasonable NPOV. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there are some questionable sources, as the other editors have pointed out, there are also many reliable ones for this article to pass WP:BIO. AngelOfSadness talk 00:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is not notable enough to have a biographical entry in a print encyclopedia, and WP:BLP issues relating to inappropriate sources seem not to have been resolved. Cirt (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Wikipedia is not a print encyclopædia though, so I'm not sure why this is a relevant point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Fishkin, etc. Guidelines allow for discretion in borderline notability instances and the existence or absence of a biography entry in conventional encyclopedias is an easily verified threshold for that. Durova^Charge! 01:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Notable subject who has substantial media coverage(ie http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Rick+A.+Ross%22&btnG=Search&oe=utf-8&um=1&hl=en&ie=UTF-8}. Article does need severe cleaning out of un-sourced BLP, article fails NPOV(Only troublesome issues are brought up, not the hundred that he is consulted on and are successes), and troublesome sources need to be cleaned. Also, with the request from the subject, that's a strong case for removal to protect the project. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep- someone needs to be appointed to mind this page, and to lock it to all anonymous user names, so it can be purged of nonsense and attacks.JJJ999 (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone who makes a request like this should come forward with clean hands, and Ross does not: he maintains at least one attack site against those who disagree with him. [2] He is clearly notable, if for no other reason than the significant amount of third-party press coverage generated by his self-promotional efforts. He is a key figure in a significant federal court case. Despite being a convicted felon, he was reportedly an FBI resource regarding the Branch Davidians and their Waco compound. His account apparently differs substantially from other accounts, from the FBI and otherwise. I see nothing that would justify accepting uncritically Ross's claims of unusual abuse directed at someone so willingly engaged in a controversial field. Some of the spinoff articles appear to be quite overblown, though. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see why Ross having clean hands or not would influence either our editorial or ethical decisions. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of reliable, published sources for this individual. See, for instance, this Google Books search which shows several pages of hits for Ross's deprogramming activities alone. Here is a similar search on Google Scholar. Not all these books or articles are suitable sources for a BLP, but many of them are. There should be no problem with making this article compliant with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Semi-protection, and even full protection, could be used if problematic information kept being inserted. And I don't consider "opt-out" to be a viable rule on Wikipedia - especially not for people who are clearly significant public figures. It's not our job to help people stage-manage their Internet profiles. *** Crotalus *** 02:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mr Ross is quite notable enough in his field to merit inclusion. It goes without saying that the normal Wikipedia policies regarding the reliability of Sources, especially as they relate to BLP should be observed.

Comment Incidentally it strikes me as ironic that Ross should take the injured tone he does in light of the fact that his sites host numerous defamatory and unreliable accusations against other individuals made by anonymous and unaccountable contributors. DaveApter (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep is a clearly notable individual. Indeed, Google Books shows him as being discussed even in a variety of dead tree sources. Note that some of the google hits mentioned by other users above refer to other people by the same name. But more helpful google searches such as this, this and this show a large variety of sources including 73 different books. He's discussed in many sources which are clearly reliable such as the Encyclopedia of Religious Freedom- [3]. Moreover, given Ross's outspokeness he is clearly a willing public figure. As I've discussed before we should not generally apply courtesy deletions to willing public figures. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That link is noted and provided in the nomination. As a passing mention rather than a distinct entry, it would conceivably be an argument for the second choice of merge/redirect. Durova^Charge! 00:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD was incorrectly closed under SNOW and has been reversed. To ensure discussion is not stifled I am relisting this and resetting the clock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable, verifiable, and well-sourced. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable individual, and the incident involving Ross (Jason Scott case) that lead to the BLP/N and RS/N discussions mentioned by Durova is one of the most seminal in the history of the Anti-cult movement, "cult" deprogramming and possibly even the very study of New religious movements. To give you an example, historian Robert Ellwood remarked in 1997 (paraphrased by sociologist Jeffrey Kaplan) that the bankruptcy of the old Cult Awareness Network (a direct result of the Jason Scott case) "may represent the functional equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall for religious studies scholars. At last scholars could disengage in the 'cult-wars' and open a new chapter in the study of new religious movements (NRMs)." (Kaplan, Jeffrey. 1997. "Field Notes: Fall of the Wall?" Nova Religio 1(1):139-149). Ross is referenced in a huge number of scholarly articles and books related to NRMs, and the cult-wars. There is no reason why this entry can't be kept within the guidelines of BLP.PelleSmith (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable. However the article has attracted his critics beginning with the first stub, which was written by a follower of a group sometimes called "cult-like".[4] The majority of editors on the article still appear to be those who have strong points of view about new religious movements, and the article has been the target of axe-grinding. Given that history, WP as a community needs to make sure that the article is not skewed. The use of sources connected to the Church of Scientology, for example, is problematic. Maintaining neutrality on this a contentious BLP requires constant and consistent effort. If it gets too far out of whack it may have to be stubbed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Describing leading scholars such as James R. Lewis, David G. Bromley or Anson Shupe as "sources connected to the Church of Scientology" strikes me as way off-base. By that reckoning, Oxford University Press is a Scientology propaganda machine, because Lewis, Bromley and Shupe are among the people Oxford University Press call upon to write their standard reference works in this area. Jayen 466 04:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The case was intimately connected to the Church of Scientology. The article has been a stalking horse. And it still is, apparently. It currently contains hundreds of words that have nothing to do with Ross, and editors are edit warring to re-add that negative information to a BLP. That's a problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Suntag ☼ 23:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With so much reliable source material available for the topic and the subject's own efforts to place himself in the public eye, any BLP balancing in favor of deletion would require more significant real life problems than the ones listed in the nomination. The problems noted in the nomination can be addressed through ordinary editing and do not reflect badly on Wikipedia. On a related note, I don't think it was wise to give free modification rights of his photo to his enimies. -- Suntag ☼ 23:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article has problems, such as over-reliance some iffy sources, a mega-size stub section with a main article which is in danger of being a POV fork, notability certainly isn't one of them. AndroidCat (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless a living person is notable to the extent that Wikipedia would be considered a subpar encyclopedia with the article, the article should be deleted at their request. Yes, under the letter of the law, he might have received significant media coverage, but the guideline is just that, a guideline. As stated at the top of the guideline page, the guideline should be treated with common sense and the common exception. Where else would a common exception apply if not to a case like this? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a living person is notable to the extent that Wikipedia would be considered a subpar encyclopedia with[out] the article ... and who makes that call? ~~Clearly, in your mind, its not all the people voting keep.~~PelleSmith (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The people at this afd should make the correct call. They are voting keep based on misconceptions regarding wp:afd and wp:bio. See this little rant. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's an answer to my question. I want to know who decides whether or not the encyclopedia is considered "subpar" because a BLP is left out of it. Who does that ... who makes that call?PelleSmith (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone here is of the opinion that an encyclopedia without a Rick Ross bio is a subpar encyclopedia. They are just applying the notability standard suggested at wp:bio without taking anything else into consideration. But of course it should be the editors at this afd who should be the making the decision. Who else? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not what you initially wrote at all. You wrote that at their request any such BLP should be deleted, implying that it should be obvious if without the BLP the encyclopedia would be "subpar" or not. Are you now saying at their request we do what we usually do and hold an AfD and establish consensus before we delete it? By the way I do think the encyclopedia would be "subpar" if we deleted this entry based upon that rationale. Sure its not like getting rid of Earth, or Homo sapiens, but where do you draw the line and when do you stop deleting entries because someone associated with the subject matter would rather not let our patrons learn about it? If you want to suggest a criteria for something like this it better have some good guidelines. Common sense isn't all its cracked up to be.PelleSmith (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the ambiguity. Let me try again: Editors should !vote to delete bios at the subject's request when the subject's missing bio will not cause this encyclopedia to be considered "subpar". In other words, the missing bio will not create a significant void in this encyclopedia. It seems like you agree that this article would fit under the aforementioned criteria but you are only worried about the Slippery slope. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am worried about the slippery slope but I'm more worried about people who don't understand why removing a certain entry is detrimental to the encyclopedia (when it is) making the call. While there are plenty of subjects on Wikipedia that everyone has some knowledge of, most of our content consists of subjects that are much more specialized than that. After all, Wikipedia isn't a collection of the most popular topics of mass cultural discourse, it is an encyclopedia of knowledge about a wide variety of subjects. I actually agree with Jayen (below) that removing this BLP would make us sub-par, and no offense, but I don't necessarily expect you (or most people) to simply understand why based upon your existing knowledge base - like you would should I suggest deleting Albert Einstein. But that's why we have guidelines like WP:N, so that without having an extensive pre-existing knowledge of the subject matter we can determine through some research if in fact the subject is notable enough to be a positive addition to the encyclopedia. In this case it takes mere minutes of searching academic databases and/or the internet at large to determine notability. I am of the firm belief that an editor without some specialist knowledge in the subject area of an entry that clearly meets WP:N has no business suggesting that we can delete the entry without damage to our quality.PelleSmith (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Wikipedia is all about, a collaborative effort by all. There is no subject that it off-limits to anyone. Besides, this subject, and especially the notability of this person, is not something esoteric or even specialized in which a half-intelligent person can't give their opinion. Your opinion of your fellow editors is a bit problematic. You seem to be saying that we must have hard and fast rules because editors can't be allowed to make common sense or intelligent decisions. I have been around afd's for a while. Although I don't agree with all of their outcomes (including this one), I can say that most of the results are reasonable results.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last response. See below. Never suggested anything was off-limits, but we work via policy and guideline here because your "common sense" may not be my "common sense". AfDs are not votes either. If I make a "common sense" argument that has no basis in policy it should technically not have any weight against arguments soundly based in policy and available guidelines. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All notability issues are guidelines, not policies, and the distinction is important. Guidelines are supposed to be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. You seem to agree that afd's are not votes, but you only got it half right. They are neither votes nor are they competitions to see who can spew out the correct abbreviated wikilinked guideline. There is only one policy that is pertinent to this discussion (which you conveniently ignore) and that is Wikipedia:Consensus. This policy explicitly states that "Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it." This is the most fundamental and seminal policy here at Wikipedia, an encyclopedia created by a collaborative effort. Applying this policy to afd means that afd discussions are neither votes nor wikilink competitions. They are discussions in which editors come to conclusions regarding specific articles while weighing - yes - their own common sense, wikipedia's notability guidelines, and the overall circumstances surrounding the article. Obviously, your common sense differs from my common sense, but that's the beauty of Wikipedia. I give my argument, you give yours, someone else gives a third argument, and other editors decide whose they like best. My argument obviously had not achieved great acceptance, but that's fine. You win some and you lose some. Whether this article stays or goes is not that important in the big picture. What's most important is that we all understand how we are building this encyclopedia and not get hung up with our abbreviated wikilinks. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Any encyclopedia that allows any individual who meets the agreed-upon notability standards an incontestable veto to exclude themselves is a worthless encyclopedia; The removal of any article on this basis makes it a subpar encyclopedia. In my experience, and this article is no exception, individuals who have sought to demand this power are people who do whatever they can to be included in the media but only want to be covered under their terms and conditions. No matter how much care and effort is spent on crafting a neutral biography that covers these individuals using reliably and verifiably sourced material, the article does not -- and will never -- meet their standards. Acceding to these demands is done at the detriment of the entire encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has a very high-profile Internet presence; given that we are an Internet encyclopedia, absence of an article on him would make us sub-par, in my eyes. The article has many problems and does need work, but the new material on the Jason Scott case that appears to have caused offence is better sourced than much of the rest of the article. Jayen 466 04:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People don't get to choose whether they're notable or not; if the article is bad, improve it; if the article doesn't cite sources for a sentence, remove it. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest delete I agree with Brewcrewer to a certain extent, but if this must be kept, it should be rewritten carefully to reflect the issues the subject is upset about. A ni Mate 08:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With due respect to users PelleSmith and Brewcrewer, I'm not sure that the overall quality of Wikipedia has anything to do with this debate. The case should be considered on its merits in isolation - and there seems to be a reasonable argument for retaining the article. Isn't the 'quality of Wikipedia' argument effectively a form of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well in essence I agree, which is why I asked the initial question of who makes the call. Our guidelines, like WP:N circumvent these types of questions for good reason. I'll take the hint and stop adding to the discussion :).PelleSmith (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article's subject has voluntarily made himself a subject of longstanding commentary on important public issues, and as such is fairly clearly notable, and will inevitably be the subject of strong opinions. His career involving the matters he is known for has lasted several decades: he is not a person who became famous as a result of a single incident. He is not entitled to removal of his Wikipedia article by request simply because it repeats statements made by his critics. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a public figure. One who doesn't like the coverage, and therefore wants it deleted. If we do that we're giving a veto to everyone, and our coverage of living people will be reduced to tributes to their merits. Another look at the article by previously uninvovled people is the way to deal with the content questions. DGG (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The wikipedia has something like 2 million articles, so it is going to have lots of perfectly fine articles on topics that aren't covered at other encyclopedias. So I question whether seeing if a biography subject is covered elsewhere is a worthwhile standard. If Rick Ross hadn't claimed he had tried to get the OTRS team to address inaccuracies, without success, we wouldn't have had this nomination, correct? Well User:Ecoleetage took on the responsibility of addressing Mr Ross's legitimate accuracy concerns. Why shouldn't we regard the justification of this nomination to have been dealt with? (Thanks Ecoleetage!) Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ross, his work and his eponymous Institute have all achieved notability. The current article, though it needs some editing for balance of various viewpoints and much patroling work, brings together much of interest scattered through other areas of Wikipedia and plays a role in furthering knowledge and openness. If people misuse the data in an article, that provides an incentive to enhance and better our content and referencing -- it does not of necessity encourage the obscuratanism of deleting. If those involved genuinely and strongly dislike having an article on Ross the person, we could switch much of the content to an article on the Rick Ross Institute. But deletion of this material would leave a hole in our encyclopedia. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but review in one month. If, after that time, the long-term problem of severely biased editing is not fixed (either by protection or by self-policing from those who are keen to keep the article), then it should be deleted as a person of marginal notability with a clear preference for not having an article and where we cannot be relied on to keep the article within policy. I would see Ross' notability as being on a par with Daniel Brandt or Seth Finkelstein, definitely at the margins. If enough people are determined to make the article good then let them try and we'll see how they do, but keeping bad articles because we agree with the bad content (which is the suspicion this article consistently raises) is not acceptable. AGF and all that, it sounds like people want to fix it, but the license should not be indefinite. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs work to improve tone and balance but notability is established using reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article is notable, and has been subject of quite a few mentions over the years, both in the media and in reputable books on the topic. If the content of the article is not to his liking, that is certainly no reason to delete it. If his complaints against about the content are well-founded, they ought to be addressed. (I don't know enough about the topic to say if they are or not.) --SJK (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a related COI/N thread, at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Rick_Ross_.28consultant.29. Jayen 466 16:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable person, and controversial public figure. We don't delete articles because the subject doesn't like them. --John Nagle (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MSTRKRFT

I'm having difficulty locating non-trivial coverage of this act from reliable sources. My instincts tell me this fails WP:MUSIC and should be deleted on those grounds but I'd prefer to discuss this first rather than take the prod route. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they are a legit group and actually are on a nationwide tour playing at some decent sized clubs. Minfo (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would say they are a very notable act, they have received mainstream coverage, etc. Tough to find links on Google, but many newspaper/magazine databases do cover this band. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they won a Juno Award in 2007 [5]. For cover artwork, but the mere nomination seems to indicate notablity. xschm (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they seem to have a decent presence in indie media (Pitchfork, Brooklyn Vegan, Dusted, etc.) and personal unfamiliarity with an article's subject isn't criteria for deletion. Fumoses (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Plenty of coverage in major news media including Billboard, multiple Canadian newspapers (I've added a bunch of those to the article just now), and their album was reviewed in such UK publications as The Guardian and The Sun. Much of the initial attention likely came because the duo contains a member of the notable band Death from Above 1979. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowy keep. Very well known project of Jesse F. Keeler, formerly of Death from Above 1979. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of sources out there, the article just needs some serious rescue and improvement is all. JBsupreme (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the following WP:MUSIC criterion: 1 (several references provided at the bottom of article), 5 (signed to Last Gang Records), 6 (Jesse Keeler, a member of the notable dance-punk group Death from Above 1979 is a member) and 8 (won a Juno Award). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being signed to does not pass #5 Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're certainly notable per all of the above responses, and the article already contains a significant number of sources. Looks like snow to me. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Ignoring Juno unless the band created the cover art) Member from notable band. Goes beyond redirect as band has major release on important label, large body of work with notable artists, noticable coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 02:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Adeline Prentice Gilbert

Not notable, this person is just related to notable people, and owns the copyright on but is not the author of a book. PatGallacher (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being related to a notable person doesn't make someone notable. Schuym1 (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are provided to show non-trivial coverage that could establish notability. Cheers, CP 22:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schuym1.Nrswanson (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Menace Dement

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. If you haven't already, read WP:MUSIC before you participate in this AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: #6 of WP:MUSIC seems to work. ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 23:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes, #6 applies. Not that WP:MUSIC is the be-all and end-all anyways. Wily D 13:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep small article. no one redirect is appropriate. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've read WP:MUSIC but I still am not seeing any non-trivial coverage by reliable third parties, which is an overriding concern. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 16:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy episodes. content is under the merge if anyone wants to use it. TravellingCari 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underfist: Halloween Bash

Non-notable episode, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy episodes. I didn't vote merge because the plot is done horribly. It reads like an elementary school student wrote it. Schuym1 (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy episodes, there is no way this deserves its own article. The issues are really that it's little more than a plot synopsis and any real content exist in the lead and the infobox. treelo _radda 21:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It deserves it's own article, it can be the pilot for a possible series, if this article is deleted, we have to delete The Grim Adventures of The Kids Next Door.

Comment So, you're using both WP:WAX and WP:CRYSTAL to justify why it should stay? More reason to delete then. This special is non-notable and isn't signifigant enough yet or may never be to justify one. treelo _radda 23:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TravellingCari 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Highway No. 6 (Taiwan)

Highway does not even exist. Even if it did exist, I question whether this merits its own article. Enigma ^message 21:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if it can be verified that the highway actually is under construction as the article says. Numbered highways are generally considered notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. per WP:NTRAN. Zero Kitsune (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We have several times had AFD discussions concerning proposed railways. I have consistently voted that an article on a proposed railway is legitimate, but articles on stations on them are not until the line is under construction (or at least authorised and funded). We have articles on main roads in Britain and America. I thus see no objection to an article on a road under construction, which the article claims this one to be. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if a reliable reference establishes that this is a real project. Fg2 (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and expand. Numbered highways are notable, especailly natoinal ones. Needs sourcing (the one source listed is a non-English government home page it seems). I see nothing to suggest this is a hoax article. 23skidoo (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep irrelevent that it's still underconstruction, valid topic for an encyclopaedia, sourced, reasonably written. That there's probably not enough about it now to reach FA is a red herring. Wily D 12:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Augmented reality links

Neologism without indication of widespread use, no reliable sources. Was prodded, prod removed by author (who has a possible conflict of interest, working as an intern for the company that invented the concept) with comment: This is new technology that has only recently been revealed to the press. I will be adding references as they appear. Non-notable (yet). Huon (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 23:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NEOLOGISM.Nrswanson (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established, conflict of interest. --Ckatz^chat _spy 16:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you have to wait for references to appear before adding them, then the subject is clearly not notable enough. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oligo Primer Analysis Software

Non-notable product and has POV issues (reads like advert). Delete. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Already speedied once (by me), and creator warned about COI issues. Creator's account is being blocked as a spam-only account. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom and WP:COI. Themfromspace (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 07:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 07:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-consumer software with very little context and no showing of importance: Initially, it was a tool for finding and analyzing hybridization probes, sequencing and PCR primers. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So far, it fails to establish notability. -- Loukinho (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Thing Going

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (albums). I don't think it should be merged because there is little info to merge and Rhonda Vincent just doesn't have a good spot to fit a merge. DARTH PANDA^talk 20:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Huh? Wikipedia:Notability (albums) is inactive, having been superceded by WP:NALBUMS. And this one plainly qualifies. A few reviews: Associated Press[6], PopMatters[7], Dallas Morning News[8], New York Times[9], National Public Radio[10], Columbus Dispatch[11], etc. Next time, please do some research before nominating. -12.68.8.18 (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - Aww, jeesh, I clicked the wrong link. Ah well, I still think it fails because there is simply no information in the article that is new information aside from a track listing. I may be wrong, but to quote WP:NALBUMS, "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" which makes me think that it should be merged. The only problem there (which is one I noted in my original nomination) is that merging would make the Rhonda Vincent page quite ugly, which is why I nominated this for deletion. DARTH PANDA^talk 20:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personally, I think it should be expanded, using some of the material I provided. From WP:NOTE, a guideline: "When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself..." -12.68.8.18 (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably also note, since it hasn't been mentioned yet, that the album in question was #1 on Billboard's US bluegrass chart for seven weeks[12]. -12.68.8.18 (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, I'm voting keep now, as per 12.68.8.18. Sorry about this... DARTH PANDA^talk 21:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The IP turned up several sources which can easily add to the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would think an album that went to #1 on a Billboard chart would be notable. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Tim Vickers (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rahmat Samii

Vanispamcruftisement created by the subject's child, the single-purpose account Ali4nia (talk · contribs), who contested the WP:PROD ... absolutely no reliable sources to verify the WP:BIO criteria ... also possible copyright violation of subject's website. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not the place to upload CVs/resumes. Also, the copyright is unclear. Narayanese (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, zero hits on Google Scholar and Pubmed. Possibly hoax. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability problems aside, none of the info in the article appears verifiable. In particular, all the googlescholar hits[13] for "Rahmat Samii" appear to be not for a physician but for an engineer named Yahya Rahmat-Samii (who is a professor at UCLA and who does appear to be notable). Nsk92 (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That about the engineer reminds me that I looked into it a few months ago when it was prodded. As I recall, he exists and wrote the book on AIDS published by FRISON-ROCHE, but that took some work to find, and there is very little other information. The engineer is notable.John Z (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — strongly and clearly fails WP:NOT; this is not the place for resumes. Forecast calls for WP:SNOW in the future. MuZemike (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all above, nothing to add. --triwbe (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angus(sketchshow)

Notability claimed but not asserted. A {{prod}} tag was rejected, so AfD is the next step. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiDan

I would say that Angus meets the third criteria:
The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster

I know that it is a short description so far, but I have not got alot of information about the show yet. I'm not the creator of the show, but I want to make a page, where information about the show can be gathered, so that fans of the show can read about the show, the charaters in the show and so on.
Please, don't delete the page.
I just have to get it out to the fans, so they can contribute with additional information about the show.
Thanks in advance
Alaunus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaunus (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alaunus, unfortunately YouTube does NOT qualify as a respected medium that is independent of the creators. YouTube will blindly publish anyone's videos as long as they don't violate the terms of agreement. Anyone can put any junk they want up there, and get 0 hits, but it's still there. This is NOT what is meant by the WP:web guidelines. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails all Wikipedia:Notability (web) criteria. Article is based on three amateur videos uploaded to YouTube. YouTube is not considered a respected and independent distributor, but rather a trivial distribution on a hosting website. I'm surprised this wasn't a WP:CSD. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per CactusWriter. I also question why it wasn't a Speedy Delete. DARTH PANDA^talk 00:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For editors who wonder why the article wasn't a speedy delete: the original article claimed notability, which is, in itself, sufficient to avoid speedy deletion (see WP:CSD). The alternative in such cases is to propose deletion using a {{prod}} tag, which was done. However, once this tag was deleted, the only option was a full-blown AfD discussion. Gotta play by the rules. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. You are quite right. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do to the article if I want to avoid it to be deleted? And how come all these persons, famous BECAUSE of YouTube, have a wikipedia site? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_YouTube_celebrities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaunus (talk • contribs)
- Comment - First, please note that pointing to any other articles on WP is not a valid argument concerning the merits of this one (see OTHERSTUFF). However, concerning those people listed as YouTube personalities (for example: Ben Going or Chris Crocker), they passed notability, not for simply posting videos, but rather for garnering significant coverage in national press (see the list of references on their pages. Because their videos received tens of thousands of views, they were discussed by independent sources. It is the outside discussion which gives them notability. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no coverage of this set of youtube clips that would establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Net2Phone

No references to notability. Sure, they sued Skype but that hardly a major claim of notability (note, THAT info is actually missing in the article...) -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 19:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Net2Phone was an early and leading player in VoIP in the early 2000s. Continuous RS coverage going back to 1999 is easily found with a Google News search. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the major companies at the time, and notability is not lost. DGG (talk)
Keep. It definately needs expanding, but the company itself is notable as an early player. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a quick perusal of Google New results show a plethora of articles about the company over a significant period of time. There is no doubt the article needs improvement but the amount of coverage indicates notability is easily met. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied per original author's request (CSD G7). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda:The Shadowgazer

Upcoming fanmade software without reliable sources to demonstrate notability. PROD declined by creator, who added notability assertion of "won the 'Best of the Show' in the Nintendo Fan Game Convention of 2007." No evidence that the Nintendo Fan Game Convention is itself notable, or that awards from it confer notability. gnfnrf (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author has requested deletion on talk page, so I have tagged for speedy deletion under CSD G7. gnfnrf (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn fan-made game. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn game with no nontrivial hits on Google and Google News. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fan-made have problems of notability for Wikipedia. Show reliable third party sources or deletion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fangame. Fangames without substantial notability are not notable. JuJube (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Bossier Mall

Non-notable mall, no sources found. And that Service Merchandise is still vacant 10 years later? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:57, 20 October 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)} 18:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While the regular Google shows nothing nontrivial, this Google News search shows some court cases. I cannot view them, so I don't know it will constitute the mall as notable. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as there are sources available both directly on point ([14], [15], [16]) and strongly related ([17], [18], [19]) sufficient to build an interesting article. - Dravecky (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources available are sufficient to establish notability, leaving us with no criterion for deletion. Wily D 13:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 山本一郎 (会話) 06:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Trench Vibes

Appropriate notability is extremely limited if existent at all -- internet sources overwhelmingly consist of user-contributed content, such as YouTube, MySpace, Facebook and blogs. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

adding non album by the artist

Delete both fail to assert any notability. --neon white talk 20:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs more detail, but I find the case for deletion made here to be fairly substanceless. Keep it and improve it - it's what Wikipedia's for, anyway.Fumoses (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? It's a clear violation of the Wikipedia requirement for reliable sources. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Notability can be established (though it has not been). I would have to suggest a delete for the album though. Delete per nom. A second search of Google proved that I misjudged sources that I found. DARTH PANDA^talk 00:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability cannot be established, as established by the assertions above that public forum reveals merely user-contributed content. Saying that it can be established when all indications are that it cannot serves to belittle the AfD process. The claim that notability can be established is such a weak one that we cannot allow the article to remain on the hopes that non-user generation content will one day be available. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it 'belittle the AfD process', comments without proper explaination will simply carry little weight in the final consensus. Saying that you think notability can be established but not explaining how and then pointing out that it hasn't actually been established is just bizarre. Unless the editor plans to come up with some sources pretty soon it's pointless commenting. --neon white talk 14:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Any particular reason that you're being so aggressive about it? I'm sure you can come up with a better way with telling me how the AfD process works than calling me "just bizarre". It sounds like you're treating me like a newbie editor (which for AfD, I am), yet personally, I would try to help out a newbie editor instead of beating them back down and telling them that their contributions are "pointless". DARTH PANDA^talk 15:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call anyone bizarre or make any personal comments, i said that "Saying that you think notability can be established but not explaining how and then pointing out that it hasn't actually been established is just bizarre". Which i stand by, it's a strange argument to go with a 'keep' comment. Your arguing that notability has not been established which is a reason to delete an article not keep it. The fact is unless contributions make clear points and not confused ones, they are pointless. I recommend Wikipedia:Afd#How to discuss an AfD --neon white talk 16:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not show any real notability. lacks siginficant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources. Article appears to rely on POV OR. Above "Keep" argument gives no real reason. (I have added an AFD notice on Opium Lounge) Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - virtually no information supported by reliable sources, and without anything that can be so verified, demonstrating that the band would comply with WP:MUSIC would be close to impossible, to say the least. B.Wind (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steel Clan

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of its series 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. TTN (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't even think this is worth a merge. JuJube (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in-universe plot summary. See WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rommie

This character does not establish notability independent of its series 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. TTN (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research with a healthy dollop of plot summary. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Keep as improved. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Andromeda characters. Edward321 (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ changed to Keep, see below is some appropriate place, with a small amount of discussion. As merged, it does not have to show WP:N. As usual on these nominations, no reason for not merging was even suggested. DGG (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the other Andromeda characters to List of Andromeda characters (which is currently a redirect to the main article). I bet that that notability can be established for at least GA-level, but as usual, once fandom has moved on, fiction articles without already established notability just keep sticking in eternal badness if nothing is done. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable character, notable series. Hobit (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- now is referenced. No need to even consider a merge, now that it meets what people consider the gold standard of GNG. DGG (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bumin Khan. seems to have been what was desired anyway. I have re-directed, content is under there if someone wants to work on it. TravellingCari 02:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tumen Il-Qağan

There is already a page Bumin Khan existent that is wikified and nearly the exact same information, and then some. This page is a redundancy that is at best a candidate for speedy deletion, and at worse a candidate for merger and deletion. Brokenwit (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge why not simply have proposed it--I cant see anyone would have objected. DGG (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Senturion

This character does not establish notability independent of its series 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. TTN (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. High on plot details, low on notability and sources. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, depending on what's the status of other characters. Stifle,I notice this time you worded things a little relatively, so I assume you think this one might have some possibilities? DGG (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anything in the article was cited, I would. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage in reliable sources, and since that is the case, coverage of this character shall be covered in no article at all. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable third part sources so not notable. RMHED (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Superior Defender Gundam Force characters. MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Gundam

This character does not establish notability independent of its series 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. TTN (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yet more Gundamcruft. Stifle (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Gundam Wikia. Wikipedia is place for very notable mobile suits (Example: the original Gundam). Zero Kitsune (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect actually, I think the description in List of Superior Defender Gundam Force characters is clearer. DGG (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per DGG. Edward321 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it establish independent notability. With coverage in reliable third party sources, it consists of necessary plot summary and unoriginal research. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and where is this coverage by reliable third-party sources? Neither the article nor you cited any. --Farix (Talk) 19:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on further review of the IPs contributions, it appears to be a SPA that is stalking TTN (talk · contribs) through AFD. --Farix (Talk) 22:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krogoth

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series 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. TTN (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, uncited original research and chock-full of in-game references unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty sure individual RTS units don't fall within WP:VGSCOPE, e.g. excessive detail. Nifboy (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N and WP:V. Only source is insufficient. Randomran (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jinmay (SRMTHFG)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series 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. TTN (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, plot summary and original research; not a citation in sight. Stifle (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for lack of context. --EEMIV (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#PLOT Covered much better in List of characters in Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go!, this can be redirected there after deletion. --Phirazo (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems original research to me. -- nips (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jedikiah (Tomorrow People)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series 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. TTN (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge any cited information into The Tomorrow People. In other words, delete. Stifle (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
merge and delete are not synonyms, but opposite. Merging is an alternative to deletion, according to WP:Deletion policy, section 2.3 , so I suppose you mean to amend your statment to: "merge any cited information into The Tomorrow People. In other words, keep. DGG (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I mean exactly what I typed and I'm fully aware of the deletion policy. However, there is no cited material, therefore nothing will be merged, therefore deletion is appropriate. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As there are now some citations, changing to merge that much (and no more) into The Tomorrow People. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' seems to be some cited material now., enough to establish notability as a separate article. DGG (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article now meets WP:GNG. I wish people would look for sources before !voting for deletion... Hobit (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article sourcing seems to have been expanded, establishing it better. Wily D 13:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per souces. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While consensus wasn't overly obvious, the direction of the discussion was that the article had improved just enough to justify its existence. — Scientizzle 19:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Medical Group

This article is/was an attempt at advertising with unverified claims since at least July, 2008. The previous citations only parroted information on the Boston Medical Groups website. AlbertHall (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unverified and advertising-style claims should be scrubbed, but the entry is worth keeping and improving. Boston Medical Group, as a company, generates significant interest on the web (Google KW tool estimates 9900 monthly searches for the term "Boston Medical Group".) A neutral Wikipedia page about the company would be useful for anyone combing the thicket of (often unreliable) web information about erectile dysfunction treatment - which Boston Medical Group offers at its various clinic locations.--Williamfernandez (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total lack of substance once the advertising has been removed. Let google take care of google search numbers. The information that could be given in a sourced Wikipedia article would be only directory information DGG (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no room for unsubstantiated advertising claims on Wikipedia. No proof of efficacy, no patent information. Google and yellow pages can handle the scant information available. When peer-reviewed information becomes available about BMG's approach, it could be mentioned under erectile dysfunction. AlbertHall (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really counts as WP:SPAM. no establishment of why this organisation is more notable than your average medical clinic. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please see the revisions I have made to this article including 7 reliable source citations. This company's radio advertisements are ubiquitous fixtures on male-oriented shows like Howard Stern and Tom Leykis, so I'm surprised there is not more independent coverage. However, I did manage to dig up a few sources, including a New York magazine article[20] which features the author's visit to the clinic in the last half of the article; a newspaper article about its "racy" billboard ads[21]; and a few rather minor mentions including one citing its ironic slogan "Premature ejaculation? Immediate results."[22] There were also a couple of negative pieces including a doctor who was sanctioned[23] and a court case involving an erection lasting for over TWO DAYS![24]. DHowell (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the revisions, and I removed the final one, about a Texas case, which is certainly not acceptable. It's a primary source, for a court decision only to the effect that the group does business in Texas, and does not support the allegations of harm from their treatment. Whether the NY Post article , again about a specific physician in the group, is relevant, would need to be discussed if the article is kept. Just as the article cannot be an ad, it should not be a discussion about the side effects of one particular FDA-approved medical method that is not at all limited to this chain of clinics. DGG (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if it is made clear that the notability is primarily about the advertising campaign. I think the sources are just sufficient to show that. DGG (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as improved and (moderately) sourced. Hobit (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arado Balanga

These elements of the Super Robot Wars series do not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. TTN (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC) TTN (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

TTN (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, for a start. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. They don't establish any notability and they contain real world information. -- nips (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy them all, all per WP:NOT#OR (some of them are just baffling); but first, let's make sure there's an alternate home for all this content (i.e. transwiki), because I'm sure someone or a small group of editors did a lot of work here, and we shouldn't make it a complete loss. MuZemike (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Combine appropriately into a list Judging by a sampling, there is no justification for individual articles, but I equally see no justification for total omission. DGG (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an appropriate character list article. Edward321 (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into character list Hobit (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as lacking reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N and WP:V. The reason that we don't merge is because that won't solve the central issue: a lack of reliable third-party sources even in aggregate, thus failing WP:N and WP:V even when compiled together. Randomran (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the articles show any evidence of coverage by third party reliable sources. A character list may be appropriate but I don't think that these largely original research based plot summaries would be a good basis for it. Guest9999 (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this article establishes independent notability. With coverage in reliable third party sources, it is made up of necessary plot summary and unoriginal research. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where have I heard that before? MuZemike (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close — nomination withdrawn along with a consensus to merge, which can be discussed in further detail at Talk:MicroProse. AfD is no longer needed. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microprose Systems

Per WP:CORP and WP:CRYSTAL. Website offline since September. This non-notable company which is just 6 months old and sells TV converters, got mentioned in some blogs because of the name association to MicroProse Software, which ceased to exist in 2001. EconomistBR 17:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Further discussion relative to the AFD is also located here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relative info with Microprose. Company was a licensor of the brand and properties from the current brand owner Patrick Leleu, publicly announced a line of products through press releases and interviews, went through a public CECB certification process (and is currently up on the certification site) and several other related issues. Likewise there is the current press release I was just sent (via CG.Com), detailing the unlicensing and merger of MicroProse Systems and MicroProse CED in to a new company -

Legacy Engineering Group Parts Ways With Microprose Brand New York, NY. – October 20th, 2008 – Legacy Engineering Group (LEG) announced today the discontinuation of their licensing agreement with Frederic Chesnais and Interactive Game Group (I2G), owners of the Microprose® brand and related properties. This discontinuation affects LEG subsidiaries Microprose Systems and Microprose Consumer Electronics Division, which have been combined and rebranded Legacy Consumer Electronics (LCE). The Microprose Systems and related websites will no longer be maintained or hosted by LCE, and all domain ownership will revert to Frederic Chesnais. LCE is continuing to move forward and release the previously announced and eagerly anticipated product line of professional gaming controllers, PSP power accessories, entertainment center components, and exciting games. This includes the recently announced Classic USB Joystick Controller for $14.99.

About Legacy Engineering Group: Legacy Engineering Group© and its subsidiary Legacy Consume Electronics© are a developer of video game accessories, consumer electronics products, and video game software. Web site: www.legacyengineer.com. About I2G: Interactive Game Group (I2G) is a company acquiring, financing and licensing video games and other interactive entertainment properties, whether packaged media, online or wireless. Created by Frederic Chesnais, former Chief Executive Officer of Atari Interactive, Inc., I2G develops and finances a portfolio of video game properties.

--Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Microprose. There's not enough verifiable sources for the article to stand on its own. Would also fit better in the parent article. MuZemike (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with MicroProse. not enough notability for a split. --neon white talk 20:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - In the light of the new information provided by Marty Goldberg I withdraw the nomination.

Micropose Systems still exists just under a different name, Micropose Systems became Legacy Consumer Electronics and the brand Microprose was returned to the Interactive Game Group. Merging a company that still exists to Microprose would not work since the company now has a different name, instead I prefer to withdraw the nomination. EconomistBR 04:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the corporation has been reformed under a new name, that still leaves the issue that it was operating as a Microprose licensee and releasing press releases as such over the past year, and certification was granted for its tuner box as part of the Microprose brand. I still think the material should be merged, as people here have stated it does not have enough verifiable sources to stand on its own but is a part of the Microprose brand history. If Legacay Consumer Electronics gets enough notable sources to warrant an article on Wikipedia (which it currently does not have), it can always be created again under that with a short summary discussing its previous connection to the Microprose brand. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy Consumer Electronics has no longer any sort of affiliation to the MicroProse brand, therefore hosting an article about that company on the MicroProse article would be a mistake. A merger would only confuse readers since they would be redirected to the company's old name. EconomistBR 04:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're a bit confused on what is being stated. Nobody is stating to merge info about Legacy Consumer Electronics or redirects. The discussion of this AFD and the consensus so far is to merge the information about Microprose Systems, which no longer exists as a name and brand, and was/is a valid and documented part of Microprose history via the material reported above. Likewise, Legacy Consumer Elecontrics is a newly formed entity that has no press or notable coverage as of yet, so it does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. It was being suggested that when it does, an article for it can be created with a brief section on its past association with the Microprose brand as Microprose Systems. There is not confusion to readers, that would only occur if you were merging a Legacy Consumer Electronics article into Microprose and redirecting Legacy Consumer Electronics to Microprose, which is not happening and was not being called for. The consensus is for merger of Microprose Systems, which did have an affiliation to Microprose, and did have public press, reviews of products, etc. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nightwish' 7th Album

Future album. Fails WP:V, WP:NOTE, WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTAL. Only one song is finished, "It's gonna be fantastic to start working with it full-time, sometime next year", per a primary source. Amalthea^Talk 17:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; The article seems useless at the moment, the paragraph it has in the Nightwish article is enough, at least until more information, such as a complete tracklist or more information about the eventual change of musical style. Agree for deletion. - Aki (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; 85.165.176.205 has changed the article radically, deleting the rumours and eventually false information. I believe it should be kept as it is a fact that the album is to be produced soonly, and since the writing on it has begun. Otherwise, the article would still be re-written in just a month or two. - Aki (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal hammer — pure speculation. Delete. MuZemike (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HAMMER, no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, can be re-created once solid info is available. -12.68.8.18 (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 06:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No title, no set release date, no confirmed tracks. Fails WP:HAMMER. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 17:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Hodell

Non-notable bio about a professor at the University of Florida. Article fails to assert notability. Included references that mention the subject's work also fail to assert notability. Millbrooky (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article failed to assert notability, but the references included his CV, which listed his publications and awards.He was named a fellow of the American Geophysical Union in 2007, which appears to satisfy criterion 3 of WP:PROF; I have added this to the article, with an appropriate cite. A cursory Google Scholar search confirms that he has published extensively in his field, and his works are heavily cited: just the first 9 articles returned in that search collectively have over 1,000 cites. Maralia (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the material found. Notability for a research is references that discuss his work.DGG (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Strong Keep. Most likely being an elected fellow of American Geophysical Union is enough to satisfy criterion 3 of WP:PROF. But even if not, taking this together with high citability results (particularly the articles in Nature and Science), he passes criterion 1 of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, change to strong keep. Effective October 1, 2008 he has been appointed Woodwardian Professor of Geology at Cambridge University [25]. Thus satisfies criterion 5 of WP:PROF, as holding a "named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research." Nsk92 (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Well that's good enough for me. Now off I go to read WP:PROF a little more closely. --Millbrooky (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane's Hotel

Issues with this video game: very poor grammar, may be an advertisement, unreferenced, and almost certainly not notable. I could not find any reliable refs for this article amid the hundreds of links to go play the shockwave version of the game. Millbrooky (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing notable about this game. I was thinking to merge and redirect to Realore Studios but while looking there, I find that Realore Studios itself seems to fail WP:N. There are a number of games that this studio has produced that have articles here and all appear to be the dime a dozen flash games that are produced by the thousands a year.--Pmedema (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides a very usable Gamezebo review there's nothing else coming out of google (had a look for sources for this one previously, as well as another go just now). Multiple reliable sources are needed to establish notability and provide materials to build an article with, one won't do. A rash of Realore games were created a few days ago and I'm struggling to find acceptable sources for any of them besides Gamezebo who review a lot of casual games. Someone another 23:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — lack of verifiable sources besides what is stated above that can remotely establish notability of this game (i.e. no significant coverage). MuZemike (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — Realore Studios as well as many other of its games have been proposed for deletion for the same reasons as in this AfD. MuZemike (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Francis Ames

Non-notable children's book author. Her literary work does not contain any notable books. Could not find any references to establish notability. Millbrooky (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a couple of references to the article. OK, they're not extensive, but the fact that I could come up with online sources in five minutes for an author who was active over a hundred years ago indicates that she must have been notable in her time, and notability doesn't expire. There seem to be plenty more sources available via a Google Books search but in nearly all cases no more than a snippet is displayed, so research in a library would be needed to expand the article further. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Phil Hobit (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect based on the precendent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Nepal 2003 & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Nepal 2005...it'll be a soft redirect so that any future merging can access the content. — Scientizzle 18:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nepal 2002

Content of this article is irrelevant to the subject. It talks about the winner instead of the competition. Not a single line talks about Miss Nepal 2002(the event). Apart from that, it looks like copyright violation from some online newspaper. Seeing the previous track record of the creator who has been introducing copyrighted materials on regular basis, I doubt it is copied and pasted from http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/englishdaily/trn/2002/dec/dec08/index.htm. Hitro 14:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with the other Miss Nepal year articles, merge to Miss Nepal. As for talking about the winner... it should talk about the winner in any case. It shouldn't just talk about the winner... Did you read the article? It does talk about other things. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 14 70.55.200.131 (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it talks about when and where the winner born, what is her weight and height. But there is no information about where and when this event took place. Please clarify, what do you want me to see in the AfD Logs. I don't think consensus has reached on any discussion at the moment. Hitro 15:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nine members' judges' panel also selected Lhamo Yangchen Sherpa and Pinky Shah as second and first runner up of the contests respectively. They were awarded with cash prizes bagging Rs.15,000 and Rs.25,000 respectively. Pinky Shah also bagged the Colgate best photogenic award while Sagun Sharma and Prabha Kadariya were awarded best smile and best dress awards.

The programme was organised in three roundups. Ten and five contestants were selected in first and second roundups. The final titles were announced in the third and the final round. The beauty contest was organised in joint collaboration by Hidden Treasure, Kathmandu Jaycees and Dabur Batika. And, it was choreographed by Rachana Gurung, Sharma.

That is not solely about the winner. You didn't read the article, did you? 70.55.200.131 (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so this is what you were disputing over. With your point above, You clearly mean that rest of the article is worthless and irrelevant to the subject, don't you? FYI, I am not against your vote of merger or redirection. Hitro 13:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Content itself need re-written, but that is an editing issue. The subject matter itself is notable and the article is worth keeping.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that this is an edit issue. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Nepal: Two similar AfDs have already completed a few days ago on Miss Nepal 2003 and Miss Nepal 2005, both of which resulted in redirects to the main article. The answer should be the same for this article, which is about little more than the winner. I'm familiar with the article creator's track record, and unfortunately, this looks to me like a roundabout way of creating an article on one of his admired winners. The information on that year's event could easily be summarised and placed into the main article, just like all of the other years. If you take out all of the biography details not related to the event, you would be left with little more than a stub. Why create a stub for every year for a (relatively) small competition when the main article does/will do the job just fine. Maedin\^talk 06:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Training ground

This article title and content implies that "training grounds" are solely used for soccer training. Attempts to remove the overly-specific content and to generalize the page left it as a mere dictionary definition, something which Wikipedia is not.
Despite attempts and requests since July, the page has remained completely unimproved. At this point, I am forced to the conclusion that it is unrepairable and that the project would be better off without this misleading page. The page is now orphaned but prior to orphaning, the few inbound links referred to all manner of training grounds (military, other sports, etc), not merely to soccer. Rossami (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: This page was previously deleted via PROD. It was restored on the assertion that "it could be developed into a good article". The only significant changes since restoration were the addition of a list of examples of soccer fields - no correction of the core issue that was promised in the DRV request. Rossami (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although there is an issue with regard to the content of this article, deleting it is not the answer. One wonders why the nominating editor did not take the necessary steps to improve the article. One assumes that they were just being lazy. – PeeJay 17:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mind ad hominem attacks. Argue about the article and not the nom. MuZemike (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reason the article is now orphaned is because the nominating editor has systematically removed all the inbound links! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revert, Keep, and Move/Create Dab — to avoid confusion. I agree that "Training ground" means different things in different contexts, and that is why we have disambiguation and the ability to move pages. MuZemike (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Training ground (association football) - training grounds are significant in the context of football clubs and the concept is encyclopaedic. The way forward is for the page to be expanded. I have also added back some clearly appropriate links. For example at The Cliff (training ground), 'training ground' is the prime descriptor and it is standard practice for it to be linked so that the reader can find information on the term. However, I agree that the specific application in the article needs to be distinguished, in the title, from the general usage of the term. Smile a While (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PeeJay. Giant Snowman 11:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's nothing on this article that can't be fixed. Might be worth organising a WP:FOOTY collaberation here. Bettia (rawr!) 13:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MatsuriCon

There are no claims of notability in this article describing an anime conference. Despite requests on the contributing editor's talk page (here) and the article talk page (here), the main editor has repeatedly declined to provide claims or evidence of notability.

The references do not provide support for keeping the article:

"MasturiCon 2006 Announced". Animenewsnetwork.com (2005-11-08). Retrieved on 2005-11-08. Press release announcing convention. Not independent coverage.
"MatsuriCon 2006 Hotel Change". Animecons.com. Retrieved on 2006-03-29. As stated, announcement of hotel change. Not significant coverage"
"MatsuriCon Signature Events". MatsuriCon.org. Retrieved on 2008-09-27. Conference web site roster of events. Not independent coverage.
"MasturiCon 2006 Info". Animecons.com. Retrieved on 2008-09-17. Summary statistics with no commentary or information that implies notability. Not significant coverage.
"MatsuriCon 2007 Info". Animecons.com. Retrieved on 2008-09-18. Summary statistics with no commentary or information that implies notability. Not significant coverage.
"MatsuriCon 2008 Info". Animecons.com. Retrieved on 2008-09-18. Summary statistics with no commentary or information that implies notability. Not significant coverage.
"MatsuriCon LiveJournal". Livejournal.com. Retrieved on 2008-10-16. Fan blog. Not significant coverage in reliable source independent of the subject.

This article should be deleted without delay. Bongomatic (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable anime con, as evidenced both by the scarcity of coverage and the very low attendence figure (400) claimed in the article itself. For comparison's sake, Otakon had more than 26,000 attendants. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and nominator. There's nothing to indicate particular notability of this over other anime conventions. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 400?! Not over nine thousand? And three years of events are not significative. Zero Kitsune (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability criteria, though I think the primary editor should have been given more then four days to find evidence for notability. However, an extensive Google search turned up no third-party coverage by a reliable source. Unfortunately the Columbus Dispatch's archives were down so a search of them can't be conducted. --Farix (Talk) 01:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created on 18 September, so its creator has had sufficient time. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 01:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of impact, notability, interest, or influence. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Starblind. Unnotable convention that fails WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (moved from talk page by User:Collectonian):

I don't care if this is a small convention or not. I was planning to attend Anime Punch! 2008 and I couldn't make it because my BFF was going to be the Maid of Honor in her older sister's wedding. So I decided to back out of the con and attend another one, but I really wanted to attend one this past summer so I did my research and came across MatsuriCon on animecons.com! I knew it was going to be a small con, but I still wanted to go.

Quite frankly, it's recommended that newbies attend smaller cons before attending the bigger ones. (Reference: Hey, Answerman!! from the Anime News Network) So when I came across MatsuriCon, I was like..."Sweet. Maybe I can find out more about it on Wikipedia, seeing how there isn't a lot of info about the con's past on their homepage: www.matsuricon.org!" Lo-and-behold, there wasn't an article to give me more info about it, so it got me thinking: "Maybe I shouldn't go, seeing how I don't know anything about it." But I went anyway, and I had a great time.

So what if the attendance isn't all that great after being around for 3 years? I'll bet the same thing wouldn't have been said about Ohayocon, seeing how the attendance was "all that and a bag of chips." Small or large, all anime conventions need to be given a chance, and a little publicity goes a long way; but seeing how all people do is swear by Ohayocon (so much in fact that it makes me sick)...the little guy isn't getting a chance.

-FemaleWolfDemon

P.S. However, if there is something I can do to make this more significant. Tell me! Don't just stand there and criticize, HELP! FemaleWolfDemon 09:40, October 22, 2008 (UTC)

Hi FemaleWolfDemon, I have left you a response in a new section of your talk page. Bongomatic (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep — nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Northern Iowa Panthers football team

~~Questionable notability for this single season of a college football team. raven1977 (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn, see comment below. raven1977 (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —raven1977 (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep relevance of single season articles of college football is discussed at the essay WP:CFBSEASON. And if that isn't enough, they ended up #2 in Division I-AA.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs some cleanup and sourcing, but the Panthers play at the highest level of college sports, Division I, and the 2005 team was runner up for the NCAA Division I Football Championship. --Geologik (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could use fleshing out, but nothing wrong here. If we're not careful, there could be odd consequences...i.e. check out these two FAs: 2007 USC Trojans football team and 2005 Texas Longhorn football team. --Bobak (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geologik. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was unaware of the notability essay for College Football season articles; I was unsure where to look, so I just glanced through the general notability guidelines. But now I see there's a good guideline for this, which this article does meet, so thank you to those above, for the information. I wish to withdraw my nomination. raven1977 (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAIR Watch

A completely non-notable blog that seems to simply collect content from other sites like MilitantIslamMonitor.org, Jihad Watch and FrontPage Magazine when the content is critical of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Nothing in the entry established notability - WP:N. Wikipedia is not a blog nor does it exist to be the mouthpiece of blogs - WP:NOT. An alternative to deletion might be merging one or two sentences of content into Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations PelleSmith (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There are articles in the NY Times, Broward-Palm Beach New Times, Canada Free Press, etc. They got a US Senator to recind an award given - This is almost never done. This is very notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lansing3456 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Lansing3456 was the article's only significant contributor and that has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Oren0 (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The award was rescinded because several conservative websites objected, there is no evidence that CAIR watch did it on their own. ~~Can you cite what the NY Times article says? I can't find it.~~ Sorry, found it. It isn't an article about CAIR watch, it's about Boxer rescinding the award. It has 2 sentences about Kaufman, one of which simply mentions CAIR watch. Doug Weller (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —PelleSmith (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —PelleSmith (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite a handful of mentions in reliable sources, i cannot find anything that could be said to "address the subject directly in detail", a requirement for notability. Also seems like a coatrack to promote the views of the group rather than being about the group itself. --neon white talk 18:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just a promotional article for a fringe hate group. Carol Moore 18:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Delete insufficient mainstream media coverage. -- Nudve (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:N Oren0 (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. Seems clear-cut to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Andreae

Not notable. Although she has published three books, these were introductory manuals and not original research. Wikipedia is not here to list publications. Mr.K. (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course keep ! She is notable enough. Concerning notability, its more or less depending on notions like space & time, in five years almost 99% of the people included for notability in the english wiki, - will be forgotten in real live ! So long, keep Andreae ! Pinus pinea (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article doesn't establish notability, and I can't find evidence of her work having much impact/visibility. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nomoskedasticity. Note that the corresponding article on German Wikipedia is somewhat more detailed, but even that entry does not really make any strong claim to notability. Also note that the previous "keep" opinion was tendered by the article's author, Pinus pinea. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
delete fails WP:PROF, no evidence of impact of her work on the work of other scholars. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Athletico romsey

Extremely non-notable football club, playing only at the notional level 21 of the English football league system. Fails GNG. Re-creation of article which I initially speedied as Athletico Romsey, but when I saw it was back I decided that perhaps I'd been a bit hasty in speedying it and maybe it ought to be taken to AfD instead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 15:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I see this was deleted under its original name of Athletico Romsey. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable by any stretch of the imagination. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable due to a) the level of football they have achieved and b) lack of relevant third-party coverage. - fchd (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wow, that's minor. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally non-notable, although the Brazilian and Greek 'superstars' with very English-sounding names made me chuckle. Bettia (rawr!) 13:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as moot. No one at all is arguing the subject isn't encyclopedic. UncleG is now writing a sourced BLP compliant version - this afd was always pointless.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Günter Deckert

I restored this after speedy deleting it and then reviewing revision history. The current version was considered a negative unsourced WP:BLP violation and gutted. What was left did not assert notability, so on reflection, I restored this version. In this version, the subject appears very notable, but not particularly admirable by my standards. (I don't want my negative bias to cloud my judgment.) I'm not confident that this article is utterly beyond redemption, and would prefer consensus seeking here to unilateral action on my part. Dloh cierekim 15:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - I seen the speedy-nom for this but having made an opinion on the AN discussion I thought it best if someone else handled it. Just commenting to bring participants' attention to the AN discussion and to the lede of WP:BLP; "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 15:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was thundering in my head. The problem, as I see it, is that it could be rewritten or sourced. At least toned down. Maybe, I'll take a crack at it. The thing came over from the German Wikipedia. I did not look there at the sourcing. As so often happens, real life gets in the way of my article woek. Cheers, Dloh cierekim

<after ec with below, which I have not read>Also, I think most of what was blanked is not so negative as to warrant removal. BLP does not mean we not tell the truth about people or only tell the good parts. Dloh cierekim 15:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - How negative it is, or how truthful isn't the point. The point is sourcing. We don't include negative material unless well-sourced.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, a debate here is irrelevant as this has nothing to do with notability. The correct response here is to speedy delete the article as a G10, it can then be undeleted immediately anyone offers to make it BLP compliant. However, eventualism is not acceptable here. The question is not "is the article salvageable?", the question is "will someone make it BLP compliant now?" If not, we must remove the article for now. So, I guess I'm saying "speedy delete, without prejudice to recreation or undeletion" unless someone is immediately offering to fix it. Certainly nothing for afd to debate here.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as much as I could. Please look at current version. I'm outta time. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 15:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone reverted my changes. The whole point of deletion was removing the the blp. Dloh cierekim 15:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I reverted you. Your version was still a wholly unsourced BLP.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my view Scott MacDonald is acting in a disruptive fashion by deleting the bulk of the article, leaving what is clearly non-notable. I am aware of BLP policies, however:

1. Sometimes we need to see what it is we are supposed to be discussing.

2. There may be adequate sources on the German language Wikipedia article, as I do not speak German this needs to be investigated.

3. There may be a case for saying speedy delete without prejudice to re-creation, but this needs to be taken by an admin. PatGallacher (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Em. BLP does not say "leave unsourced negative material if there 1) "may be adequate sources on another wiki" or 2) "It is convenient to save editors looking in the history" or 3) because only admins can make the call."--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with the above) We have a whole host of negative and currently unsourced material. I find it astonishing that you think this should remain. The whole purpose of WP:LIVING is to deal with this kind of page. I fully agree with Scott MacDonald's removal of the negative content. We don't say "wait and see if there are sources available" when we have a page like this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is clear from doing a basic search that there is a large amount of material about this person on the internet, I have already added 4 links myself. PatGallacher (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt you are correct. And if someone wants to write a properly sourced article, then I will probably vote to keep too. But right now, there is no BLP compliant material to keep.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original Halloween Kiss

Not notable. I hate to have this deleted, but there appears to be no reliable source information on the candy. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 14:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also couldn't find any substantial coverage that would satisfy our criteria. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any coverage about this candy. As a Canadian, I am familiar with this style of candy although I'm not sure that the name is "Original Halloween Kiss" for the ones that I had as kid decades ago. I can confirm that they weren't well liked and were always the last eaten of the batch. but that is a personal observation and recollection, and is original research. I suspect that the article content is also original research. -- Whpq (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Austin (actor)

Non-notable, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Guest roles, none recurring. Minor roles in film. No significant coverage found. Disputed prod. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent coverage that would satisfy WP:N. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant roles. no outside sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently, it is just several unsubstantiated claims. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inpay

No apparent notability. Removed on "reference" that did not refer to Inpay. Remaining reference is a patent application. No reliable sources provided, none found. Previously speedied as spam. Contested prod. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nominator, this is blatant advertising (and I couldn't find anything reliable either). Drmies (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is also a EU patent application - I believe this indicate notability Ecommerce99 16:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does a patent itself make something notable? Even if it does, does a mere patent application make something notable? →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barely any information around on this subject, most of it (if not all) is from the company itself. I don't think applying for a patent makes something notable. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the hawala exchange system is fascinating, this software isn't. Two patent applications do not establish notability. gnfnrf (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza bin al wathan

Contested speedy, bio of a non-notable artist. No independent, secondary sources, fails WP:BIO, nothing indicating more than a local significance. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree. I couldn't find anything either, and even if sources for the two exhibits, and the one review, are found, we are still dealing with an artist of only local notability. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources found to satisfy WP:N, WP:BIO and other policies, guidelines. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Wiltshire Library and Information Service. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Box library

This seems to be one of an intended series of articles about libraries in Wiltshire. Editor name suggests a COI. The articles themselves (2 so far) are near-identical and give no particular information other that what would be expected for a library. Fails WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ros0709 (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to (and create) Wiltshire Library and Information Service. While the individual libraries are likely not notable, the greater system might be. TravellingCari 02:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...or Merge both into their respective towns, Box and Aldbourne. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to all three articles referenced by both TravellingCari and Brewcrewer; no need to avoid duplication, as the information is relevant both to the locale descriptions and to the library service as a whole. IMHO, county and district library services are generally notable (like school districts), but individual libraries not so. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The vast majority of libraries are not notable, and this is no exception as evidenced bt the fact that this article could be about pretty much any library in the world after changing a word or two. Merging two utterly non-notable things into one article doesn't seem very logical to me, as unless I'm missing some important point here the resulting article would be non-notable as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to appropriate locations. They're not notable on their own but could be mentioned elsewhere as part of a more general topic. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I added some references to both articles and created Wiltshire Library and Information Service. I discovered a royal visit to one of the library buildings here. I disagree with Starblind (talk • contribs • count), because I think that references from reliable sources exist for most public libraries. It's just that finding those references can be difficult. -- Eastmain (talk • contribs • count) 16:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Libraries are a bit difficult to place. I think reasonably large library systems are encyclopedic, an opinion I hold because the public library systems in Bergen and Oslo, as well as the university library in Trondheim, have articles in paper encyclopedias. A small local library however, does not really stick itself out more than a grocery store. As a branch of public service however, I see no harm in covering it in some form. Merging looks like the best compromise. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a combination of blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite and patent nonsense. I waded through the "official web site" and eventually found some coherent English in the form of a press clipping from People. As noted by Andrew Lenahan, there's a self-published book behind all this. The gibberish isn't an attempt to avoid deletion. It's the same style that the web site is written in, and is probably the author's style. The press clipping does describe the book as "probably only completely understandable by the author". This isn't even the name of the book, or the author. It's the name of the author's own publishing house. There's nothing at all salvageable from this article, and I have my doubts that an article on this subject could be written anyway. This has nothing to do with Japanese, by the way. The author apparently comes from Cape Town. Uncle G (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dinky-Bloc

I've read and re-read this article about a dozen times so far and I'm no further on. It manages to not say what it is and not assert notability for whatever it turns out to be about. This might be poor translation from Japanese or even poor comprehension on my side, but I think we could live without this article. Your mileage may differ. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 13:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete an earlier (speedied) version of the article revealed this is a completely non-notable company, a publisher with apparently only one extremely obscure book to its credit. It seems to have been re-created as a nonsense page, apparently to temporarily avoid being deleted again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Black Disciples#History and Organizational Structure. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Fin Black Disciples

Lack of notability. The article depends on a single source which probably doesn't even qualify as a WP:RS. No NPOV coverage. No mention of anything notable except their existence. Appears to be local interest only. Probably qualifies for speedy delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Black Disciples. Doesn't qualify as a speedy, but there isn't enough notability for it to stand on its on. Google news shows a few passing mentions at best, and a Google web search turns up a load of non-reliable blogs/self-published sites. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The two sentences can easily be merged into Black Disciples#History and Organizational Structure, which already mentions the Blue Fins (though doesn't link to this particular article) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there were ample sources to support a merge (or a keep) I would be all in favor of it, but I'm seeing nothing of a reliable nature as per WP:RS guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chicago-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Clearly meets the criteria for speedy deletion, A7-group. Article does not state the importance/notability of the organization, and fails to establish reliable sourcing.-Andrew c ^[talk]
Speedy delete CSD A7 applies as the article does not state why this organization is notable or important, nor does it provide any type of referencing material for the reader to figure it out on their own. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per several sections of WP:NOT and closed per WP:SNOW. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 2 1

Violates Wikipedia policy: Wikiepeda is not for things you made up one day WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article had already been proposed via a {{prod}} which was removed by an editor different than the author (although, admittedly by an anon IP). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. Dekisugi (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NFT, WP:BOLLOCKS, and some of the anecdotal material is disparaging towards the named players. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BOLLOCKS fits the bill. Huon (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of all above. --Banime (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete: per WP:MADEUP. Schuym1 (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - It's been established that this article serves no encyclopedia value --Flewis^(talk) 13:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. I expect the section "Famous Players" might be more accurate if it were renamed "Only Players". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absolute stupid. If you wanna redirect this to that game show, be my guest. ViperSnake151 15:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hakobune

Unreferenced article about non-notable game. A web search turns up only trivial mentions on web forums. DAJF (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This looks like someone's homebrew setting. The cited sources are for the manufacturer of the parent game, and have nothing to do with the specific content in the article. No more notable than my own home campaign. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable third party sources of notability. Zero Kitsune (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete This as spam. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P. Vinod Bhattathiripad + Vinod Bhattathiripad (identical article)

This article was declined a speedy deletion because the admin believed that the subject was notable enough. However, a simple google search only yields 167 returns (62 of which belong to the site listed below), with very little information on the subject. The article contains no outbound or inbound wiki links. No references, or citations. The article claims that the subject, is the Chief Co-ordinator of http://www.namboothiri.com (the single external link within the article) - "Namboothiri Website" - "a forum for documenting Namboothiri traditions in web". The entire article is written in resume style:

"He has traveled to several countries abroad including Switzerland, Germany, France, England, Poland, Liechtenstein, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and so on{{weasel word}}, several times"
"He has completed M. Sc. (Operations Research & Computer Applications ) and M. Phil. (Computer Science) and has headed around 148 software projects{{which}}"
"He has visited (is visiting{{when}}) as a resource person in Cochin University of Science and Technology"
"With the experience of being the commentator for three Somayaagas {{what}}, he has appeared in related programmes in BBCWORLD and Discovery channels.{{which}}"

Like I mentioned before, none of this can be Verified, so all the content is propbably attributed to WP:OR and would therefore violate WP:BLP - a whole other problem in itself. Flewis^(talk) 12:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, who has provided sufficient reasons for deleting this cv. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is another Vinod Bhattathiripad here created by the same person. Salih (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Afd --Flewis^(talk) 15:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : non-notable. Never seen him on Discovery til now. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Few references exist. [26] No verifiable claims to support most of the content. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the admin who declined speedy deletion, I didn't decline it because I "believed that the subject was notable enough". I declined it because the rationale for speedy deletion was that it was an article that didn't assert notability. But the article does assert notability: "one of the first computer engineers in India to practice cyber crime investigation". Whether the person is in fact notable is another matter altogether, which can be discussed here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNon-notable. --GPPande talk! 10:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malls in Punjab (India)

I don't see how a list of shopping malls is encyclopedic. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see, similar articles exist in wikipedia, List of shopping malls in the United States and also check Category:Lists. Quality check 12:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)(talk)

Keep. Lists are useful and serve to indicate through redlinks articles which ought to be created. -- Eastmain (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm okay with it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Such lists are finite and verifiable, therefore cannot be termed as indiscriminate pieces of information. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of shopping malls in India#Punjab--Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to somewhere appropriate if such a place can be found... else Keep. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But these types of information can be useful sometimes and sometimes grossly misused as spams. Title is keep worthy. --GPPande talk! 10:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFID Guardian

Fails notability. Describes a single university project but notability not established (nor even attempted). The creator and only significant contributor is called User:RFIDchip and has not contributed to any other pages, indicating a WP:SPA with a WP:COI. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's rather necessary and big article. And there is one interwiki-link.--X093i (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC) — X093i (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Although there is a WP:COI here, I think that the article can be salvaged. It needs to be wiki'd and have all the WP:SPAM portions removed. I found these sources that could be used. [27] [28] [29] [30]... The technology will, as the years go by, be a part of society and have a definitive impact, in my opinion. With a re-write, and sources, I feel it passes WP:V and WP:N. --Pmedema (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I've no doubt this sort of technology will continue to be important. But the article is not about the technology, it is about a specific product. When you strip away the RFID background stuff (which is already elsewhere) and the COI-loaded product description, there's almost nothing else, perhaps an external link which which could be added to RFID. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 07:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - I went through the RFID article and this peticular technology/project is unique in what it will do. Funny how things happen... I was driving into work this morning (Toronto) and the radio talk show (AM 1010) was talking about the RFID technology and the "jamming" and "sencing" of the signals. I'm all for perhaps moving this article to a more appropriate name? The RFID article is getting pretty big... We could also split the "Security" portion out of that and merge it with this.... Just thinking of ideas.--Pmedema (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google News Archive search shows clear notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove spam. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kotava

AfDs for this article:

Seems to be a made up constructed language. No independent reliable source proves notability. All sources are self-publications. No results on Google Scholar:[31]. It was deleted on de-wiki (de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/10. Juli 2007#Kotava (gelöscht)) and es-wiki (es:Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Kotava). See also: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Kotava. Tosqueira (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that Kotava has an ISO code should do the trick. I would also like to point out that deletion in another wikipedia project should by no means be treated as an argument for deletion here, neither should deletion three years ago be treated as an argument to delete something now (things can have changed, like, in this case, the ISO code). For your information, Tosqueira, "made up" is in itself not an argument for deletion. Just like Shakespeare wrote made-up sonnets and Spielberg created made-up movies, some people create made-up languages. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 12:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It needs independent reliable sources. If no one else wrote about it, it fails notability because it has not received significant coverage in in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I couldn't find anything on Google Scholar. If no academic wrote anything about it (other than the one who invented) I believe it is not notable. Don't compare Shakespeare or Spielberg to an WP:OR. Tosqueira (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR refers to an article, not to a subject. What you call "made up" refers to the subject. Shakespeare's sonnets, Beethoven's symphonies and Spielberg's movies are equally "made up" as a constructed language. Esperanto and Quenya are also made up (the latter even in school, I believe). So? Does that make them unnotable as well? Look, personally I'm far from enthousiastic about Kotava and the way it's promoted by its followers. But the fact that it does have an ISO code makes it notable enough for inclusion - that's one of the very few things everybody agreed about during previous discussions about the notability of constructed languages. I'd also like to add that the term "made up" strikes me a slightly offensive. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 13:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shakespeare's sonnets, Beethoven's symphonies and Spielberg's movies are equally "made up", but they are notable because they have enough independent reliable sources. If there's no independent media coverage, or at least independent academic coverage, it means that there is no independent source = no notability. Tosqueira (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you admit that the statement in the nomination that it was made up was pointless. Can we stop discussing it, then?--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources and lack of notability. While deletion on other wikis doesn't necessarily mean much, the fact that it didn't pass AFD here in 2005 is quite telling... since our standards have tightened up enormously since 2005, there are few if any articles that would have failed our standards then but match them now. In any case, no reliable sources = no article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: according to WP:PROBLEM, lack of reliable sources is a reason to improve an article, not to delete it. Besides, this is a reference as good as a reference can get. I don't understand your last argument. In fact you are saying: Because the article was deleted back in 2005, it should be deleted now as well. If so, does that mean that all those comments used in AFD discussions of the type "As for now, the subject lacks notability, but by all means try again once something changes" are to be disregarded in the future? For the record, you may have noticed that I "voted" delete in that discussion. In this case, I believe there is reason enough to vote differently now. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 15:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes an unsourced article can be saved by scouring for sources, but this isn't the case here. There's been plenty of time to fix this up, and it hasn't happened. This is as good as this article is going to get, and it's still unacceptable. And yes, Wikipedia is collectively getting tired of desperate attempts to keep terrible articles under the promise, pleading, and pinky-swearing to find sources and fix it up real good, real soon... which 99.999% of the time doesn't happen and the article just gets deleted a few weeks later anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent reliable sources -> no notability -> no article. If an ISO represents a presumption of notability, I could see holding off for reliable sources to appear, but I'm not aware of a policy or guideline that asserts that for constructed languages, or any consensus decision on it at all. Is there one? gnfnrf (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CONLANG. Since every natural language with an ISO code - even languages with no speakers (anymore) - are considered notable enough for an article, the same would also go for constructed languages. Mind, there aren't that many of those at all. See ISO, SIL, and BCP language codes for constructed languages. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 20:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. There is a whole lot of discussion and not much consensus there. Perhaps there's one spot where everyone comes together, but I didn't see it, plus the whole thing pretty clearly failed to come up with guidelines. However, it did get me interested in what the ISO codes actually mean, and now I'm puzzled. ISO 639-3 was published in 2007. That discussion was in 2005. How can assertions about notability implied from ISO language codes apply to ISO 639-3? Particularly since, as I have now learned (and please correct me if this is incorrect) unlike ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2, which attempt to catalog major languages, "ISO 639-3:2007 attempts to provide as complete an enumeration of languages as possible, including living, extinct, ancient and constructed languages, whether major or minor, written or unwritten. As a result, ISO 639-3:2007 deals with a very large number of lesser-known languages." (quoted from [32]). That, to me, sounds like a denial of any assertion of notability by assigning an ISO 639-3 code. And in the absence of an active policy or guideline stating otherwise, I don't see it helping here.

As for natural languages with no speakers being notable, my hope is that they pass the general notability guidelines in that they are the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable third party sources, regardless of the number of speakers. And if Kotava had that, I'd be voting keep, regardless of the number of speakers. gnfnrf (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 639-3 was around also before 2007. It included a fairly small number of languages that didn't have an ISO 639-2 code. As far as I can remember, it was pretty messy and mostly based on discussions on the Linguist list. In 2007 a new list was compiled, which didn't include a few that were on the list before and did include a few others. But the list is still fairly small. As for the "very large number of lesser-known languages": I really don't know how that will be achieved. The requirements are pretty high when it comes to printed publications in the language and that kind of stuff. It is fairly biased against fictional/artistic languages in favour of auxlangs. Besides, how do we define a language? How complete must a language be to be "language" enough for an ISO code? The number of constructed languages with a dictionary of over, say, 50000 entries is very, very small. So, I honestly don't know how Kotava got its ISO code, but the very fact alone proves that there is must be more than just one out of a very large number of lesser-known languages. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 22:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 639-3 was approved in 2007. It has existed in some form for a long time--it's basically the Ethnologue. There's bunches and bunches of languages in there that aren't in ISO 639-2, and they've retired several codes since ISO 639-3 became a standard because it turns out the languages didn't exist. Kotava got its code because someone submitted the paperwork for it; see [33] for the associated paperwork. I don't think it having an ISO 639-3 code proves much beside the fact that someone was willing to ask for one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; all ISO 639-2 language are notable because the LoC demands that some library hold 50 items in that language before adding it to ISO 639-2. An ISO 639-3 listing doesn't hurt notability, but it's at best a marginal notice, that need to be backed up by larger notices.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Robert Olson

Missing notability. The article was proposed for deletion because of missing notability two times, the author allways removed the prod-template. I found this article through the image at Commons and I also have not found notability, but was advised to nominate the article for deletion instead of speedydeletion. --Martin H. (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent reliable sources can be found verifying that he is fact the producer of an Emmy Award winning show. If that is the case than notability would be established. However, a search has yielded no verifiable sources for that fact.Nrswanson (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The religious television program won the Emmy from the San Diego Chapter in 1985 and the Pacific Southwest Emmy Award in 2000, Jonathan Olson is not responsible for the Emmy but for the show today, maybe the the article is misleading here - but my english is too bad to reword it correctly. --Martin H. (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. I did reword the Emmy sentence (and a few other things), but I cannot find independent verification of the two Emmys--which, by the way, were regional anyway, and don't carry as much weight as the national Emmy. So, since they were regional, and given to the program when the subject was -1 and 4 years old, respectively, and considering that I don't see winning regional Emmys is inheritable through the show, I see little notability left. There's also no verification of the Detroit prize--and I wonder how meaningful that was in the first place. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Unit Mixtape

Non-notable mixtape with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Commercial release by a notable artist. Has received some coverage [34]. I'm not really convinced about deleting articles on albums by notable artists, although deleting hip hop-related articles seems to be all the rage at the moment.--Michig (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:JANNMT (Just Another Non-Notable Mix Tape). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom no evidence of non-trivial coverage from third parties. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just Another Non-Notable Mix Tape, indeed. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dermot McBride

~~Non-notable amateur sportsperson. Fails WP:BIO.~~ GNUSMAS : TALK 09:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inter-county footballer. I've deleted some of the nonsense on the page, no need to delete the article now I feel. Derry Boi (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gaelic Athletic Association sports do not have internationals, and senior inter-county competition is accepted as the highest-level for WP:ATHLETE. Sources demonstrate that the subject played for the Derry senior side. CJPargeter (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - i.e., I withdraw my nomination. I think I must have failed to see past the rubbish that was in the article at the time (thanks to Derry Boi for removing it) - and I thought it was just a vanity article. It is now much improved, and I realise that it satisfies the criteria for retention. GNUSMAS : TALK 12:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, no problem with a move/merge to the label or other appropriate target as consensus may determine. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hit Crew

Non-notable sound-alike cover group. Non-neutral, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have no strong opinion on this one, but I suspect there's something salvagable here. Instead of an article on the "band", which may or may not pass WP:MUSIC, an article on the company itself, Drew's Famous might be more appropriate, as they almost certainly pass WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, I'm finding no sources for Drew's Famous either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, they've sold some 30+ million CDs and at least one title has gone platinum. See this and this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that works. A move to the label's name might work. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Pro Wrestling Unplugged employees

No assertation of notability. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro Wrestling Unplugged. D.M.N. (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable company, which on the first place has no main article, so it's roster is nothing more.--S _R X 21:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and SRX. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the company couldn't establish notability, so their championship definitely can't. Nikki311 01:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW Discussion of whether to merge with Aspartame is a separate matter. Consensus is clear that this material shouldn't be deleted. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aspartame controversy

POV fork of Aspartame in order to vent junk science and provide a fringe forum. While some criticism is valid, it is and can be covered in the Aspartame article. DHeyward (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that this reads like a WP:POVFORK of Aspartame, but I'm wondering if this is actually a legitimate article split (if the section was too bulky in the main article) that has, over time, become full of anti-aspartame PoV. Perhaps this article just needs trimming of PoV and, if that results in a large amount of it being removed, being merged back into the appropriate section of Aspartame. I'll wait for any opinions from people more involved in the article. ~ mazca ^t|c 09:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, per the comments below Keep seems reasonable, though this needs a vigorous de-PoVing. There is a controversy with valid points on both sides, so once properly balanced this is a valid article split - there's plenty of sourced info here already to build on. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aspartame. It's a fork. Alexius08 (talk) 09:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not a fork, but an application of summary style. If it is to be merged back into aspartame, someone will have to trim it to a reasonable length. Will that happen within 5 days? I doubt it. In any case, the merging can be handled via the normal editing process and doesn't require deletion. --Itub (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but maybe neutralise again. There is enough material about this to make it a regular article (there are quite some about controversies related to medicine, medical procedures, food additives). If merged into the main article again (where it indeed was forked out), the information will again disperse through that article, with that section keeping to grow. IMHO, if there are enough people that feel that that subject needs to be expanded to such an extend as it has been in the history in aspartame, then it warrants an own article. Whether outside or inside the aspartame article, it will be a long-lasting fight to keep it neutral. Aspartame is about the chemical compound, and its properties and uses, not about the controversies along it (that should have just a small section, pointing to the main article). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a Comment: The articles aspartame and aspartame controversy both are huge, having respectively 22 and 89 references (5 overlapping). I think that that shows that the latter does have quite a merit to be a valid article (I did not check if there were duplicate references in those 89, but a quick scan of the pubmed numbers did not show any obvious duplicates). The latter really has to be trimmed down to 2-3 paragraphs will it be suitable to fit into aspartame again. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a pov fork. Aspartame is not the same thing as the controversy over it. This is the appropriate place for the criticism of the chemical and rebuttals to it. The controversy was notable enough that merging would be unnatural. Isolating such controversy articles is a good way of presenting information the way most readers would want it - the mainstream consensus or undisputed views in the main article, and other views mainly presented in the controversy article, instead of making the main article unreadable. Neutralization should be performed by normal, and if necessary, bold editing, not deleting encyclopedic topics. Wikipedia should provide a forum for junk science, and for invalid fringe criticism -- if the rest of the world already has -- if it is clearly notable, sourced junk.John Z (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up - Needs balancing, but this is a major area of discussion. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep There is plenty of scope to discuss and describe the Aspartame controversy, and not all of that discussion belongs on the main Aspartame page. If there is junk science on the controversy page, that page needs to be fixed. Merging it won't solve anything. --Slashme (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major, ongoing area of discussion, with plenty of non-trivial (and, I might add, non-fringe) sources. To merge with the main article would render the main too long. Any other considerations are content issues, not AFD-related. 23skidoo (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research by synthesis; pov fork. The article is a platform for the "vocal activism" it describes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. --Banime (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Look at the real science of the chemical formula of this drug called aspartame compared to a barbiturate:

Aspartame C14 H18 N2 O5 Phenobarbital C12 H12 N2 O3

As you can see, there are only slight differences in the number of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms in a molecule of aspartame vs. phenobarbital. Phenobarbital DOES pass through the blood-brain barrier, which gives it its properties of anesthesia, hypnosis, and sedation. The claim that aspartame does not pass through the blood-brain barrier is thus pure hogwash (to put it mildly), as its chemical formulae is nearly identical to phenobarbital. Thus the effects of aspartame in the brain are real; it affects the entire mechanism of hunger and thirst as it is a powerful drug which is chemically similar in formula to Phenobarbital. People can become confused about hunger and thirst sensations under the influence of a powerful psychotic drug, by "crossing the wires" of different senses. This is not about "junk science", it is about "junk business", more specifically selling junk as business. How much money is behind the attempt to remove any controversy about aspartame? All the money in the world that wants to steamroll over opposition to selling anything to anybody, with no government interference. The mantra that "all regulation is bad" is all over this attempt to muzzle free speech. The only way aspartame can even be sold is if strong regulation is watered down, which is how it got approved in the first place. The stuff look like Phenobarbital, which is called "truth serum", and if phenobarbital can "cross people's wires" so they can be knocked out or put into hypnotic trances then it aspartame sure as hell can have similar effects...as the chemical formulas are nearly identical. Wake up people!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.200.28 (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above comment, which I've added the 'unsigned' tag to and now moved to its correct chronological spot in this discussion, is a good example of bad science; it's almost parodically inaccurate. A rudimentary understanding of organic chemistry could expose the errors. For clarity, I'd emphasise that I do think aspartame is unpleasant and possibly unhealthy, and that I do think this article should be kept; but I don't think it should be kept because I'm critical of aspartame, and that I don't believe in the validity of pseudoscience like the above. (If anyone cares, obv.) AlexTiefling (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with AlexTiefling here. As tempting as it is to write a lengthy and hilarious rebuttal of the concept of "the empirical formulae are similar so the effects must be too", this is not the place for this argument - there are valid reasons to keep this article outside of the legitimacy of aspartame's criticism - whether founded in good science or misconceptions. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability and sourcing appear to be unquestionable, and the article is too big to really be merged anywhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Aspartame, which could use some expansion anyway. As for length, this could use some trimming, but the controversy is about as famous as the substance itself. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a merge would only cause detrimental edit wars to the overall Article that I believe would detract from the positions put forth by both Articles as separate Articles. Yes, I would encourage Editors watchlist both if they are involved with one, but we are here to inform and spread Wikilove :), not to purposely instigate revert wars.. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article with 90 references is too long to merge. Perhaps rename to "Criticism of ..." or similar, and provide a WP:SUMMARY in the main article. VG ☎ 07:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiasar

Even though locations are normally inherently notable, this article is poorly written, uncategorized, contains no inline citations or references for WP:V. Also contains no inbound links from other articles. Flewis^(talk) 06:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I disagree with your assertion that locations are inherently notable. But you're right about there being no sources, and I can't find anything suitable on Google. Reyk _YO! 07:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable village. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By definition, as acknowledged by the nominator, real communities are inherently notable. Can we find sources to verify that it exists? If not, this could be deleted as a hoax; but the problems mentioned by the nominator are only problems that need cleanup, not deletion. Nyttend (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an inhabited community[35][36], the sort of thing that encyclopedias exist to write about, and an encyclopedia that is not paper can cover even the smallest communities. Poor writing and lack of categorisation and inbound links are reasons for editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real places are inherently notable and Phil has show it is a real place. Edward321 (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Claim of schools is verifiable. Not all villages have schools in India. Docku:“what up?” 23:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BrainWashington

Contested prod. Neologism, and not one that has caught on sufficiently to warrant a wikipedia article. Apparently created several years ago, but registering only about 1700 English language non-WP ghits, which seems pretty low if it has gained much acceptance. The term may be used in German, which it is claimed, but certainly doesn't seem to have much usage in English. There also appears to be significant conflict of interest - the website linked to has the same name as the creator of this article, who is also named User:BrainWashington. It is more than possible, given the coincidence of names, that this is at least partly intended as an ad. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced neologism created by a user with conflict of interest. Alexius08 (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously COI and original research at work here. This probably could have been speedy deleted.Nrswanson (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an attempt to popularize a relatively unused neologism. Fails WP:NEOLOGISM. --Flewis^(talk) 14:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Tatarian (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is 1. Self-promotion is not the purpose. My real name and identity are posted nowhere on wikipedia and are not promoted in the source materials. My own site promotes the work of other authors I have never even met. I am offering an entry for historical usage. The popularity of a term has nothing to do with the veracity. As for the claim of advertisement, there is no advertising. There are no solicitations for money or material gain, no calling attention to any profitable business or enterprise. The term is used in songs, in newspapers and magazines, and in other media that some of the editors of wikipedia would not consider "mainstream." Is that the real reason you want the article deleted? As for neologism, I did not claim to coin this word and the word has been in use at least since 2001. There is not a single objection to the veracity and accuracy of the article itself, so it should stand. Bait and switch? Some are calling for DELETE when they could call for EXPAND. Is there really a cause to delete a definition of a real word used widely by real people who have no connection to the entry author?Brainwashington —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of characters in the Soul series. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siegfried (Soulcalibur)

While a major protagonist in the series, Siegfried has not been emphasized as a stand-alone character from his Nightmare persona until recent games. As a result, there is little reception for him when not Nightmare, who by comparison as a character has more citable material. Article has additionally not been worked on with a direction of improvement for the subject in quite some time. Proposing to merge what can be salvaged into Nightmare's article and removal of remaining trivial material. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nomination is actually a proposal to merge rather than delete, and I'm not at all convinced this character shouldn't be kept anyway, as he's the protagonist of a very notable series, featured in ads and the box art, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heartily endorse massive trimming and reorganization of the whole series of character articles (basically a merge !vote). List of characters in the Soul series is a complete and utter mess right now, along with the rest of the character articles. This particular article is filled to the brim with OR in a vain attempt to meet WP:WAF (e.g. a "Creation and conception" containing nothing more than an excessively detailed physical description). The remainder have similar problems and I'd wager the whole lot can be better condensed into one, maybe two articles. Nifboy (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The article does not establish notability, so it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per common sense. JuJube (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - It's obvious that Siegfried is important, however the current idea of merging with Nightmare is flawed at best. I think it would be better for them to share a page together like Siegfried on one half and Nightmare in the other. Like Nifboy said though, the list of characters needs serious cleanup. DynamoDT (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem comes up though how do you describe Nightmare without Siegfried? One character ends up in effect repeating everything the other says to a point, then they diverge. I'm not sure if there's really another thing to compare this to (Venom/Eddie Brock maybe, but even then the new hosts have histories of their own).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's why they would be merged together should that path be chosen, since it's an easy place to refer to. They're only together in SC1 and SC2, but in every other Soulcalibur game, they're separate, even Soulcalibur Legends. Having them share a page with different sections shows that they're both the same and different at the same time. I think more people would be happier this way than have one character overshadow the other because it feels like you're just leaving out important necessary information.DynamoDT (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dynamo, to clarify something, to have a joint article the real-world content would really need to support both. As it stands though it doesn't: it primarily supports Nightmare, and really only with IV does it actually start to focus on Siegfried.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, Soulcalibur III, IV, and Legends all shift the focus towards Siegfried, and take great pains in establishing the two as separate characters. But irreguardless, you want to redirect all references from Siegfried to Nightmare on the precept of, "once the same, always the same." With great reservation, I vote a merge on this. That Siegfried appeared in the series before Nightmare in the series almost demands that they have separate articles, but there are far too many users here willing to fight that to the bitter end citing "notability".--199.79.10.117 (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo López Langarica

Potentially controversial, so I brought to AfD rather than speedy. Happy for others to correct me. Non-notable internet "celebrity" whose death was briefly featured on the news. Deadly∀ssassin 05:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ej.valdes (talk • contribs) 05:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - While this article may require cleanup, a simple Google search established the following references (which essentially rule out lack of notability) [37][38][39][40][41]. For a notability guideline re internet celebrities see here: List of YouTube celebrities. Otherwise, I suggest someone with a good grip on Spanish to include some extra citations within the article. --Flewis^(talk) 06:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to be a policy or guideline, but just a list of articles that currently exist, which seems to be an Wikipedia:Other stuff exists kind of argument. Why would the previoudly quoted WP:BLP1E not apply to this? --Deadly∀ssassin 01:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, "Biographies of living persons" don't apply to the deceased. --Flewis^(talk) 03:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but that wording also appears in Notability (People). --Deadly∀ssassin 04:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems to have been notable, sad story however. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep With the references found by DeadlyAssassin article meets WP:NB cf38^talk 09:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Especially after the new references. --Banime (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumed Keep taken from the article's talk page - I really don't think this article should be deleted, since there are other lesser YouTube celebrities who have their own articles, and I don't believe someone who made it to most major news anchors and newspapers in Mexico is 'non-important'. In such case, all YouTube celebrities are 'non-important' and should only be named in the YouTube main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ej.valdes (talk • contribs) 05:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC) (added by Flewis^(talk) 14:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just enough sustained RS interest in what happened to him. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of WP:BLP1E. Will be forgotten in another couple of weeks. --Crusio (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above - this guy is no longer with us. I'm pretty sure that means he won't file a complaint to the wikimedia foundation, requesting that his bio be removed --Flewis^(talk) 03:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BIO1E, which doesn't only apply to living people. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. I have declined to salt it, since in general, pages are not protected preemptively. If it is continually recreated, file a request on WP:RFPP. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Di Leo

This article was brought up as a possible instance of paid editing; after looking it over and seeking out references, I don't feel the person in question is notable under WP:MUSIC. The subject is claimed to have a solo CD, as well as a "hit song" with a previous band... well, the "hit song" turns up less than 30 Google hits, which a hit from 1995 should probably surpass. He himself gets a couple thousand hits... but there are definitely other people using the name Paul Di Leo, which adds to the challenge of sifting through and turning up results for him. The record label the album is on does not appear to be notable. This article does have a number of paper references, but it doesn't really indicate how any of them refer to the subject himself. All told, and combined with the likely paid editing (see the COIN thread above for details), this article is definitely problematic. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. You just beat me to it. Themfromspace (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Take out Wikipedia and its mirrors, and a search for "Luscious Love" "Imitation of Life" comes up with 10 Google hits, none of them a reliable source. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. "Paid editing" is also a concern - this article may only seek promotional value for the organization involved.--Flewis^(talk) 06:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC.Nrswanson (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. Tatarian (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Fails WP:MUSIC and was almost certainly a paid article. That being said, if it's deleted, I bet it will come right back. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC, paid editing. --John Nagle (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personally I could care less about the paid editing (as long as it was within the bounds of NPOV language) but regardless of all that it still fails WP:MUSIC and the buck stops there. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Decidedly off-key in regard to WP:MUSIC. But I agree with Coccyx -- the off-Wiki machinations that gave birth to this article are not relevant to the article's basic Wiki-based problems. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt to prevent its recreation until it can be shown that notability concerns are addressed. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Major League Baseball Draft

this is non-encyclopedic and basically just a place holder until the draft in June 2009 actually takes place. Wolfer68 (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MuZemike (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does not violate crystal ball. Yes, the draft has not happened yet, but media surrounding the draft is happening. Keep it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Date's been announced, draft order is set, enough content is available for this upcoming event.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it is a future draft, it is the next draft, and there is verifiable information available. Reso lute 18:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CRYSTAL, this is acceptable because it is a notable, scheduled event that will almost certainly take place. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese strategic thought

So many problems including no justification for the pages actual existence. Is this just something to interlink other pages? Kickstart70-T-C 04:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic is too vague. For one thing, nations can not think, only individual people can. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against writing a better article later. As it currently stands, this article is like an unsourced essay with a link farm attached. A good article might be possible, but this is not it.--Danaman5 (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's the meandering of a parrot. There's nothing substantive. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 11:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We had a bunch of these types of nominations recently, take whatever information possible to use in other strategy articles and Delete. --Banime (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...five different tags on it? Sorry, but delete per Danaman5 and Trek. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Steve, Trek. What a meaningless entry. TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Gaulton

Non-notable junior league hockey player; fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:HOCKEY's project notability guidelines as not only not having played in a "fully professional" league, his odds of doing so aren't good. Article erroneously asserts that he plays for the New York Rangers, when in fact he's an oft-injured reserve defenseman who has yet to play for his junior team this season. Prod removed by article creator without comment. RGTraynor 04:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. RGTraynor 04:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:N, and per nom. Player has never played in a professional league, and while he was drafted by the Rangers (in the 6th round), he certainly does not play for them. Reso lute 04:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Resolute. If he makes the NHL one day, then he can have an article. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:ATHLETE. -Djsasso (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He fails WP:ATHLETE. Schuym1 (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and remake if he makes it in the NHL --Banime (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Team Ontario is not a top-level amateur team, nor is the OHL a league sufficient for notability. —C.Fred (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails all notability standards, article can be recreated when he plays professionally. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of above. I over-enthusiastically put a speedy tag on this yesterday, agree that notability is not yet proven. JNW (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Music Charts

It was previously deleted under Polish National Top 50 (see its AfD here). Nothing has changed since then, as it still appears to be OR/WP:HOAX. No one outside of Euro200 is saying that it is legitimate and/or notable. Note: I speedy'd this under G4 but it was rejected. Side note: I noticed that the #1 Hits from 2006 and 2007 are nominated for deletion as well. SKS2K6 (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC) (WITHDRAWN; please see below.)[reply]

KEEP The Polish National Top 50 ain't the same thing jackass, thats two different charts. There are two other Polish Music Charts at the external link section how the hell haven't you seen that. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL. Schuym1 (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable, unofficial chart. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:....Anyway. The reason I nominated it is because Polish National Top 50 redirects here, and it also lists the top albums AND singles. I have looked through the links, and it appears that the album chart is legitimate, but not the singles chart. Therefore, I shall remove any references to the singles chart, but keep it as an album chart. Please note that the redirect should be deleted, however, as it refers to the singles chart. (mods? :D). SKS2K6 (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just move the page to Polish Albums Chart if its legitimate? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Baby One More Time Tour

AfDs for this article:

Just a tour, isn't really much more than a setlist and list of tour dates. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment On first sight it seems neither better nor worse than other 'xxx Tour' articles - both for this and other artists - (and to be honest, there's not much else you can write about a concert tour unless it turns into a Spinal Tap-esque fiasco, is there). It is unsourced (but again that's hardly exceptional for tour articles it seems). MadScot (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But just because other stuff exists does not mean it should stay. Likewise, just becuase it is a tour article doesn't mean that it's okay for it to be unsourced. I think that you're getting to the heart of the problem with most tour articles, and to that point I agree with you very much. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with MadScot, there isn't much to write about a tour unless something Spinal Tap-esque happens. Which is why it is so hard to find any WP:RS to establish any sort of notability. Article fails to meet WP:GNG. I'm voting for delete rather than redirect because I feel the article name is a non-plausible search term. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about an obviously verified concert tour. The Tour was notable as the first tour of a obviously notable singer. No offence... but your Delete argument sounds more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Pmedema (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable is not the same thing as notable. Likewise, your argument that the artist is notable doesn't apply, since notability is not inherited. The tour ITSELF has to be notable, not just the artist on the tour. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was notable as "Spears' first solo national tour", Sponsored by Tommy Hilfiger and the performed songs were from her "debut album". --Pmedema (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the reasons your giving are all other notable things that don't inherently make this tour notable. The fact that it is her first tour is not inherently notable. By that logic, just about any notable artist's first tour would be notable, which they are not. Likewise, the fact that it was in support of her first album, as the notability of that album cannot be transferred to this tour. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources. Sites like "britneyspears.org" and press releases are obviously not such. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are news sources that mention this tour (quite a few actually). And there had to have been reviews of this. Seriously. Maybe paper-only, but there is no way this didn't get reviews in local papers. Hobit (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But the question is non-trivial coverage. There's no question that it was written about, but generally reviews are considered trivial. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No? Reviews are great sources for things like this. Not sure how an article in a newspaper on a topic can be trivial coverage of that topic. Hobit (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This was a major tour by a major popular artist. Spears's tours, including this one, have been key to the development of her image at different stages of her career. Yes, the article needs to be improved, to describe more of the artistic aspects of the show, and the commercial results of the tour, and reviews that the show got. But it is definitely notable and AfD is not a suitable venue for it. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you support your arguments by citing reliable, independent third party sources which provide non-trivial coverage of this tour? coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The M+M's Tour

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The M+M's Tour

Non-Notable tour, only six dates and five songs. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pretty easy to find sources on this one...just a select few: [42] [43][44][45][46][47] --Smashville^talk 18:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added all the sources from above ^^ Thanks by the way. Enanoj1111 (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This tour was a significant event in Spears' long public meltdown. It was written about extensively in the mainstream press. Our article on it has had problems with pov editing, such that the descriptions of the show and its brevity and its lip-synching have been watered down or removed altogether; they need to be restored, cited, watchlisted and maintained. But pov editing problems are not a reason for article deletion, otherwise we'd get rid of the Sarah Palin article too. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But our assertion seems to be that it's notable because of her public image at the time. Most of the coverage you are referencing is about her meltdown, not the tour itself. Also, I never brought up POV issues as a reason for deletion. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The tour itself was/is very notable. How can someone think that a 15-minute, carelessly lip-synched show is worth fans paying money to see? Spears' fans divided on this, which is among the things that the article can explore. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how lip-synched a show is, unless it received substantial non-trivial coverage. Even then, I don't think that the simple fact that she lip-synched makes the tour notable, although it may deserve a mention in Britney Spears. Also, did you say that the shows were 15-minutes long and carelessly lip-synched? Sounds pretty non-notable to me. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying we should delete the Ishtar (film) article because the movie was awful. Things can be notable for bad artistic quality as well as for good! Wasted Time R (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. It's saying that there is nothing to suggest this tour was notable on it's own merit outside of Spears' fan base. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GTA IV transport routes

Contested prod. This is a very minor aspect of Grand Theft Auto IV that will never get the coverage and content needed to support an article Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This content isnt notable and I would say that the content in its current form would be unsuitable for inclusion in the GTA4 article so merging isnt really an option here. This content is more suited for something like the GTA wiki. Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 07:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useful information for a GTA4 game guide, but it's not encyclopedic material unless some aspect of them has actually been covered substantially in reliable sources. ~ mazca ^t|c 08:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide and this article is more suitable in another Wikia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Game guide info. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Pagra shtak 15:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. Article lacks context. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:N. Article has no context and is in essence a redundant game-guide list. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm surprised that (a) this was created in the first place, and (b) it hasn't already been deleted. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This belongs in a game guide, not on Wikipedia, as Pagrashtak said. Firebat08 (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Washington Mutual. MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo hoo!

AfDs for this article:

Last month this slogan for failed bank Washington Mutual was nominated for deletion, but was kept in a no consensus decision. It has sources, but I think especially after WaMu's nosedive just days after the close of the first nom, sale to JPMorgan Chase and the bailout, things have changed and this slogan hasn't found further notability beyond the usual comics using the line as a punchline to bad jokes. I also don't forsee Chase using it as the words are forever tainted. Nate • (chatter) 00:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple independent sources indicate notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Its a silly waste of time and resources to renominate an article for deletion a month after a previous failed nomination. Another mistake by nom is to confuse Wikipedia with Wikinews. The slogan doesn't have to be in the news on a daily basis for it to be considered notable. Once something is notable it stays notable. During its run, it was a renown slogan. Its fame is amply supported by the substantial media coverage, all the while the media does not usually give advertising slogans any significant coverage (due to conflict of interest problems). The worst case scenario is that the article info will be merged into Washington Mutual. However, the article's size is current the ideal, more information will be probably be added to the bank article, and there already are multiple conversations on the Talk:Washington Mutual regarding the article's size. In addition, an article about an advertising slogan is different than an article about a bank, thus making for an awkward merger. So let's just leave this article alone. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
concur to keep, campaign appears notable. MadScot (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Washington Mutual. It would actually make a good paragraph in the story of the company's last days. One problem with the article as it is now is that in several places Washington Mutual is spoken of as if it were an intelligent being. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - WP:IDONTLIKEIT] is not a valid reason to nomination an article for deletion. This article is contains a number of 3rd party sources, which rule out lack of notability --Flewis^(talk) 14:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Washington Mutual. This is not notable enough for an encyclopedia, fine for a blog or a Usenet post tho. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-20t20:05z
Redirect, after merging , I said delete the first time, but a compromise is fine. It was trivial then, and it hasn't gotten any more notable since. DGG (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Washington Mutual as part of the history of the bank holding company.Bigturtle (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We strive to be an encyclopaedia of both historical and current topics. Bad speedy renom to boot. Wily D 13:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redir Same reasons as MacBook Air Ad being redired to MacBook Air. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. D. Cronise

No decent information, all claims which can be challenged. No information readily available. Andre666 (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo _radda 00:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to The Sword. I see him mentioned plenty within the band, but no individual notability outside, no solo interviews, etc. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are no reliable sources to speak of. JBsupreme (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom, as a non-plausible search term. Fails to establish notability outside of the band per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts

Page does not belong in article space because there is no evidence of notability. There has been no third-party coverage regarding "featured properties and districts," and the article does not indicate what aspects of this list make it notable. In fact, not even the entity that has "featured" these properties (the National Park Service) has published anything about the reasons why it "features" certain properties or the basis for selecting these properties. (Note that the article says "The program was announced in July 2008", but the "source" for that statement is a note saying "Press releases, news coverage, other reports would be helpful to add here.") The only "coverage" of this list has been its existence -- that is, the appearance of a "featured" property at the top of each week's list of new NRHP listings. As far as I can tell, these are merely the properties that the NPS has put on the "cover" of its weekly electronic bulletin; I cannot discern anything noteworthy about this particular assemblage of items. Because the weekly lists contain extra information about the "featured" properties, the list is useful to NRHP wikiproject participants, but otherwise it appears to be an indiscriminate collection of information. Because it is a potentially useful resource for Wikipedians, it should be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts. I feel silly bringing this here. The need to move this from article space to Wikiproject space has been discussed on the article talk page (and I in fact moved the page to Wikiproject space), but the creator of the article is adamant that it belongs in article space and essentially dared me to bring this here. Orlady (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

concur with nom. There appears to be no specific justification for the items on the list, and only the items on the list, and I don't see any third party coverage of the list elements as a list being likely. The comparison to e.g. Rolling Stone cover people is indeed telling in my opinion. Every publication has a front cover and thus some kind of featured content. But lumping it all together is only justified if third party sourtces already do so. MadScot (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And i am fuming mad about this, so I shall not write much right now. No good purpose is served by putting this one NRHP list-article up for deletion. The deletion nominator has been unable to respond in discussion at the Talk page for the article, about why she would want to delete this and what purpose would be served. Her "answers" showed either an unwillingness or inability to understand the question, and only consisted of arguments--some specious in my view--that she could and has now used to put this article up for AfD. This editor has acknowledged following my contributions around, and this AfD nomination smells bad to me. I am resenting her following me around, her having derailed a Featured List nomination of mine for another list-article, her having caused other time-consuming processes on other article titles on my watchlist, and what seems to me to be her developing pattern of not ever conceding or backing down. To say that she "reluctantly" puts this up for AfD is a copout, in my view: she definitely did not have to and should not be causing this process to happen now.

There is not a plague of list-articles being created frivolously--this is not a promotional article about a local garage band. It is a particular collection of recent NRHP listings that is not hurting anyone. For it to be nominated to featured list, say, I would agree that it would require some more background work. I ask for the nominator to assist in finding documentation to describe the program better. Also, a different alternative would be simply to rename the article, as I suggested at its Talk page. I'll stop now. doncram (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been repeatedly determined that individual NRHP sites are wikipedia notable. There were at last count, 527 list-articles of NRHP sites, and I don't see the criteria available to evaluate that this one alone should be deleted. doncram (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete and move to a subpage of WP:NRHP if the project wants it. I don't see the point of this, but may be convinced otherwise by good arguments. (Disclaimer: I got here from WT:NRHP.) --NE2 02:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete As it is, there's no problem with the date: it's rather obvious from the main National Register listing page that they began this program in July, as the listings begin then. I understand and appreciate the bit about Sports Illustrated covers, etc., but this seems too trivial of a topic unless it attracts attention from the third-party sources. I can't imagine that a list of United States Senators appearing in the "Hill" would necessarily satisfy the criteria, even though The Hill is a leading US congressional publication and though the senators are obviously notable. I like the topic, and it's interesting (and I've received much help from the creator), but to have an article about it without further sources seems to go a little too far. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that this "featuring" of newly listed properties began in July 2008. My problem was with the statement that "the program" was "announced" then, as no one has been able to produce evidence that this is a "program" or that said program was ever "announced." The "program was announced" language is no longer in the article, however. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Orlady says that there has been no "coverage" and sends us to indiscriminate collection of information where it specifically notes that having news coverage does not automatically make something noteworthy. Therefore, whether there was "coverage" or not seems a moot point. Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places automatically confers notability. It follows logically for me that being featured by them would automatically confer a slightly higher degree of interest and notability. This list just recognizes that elevation in interest, slight as it may be. I like the list. Lvklock (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having news coverage does not automatically make a topic notable, but that is not the issue here. This is a topic that apparently has not had coverage in the news or anywhere else. The general notability guideline says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This business of "featuring" a property is a topic that has apparently never received even insignificant coverage in sources that are dependent of the subject, much less significant coverage in independent sources.

Yes, there has been consensus that listing of a property or district in the National Register of Historic Places automatically confers WP:notability, but that does not mean that everything related to the National Register is automatically notable. In essence, this is nothing more than a list of the lead articles in a weekly newsletter. In a comment I wrote last week on the article talk page, I commented that this is similar to a list of magazine covers, and I noted that Wikipedia includes List of celebrities who have appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, List of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover models, Sports Illustrated#Cover history, and Saturday Night Live hosts, but that those topics are arguably notable due to the existence of significant third-party coverage of SNL hosts and Rolling Stone and Sports Illustrated covers. Since there is no evidence that anyone other than Wikipedia contributors has found anything noteworthy in the new NRHP practice of featuring one property out of the week's list of two or three dozen newly listed properties, it is difficult to see why this particular collection is a notable topic for a list.

As for your comments that "it follows logically for me that being featured ... would automatically confer..." and "I like it," please see WP:OR and WP:ILIKEIT. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how my explaining why I think the article should be included can possibly be construed as original research. As far as liking it, I did not intend that as a reason for keeping the article, but just as a passing comment on it. I notice that you did not refer Nyttend to WP:ILIKEIT when he commented above that he liked the article and it was interesting, perhaps because he he was just making a passing comment on his appreciation of the article. Lvklock (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have problems with minor factual matters in the deletion nominator's statements:

as noted by Nyttend, the nominator questions the source of the July date but the July date is well enough supported. On that point, the nominator questions the article on the basis of an informational footnote asking for help in getting more sources. It is an informational note, not a source footnote, when used in that way, obviously.

As noted above, I have no quarrel regarding the date that this started, but rather I object to the subject and verb of that sentence, where it is stated that "the program was announced." That statement (subsequently removed) and the associated footnote were added after I asked for evidence that this "featuring" business has WP:notability. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the deletion nominator states "not even the entity that has "featured" these properties (the National Park Service) has published anything about the reasons why it "features" certain properties or the basis for selecting these properties". That is likely a false statement. Neither I nor the deletion nominator has copies of such publications, but it is an overstatement to assert nothing exists. How would the deletion nominator know?

Perhaps that is a false statement, but the burden of evidence for providing sources (in this case, to demonstrate the notability of the topic) falls on the person who adds the material (see WP:PROVEIT). I hasten to add that if Wikipedia were to presume all topics notable until proven non-notable, it would be virtually impossible to delete articles about garage bands, 8th-grade football stars, and other non-notable topics, due to the philosophical dilemmas involved in trying to prove a negative.--Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the deletion nominator states "The only "coverage" of this list has been its existence -- that is, the appearance of a "featured" property at the top of each week's list of new NRHP listings." That is false, technically, if you consider that the NRHP program website homepage at http://www.nps.gov/nr/index.htm does indeed feature the weekly featured item, and if you consider that to be coverage of the featured items one by one. Cumulatively, that provides coverage of the entire list of them. This other coverage is mentioned in the article, although i had neglected to add the URL of the NRHP program homepage. Also, there may have been other coverage, not yet known to us.

A link on the NRHP homepage is not "independent coverage." The possible existence of "other coverage, not yet known to us" is one reason why I have proposed moving this page to project space. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've searched Google for instances of the word "featured" in connection with "National Register", properties, districts, etc. Essentially the only instances where the word "featured" was actually connected with NRHP listings were on NPS websites. Interestingly, in addition to the weekly listings reports, I found that the term "featured property" (and variants such as "featured site") has been used over the years in NPS press releases and educational materials for African American History Month,[48] Women's History Month,[49] Hispanic Heritage Month,[50][51] Native American Heritage Month,[52] and Asia-Pacific Heritage Month,[53] as well as in historic travel brochures like this one. In every case, the usage is in the journalistic sense, along the general lines of "this article features several interesting sites." --Orlady (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't assert that pointing out these minor factual issues greatly counters the deletion nominator's larger argument, but I feel that they potentially add up in a troubling, larger pattern of the nominator's critical-style editing. I am resenting the nominator's attack on this article, but not just for sake of this article in which i have not invested greatly. doncram (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no personal attacks, please. It seems to me that you are the one who has been trying to make this personal. I saw this article at Category:National_Register_of_Historic_Places when I was looking for categories needing to be renamed, and I looked into it because "featured properties and districts" were something I had never heard of. I have an apparently-crazy notion that WP policies and guidelines have to be applied uniformly if they are going to be effective, so I went to the article talk page to ask for an explanation of the justification for including this in article space, and the answers I got led me to conclude that no such justification existed.

I suppose your theories regarding my motives have been influenced by messages on your talk page from the likes of User:69.86.225.195, but if that's the case, I hope you will consider the source. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment here was that you had made overstatements (and/or false statements) in arguing your case, not that there weren't arguments along the same lines that would have been more correct. A loaded term for this, which i have seen applied elsewhere in an offensive manner that I do mean to convey here, could be "sloppiness". Using overstatements and inaccurate statements in an effort to get an article deleted, to me tends to suggest the possibility that something is not right, that the deletion nominator has chosen one side and is committed to arguing it, right or wrong, rather than participating in good faith. I am attuned to this issue due to your edit summaries and talk page justifications of other reverts of my work that you have done, an issue which I have raised to you at your Talk page. The issue here is not whether there is or is not a kernel of a valid point in something in what you say, but rather it is in how you are saying it and seeming to pursue something resembling an attack. If there is a continuing pattern, then this set of statements might be used as evidence some other wikipedia process. Anyhow, I am choosing to label these mistatements, here, as what I see they are: mischaracterizations that suited your argument. It would help if you would disavow such tactics and perhaps apologize; you could do that simply without abandoning your argument. Anyhow, there does not need to be a big issue here, if there is not a continuing pattern of such behavior. Note, I labelled these instances as "minor". doncram (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would deletion voters here clarify if they see a larger purpose in removing this list-article, out of the many NRHP list-articles? For just one type of example, what is the difference between this collection of NRHPs, vs. say National Register of Historic Places listings in Ozaukee County, Wisconsin? That is randomly picking one geographic area-based list from List of RHPs in WI, which is a state list system that i have worked on, but i have not been specifically involved in developing that Ozaukee list within it. Note, the National Register does not collect and present NRHP listings in the Ozaukee geographic area as an organized set, at least not in any linkable website or published document that I am aware of (i acknowledge that is likely one could get an on-demand report out of NRIS for the NRHP listings in the county, but that is different, that would not be a positively presented set). By contrast, the NPS does in fact present this featured listings collection as a set. The Ozaukee County wikipedia list-article, at least, is not supported by documents asserting its importance or existence as an organized set. Would the deletion nominator and voters here want also to delete the Ozaukee County list? If not, what is different. Likewise, what about lists of ships listed on the NRHP, or bridges and tunnels in a given state, or NRHPs at universities, or many other lists. I must say, I am not happy to be engaging in discussion about deleting this list-article, but if you want to delete this you should provide clear arguments about why this one that is associated with me personally, and not others. doncram (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The geographic-based lists are an obvious way of breaking up a full list that would otherwise be way too long. As for the topic-based lists, they are intersections of two important topics - NRHP listings and bridges, tunnels, etc. On the other hand, being featured on the NRHP main page isn't too important. It's a lot like a list of articles featured on Wikipedia's main page. --NE2 07:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete, since as much as hate that he's the one making it, NE2 has a very good point there. I think it's nice that the NPS has decided to sort of emulate us and feature one new listing every week. However, this is as Orlady says, not something that's been widely picked up on. Yet. We can certainly recreate this if it does become something of note within the historic-preservation community. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is like our featured articles, and it did occur to me that one resolution would be to mark such articles within the NRHP lists. But that would leave no way to find them all, if one were so inclined. Note that featured articles appear in Wikipedia:Featured articles, which is linked to from the main page. If we were to move this article out of article namespace, it would essentially disappear. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The one problem I have with this list is that it is an ever growing one and one that will require maintenance every week. If the list is primarily for use by the Project to determine high priority articles to write (given the redlinks), then it probably belongs in ProjectSpace. If the intention is to keep a list in Wikipedia that is the same as one on the NPS website, then the list part of the article should be deleted and a link given to the NPS website. If, however, this list is not available anywhere else AND someone from the Project is prepared to commit to maintaining it every week, then I see no problem in it living in ArticleSpace. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As an index to the wikipedia articles on the featured NRHP listings, the list is not available anywhere else. Only this list can be used to navigate to the wikipedia articles, which carry usual wikipedia benefits of wikilinking architectural and historical terms and which are otherwise interlinked with the wikipedia. The wikipedia list and its articles are different and "better" in some ways than anything available at the National Park Service. I am the wp:NRHP project member who has developed this list and I created, i think, 14 of the 15 articles that it indexes. By the way wp:NRHP operates, others usually contribute as well with edits following my listing it in the new articles section of the wikiproject. I expect to continue maintaining and developing this. doncram (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that this is the only index to the Wikipedia articles about the listings that have been featured in the NRHP weekly listings, but (because I have yet to see any evidence that there there is anything notable about the listings that were so featured) I have to ask "so what?". (The Internet also lacks an index to the Wikipedia articles about National Parks that I have visited, but the list of parks I have visited is not notable and does not belong in Wikipedia article space.) The list of featured properties is readily available on the NRHP website at http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/nrlist.htm and there is nothing preventing a user from maintaining a list in user space or project space; I am only saying that I have seen no evidence that this list belongs in article space. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral With a second observation that Wiki itself is ever-growing and its article require upkeep and maintenance on an even more urgent schedule, this AfD in point. If there is a better place for this article, where it will itself receive the upkeep and maintenance it will require, then that option should surely be of highest consideration. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The main aspect of maintaining this list-article is creating at least a stub article for each featured property using the documents made available for these featured listings. Creating articles on NRHP sites is exactly what the NRHP wikiproject does, and it is most of what i do in my wikipedia editing. I would guess that i have created more than 2,000 articles in one year; wp:NRHP has created 15,000 articles in two years. Ensuring that one article in this program is done each week is no problem, well within even my own capacity alone. And, it is more beneficial and interesting to focus article creation on these featured listings because of their news value (as brand new listings), because they are in fact featured by the National Park Service, and because there is extensive documentation made available for these ones, so there is no sacrifice involved in focusing on these ones. Having the article in mainspace keeps a bit of pressure on to maintain it, but that is just a good thing. If this were not in mainspace, that would most likely undermine my personal interest in maintaining it, so here is the best option for its development and maintenance, in my view. doncram (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I think you are saying that this list article exists solely as a resource for article creators. I believe that is a good and sufficient reason for maintaining a list in Project or User space. Then, however, you say that if it is moved outside of article space, you will stop maintaining this resource (in the playground context, this is called picking up your ball and bat and going home), so we had better keep in article space to keep you happy. You didn't really mean that, did you? --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, first, I did not say what you state you are thinking i was saying, probably for good reasons. Second, you make a false statement: "Then, however, you say that if it is moved outside of article space, you will stop maintaining this resource...." That is simply false! I said it "would most likely undermine my personal interest in maintaining it" which is quite different, and which is a true statement of my feeling about this. It doesn't call for the label you wish to attach to it. I have trouble with other labels you are throwing at me, below, too, which i think also are not really relevant. doncram (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The great majority of list articles, from List of A B-sides to List of Zambia-related articles lacks third-party coverage— it's the nature of the beast, they aren't like other articles. This article is exactly like our other NRHP list articles except that it is more useful because the info it captures is fleeting. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WAX. Daniel Case (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I always knew this as the Pokémon test-- I guess WAX is the new, improved version. Anyway, this is not quite the same issue, since it is not the article's notability that is at issue, rather, it is the matter of references. I am not arguing that the existence of one article justifies the existence of another, I am arguing that the lack of references in a large percentage of a particular class of articles, namely lists, justifies keeping this list article in the main namespace if it's only failing is a lack of references. Besides, doesn't this situation call for the {{unreferenced}} tag, rather than deletion (er, removal from article space)? -- Mwanner | Talk 20:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very appropriate list, and helpful, which is enough justification for a list. This AfD seems not very useful, since we will certainly be restoring it rather soon after as the3 references come in. DGG (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USEFUL. Daniel Case (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the actual proposal is not to delete the article but to move it to project space, where it would be available to move to article space later on, if and when these hypothetical references materialize. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the proposal is not to delete the article, then why are we discussing it in an AfD? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Beeswaxcandle, in the nomination I stated "The need to move this from article space to Wikiproject space has been discussed on the article talk page (and I in fact moved the page to Wikiproject space), but the creator of the article is adamant that it belongs in article space and essentially dared me to bring this here." For details, see the earlier discussion on the article's talk page, including the article's creator statement that "If someone wants to raise this in a larger forum, then go ahead. However, this is mainspace material in my view, and can be defended." --Orlady (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, take some personal responsibility here. I interpreted your argumentative style of comments as headed toward an AfD or some other process, but I did not encourage you to open an AfD or other action. I explicitly asked you not to. It is a crazy situation, if you interpret what i say as the opposite of what i am saying. I agree with Beeswaxcandle, it does seem that you raised this in the wrong forum, given your arguments. Perhaps wp:Requested moves would have been more appropriate. But, we are discussing it here, so here it stays, and hopefully ends. doncram (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful to both readers and authors. Sourced. presented in an encyclopaedic fashion. Piece of a large notable topic, for which this is the best style of presentation. Function over arbitrariness. Wily D 13:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's useful alright. Daniel Case (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me towards something far more in need of deletion. Wily D 15:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to within the project space of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, at least for now. I get the impression that the "Featured Property" heading within the NRHP Weekly List Actions page is meant to draw attention and interest toward the kinds of properties that are newly listed on the National Register. I don't think it's an official program, but just a "teaser" to get people to read the new nominations. As an aside, the nomination forms for the featured properties are all online, so the description at Art Troutner Houses Historic District could have been expanded. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space. Another option might be to create one of those navigation templates that seem to be quite popular these days. --Polaron | Talk 22:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, again, with new information - The following is the body of an e-mail I received today from the National Register in response to my query about the selection criteria for featured properties.

Thank you for your question. We had two goals in mind when beginning our weekly feature portion on the website: to bring more attention to the National Register program and its properties and to show the diversity of resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
The process for selecting our features is simple. The National Register staff chooses an interesting property that is to be listed that week. Our criteria for selection is that from week to week these properties should exhibit different types, styles, periods of history, and from different states. The features are not a subset of the NRHP and are not officially designated in any other way than other listed properties. Properties are not chosen based on the documentation provided, as we require all nominations to have sufficient information to support significance and subsequent listing. The summary paragraph is taken from the nomination and is intended to provide basic information about the property and why it is significant.

In my view, a ~~subset~~ selection of National Register entries designed to illustrate the diversity of type and location of new listings is notable. I have included this information in the introduction to the list. Lvklock (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting that statement from the NRHP and incorporating it into the list-article. I can imagine future coverage of the program explaining how the emerging set of featured listings complies or not with those goals, too. As Mwanner pointed out above, "the great majority of list articles, from List of A B-sides to List of Zambia-related articles lacks third-party coverage— it's the nature of the beast, they aren't like other articles. This article is exactly like our other NRHP list articles except that it is more useful..." And now it is even more useful, and more referenced than many lists. By the way, i think Daniel Case was probably being sarcastic in his overt support for the list-article by mentioning wp:USEFUL, but that wikipedia mini-essay points out that usefulness is a fair argument, sometimes, such as when it provides a service to readers to navigate among a certain set of articles. This list-article is certainly useful in that wikipedia guideline's approved way. doncram (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, we are reading different things into that message. I read the message as saying that the "featured" listings are purely an element of the website, intended (in my words) to spice up the website, bring positive attention to the NRHP, and educate the public. The message explicitly says "The features are not a subset of the NRHP and are not officially designated in any other way than other listed properties," which I read as saying that there is no particular significance to the choice of "featured" properties. I still see this as similar to a magazine's cover story or perhaps the monthly Featured Objects at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History or the Object of the Month at the Ulster Museum. --Orlady (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so subset was the wrong word. There is no argument that each item is notable. I still believe that a list selected to highlight the wide breadth of "types, styles, periods of history" and location is worthy of inclusion. You say in your initial statement "not even the entity that has "featured" these properties (the National Park Service) has published anything about the reasons why it "features" certain properties or the basis for selecting these properties." This correspondence has explained the reasons. It is certainly not an "indiscriminate collection of information." Lvklock (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW, but especially per this. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Pelkey

Non existant person.

Weak delete unable to verify this [54] but similarly named people are playing hockey (Bobby/Billy Joe Pelkey ) so may be just out of date. JJL (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete That the Aissistant Captain isn't mentioned on the team roster is indeed odd. Article was actually written in April, so the 'second season' is 07-08, not 08-09. Claim to have 43 points (in April) - only 7 players finished the season with 40+ points for the Vancouver Giants, listed on WHL website. Search of NHL.com for "Pelkey" returns nothing, so he didn't move up to the NHL, nor has he been mentioned on an archived article. Strongly suspect no player of the given name exists. (The Bobby Joe Pelkey noted above plays for Knoxville (and last season also), and for Odessa of the CHL prior to that, so its not just a forename/middle name issue - it's a different person who has nothing to do with the article) [[55]] article on Central Scouting ranks in the WHL makes no mantion of a Joe Pelkey.MadScot (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no one by that name either on the Giants roster or indeed in the whole Western Hockey League. Nor is there anyone by that name in the Central Scouting Service OR the International Scouting Service lists, as the article asserts. Hoax article. RGTraynor 04:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If any evidence can be provided to verify info, then it needs added; until then, it should be deleted. Black ngold29 04:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. RGTraynor 04:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Not only is it a hoax, but the hoaxter didn't even make his fictional player notable. Reso lute 04:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't look like a real person. Interesting way of creating a false article though, what with the non-notability of it all. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per hoax and non-notability. -Djsasso (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any sources --Banime (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, and not even a funny or interesting one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Fails notability and verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (invoke WP:SNOW) probably hoax and either way the sources clearly don't exist to support such an article. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax article, non-notable...sigh... – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tha' Realist

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tha' Realist

Fails WP:NM, lacks substantial notability for reliable third-party sources. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 00:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating: Da Realist (Plies album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep. Notable album by notable artist. Coverage found ([56],[57],[58]). ~~I see no benefit from deleting this.~~--Michig (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Apologies - I obviously didn't read the sources well enough - album not out yet, so should probably not have an article yet.--Michig (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums & crystal ball. While the ref's prove the album will exist, they don't prove why it is notable. Even if it has been released it still wouldn't pass the album notability guidelines. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS and WP:CRYSTALBALL Ijanderson (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Lost Room. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Key and the Clock

An episode of a three-part miniseries. Article consists entirely of plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT) and a list of episode-specific plot device items. however the plot is already covered in The Lost Room (for comparison, I was perfectly able to cover all six episodes of an immensly popular and influential miniseries in one FA article), and the objects are covered in Objects from The Lost Room. I recently redirected the article because there was nothing worth merging, but since the redirect was reverted (reasoning: "this was a valid article", with which I strongly disagree), I am taking this here for more input. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate for the same reason

and preemptively nominate

– sgeureka ^t•c 03:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three. Having looked at them and the main article (and your admirable P&P article!) I couldn't agree more. The three are nothing but plot, at a microscopic level--one can't see the forest for the trees. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to The Lost Room. Schuym1 (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Saw (film series). While the consensus is clearly for merge, there is some disagreement on the target. However, that becomes an editing issue, not an AfD issue. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pig mask

AfDs for this article:

Fascinating stuff, and very well-written and comprehensive; however, this is all just plot summary. I see no evidence that this is more notable than any other plot device in any other movie. The only thing this has going for it is that it was made into 3 toys, but I can't find evidence that those themselves are notable, and they don't meet either of the WP:TOY criteria.

Also nominating these:

Saw (2003 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This isn't necessarily a delete - I think this could be included in the Saw (film) article, as all it is now is a large chunk of plot summary. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 00:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would have originally said Keep, but chances are that wouldn't get me anywhere. And even if this was kept, the odds are that it will be renominated at some point in the future. So...Pig Mask should be merged to Jigsaw Killer, Hello Zepp to Saw (film series) and Saw (2003 film) to Saw (film).--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of curiosity; how would you merge Hello Zepp into anything? The article is one massive chunk of OR/plot summary. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 17:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if merged, there should be no redirect because "pig mask" is a generic term. The history should be moved to a subpage, and pig mask should be a redlink. If kept, the article should be renamed for the same reason. (say Pig mask in Saw or something) 70.55.200.131 (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per CyberGhostface. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't like the way these three articles are bundled together into one AFD. The issues for each article are different so really there are three seperate conversations happening in the same place. I really think the nom should withdraw their nomination and renom each article seperately.Nrswanson (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not that different at all, though. Each one is a huge chunk of unnecessary plot summary that shouldn't have an article; whether or not people think that they should be merged is their choice, but I only see one as having a slight possibility of being merged. Oh, and you guys know that you can cast a different vote for each one, right? You don't have to apply a blanket vote. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 17:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per CGF, if the three articles are to be considered as a single entry. However, Nrswanson is correct -- bundling these three very different articles into a single AfD makes little sense, and even the nominator acknowledges one of them doesn't really deserve to be considered for deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - But I disagree with CyberGhostface about the pig mask being merged into Jigsaw's character article. Only because the mask has been worn by more characters. I think the pig mask should be merged with the Billy puppet article - as they are both the iconic inanimate objects of the franchise. Noting that the person who nominated this for deletion acknowledged that there is some degree of significance of their being products released based on the pig mask. Pig mask and Billy the puppet should be merged based on them both being the inanimate icons of the franchise. Yeldarb68 (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Per CyberGhostFace. — neuro^(talk) 13:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. Great article, but should be part of the Saw article. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wurzelpeter

Description is ambiguous but I deduce that they mean a bitters. Assertively, not to say aggressively described. But is it notable in the English speaking world? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the product is not even notable in the German speaking world. --Amalthea^Talk 01:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article on German Bitters, else delete. This is a nice article, but ultimately not that notable. Writer did a decent job, but it's trivial, all in all. ThuranX (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Germany on the same planet where they speak English. Language does not affect notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found some mentions in passing, but I can't find anything even reviewing this Brand. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gnome - The sources provided aren't independent of the subject, and I can't find very much on Google. I think the actual gnome has more of a claim to notability. Reyk _YO! 01:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. The article contains all too much crowing and unverifiable statements, suggesting conflict of interest or simple fannishness, but this is a consumer product that ought to produce at least some reviews and other notice in disinterested reliable sources. It's apparently made by Langguth, the people who own the Blue Nun wine brand.[59] - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Neutral This seems to be one of the many East German products that enjoy widespread Ostalgie popularity. There are a lot of German Google hits for Wurzelpeter (including nicknames and gnome information) [60][61][62], but I am uncertain about this brand's significance. The name of this brand didn't ring a bell with my parents (they aren't into alcohol though), and de.wikipedia doesn't even mention this word/brand (which may stem from a possible West German and young people bias against East German grandpa products from over 20 years ago). – sgeureka ^t•c 15:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not very well written, but that isn't a cause for deletion. "English-speaking world" is a total red herring - notable is notable, we're trying to write an encyclopaedia here, and things which're less well known in English sources than other language sources are more valuable and useful, not less. Wily D 12:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic pro wrestling

I've declined an A7 speedy on this, as 1) there are satelite pages that do not qualify for A7, and 2) There's an outside chance this is actually notable. But for now, there is no indication that this thing is actually notable in the slightest. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if this is how I go about talking about the "speedy deletion" note, But I was wondering the problem with the page and why it is up for deletion? What is it meant by "Actually Notable"? This is a real company, trying to continue to get its name out there. The RPW website is currently down if that is the problem? And Im new to adding Wikipedia entries so I am unfamiliar with a "Satellite" Page and "A7".

--LocoNL (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CORP for details of what notability means for companies on Wikipedia. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 02:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not asserted. The first site in a google search comes with the google warning "This site may harm your computer." which is not a good sign. I found a third related article and added that. The sole contributor seems to be treating Wikipedia like his own webspace. @LocoNL, your company may exist but that alone is not a reason to have an article on Wikipedia. I suggest you read the guidelines for notability. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sorry LocoNL! I do not believe the organization qualifies as notable, per the guidelines. Very bluntly, the WP:NOTADVOCATE policy states Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, all four. Notability is not established, and previous editors have said plenty about WP policy on such use of WP. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not established, as per the earlier comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N. Nikki311 01:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:COMPANY and WP:N.--S _R X 22:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Characters_in_the_Axis_of_Time_Trilogy. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral Kolhammer

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I think all characters from Axis of Time. No notability outside its fictional world. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Axis of Time. The character is not independently notable. Schuym1 (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is fine, no notability evident. HiDrNick! 18:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Characters_in_the_Axis_of_Time_Trilogy, where it's already covered. VG ☎ 07:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 16:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish National Top 50 number-one hits of 2006

AfDs for this article:

List of Number One hits on a red link chart. No idea why these were kept if the chart is a long ways from notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 20:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the chart was notable just badly written and without sources, thats why it was deleted, the chart is notable. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Polish National Top 50 and Polish Singles Chart are not the same. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well as other poorly sourced (homepage OR / hoax) stuff from the creator (lists for 2007 and 2008). Wikipedia is not an outlet for somebody's OR lists.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the same list (Polish hits of the 2000's?). This material seems to be notable, and list the is not entirely "indiscriminate" (per the policy); however, each one does not needs its own article. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the main chart page is not verifiable/legitimate, how can lists that are derived from that main chart be verifiable/legitimate? SKS2K6 (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Campodonico Filho

Non-notable autobiography. Was speedied twice; once today, and the subject put it back up minutes later. CyberGhostface (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete criteria, probably. Obvious conflict of interests, extremely little notability, fails WP:BIO, etc. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Note: Can a Portugese reading editor look at some of THESE? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — John Z (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article proves no notability, and I can't see any that I can read. Then, there's the COI, the POV, the putting it back up... Drmies (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who is this guy and why does he think WP is a free resume-hosting service? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MQS: I am Portuguese and I reviewed those links, plus the Portuguese Wikipedia article. It doesn't add up, as per WP:BIO and WP:RS. Sorry, Doc. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric hanriot

Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Article about a musician who hasn't graduated from music school yet. Jazz Revelation Records, which published his last two recordings, is the student-run studio at Berklee. None of his other recordings appear notable. The claims of appearances at "prestigious performance venues" and "major composition and solo prizes" seem dubious at best, and performing besides somebody notable does not spread notability.

No reliable third party sources found from a Google search and nothing found on google news. Themfromspace (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everything in nomination plus both labels don't have articles. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails every criterion of WP:MUSIC that I can see. Nothing to suggest the awards he's won are notable, his label is clearly a very minor one, and no coverage in reliable sources to comply with WP:V. ~ mazca ^t|c 08:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Looks okay at first glance but under scrutiny just doesn't measure up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSTF

Original research. The references given don't mention it at all. Wafulz (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Could be a hoax - I've never heard of it. Not here or on urban dictionary. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No ghits of consequence. Author seems very keen on the concept, though - has also inserted references to this in other BDSM articles, which will need to be cleaned up. (Editorially with respect to the links, that is) MadScot (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR, perhaps, and I don't see any reality to it. BTW, I was somewhat tickled by the phrase "eroticly arouseling"--has an erotic ring to it. Oh, that's arouseling! Drmies (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess pretty much anything imaginable is somebody's sex fantasy. An encyclopedia can't be expected to cover everything in the universe that makes somebody, somewhere shoot their load. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would know if this acronym was commonly used by people in the scene. It isn't. JuJube (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 07:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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