< August 9	August 11 >

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Subsystem[edit]

The only verification of this band other than their self-published myspace account is their unknown record label. This band fails WP:MUSIC with flying colours. --Seascic ^T/_C 16:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. The separate Orangebomb source lists this band with 4 other music bands. Artene50 (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 minor Star Wars droids. Consensus is that this does not deserve an article, but people disagree about whether some of it should be merged. In such cases, the best option is to redirect to the target article. It is then left to the editorial process to determine whether any of this material should be merged from the history. Sandstein 16:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IG-100 MagnaGuards[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of various plot points from the the Star Wars media articles plot sections, and is therefore totally duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of minor Star Wars droids Umbralcorax (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Edison (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Umbralcorax Significant coverage in Revenge of the Sith: The Visual Dictionary. There is also some out-of-universe stuff in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith DVD bonuses about how the "race" came to be in hte real world. Neither independent, but both secondary. Hobit (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—A lack of reliable sources relegates this to the land of WP:OR, thus it isn't really appropriate to include it in List of minor Star Wars droids (which is already rife with OR). Unless covered in WP:RS, it needs to be deleted. Livitup (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely in-universe detail and plot information. Notability has not (likely cannot) be established via substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Umbralcorax. Edward321 (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as fancruft. Subject is notable, article consists of unoriginal research. All other concerns are reasons for cleanup, not deletion. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify to a couple of sentences identifying appearance and affiliation with antagonist, then merge into List of minor Star Wars droids. All that plot summary dreck should be cut. --EEMIV (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of minor Star Wars droids - this one has usable info, but nothing more notable than the many other droids in the list. Some of the list entries are quite detailed, so there is room there for the info on this droid; but it doesn't need a separate article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete or merge, default to keep. Sandstein 16:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ssi-Ruuk[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of various plot points from the the Star Wars media articles plot sections, and is therefore totally duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Merge/redirect to The Truce at Bakura- Umbralcorax (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Totally in-universe. Edison (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep University of Sanbra Guide to Intelligent Life: The Chiss is a clearly secondary source that has significant coverage and is largely independent. Throw in secondary books like Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Characters and Ultimate Alien Anthology: Star Wars Roleplaying Game (The second of which I'd argue is also fairly independent) and you've got some reasonable sources. Plus 12,000+ ghits which are a (weak) indication of notability. Hobit (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have established nothing by listing book titles, as you have no idea what's in them, if they have a lot of information or none of the type needed to establish notability. Also, you are now attempting to copy Le Grand Roi's tactic of using pointless Google hits as an indication of notability, so please stop. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually google book searches for the terms work (and give context). Further, there are a number of non-RS that cite these books and article and so I have a very good idea what's in them. Follow the links from the Ssi-Ruuk article. Hobit (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are supposed to link from here any notable resources you have found, not send people on wild goose chases for content that may/may not exist. Again, if you have anything that proves this articles notability, please show it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Truce at Bakura. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely in-universe detail and plot tidbits of a fictional species which has not received substantial coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Star Wars races (P-T)#Ssi-Ruuk. Ssi-Ruuk#Appearances mentions that the race appears in several novels, not only in The Truce at Bakura, so the universe race article seems to be the better merge target.
Not notable enough for its own article. --Amalthea^Talk 23:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Multiple hits in on topic published reliable sources equals substantial notability and verifiability worthy of an article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit and Le Grand Roi.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Hobit, else Merge to List of Star Wars races (P-T)#Ssi-Ruuk. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirec to List of Star Wars races (P-T)#Ssi-Ruuk. Do not merge; the article has no encyclopedic content cited to reliable sources to merge. --EEMIV (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article has multiple reliable source hits, it has quite high encyclopedic value and therefore no compelling reason has been presented not to preserve the edit history. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Get a f***ing clue, Pumpkin -- you need to crack open the texts, not just aver "oh, look, the word appears in print." These "hits" are primary sources or regurgitate plot summary; none offers the foundation for a real-world treatment or substantiation of a claim of notability. In Star Wars, this race plays a significant role only in Truce at Bakura -- they are mentioned in passing dialog in all the subsequent EU references. No significant third-party coverage of this species exists; the topic does not meet the notability requirements and there are no sources to offer an appropriate, real-world, out-of-universe (i.e. appropriate for Wikipedia) article. --EEMIV (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - They are multiple references in reliable sources as part of a major franchise. Just because they aren't notale to you, does not make them not notable. Dismissing these sources is just dishonest. They are notable enough for a paperless encyclopedia and certainly sufficiently verifiable. Because you don't want to work on this article or don't care about is not a reason why the rest of the community can't or shouldn't. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The are not "significant coverage" that do not inherit notability from the notable franchise (no, please don't quote that asinine diff from the Al Gore III AfD). It is instead dishonest (or a symptom of ongoing helpless myopia) that you fail to recognize in-universe Star Wars guides that merely label themselves as "encyclopedias" but are instead an amalgamation of plot summary as being reliable, third-party sources offering significant coverage. The community has since 29 June 05 worked on this article; I'd call that ample time to assert notability and cite third-party sources. (No, please don't link to that "no deadline" thing). --EEMIV (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        These sources assert sufficient enough notability for inclusion on Wikipedia by any reasonable standard. I base my arguments only on what is reasonable and consistent with logical encyclopedic tradition. Since 2005, these editors have apparently thought it worthwhile to volunteer their time to work on this page and by assuming good faith, they must have done so because they believed the article appropriate for Wikipedia. The article also gets over 2,000 views a month. If that many editors and readers believe the article worthwhile and we know from the sources we do have that it has multiple references in published books and is therefore not a hoax or libelous, then it doesn't matter if a mere four editors in some five day discussion suddenly feel the article must be deleted as meeting their intepretation of notability when the larger community clearly disagrees and beleives this kind of content has a valid place here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant plot elements in major fiction are notable, and if they occur in more than one pace, they warrant an article of their own. There's no need to merge or redirect. DGG (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per hobit. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; having sources in the article would help a lot in evaluating notability, but it appears this race plays a role of some significance in the franchise and there is enough to say about it to warrant a separate article. Everyking (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Nothing in that definition excludes so-called "regurgitation of plot summary" nor "in-universe Star Wars guides that merely label themselves as 'encyclopedias'", if that is indeed what the sources are. In addition, multiple fictional sources addressing a particular plot element is also significant coverage; authorized fictional sources are certainly reliable sources about the plot elements contained within them. Our guidelines ask us to present the in-universe information in an out-of-universe context; but nothing requires that the sources must present information in an out-of-universe context. DHowell (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable outside the SW universe. More suitable for a specialist wiki such as Wookieepedia. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, unorgiginally researched fancruft, just like all the other articles about aliens that have come up recently. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 19:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kamino[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of various plot points from the the Star Wars media articles plot sections, and is therefore totally duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Update: Although notability was inherited from the series, as the article has been cited in significant independent sources and is being revised accordingly, all concerns for deletion have been erased. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say that your statement is at complete variance with reality, and that no notability of any kind has yet been established. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been by any reasonable standard. And I am still in the process of revising the article. Also, it may be worth noting that the word "Kamino" is also used in a non-Star Wars context as a family name as seen in The Kamino Name in History (Paperback) and "Kamino named ‘most innovative planner’", all the more reason why Kamino should not be redlinked. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what does this have to do with the notability, or lack of, for the subject of *this* article? If you wish to write an article about the family name, or some other usage, then please do so, otherwise this is irrelevant for notability of the subject of this article (which is about the usage in a Star Wars context). --Craw-daddy | T | 09:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, Grand, you can work on a two-bullet disambiguation page in user-space and move it over to Kamino once this AfD ends. "Kamino may refer two * A planet in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith * Some quasi-notable guy who won an award." Done and done. --EEMIV (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant the quoted part would essentially be the entirety of the page. The rest of it is dreck that should go away. --EEMIV (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I made Kamino into a disambugation page (see [3]) and merged the bulk of the Star Wars content to a list. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just copy-and-pasting this content up for deletion, while probably good-faith, is also kind of clueless and a cheap dodge. This content has no encyclopedic value, whether here or in the List of. I'd be fine with trimming this down to the dab., but oppose merging the content to any list. And this kind of attempt to retain cruft is exactly why the edit history for this material should be deleted. --EEMIV (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion especially when referring to content with encyclopedic value. After this article is kept, perhaps we should have a "Kamino Camp-Out" to reconcile? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How much coverage by independent secondary sources must be shown before the nom and his buddy give in and stop saying "nuh-uh!" to everyone who disagrees with them? While I'm no fan of simply pointing to policies, I think that everyone here could use a look at WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:ITSNOTABLE, and the discussion articles linked from them such as proof by assertion, which seems to have been used quite often by Judgesurreal and several others in recent deletion discussions. While I'm glad that it's at least remaining civil, this really needs to stop. How many AfDs have I looked at today that degenerated into Hobit and Citrouilles posting source after source while Judgesurreal and EEMIV or Doctorfluffy call every single one non-notable? How many massive discussion trees do you have to fill with long-winded versions of the playground arguement strategy "Nuh-uh!", "uh-huh!" before you guys recognize that there is a problem and it needs to be solved? I'm new here, but Wikipedia is community-driven enough that I'm sure there IS a way to solve this, whether it be arbitration or something else. Gelmax (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC) — Gelmax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I think labeling this user as "single-purpose" is a bit unjustifiable as this user has around two dozen edits to unrelated pages since 20 July. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps the template is poorly named -- but Gelmax certainly has made "few" edits outside this topic. Furthermore, a "new" editor who so rapidly jumps into AfD discussions rarely is actually a "new" user -- this, after all, was a red flag when your friend Allementando began editing. --EEMIV (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It could also be someone who edited with IPs for a while and finally decided to get an account. I edited on IPs for quite some time before I decided I might as well get an account. The red flag for me with Allemantando was having a user name of Killerofcruft initially which just seemed pointed and uncompromising. And yes, if someone had a username of Keeperofcruft, even though I am an inclusionist, I would find that pointed and uncompromising as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, several independent sources have been provided, with the Technophobia book discussing Kamino from an out-of-universe, literary perspective being the best, and I'm sure more will show up in the future. The article could have been much better than it is, but as we all know, the current state of an article is not a valid reason for deletion. 96T (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read this discussion? We need several independent sources WITH CONTENT, and not just content, but enough content to be able to write a whole article, and neither of these concerns are yet addressed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read the discussion, if I hadn't, I wouldn't comment. In my opinion, there is enough content out there: the Technophobia book has about half a page about Kamino, and there is plenty of useful information in in the Star Wars databank - it is a non-independent source (but it is not a primary source), but it offers lots of useful information, including out-of-universe stuff (in the Behind the scenes section). Also, it took me abouth thirty seconds to find this article, which is another independent source, and I'm sure there is much more to be found. 96T (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nothing but notable, unoriginally researched fancruft. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, plot summary and in-universe detail of a fictional location, no sign of any real-world notability: a couple of Google books links to books which mentioned the planet once in passing is hardly "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:NOTE. There's an excellent Free article on the topic at [4] if you'd like to contribute to it. --Stormie (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to go there when it is suitable enough for us here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - belongs in Wookieepedia. Green caterpillar (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because an article is covered in Wookiepedia is no reason we couldn't/shouldn't also cover it here. After all, one could say Napoleon belongs in Britannica and it does, but it also belongs here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and make a redirect to List of Star Wars planets, of course, since people might search that name and editors will link to it from plot summaries) Only notable in-universe, and even there it's not much notable. While it was the scenario of a few scenes of a Star Wars film, the action could have happened on any other isolated planet with an isolated base (it's similar to that planet that had a flying base, Lando's mining station, where the protagonist also almost falls down from the base to a certain death in a similar plot device). It's recognizability outside Star Wars is ridiculous, and it even looks smaller when compared with elements that would actually pass notability criteria like the Millennium Falcon, Darth Vader's helmet or planet Tatooine, and I still have to see a source saying that Kamino is a popular culture icon (which would be a good argument for keeping it). --Enric Naval (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about making it a disambiguation page as it's a real last name or merging and redirecting to a list on Star Wars planets or even to the article on Attack of the Clones? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, a real last name is not notable by itself. You should find someone notable that bears it. About merging, I changed my comment to mention that it should be a redirect to the list of planets. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's an actreess referenced in Zero Patience and I've Heard the Mermaids Singing. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, but she doesn't have an article, so it would be a red link. ~~Looking at WP:MOSDAB#Red_links, you would need to find an article where that same red link is used.~~ Oh, sorry, you already found them. Well, I guess that the disamb page can be created if this article gets deleted (you see, we haven't still finished discussing if we should delete the article, and replacing the article with a dab page is almost like deleting it, since the info disappears anyways! If you merge the information somewhere else, then it's like if this closed as merge and redirect). I'm all for merging it into a list and preserve the most essential details. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. I was actually suprised by the number of newspaper articles having more than just passing mention of this planet; and books such as Star Wars: The New Essential Guide to Characters and Ultimate Alien Anthology, and also multiple independently-written and independently-published fictional sources which involve Kamino, including a comic book, The Defense of Kamino, where this planet is the primary setting. DHowell (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All those newspaper sources appear to be mentions done while explaining the plot of the phantom menace film [5][6]. This only shows that film is so notable that newspapers will go over all the details of the plot. Please point at newspapers covering Kamino outside of the context of explaining the plot of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. Ídem for the books, they are either guides for Star Wars, or they are extending the plot of the film, so of course they are using the planet, as it's a pivotal plot element on that film. I don't think that those sources show independent notability outside of the film. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; given the amount of content this seems like a reasonable spinoff article from the larger topic of Star Wars. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete, default to keep. Even after numerous weak "keep" opinions are discounted (boilerplate, "the sources are out there", "it's important" etc.), a majority of participants is convinced that the sources provided principally by Hobit are sufficient to confer notability on this topic. Sandstein 16:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle droid[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of various plot points from the the Star Wars media articles plot sections, and is therefore totally duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protocol droid

Keep and cleanup- These were major items from the prequel trilogy. Real world information should be out there to make a valid out of universe article. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Totally in-universe. Full of original research. Edison (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Wasn't the Battle droid action figure the first prequel-related toy released in stores? That's one bit of real world significance (if I'm remembering things correctly). But even if this topic can't support its own article, I'm sure some of this information could be merged somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 05:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah here's a source: [7]. I think there was a full article about the action figure in ToyFare, but that won't be available online (and probably not even in any libraries). Zagalejo^^^ 19:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep sigh....

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q4lRAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Battle+droid&dq=%22Battle+droid&ei=m2CgSIf0BtC4iQGK48H7BA&pgis=1 (out of universe stuff about the CGI in the top-tier graphics conference).
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ra0d2dZDJpoC&pg=PA67&dq=%22Battle+droid&ei=22CgSPvOD46UiAHU7PD7BA&sig=ACfU3U0sndeSViV7wyemybt9nshbp-cOIQ#PPA67,M1 (seems to be secondary, independent, etc.)
http://books.google.com/books?id=z9CjkiB8BTAC&pg=PA20&dq=%22Battle+droid&lr=&ei=GGGgSM64F5yMjAGHlaX6BA&sig=ACfU3U2Hf7EuFIIrAS6epSIOr4jH4PSTiQ (secondary, independent, ok source for this topic)

Plus the 300,000+ ghits for this phrase, plus all the news articles. Hobit (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, in total, you have demonstrated an article where someone says you can make a battle droid at home...and also posted that it has a bunch of google hits...that is not notability, that does not establish this should have a whole article dedicated to it. Either find information that indicates real notability, or stop wasting everyones time. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One is an article in SIGGRAPH, one is a book about building models, one is book about Star Wars LEGOs. There are also non-independent (but secondary) sources that detail battle droids. here for example... Hobit (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely in-universe detail and plot information. Sources provided by Hobit above are not enough to convince me that this droids specifically have received substantial coverage. It's likely that any reliable independent sources that are not game guides or plot regurgitation and happen to contain the string "battle droid" are about the movies, franchise on the whole, etc and contain only passing mention of the droids themselves. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit unclear on how these are passing mentions or plot regurgitation. The three above are about A) The CGI for battle droids (published as part of the most significant graphics conference in the world) B) a section of a book the covers how to make a model of a battledroid (and there are _plenty_ of similar book references, mainly to Lego/mindstorms, but this one is not that), and C) a walk thru of a game. C) is admittedly weak, but none of them are "plot regurgitation" and A and B certainly aren't passing mentions. Could you clarify your objections? Hobit (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying that your references were those things, but rather that any sources which aren't those things likely contain only passing mention in the context of a larger work about the movies. Mainly, I wanted to point out, for example, that the string "battle droids" probably appears in numerous reliable, independent movie reviews, yet those reviews clearly provide no basis for an article on battle droids. On your sources, (A) is not a terrible reference, but I am assuming the majority of the work is about the special effects in the movies on the whole and that the droids themselves get a paragraph or so. Perhaps more than merely passing reference, but not enough to indicate this topic is notable and not enough to justify an entire article. It appears to be a more appropriate used on the articles for the movies themselves. (B) doesn't really contain anything useful and basically only shows that somebody likes to build models of Star Wars stuff. I don't see what content that could provide to an encyclopedia. (C) is a game guide, so it clearly doesn't focus on the droids themselves. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the information is usable to build up an article with, the information given is trivial and in too small amounts to justify a whole article on the topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question at hand is if the topic meets WP:N. I think the above sources (and there are plenty more) do so. Non-independent and even primary sources can easily be used to build an article (and in fact, have been). Not a perfect article by any means, but between the various Star Wars encyclopedias and the books/movies/games/mindstorms I think there is plenty to write about. Hobit (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for maintaining a courteous, non-condescending tone. My search for good sources came up dry, and I still disagree with you about the sources you've provided and I'm assuming you've presented the best of your searches, so I am forced to conclude that notability has not been established. Further, we're 3 days into the AFD and the article is still entirely in-universe details, fictional design specifications for the droids, and plot summary, clearly failing WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. Frankly, it looks like it's been lifted right off Wookieepedia. Naturally, I don't expect changes to happen immediately, but if there is such an abundance of reliable secondary sources then adding real-world information of some sort should be a breeze. As it stands, the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia and it should be deleted. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The results of a Google books search demonstrates numerous out of universe reliable results, which demonstrates notability and real-world information, which is why the article is appropriate for Wikipedia and must be kept. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit and Le Grand Roi.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zagalejo and Hobit do a good job of finding independant sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - Please remember to disregard keep votes that have nothing to do with policy, and say that reliable sources have been established when they have not. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is battle droids are notable. See Google news and google books and even google images, i.e. multiple appeareances in major works of fiction (films, comics, games, etc.) and even made into toys. All of these things have reviews without of universe information and not all fictional robots articles can make such claims. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) and I can't imagine that a closer would consider that when an article is objected to as unsourced notability, and sources are presented to show it, that carping objects to the sources as "too small amounts" and the like are valid policy-based objections. IDONTTHINKITSDIMPORTANT is not the same as NOT NOTABLE. It is policy that things need to be notable. It is not policy, but judgement, exactly how notable they must be, and it goes by consensus, not by reminders to the closing admin. DGG (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per hobit. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It's cruft, and notable and independently sourced as well. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hobit, Le Grand Roi and DGG. Banjeboi 00:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The popularity of a battle droid as a commercial product does not itself establish notability. Hobit gave three reliable sources: (1) a paper presented by the people who made money programming the cgi (and hope to do more), (2) someone who hopes to make money off of those who can't assemble a model without fancy pictures, and (3) a book for sale to someone too lazy to figure out the video game on their own. Of these, only the first begins to establish notability, but that is not significant coverage. You get lots and lots of google hits, but most of them are toys for sale. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It does when it appears in multiple major works of fiction, i.e. films, toys, games, comics, etc., i.e. a notable amount of works of fiction. That is indeed significant coverage by any reasonable standard. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources exist. I added a trivial but interesting reference. Lots more are out there, maybe I'll add some. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify - The article is currently pure plot. There might be a notable subject here, but it drowns. Taemyr (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing update: I began a section about the real-world out of universe models covered in a book. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. The fact that the nominator has taken it upon himself to declare every source posted here as invalid and even went so far as to advise the closer to ignore people who vote "keep" without the nominator's personal approval is disturbing to say the least, especially considering the number of Star Wars articles he has nominated for deletion in the past few days. I'm not suggesting bad faith, but starting a number of AfDs on a specific group of articles and then demonstrating poor behavior in those AfDs is generally a good way to ensure you're not taken seriously. Gelmax (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has not. One reliable source about comparing the droid army of Star Wars to potential work by the US military is one sentence of reliable sources, not nearly enough for a whole article, and will fit nicely in the Attack of the Clones article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a call for merging and redirecting without deletion then. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging a whole sentence and deleting massive amounts of prose is not a merger, it is deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging anything precludes deletion per the GFDL. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the other keeps above. How can there not be an article on battle droids? Stijndon (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - anyone doing CS in college? SIGGRAPH had a presentation that talks about the creation of battle droids. Pay only. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I cited it above (and teach CS in college :-)Hobit (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really! Which school/classes? I used to be a PhD candidate at Oregon State University in Machine Learning. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very important in the Star Wars franchise, and important to those learning about it. Tezkag72 (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My ability to assume good faith is being stretched to its limits when several clearly independent and non-trivial sources are presented to establish notability, and are still being dismissed as not demonstrating "real notability" (whatever that is). How much more "real-world" can you get when sources talk about the computer graphics involved, and building Lego models, and battle droid toys? What kind of things that are not being presented here are you expecting to see to establish this "real notability"? DHowell (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch more in fact. The issue that we seem to have a miscommunication on is that there needs to be a lot of notable material to sustain an article. If you find two sources, and say "wow, two sentences worth of material! lets merge it to X article!", that would make sense, but to say "wow, a sentence of real material! keep this massive plot repetition with a sentence of actual notable stuff!" doesn't sound nearly so good. If you find a ton of notable stuff, vote keep. If you find a few sentences/ a paragraphs worth total, then don't vote keep, vote merge, otherwise people will just punch holes in the references, and make the obvious point that a paragraph is not nearly enough to sustain a whole article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, excessively in-universe and cited to a very few sources. More appropriate to a dedicated wiki like Wookieepedia. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are both reasons for rescue, not deletion. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 13:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 16:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Orient du Congo[edit]

NN group. Declined speedy. Unsourced article. In searching for sources, Wikipedia is first hit, no other informational hits exist. Therefore, there is simply no way to establish notability. MSJapan (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. A7 fits this like a glove; why was speedy declined? --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remover stated that any Grand Lodge, by being called such, carries intrinsic notability. MSJapan (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lies. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability Artene50 (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Fails verifiability. Edison (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The remover of the speedy was clearly mistaken. It should have been speedied. You need reliable independant sources to establish notability (See: WP:ORG#Non-commercial organizations). This article has none. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol droid[edit]

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply a compilation of information from the plot sections of various Star Wars media articles in an in-universe way. It is therefore pure duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle droid

Merge with C-3PO.--S Marshall^Talk 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per S Marshal Umbralcorax (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to C-3PO who is the only remotely notable exemplar. No reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Totally in-universe. Edison (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Even ESPN has a reference to it. I'm guessing that means it is probably a part of our culture so deeply ingrained that it is assumed a random person reading a sports article would know what it is. On a similar note we have: [8], [9] That said:

While many of these uses are "in passing" that's a lot of uses. (92 in news, 92,000 ghits, 79 books (about half of which appear to be independent). Add in the "non-independent" sources (misc. star wars encyclopedias, LEGO games, board games, RPGs, and card games) and I think there is both plenty of evidence of notability and plenty with which to write an article. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in "passing", that means they used the word "protocol droid", not that there is any meaningful coverage, and the rest of what you said is the usual "there might be something somewhere in google!" argument that demonstrates nothing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, try this: http://stars.ign.com/articles/878/878467p1.html. It's a whole article on the topic. This term is so commonly used that we find it in sports articles, network protocol books and the like. We also find definitions and very detailed descriptions and history in (non-independent) encyclopedias (remember, we are a specialized encyclopedia).

All it is is IGN saying their opinion of protocol droids from the series. That is a sentence worth of information at most, and does not warrant a whole article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 6 page article on protocol droids. Secondary, independent, yota yota. In addition to every thing else this leaves WP:N in the dust. Hobit (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All it is is plot repetition and a few comments on what IGN thinks of the droids, so that's like a one long sentence worth of reliable sources, which is not nearly enough to justify a whole article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—A major character class, notable on its own. I like the IGN article as it gives a lot of great room to expand this article. I went ahead and changed the "See Also" into a Reference and used it to make a few inline citations. The IGN article is just icing. Livitup (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Hobit. Edward321 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd go into this in detail, but Hobit has said it well enough. If the complaint is that the article is too long, suggest editing on its talk page. Trying to delete articles because they are too detailed is a little counterproductive to an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - Please remember to disregard keep votes that have nothing to do with the nominating concerns or wikipedia policy, which is about notability, and as you will see when you look at the articles presented, there is nothign in them to justify a whole article on this subject. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason we have a near snowball keep is because it is notable per Google news and Google books. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per hobit.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic has nothing that establishes independent notability from the parent topic, so it doesn't require an article. If the above "sources" somehow establish notability per WP:N, feel free to add them to the article to actually prove it. Please do not try to waste time responding to this comment with the usual totally irrelevant line of discussion you guys like to spam all over the place. TTN (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In a discussion editors discuss. If you don't want to discuss, then you should not comment in discussions. In any event, the topic establishes independent notability from the parent topic and as such requires an article. The sources establish notability per WP:N and instead of telling others what to do, you can Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The thing is that you and the others like you do not discuss. You just provide two or three very loose and very indiscriminate links and argue to eternity that they are enough for an article to stand. It obviously isn't enough to establish notability because your overall ratio of fiction articles this method saves is like 15:2 at best. And I'd bet everything that those two end up merged/redirected/deleted soon afterward. TTN (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I only provide discriminate links and discuss them. It is enough to establish notability to any reasonable editor. Unbiased admins and editors are convinced and/or close as keep as have occurred at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable concept within the Star Wars universe that crosses multiple articles, that justifies a standalone article. Alansohn (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge into C-3PO, although that article needs work (too many lists). Agree with User:TTN, not enough notability to separate from parent topic. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to C-3PO. The topic separate from the most significant example of a protocol droid -- 3PO -- isn't sufficiently notable to warrant a separate article. --EEMIV (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's redirectable, then there's no need to delete first. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, unoriginal fancruft. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per several independently-written and independently-published sources, both documentary and fictional, covering this subject, and per my comments in AfDs on other similar articles on Star Wars elements. Notability is not fame or importance; C-3PO is famous, while protocol droids in general are merely notable, i.e. "worthy of notice", demonstrated by having been significantly "noted" in several independent publications. DHowell (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily satisfies WP:N and WP:V; a major category of character in one of the largest film franchises of all time. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor character type more appropriate to a list or a specialist wiki like Wookieepedia. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 19:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nanoprobe (Star Trek)[edit]

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is simple a repetition of various plot points from Star Trek media articles plot sections in an in-universe way. It is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Totally in-universe. Wikipdia is not a mirror site for original research at Memory-Alpha. Edison (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep sigh again...

And that's just threedarn solid science stories. There is plenty of other sources in reviews, games, in-world encyclopedias etc. Heck, those were in the first page of a news search. Hobit (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO, you see, that information would go in an article on actual nanoprobes, the subject of this article is Nanoprobes in star trek, how they were concieved, who concieved them, and what people thought about the technology in the SHOW. All this stuff you mentioned is either about ACTUAL nanoprobes, or is fan stuff that has nothing to do with the information we need to establish notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each of these articles referred to Star Trek nanoprobes, and generally the in the lede (and the rest of the article too). I'd strongly suggest that anyone else commenting on this article read these first... Hobit (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, each of these articles mentions the work "Star Trek" in the lead paragraph of the story, that is all. Nothing else is said, so none of these show notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is factually incorrect. Please read/search the stories before making such statements. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just double checked, and my statements are 100% accurate, Star Trek is mentioned only in passing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "in passing" part is certain a matter of opinion (and one I disagree with). But "each of these articles mentions the work "Star Trek" in the lead paragraph of the story, that is all" is factually untrue. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do not demonstrate any notability, and do not justify a whole article about Nanoprobes in Star Trek. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Hobit's sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of citations to reliable sources that establish real-world notability. Redirect to Borg (Star Trek). --EEMIV (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . sufficient sources. That's all that ought to need be said, but the nom of articles as lacking real world relevance together with the refusal to withdraw it when t hey are shown is beginnig to look a little pointy. Is the objection to this article, or is it a desire to decrease the coverage of the subject more generally? DGG (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you have just said is outrageous. The articles presented are completely empty of content that relates to this article, or supports its notability. The amazing thing is that you would vote keep in this instance. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see the first ref alone specifically making the analogy: "In theory the sensors are similar to the Borg nanoprobes implanted in Star Trek: Voyager character Seven of Nine." attributed to AP. I consider that if AP writes this way and expects the description to be meaningful, it means that the nature of this is generally known and recognized as important in the RW. DGG (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable enough, this belongs on tekkipedia, it has a great place there, although if a significant amount of sources is found then logically this would be a keep. do real nanoprobes exist? that would be truly notable for me, are they theorized? undergoing research?^MY♥_INchile 00:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit and DGG. AfD is not clean-up nor is wikipedia a battleground even though we do write articles on games and sci-fi subjects which are battle-related. AfD's take time and energy away from actually building articles, it seems a quick check would have revealed reliable sources were available. Banjeboi 00:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Nanotechnology in fiction and Borg (Star Trek). Not enough notability to stand on its own. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Among the sources mentioned, the first and the last are the only ones to mention the subject and do so in literally one sentence. The second mentions star trek by way of colloquially introducing the subject of space and then proceeds to discuss Von Neumann probes, a rather different concept than what the article covers entirely. Here is the text we mean to anchor this article with:

Kids are familiar with nanotechnology from Star Trek, where the Borg, an evil alien race, transforms humans into cyborgs using a nanoprobe injection.
— Toronto Star

In theory the sensors are similar to the Borg nanoprobes implanted in Star Trek: Voyager character Seven of Nine.

There simply isn't enough there that actually refers to the subject. How are we to write an encyclopedia article from that? How are we to treat that as anything other than a passing allusion? I don't feel that is singificant coverage as required by the general notability guidelines. Delete it. Protonk (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Protonk's analysis. Passing mention in, at best, an article or two. My own searches show that the vast majority of the ghits are non-reliable fansites, wikis, and the like. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Voted above, expansion of keep vote The Star Trek nanoprobes are amongst the first, if not the first widely propagated use of nanotechnology in fiction and many item, like cell phones, that we take for granted were first widely envisioned by Star Trek - including their progressive use of spandex (attempt at humor there) - and nanogenes, nanites, nanobots, nanomachine, nanorobots are increasingly used in sci-fi and mainstream shows and movies. Nanorobot is the correct technical term in the nonfictional context of serious engineering studies and I find it easy to believe that all sorts of variations were used by not only those within the original show but certainly those outside the writers and producers to describe the technology they were envisioning. We've done a bit of webtrawling but we all know that only gets you what Google sees, not what's actually there. This article needs to be improved. Cite the episodes the technology was first used in a significant way and bridge that to he current scientific field of nanotechnology. That a television show was doing this seems plenty notable - the sources are out there. You might try the Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Banjeboi 10:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, I didn't realize I had !voted above. Banjeboi 10:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Striking the second keep so the !vote only gets counted once. Feel free to switch which one is struck or reword without a bold !vote. Just making it clearer for someone scanning since anyone counting !votes would've ended up with two of yours. Vickser (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion, the above articles clearly show that the term is notable in the real world. There are plenty of sources in News and books that aren't cited above. The article itself can be written based on not only these sources, but also non-independent sources such as the various Star Trek encyclopedias which have plenty of information. Hobit (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:N and WP:V. A significant though minor element of an important fictional media franchise. Google books search for the term +nanoprobe +borg shows more than 50 books, and that's just one quick search. The article needs much improvement, especially, it needs references. But that's not a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read over this debate and looked at the sources pretty closely. The ones linked by Hobit simply don't show notability to me. The New Scientist article shouldn't even be on that list as the Star Trek reference in it is not even about nanotechnology: "According to this hypothesis, emerging civilisations such as ours are cordoned off by star-faring civilisations of the Galaxy as part of a Star Trek-like non-interference policy." The Star saying that kids may know nanotechnology from Star Trek is so passing a mention that we couldn't use it as an article source since it doesn't say anything. The only of those three articles that's viable is the IOL one, but there's simply not enough there to prove notability. The google books search provided by Jack-A-Hole seemed to offer a bit more, but the references all seemed to belong in either nanotechnology in fiction or Borg (Star Trek). There's nothing I can see here that merits a separate article. Vickser (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Borg. Not notable of itself. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Orient de Suisse[edit]

NN Masonic group with no way to assert notability (or prove existence, for that matter). There are no objective sources, and the organization's homepage (which was the only source for the article) is nothing but a graphic, title, and contact address. This is not, by the way, the more well-known Grand Lodge Alpina of Switzerland for which there are sources available. MSJapan (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails verifiability with no reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No verifiability or reliable sources. Are there more of these unsourced free mason articles on Wikipedia? Artene50 (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: If you go by the name of the organization, it seems at first glance to meet the "national in scope" criteria of WP:ORG, but without sources there is no way to know if this is in fact the case. It could be five guys meeting in Geneva, or thousands of Masons, in multiple lodges, meeting all over Switzerland. You can not go by a name. In any case, the article needs reliable third party sources to establish its notability.Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—No claim to notability. Livitup (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WHAT A LONG STRANGE ROAD IT'S BEEN. The old WOW article is gone, an encyclopedic stub about something completely different is in its place. Good job WP:ARS! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arathi[edit]

This "article", or sentence, could not be prodded successfully, so here it is at AFD, taking up peoples time to debate whether or not a microscopic unsourced stub of a tribe from Warcraft should have a whole article or not. You decide. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not worth anything. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Warcraft if there is anything to merge. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't merit a separate article. Artene50 (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. 700,000+ Ghits for 'Arathi WoW' certainly leads me to suspect notability. So do things like (brief) mentions in the NYT and some 64 news hits for the same thing. That said, a 2 minute search didn't turn up anything. Hobit (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not make AFD into a joke, the new york times and all those news hits for this Warcraft tribe? You have no idea what is in those hits, and the google hits are mostly likely all fan stuff with no evidence of notability in the lot. If your going to find something to establish notability, please do, but otherwise, you are copying Le Grand Roi's tactic of wasting our time with random and pointless google hits. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources (including the NYT one) they all appear to refer to a fictional geographic area. I don't play WoW, nor have I heard of this before, so I may well be off base here. But that's a lot of ghits. Hobit (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The locations are in World of Warcraft--they may be in other games of the series as well(one is a PvP battleground and the other is a regular zone). The coverage of them as regions doesn't appear to be that detailed (the NYT line is a throwaway). Protonk (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warcraft (series). I don't think there is anything here to merge. MuZemike (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete This doesn't need its own article. If there are sufficient sources that discuss this subject significantly then we can talk about keeping it. A google search for "Arathi and WoW" will come up with lots of hits because "Arathi Basin" is a PvP area and "Arathi Highlands" is a regular game area. None of those googlehits means anything unless they point to a source that covers the region (or tribe) specifically. You might as well search for "battleground WoW" or "PvP WoW" and post those hits. Fails the WP:GNG as is. Protonk (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete or redirect to Warcraft (series): Doesn't meet the notability guideline, because there isn't enough coverage in reliable third party sources to write anything beyond "Arathi are a tribe in Warcraft". This would even meet our speedy deletion criteria, but the PROD was contested for some strange reason. Randomran (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Keep to the extent that this article covers a notable African religious movement. Good job on finding the sources. I wish all AFDs could be this productive. Randomran (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable fictional group which hasn't received substantial coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article is a copy-paste from WoWWiki, see this 2008 diff and this 2006 Wowwiki article. Nifboy (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Arathi also appears to be a real world group in Africa. See [10]. I'll update the article accordingly. -Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article used to redirect to Aarti. Nifboy (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have begun revising it into a disamibugation page and so recommend if editors believe that the Warcraft content is worthwhile, then having an article called Arathi (Warcraft), but the concept as used in non-fiction seems one that can be elaborated on through multiple published sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This 'new' article isn't so much a disambiguation page as it is two distinct subjects shoehorned into one article. Protonk (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as dab page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - seriously, this is ridiculous. All this over (what was at the beginning) one sentence? Turning it into a disambiguation page is no good either, disambiguation pages are meant to contain links to articles related to the namespace it is in, not discuss every single possible meaning that a word might have. This discussion is overkill. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: our aim is to summarise human knowledge, not document it all in microscopic detail. If its necessary to the understanding of World of Warcraft, then integrate the one sentence there and be done with it, and then build upon the African prophet stuff. However, at the moment, the African stuff just looks like mentions of the word vaguely strung together, it doesn't make any sense. I suggest someone seriously researches the African use of the word after this discussion closes, as although it doesn't currently make any sense, Le Grand's references on the African side of thing do suggest a possibility of notability (unless of course this is just another way of spelling Aarti, in which case redirect it there). -- Sabre (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The warcraft stuff is cruft and needs to go. However the African term seems backed by reliable sources enough to satisfy notability. I have taken the liberty of stubifying down to the religion. Taemyr (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Comment requested from the folks woking with Religion and Africa on relation to Aarti Taemyr (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following Taemyr's cleanup to remove the WoW WP:GAMETRIVIA (and keep that stuff out of this article, merge it into some appropriate (notable) target lke the main WoW article itself, perhaps). --Craw-daddy | T | 15:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still delete - You might ask why the nominator is voting in his own page? Because now the page has been transformed into a dictionary definition, and is still inappropriate for wikipedia, and should still be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is at the moment more than a dicdef in the article. That is, it mentions the fact that the religious movement got outlawed. More importantly, there is potential for more content, and hence deletion is inappropriate. (At least at this stage, if nothing happens with the article for 6 months or so I might have to reevaluate my optimistic concerns over potential for improvement.)Taemyr (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And since we are not voting, it's completely appropriate that you clarify your position when circumstances change. Otherwise we would have no way of knowing what your current feeling about the articel was. Taemyr (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The world of warcraft stuff is nonsense, but the Kenyan religious movement is notable. I've added a few more sentences, and I'll be adding more. There's lots of good stuff on Google Books, such as Freedom of the Spirit (start at page 123). Since it's a subject where I really don't know all that much I'll have quite a bit of reading to do before I can make many improvements, but it seems like there are plenty of sources out there. Vickser (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now the Warcraft cruft has been cleaned out and its relatively clear what this real-world Arathi is, I'll lend my support to not deleting the article. Its more than a dictionary definition, its got some half-decent references and its certainly got potential. -- Sabre (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article in its current form, while rather short, is well-sourced and lacks cruft or junk. Gelmax (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - This has to have been the strangest AFD ever; an article that was not long ago about a tribe in the Warcraft video game series is now about a small African religion...unbelievable! Good job people! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Motion Picture Soundtrack to Hitler's Handicapped Helpers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Demo albums are generally not notable and this demo doesn't appear to be any different. This demo has not been the subject of "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 23:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bloodhound Gang like the other two below. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Falcon Kirtaran, Not every sound recorded on tape is inherently notable. Edison (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS. Nothing cited, nothing to merge. - Mdsummermsw (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just Another Demo[edit]

Demo albums are generally not notable and this demo doesn't appear to be any different. This demo has not been the subject of "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 23:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bloodhound Gang. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge per Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran. No evidence of notability itself. Edison (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable (WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS), nothing cited, nothing to merge. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Chamber 8[edit]

Demo albums are generally not notable and this demo doesn't appear to be any different. This demo has not been the subject of "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 23:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bloodhound Gang. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran. Edison (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable (WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS). Nothing cited so nothing to merge. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Ska[edit]

If all unreferenced statements are removed (as they have been tagged for two months), no content will be left on page. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 23:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable outside Ska. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. It's basically adding 'modern' to a genre of music. The correct term is Ska punk --neon white talk 02:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually the article names two bands that are identified as apart of Third wave ska, but there's some talk of merging that with ska anyway. And the "modern ska" term seems to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE anyway. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 relevant issue here is notability, as defined by the community-adopted guideline WP:GNG, so valid comments must discuss how this article does or does not meet that standard. I had to discount numerous opinions (mostly "keep"s) because they did not address this standard or misapplied it. Such comments included "Not a notable airfield and the club failes to be notable", "it nonetheless deserves to remain", "it doesn't seem to be a hoax or libelous", "seems to be notable because it meets WP:RS", "there's nothing too terribly wrong with it", "fails to be notable in any possible fashion" and "it has the possibility of independent sourcing. That's all WP:GNG requires" (whereas in fact actual sourcing is required). The opinions that remain under consideration establish a consensus that the subject's coverage does not rise to the level required by WP:N. The new references referred to in the last comment (a Google Maps link and a link to a patent) are very unlikely to change that assessment. Sandstein 17:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breuner Airfield[edit]

WP:NN club facility. Mentioned in passing in citations 2 &3, but no significant coverage or even any assertion of notability. Failed ((prod)) due to author's objection. Also see related discussion on ANI discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: the ICAO does not recognize it as an airfield. Toddst1 (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Not a notable airfield and the club failes to be notable. Bidgee (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. All edits (and the PROD removal) are by the same editor, it doesn't seem anyone except for that editor finds the subject particularly notable. Dayewalker (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a new article which is why it hasn't gotten that much attention. I should point out that even proposed or formerly proposed rail lines and stations are notable, Breuner was proposed as a civil aviation airport but was rebuked by the community. I think that satisfies notability. Perhaps the topic can be expanded, will you all be cool with seeing what a ((rescue)) can accomplish? and of course i removed the prod, and i also stated why according to policy. I am actively working on the article, i would ask that this deletion be desisted until the work is complete. the article is sourced and follows WP:N it has non trivial coverage in the Berkeley Daily Planet.^MY♥_INchile 23:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: and finally if all else fails don't delete but merge to Breuner Marsh, Parchester Village, Richmond, California, or Richmond, California, or Point Pinole Regional Shoreline.^MY♥_INchile 23:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I disagree with the assertion that "proposed or formerly proposed rail lines and stations are notable." Only WP:Notable proposed or WP:Notable formerly proposed rail lines and stations are WP:Notable. Toddst1 (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, unencyclopedic refs, couldn't find better refs searching the net. Ikluft (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers and Government Reports and the Subjects own website are not encyclopedic? please explain!^MY♥_INchile 23:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't about the rc model club or its private facility. Brief mentions in any media are not significant on their own. Ikluft (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the airfield not the club, and they were about the Breuner Marsh site which is where the facility is so they were about the airfield.^MY♥_INchile 00:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the about us page which is used as a source, it seems to me that the club owns the land/airfield which means it's also about the club. Bidgee (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there's more to this than the page says there is, and as the page was created a mere two days ago, perhaps we could just flag it as a stub and wait for it to grow. It doesn't strike me as entirely non-notable, being as it seems to have a relatively unique history and be the subject of a minor bit of controversy. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion went off-topic click Show (to the right) to expand --->
comment that hsitory includes years of fighting for the community of Parchester Village that has had to fight off developers, prospectors, enviromental poisoning, violence, poverty, park closures, local business problems, etc. this definitely made the news in the 1970s if anyone would be willing to help track down the articles from the Oakland Tribune or San Francisco Chronicle or Examiner or Richmond Post and Globe or Richmond Museum of History that would be great, there are definitely more sources out there. for the sake of transparancy this article was probably nominated for deletion just because of a disagreement on whether it counted as an airport for the category airports of the san francisco bay area, seems mean spirited to me, i hope that's not the case. =(^MY♥_INchile 23:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Your accusations in the name of "transparency" are not at all correct. The article was nominated because the subject doesn't seem to be notable, but why it's here isn't the issue any longer. Dayewalker (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] no it got nominated because of the disagreement, the disagreement led to ANI and that lead to if i can't get my may i'll suggest it isn't notable IMHO^MY♥_INchile 23:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] comment (this part was not off topic) comment that hsitory includes years of fighting for the community of Parchester Village that has had to fight off developers, prospectors, enviromental poisoning, violence, poverty, park closures, local business problems, etc. this definitely made the news in the 1970s if anyone would be willing to help track down the articles from the Oakland Tribune or San Francisco Chronicle or Examiner or Richmond Post and Globe or Richmond Museum of History that would be great, there are definitely more sources out there.^MY♥_INchile 01:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] The article doesn't meet notability requirements of Wikipedia. I tried to help but was confronted with disruptive edits that would have become a multiple-page edit war. I was left with no alternative but to bring it to the attention of admins. The prod and then AfD nomination came from an admin who independently reviewed the page. Ikluft (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] I strongly disagree with Myheartinchile (talk · contribs)'s asessment of my motivations for stating the article's subject is not notable and nominating it for deletion. I recommend the editor retract that statement. Toddst1 (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] they weren't about you they were about Ikluft, i feel he duped you in a way. it's how i feel. no offense^MY♥_INchile 00:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] AfD's are not places to express the way you feel about another editor. Bidgee (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion went off-topic click Show (to the right) to expand --->

comment that hsitory includes years of fighting for the community of Parchester Village that has had to fight off developers, prospectors, enviromental poisoning, violence, poverty, park closures, local business problems, etc. this definitely made the news in the 1970s if anyone would be willing to help track down the articles from the Oakland Tribune or San Francisco Chronicle or Examiner or Richmond Post and Globe or Richmond Museum of History that would be great, there are definitely more sources out there. for the sake of transparancy this article was probably nominated for deletion just because of a disagreement on whether it counted as an airport for the category airports of the san francisco bay area, seems mean spirited to me, i hope that's not the case. =(^MY♥_INchile 23:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your accusations in the name of "transparency" are not at all correct. The article was nominated because the subject doesn't seem to be notable, but why it's here isn't the issue any longer. Dayewalker (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no it got nominated because of the disagreement, the disagreement led to ANI and that lead to if i can't get my may i'll suggest it isn't notable IMHO^MY♥_INchile 23:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment (this part was not off topic) comment that hsitory includes years of fighting for the community of Parchester Village that has had to fight off developers, prospectors, enviromental poisoning, violence, poverty, park closures, local business problems, etc. this definitely made the news in the 1970s if anyone would be willing to help track down the articles from the Oakland Tribune or San Francisco Chronicle or Examiner or Richmond Post and Globe or Richmond Museum of History that would be great, there are definitely more sources out there.^MY♥_INchile 01:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't meet notability requirements of Wikipedia. I tried to help but was confronted with disruptive edits that would have become a multiple-page edit war. I was left with no alternative but to bring it to the attention of admins. The prod and then AfD nomination came from an admin who independently reviewed the page. Ikluft (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with Myheartinchile (talk · contribs)'s asessment of my motivations for stating the article's subject is not notable and nominating it for deletion. I recommend the editor retract that statement. Toddst1 (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

they weren't about you they were about Ikluft, i feel he duped you in a way. it's how i feel. no offense^MY♥_INchile 00:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's are not places to express the way you feel about another editor. Bidgee (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the notability of the airfield is marginal, at best, it nonetheless deserves to remain on Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources needed to show notability. I am amazed that anyone would claim any inherent notability for a place where people play with model airplanes. Is the model train set in my attic inherently notable? I think not! If there's been "years of fighting" then add the newspaper articles. Edison (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i would suggest you look at the satelite maps, the installation is pretty big.^MY♥_INchile 03:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't get a reliable size using satelite maps but it still doesn't make it notable. Bidgee (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The runway is approximatly 4/5th of a mile (469ft)here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myheartinchile (talk • contribs) 03:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is about 143 metres. Not very long so I doubt it could support small passenger aircraft such as SAAB 340 or even a Dash-8. So I wouldn't call it an airport. Bidgee (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do real-life airplanes land on it with regular frequency? That seems to be the issue here with calling it an "airport." Dayewalker (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, by Google sat imagery the runway is about 300 feet, which is way too short. It would have to be more than twice that

long for a Cessna 172 to do a short-field takeoff and landing. I'd advise against even that unless you had a steady headwind right down the runway. Also, the "X" painted on each end of the runway marks it as closed to airplanes except in an emergency. (credentials: I'm a flight instructor.) Ikluft (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, the ICAO does not recognize it, the international standards body that governs these things. Toddst1 (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i'm afraid; passing coverage only. In addition, the Berkely Planet is not what i'd describe as a notable newspaper; anything that describes itself as a twice-weekly free newspaper run by a retired couple of readers who took over when it folded in 2002 doesn't really get my vote for "reputable sources". Ironho lds 05:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Daily Planet has some very obvious biases, but it is the only newspaper in the area covering local politics in any detail, and its actual news coverage isn't any worse than other "reputable" sources. 66.92.14.198 (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Berkeley Planet is actually a respected alternative weekly. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as I myself couldn't find much on it, but it doesn't seem to be a hoax or libelous so we might as well continue to allow editors to work on it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be notable because it meets WP:RS. Give an article a chance. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 18:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that About BARCS and Cal Home Finder (Real Estate sale search site) can be classes as WP:RS. Bidgee (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know...it works for me. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was on about the 2 sources above which are not reliable and not saying that the links don't work. Bidgee (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, kiddo, I was talking about the same thing. I just was not in agreement with your view. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-short but there's nothing too terribly wrong with it...--Forego (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is plenty more to add to this, now three-day-old, article to establish notability. The Breuner's go back to the gold rush that birthed much of the San Francisco/Bay Area and all points up toward Sacramento (California's state capitol). The Breuners apparently were prominent retailers which fits into the history of the area with many of the wealthiest making their money by selling goods and services to the goldminers. Likewise that this airstrip, airfield, whatever, is one of the last remaining ones also seems to indicate some notability. Here are a few sources to help:

Annalee Allen "Genealogical Society marks 110 years of researching family". Oakland Tribune. Feb 24, 2008. 11 Aug. 2008.
Former Breuner's to receive a makeover Oakland Tribune, Jan 24, 2007 by Christine Morente
Parchester's Marsh by Kathryn Gillick; Terrain magazine, which is published by the Ecology Center in Berkeley, California.
Collective pitch change system for teter-bar type gyroplane rotary wing aircraft
(WO/2007/024267) GROUND AIR WATER CRAFT
California Genealogical Society and Library blog
Saks and Field Likely to Draw Global Bids By ISADORE BARMASH, New York Times, September 27, 1989
San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Restoration Program Letter of Review: Breuner Marsh Mitigation Bank Richmond, California 01/28/03
Obituaries: William Robert “Bill” Breuner
Obituary: Beth Breuner Grebitus was civic pillar in Sacramento

It likely will take some offline digging through archives to show what role the airfield had in the history of the company/family as well as explaining who did what. Banjeboi 20:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's marginal, but it has the possibility of independent sourcing. That's all WP:GNG requires. Protonk (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the sources above, the Breuners themselves might have a shot at notability, but an "airfield" that planes can't actually land on is no more notable than a kids' sandbox at the neighborhood park. Jpatokal (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a poor analogy as a named airfield with at least some sources is a far cry from some random unnamed sandbox. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Un no. The "airfield" has been named by ~~the club, not~~ someone without authority to create "named airfields" - it's not recognized by the ICAO so is not a "named airfield". Toddst1 (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove that with a source? From the history of the place it would seem the airfield was named when it was owned by Gerry Breuner and not by the club, furthermore the club does not even own the site, they simply lease it.^MY♥_INchile 17:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming or not naming is irrelevant; a sandbox would not be notable even if was the John Q. Random Memorial Sandbox. And based on other comments, I would agree with merging the existing content into Breuner Marsh, and possibly redirecting Breuner Airfield there as well. Jpatokal (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to establish notability. Only one secondary source is provided, and it doesn't even contain the words "airfield", "radio", or "model". -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE New source(s) have been added, please check it out.^MY♥_INchile 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The new source makes only passing mention of the model airplane field. This is enough to verify the existence of the field, but IMO is still not enough to prove the notability of it. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on the improvement efforts! Bravo! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not an airport, no notability on its own outside of the refs that relate it to the marsh. Since it fits with the Breuner Marsh material, I'd suggest noting its existence in a sentence or two in the marsh article. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why isn't it notable? there doesn't seem to be any other place like it or if so these places are very very rare or have gone out of fashion; it is obscure and interesting and it is a historical site.^MY♥_INchile 04:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "other place like it or if so these places are very very rare or have gone out of fashion"? As an radio controlled aircraft airfield? I know of a few in Australia and they don't have their own article and doesn't mean that they should. Bidgee (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it isn't unique. I know of another in the San Francisco Bay Area which also isn't notable. Ikluft (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even if it were unique (it's not), that doesn't necessarily make it notable under wikipedia's notablility guidelines. If it is notable, it will have secondary references that show it being so. Dayewalker (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Could you not be more specific with reasoning? Ironho lds 11:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
- It sounds like a reminder is in order that AfD is intended to be a discussion, not a ballot. (added "not a ballot" template in the heading) Ikluft (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Oops! I forgot to place why it could be notable. A first of it's kind is notable. My friend Ecoleetage told me to bring my opinion in this discussion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see a references saying it was the first of its kind. You'd need a source for that and the current article doesn't make that assertion. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Change to DELETE Unfortunately, no further references exist. I wish I could rescue it though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Again you've given no reason for your deletion or even for your change of heart. Please be more specific with your reasoning for keeping or deleting. Ironho lds 12:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Breuner Marsh. Although nothing in this article is notable in itself (per general thought process by nom and others above), it would be relevent information to add to the Breuner Marsh article.Nrswanson (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds like the direction in the discussion which is gaining momentum. I posted my position for delete because I looked around and don't believe significant independent sources exist. I'd have been willing to go with it if some had been found. The only independent sources have been primarily about the marsh, not the RC aircraft club facility, which makes them significant and supporting notability only for the marsh. Since the theme of the references revolves around the marsh, merging into the marsh article appears to be a reasonable action based on that situation. Ikluft (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wholeheartedly agree with the merge proposal. Toddst1 (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Undeath (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. While there are references, none of them are primarily about this field except for the one by the club that runs the field and that would help meet WP:V only. As an option to outright deletion, I would support a redirect to Model airplane field and including the basic information for this article into a list in that article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to be notable in any possible fashion. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not really notable only a big field, reading the references it looks like it is probably being described as more than a big field as part of a opposition campaign and issues to do with a plan to re-develop. MilborneOne (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I have again added more references in addition to new content, this site has quite an interesting history, if the time is allowed to let the research be done, a lot more is available.^MY♥_INchile 17:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JCorps Volunteering[edit]

A page about a volunteering organization. Although it looks like they do great stuff they do not appear to be notable with no Google News results and only 4,450 google hits. mboverload @ 23:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless because those google hits might also even be for Juvenile Community Offender Restitution and Public Service. If the page is expanded a bit and two or three independent sources are added, then it's okay, though. Stijndon (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure how to respond. Here are some NEWS articles about JCorps

ALSO, JCorps is the largest Jewish volunteer network in the world. It is the 2nd largest volunteer network (of any kind) in New York City. It :operates in three countries. What is not notable about that? --Ateman (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ateman. This is important information. I'm a bit concerned that the only coverage appears to be in Jewish newspapers and not the general arena. Don't worry, this is a discussion and not a vote so no need to rush. --mboverload @ 23:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mboverload. I have added those links. You can also find JCorps listed on The NYC Mayor's volunteer site at http://www.volunteernyc.org/org/opp/10285579202.html (Note: that site is moderated by the Mayor's office on volunteering. It is not an open directory.) The NYC government, is, of course, non-sectarian. JCorps is also a Google Grants recipient. It can be found on most volunteer sites (VolunteerMatch, Idealist, United Way, etc. ) Ateman (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, add those links to the article, then! If you improve your page, people will probably vote 'keep'. Maybe you would want to vote 'keep' yourself, too. Stijndon (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Stijndon! I've done that. I don't see anywhere to vote though?Ateman (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also: [11] Time Out NY (a non-Jewish news source) listing a JCorps event. (Again, a moderated list, not an open directory. That listing was added by the comedy editor).

Just vote here by beginning a new line, and writing *'''(Your_vote_goes_here)''' because (Your_reason_goes_here) ~~~~ You can easily spy this by just looking at the 'code' other people used to vote. See a nice template somewhere that you want to use? Just hit 'edit' and see what you need to write to get it :) Stijndon (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the vote to delete was put up with the objection that there are no News results. That was remedied and there are four recent news articles listed in the article.

Futher, regarding being notable: the second-largest volunteer organization in New York City is certainly notable, as is the largest Jewish volunteer organization in the World (it is an international organization, operating in three countries), as is and organization that invented the concept and term "Social Volunteering", as is an organization honored by Mayor Bloomberg, the mayor of NYC. JCorps is revolutionary (among all demographics) in its using social-networking to generate volunteering. Ateman (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources seem to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add the sources mentioned above. By our usual standards, they are sufficient. DGG (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close PER NOMINATOR I nominated this and now I think it should be closed. Special accolades should be given to User:Ateman who went though this with a cool head. I hope you stick around Ateman, we could use people like you! --mboverload @ 03:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tímea Vágvölgyi[edit]

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using ((subst:spa|username))

Article was previously prodded and deleted. Subject did not and still does not have reliable sources to verify notability. Did a google search under both Tímea Margot and Tímea Vágvölgyi and could not find any reliable sources that even verify notability including the alleged 1995 award. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IF it was well-written and well-referenced, it COULD be a keep, assuming it is ture as it stands. History check is not reassuring. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 02:52, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)

Keep So far 2.200 Google hits for Timea Vagvoelgyi. The source is mentioned correctly and articles in German and others Wiki exist. Language seems o.k. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.25.174.15 (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC) — 77.25.174.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Number of WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a valid test for notability, especially with porn. Sources need to be WP:RELIABLE. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the poster (reference) is mentioned that the film (trilogy) was winner of the Xth European Championship in Barcelona in 1995. This is also mentioned on the cover of this [12] film (in GE language) - So the actress is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.24.76.148 (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC) — 77.24.76.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

An advertisement is not a reliable reference. This article's "references" are a scan into Fapomatic and a blog post, not reliable sources. That 1995 European X win needs a verifiable source with credit to the actress, not just the film. • Gene93k (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (~~Comment~~). This does not look good. The article is substantial copyvio of a the cached blog entry cited. The rest is unsourced. I'm leaning toward delete unless WP:RS can be found to salvage this. • Gene93k (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- amended comment. Largely fails WP:V and not even close on WP:BIO/WP:ENTERTAINER/WP:PORNBIO. Notability is barely asserted and is not supported by WP:RS. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
additional remark: I have added some independent sources (see the foot notes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.25.63.117 (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC) — 77.25.63.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- None of these "independent sources", database entries and personal statements, are reliable. At best, they say that she did wrestling and porn. They don't establish WP:Notability. That needs A) interest by reputable publications or B), in this case, recognition by reputable critics (WP:PORNBIO). A cannot be found and B is not credibly proven. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that she was wrestling and beeing porn actress is definitely more than usual. By the way, there exist a lot of articles in wiki about pornstars that are less known. Vagvoelgyi was one of the most famous stars in the 90ies and cover girl of many Private Media productions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.25.43.115 (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Well known," "famous" and "unusual" are subjective terms subject to an editor's interpretation. Wikipedia relies on what reliable published sources say. The latest edits to the article say the actress' 1995 was a FICEB. If that could be proven by credible sources, notability would be established. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As for What about X?/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, articles are judged on their own merits. Other articles that don't belong in Wikipedia will get weeded out eventually. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She was at least as main actress winner in 1995 in Barcelona, as mentioned in the article. On the cover here this is stated (in German) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.25.112.33 (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explaination: The German sentence on the cover Bester Mehrteiler Filmfestspiele Barcelona means: best film series (at) the film festival Barcelona- In mentioned film trilogy Dangerous Dreams in each part Timea Vagvölgyi is the "main actress" and by the way cover girl, too. Other famous girls (like Kelly Trump and others) are only supporting actors acting only in one scene. Means, there is definitely a reason to state that Vagvölgyi won this price in Barcelona. This trilogy contains a real plot and had obviously a sreenplay with high quality. Again Keep Einzelkämpfer (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - articles in German, Norwegian, etc Wiki do also exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.24.136.158 (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC) — 77.24.136.158 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Some more refernces and links were added now!Einzelkämpfer (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitely not a very important but at least a notable person Fontanalis (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC) — Fontanalis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect that all of the variations of unsigned ips and Fontanalis are Einzelkämpfer. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer I have only posted the 1st keep and the remarks with my signature. No clue who Fontnalis is. So far I see the IP-adresses are different. I do not know, who you can change the IP - I think this is fixed with the computer or Windows? Einzelkämpfer (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These are dynamic IP addresses coming out of the same ISP, if not the very same address pool. Anyway, AfD is not a majority vote and votes from single purpose accounts will count less than the evidence presented. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Einzelkämpfer and Fontanalis suspiciously acted in concert with an image of Timea. Fontanalis uploaded the image to the Commons and Einzelkämpfer added it to the article 9 minutes later. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources mostly lack independence and reliability needed to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please tell which sources are in your point of view have a lack of independence. I think most of the sources are suitable to underly the statements, knowing that usually in connection with pornstars sources have not the quality of scientific respactable books. E.g. the short wrestling clip shows clearly that Vagvoelgyi was female wrestler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.25.103.0 (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Einzelkämpfer (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And if possible strikethrough all the puppet votes. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Independent source of her personal data

^ Source for personal data and nick names

^ Vagvölgyis peronal bio on IAFD

^ A short clip about her body measures

^ Vagvölgyis data on a Private Media Group internet page

^ Poster of this film

^ Information about the DWW-organisation

^ wrestling clip with Vagvölgyi

^ Closing credits of the film Junges Fleisch und alte Böcke are to see here

^ This film was decribed in the book (scientific dissertation): Jacob Pastötter:Erotic Home Entertainment und Zivilisationsprozess. Analyse des postindustriellen Phänomens der Hardcore-Pornographie"

The writing of the "references" just screams fancruft.

Sounds desperate.

And the External links violate the External Links guidelines linking direct to pictures, I believe.

Have I mentioned DELETE? Just checkin'. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{02:36, 13 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

delete - nn actress in only non-notable movies --T-rex 00:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every Breath You Take (Instant Star episode)[edit]

Unsourced article about a single episode of Instant Star that consists of nothing but a plot summary and a cast list. No assertion of notability. The show itself may be notable, but that does not confer automatic notability to every episode. Reyk _YO! 01:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- there's a whole category full of similar articles, so if we establish a consensus to delete on this one I'll mass-nominate the lot. Reyk _YO! 01:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I support a mass nomination; they're all extremely bad, and some of them have been tagged for notability since Oct 2007. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and the other ep articles. In many cases, they don't even contain a plot summary but just some headers and a cast list. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just not notable and has zero reliable sources. Artene50 (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- single non notable episode. If there is anything relevant, it could be merged in the main article. Rock pillow (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect the lot into List of Instant Star episodes article, as per WP:EPISODE.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per Fabrictramp.Nrswanson (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to merge. No point in redirecting as it is a unlikely search term - Nabla (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete GRBerry 16:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Dean Helms[edit]

was put on prod, taking it to afd for fuller discussion. WhoopRoot (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not notable, only two local news stories, [13]. Plus this should go due to WP:BLP1E. Okay he committed a very sick crime, but he's a young man who maybe has problems, and will be eventually released and want to start his life afresh without this, which is so accessable via google. Sticky Parkin 23:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete same like Gary Dean Helms Jr was deleted. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete He did a sick ugly crime but he wouldn't pass notability and merit an article here for this one crime. This article is a clear case of WP:BLP1E Artene50 (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. No trace of RS interest outside October-December 2006. A revolting, and somewhat out-of-the ordinary crime, but strictly a crime news story. Not notable. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saleen (Aladdin)[edit]

Non-notable character. Prod was removed by User:AdamDeanHall. Schuym1 (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Esn (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such a minor character that I don't think a redirect is even in order. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 10 lb hammer. Lacks reliable sources to show notability. Edison (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not worth a wiki article.Eisenhowerdd (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC) — Eisenhowerdd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect Apparently a significant character as one of the principal villains during multiple episodes. The list of characters in the main article gives insufficient information; though I doubt any of the characters i this but the hero are worth separate articles, this should probably be merged into an article on list of characters or list of villains, without loss of all the content. Certainly a redirect at least; all characters in major films should have at least a redirect to the work, so if someone looks up the name, they will see at least some of the basic information DGG (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable character. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 David Solomon (writer). I am replacing the Klus article with a redirect. The previous contents will be available in the edit history for anyone who wishes to merge it appropriately in the target article. My personal opinion is that the present contents of the Klus article don't much aid our understanding of why Solomon chose to publish under this pseudonym. There must be more to the story. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Bernard Klus[edit]

Do we really need a detailed biography of a fictitious character used as a hoax? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to David Solomon (educator and writer). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to David Solomon (educator and writer), in such a way as not to overwhelm the main article. Also, need some context about why he created the hoax? ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as per the above. Valid search term, and the real and fictional persons are so intertwined that a single article makes sense.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and explain further. The purpose of the hoax is explained in neither article DGG (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Law enforcement agency--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of federal police agencies[edit]

Reasons for deleting List of federal police agencies:

The article's encyclopedic content was inaccurate, has been fixed, and has been merged with Law enforcement agency as per discussions (with no objections, some agreement, and essentially no interest at all):
1. Talk:List of federal police agencies#Merge proposal / Rewrite canned
2. Talk:List of federal police agencies#Do not edit this article - pending deletion proposal
3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Pee Tern's discussion#Federal Police Article
The list is a lure for incorrect entries for national agencies instead of federal agencies, and misleading.
The concept of the article is poorly defined and leads to incorrect entries, for example, police are a distinct subset of law enforcement agencies and many of the agencies listed are not police.
The notability of the article is poorly conceived as to the type and level of information. There is no notable material available at the level of federal police or federal law enforcement agency from a world view. Content is either about federal law enforcement agencies generally, not notable in its own right, and has been merged into Law enforcement agency, or if about notable federal law enforcement for a particular country, can and should be included in relevant articles, for example, Law enforcement in Australia, and Federal law enforcement in the United States.
The by country list in this article is misleading because it does not give examples of specific types of federal law enforcement agencies in any sort of encyclopedic context, and practically it can never be even a remotely complete list of such agencies world wide. Lists of federal law enforcement agencies, if notable, can and should be included in articles such as Federal law enforcement in the United States.
Any intent to group federal law enforcement agencies by country has been deprecated by Category:Federal law enforcement agencies, which already includes all the valid (actual) federal law enforcement agencies listed in this article.

When deleted Federal police should redirect to Law enforcement agency#fedlea and List of federal police agencies should redirect to Category:Federal law enforcement agencies.

Peet Ern (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uumm No objection - This looks like a Redir (and not a AFD issue) to me. No loss of "encyclopedic information" would occure as (other than the Lede) there is only 1or2 ~~paragraphs~~ sentences. The current List presents no additional info that the :Cat cannot do just as well. Loss of the Lede is no issue as all info is presented elsewhere. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the material from this article was merged to Law enforcement agency, then a REDIRECT is in order per GFDL to maintain edit history. See WP:MERGE. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list attempts to fit dozens of diverse national jurisdictions under a single template (whether U.S. or imaginary - bur not fitting those other legal systems). Consider, for example, the very first line Federal police agencies are responsible for the enforcement of federal laws in countries with a federal constitution. Now what about those jurisdiction where federal agencies also enforce local laws simply because there no equivalent local police agencies (they all report to a federal agency)? Example: Russian MVD. Should Russia (a federal state) be excluded from the list? or change the definition? go figure. It's an incurable legal mess. NVO (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a topic that can really be covered as the concept of "federal police" is not comparable from one nation to another --T-rex 00:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what a mess, too many jurisdictions. I agree with NVO and T-rex. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus - there really is not a clear direction here as to the retention or deletion of this page. It has been relisted once, so i won't do it again; I think it will just bring about more confusion. For now, the page is defaulted to being kept. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bi pong moun[edit]

Claimed to be a typical Cambodian dish. But two dozen Google hits suggest that the original prod was valid. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Need to seek input from original contributor and our Cambodian Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about their cuisine. Badagnani (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've posted a request at WikiProject Cambodia for Khmer speakers to either find sources for this, or confirm that it isn't a notable Cambodian dish. – iride scent 19:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it possible that there's another romanization that is more common?Addendum could it be known under another name? If the answer to both question is negative, then my vote is for Delete as the dish fails to be verifiable.--Boffob (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are plenty of articles on Chinese and Vietnamese and other Asian food (I've seen them) and they're really short, unreferenced, and probably only bring up a few Google hits as well (I never checked, but I can imagine). Those are kept and linked to from larger articles, like the main cuisine ones. Maybe deleting this one would be a mistake. I believe it goes by another name, maybe several other names. It is strange that editors would have so much knowledge on what Google brings up in hits as two digits. As I'm not Cambodian, I'm not too sure. I agree with the above. Lady Galaxy 23:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a recipe and brief description in a Cambodian cookbook. Proves it is a real dish in use. I put a fact tag on the unverified information.Nrswanson (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 failed to garner any support for deletion even though the discussion was relisted. WP:Crystal does not apply to everything... some things can be highly notable as a proposal. If the article was written in a future perspective as if it was already enacted, and its enactment was necessary to establish notability, then it would be a crystal candidate. The respondents in this discussion felt that this proposal was notable as a proposal. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless Access Platforms for Electronic Communications Services Management[edit]

This is a proposed framework for electronic communications. If it is proposed, then the article fails WP:CRYSTAL. Tavix (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't look at the sources closely, but proposed things, given enough sources, don't automatically fail WP:CRYSTAL. In engineering, proposals are often proposals quite late into the process. It's something like deleting the Theory of Gravity because it is just a theory. The number and nature of the sources look fine to more than meet WP:N. If the sources are all about something else, that's a problem (and I didn't check, it would take quite a while). But being a "proposal" isn't enough to justify deletion. Hobit (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't know how theories popped in the conversation, but just because it is a proposal, doesn't mean its actually going to happen. There is always a chance for cancellation if something happens and then it really wouldn't be notable. The truth of the matter is that we can't predict the future so unless this actually happens, then it isn't notable. Tavix (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but given that RS exist for the proposal, it is notable per WP:N. Further, even failed proposals can be "notable" in the real-world sense. The analogy to a theory I was trying for is that a theory might well be proven to be wrong, but that doesn't mean it isn't notable. Similarly a proposal could be not accepted, but that doesn't mean it isn't notable. This proposal seems to be both "of interest" and have "significant coverage in independent reliable sources". So it seems like it meets our inclusion criteria. There may be good reasons to _not_ include it. But just because it's a proposal and might not happen isn't enough justification in the face of meeting WP:N. At this point the proposal exists and is well reported on. That's enough IMO. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company in question was given EU mandate to develop such a framework. Read; EU Mandate. There is a chance of cancellation yes, but that doesn't diminish its notability; without resorting to "other stuff exists" I note that the OICW, a failed proposal, still exists; should this fail it has still got past the stage of the OICW, where various companies submitted bids; if you read the sources a company has been selected and is working on the project now. Ironho lds 18:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Project proposals can be notable, in my opinion, simply because of what they lead to. For instance it's quite likely that the Omnivore proposal, while never completed, is notable because it morphed into the Carnivore (software)/DCS1000/dragontools suite project. A somewhat more dramatic example might be theoretical tech like the Project Orion (nuclear propulsion): it was never built but certainly the project has had a lasting impact and inspired sci/fi authors the world over. If it seems that it will quite likely be built or that the proposal itself at this time is covered by notable, reliable sources I'd think a threshold of notability and reliability has been met. 69.210.48.138 (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Arellano University. Content will be placed in talk page of target article.. Tan ǀ 39 00:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arellano University Plaridel Campus[edit]

Lack of Notability Radiooperator (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Arellano University, which is currently underdeveloped. --Polaron | Talk 15:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTABILITY. Sorry, but it just doesn't meet the criteria. Would support recreation if the school later meets notability requirements.(Yes I know I nominated, but there was no place for me to place my opinion supporting recreation later...especially if there is better data about the school.)radiooperator (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The university is not that famous, and it's just three short paragraphs. Lady Galaxy 22:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge In most cases, a specific campus article is not notable, but detailing that on the main article is a good idea. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 23:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ba game. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baw game of Scone[edit]

Not notable? Hoax? Google search for "ba game of scone" (in quotes) found one entry, which looks like a Wikipedia echo. Google search for "baw game of scone" (In quotes) found 21 entries, which are search name lists and apparent Wikipedia echoes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ba game. Not a hoax - it's been a traditional sport in Scotland for centuries (James III of Scotland issued a ban on it, so it's existed since at least the 15th century) but there doesn't seem any reason for each fixture to have its own entry when they'd work better as subsections of the main article, allowing people to compare the different games. I'd suggest merging Kirkwall Ba game as well. (Incidentally, here's a BBC story for those who don't believe the sport exists.) – iride scent 10:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per above. Google is not a definitive means of establishing accuracy (or notability), though I am surprised it would find nothing; there may be alternate names and spellings. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this was originally part of the Scone village article, but was split in two in 2006. 70.51.11.219 (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does exist (would be in Standard English "Ball Game of Scone")[14], but doesn't merit an article. Delete and move all referenced material in the article (none) to Scone. In future time it might merit a referenced place in an article like Scottish ethnology, but the material as it stands is useless to wikipedia, being totally unverified. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedeia is not for things made up in Scone one day which in hundreds of years have not gained multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage. Edison (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Ba game - alternative title to an existing article --T-rex 00:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Peter Heyman[edit]

Author of Donkey the First, which I have also listed for deletion so I offer this one up too. The book is self published, and I can't find any refs to him online, although it was only a quickish check. No reviews of the book either. Consider alongside Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey the First. Hiding T 22:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Hiding T 22:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Google produces just 2 hits which both point to Wikipedia. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One self-published book does not make for notabilty. Edward321 (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero hits outside of Wikipedia, obvious failure of BIO. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See http://www.freewebs.com/davidheyman for author bio. Book has reached top ten in Amazon fantasy series sales. He has also written reviews for large music venues such as St Davids hall through 'The Sprout' [15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquilis (talk • contribs) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey the First[edit]

It's a self published book. It is listed on Amazon, and was ranked highly on their UK fantasy series listing when I looked, but I'm not sure how that ranking is derived. I can't source any reviews for it. It's a potential G11 but I'm never sure how far that CSD stretches, hence listing here. Hiding T 22:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Hiding T 22:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has not received any coverage, the author is NN himself and it also doesn't meet any other criteria of WP:NB. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author is unnotable and so is this book. Its not a bestseller. The author's article has been AfD too. Artene50 (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete On Google, no out-of-WP results for "donkey the first" "David Peter Heyman", and two WP results, two shopping results, one local newspaper, and a post on a mailing list by the subject's father for "donkey the first" "David Peter Heyman". Clear case of non-notability for a modern creation. --Raijinili (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically non-notability is not a speedy criteria, and A7 does not apply to books. Given that we can bounce between WP:IAR, WP:CSD, WP:DRV and here, I figure it is better just to get it done right rather than get it done fast. YMMV, and I'm happy for it to be closed speedily, but I'd rather not end up going through all the bureaucratic hoops we supposedly do WP:NOT have. Hiding T 19:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay. --Raijinili (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it is remotely possible a self-published book could be notable, there's no indication this one is. Edward321 (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Amazon rankings are due to sales by the hour, book is selling well both in uk and usa. Reviews are available from www.thesprout.co.uk and can be found on amazon.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquilis (talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Sprout: The only article I found on the site for the book (searching Heyman and Donkey the First separately) was the article announcing the book, and I just discovered that the article was most likely written by the author of the book himself (it was by a Dheyman). Amazon customer reviews are usually not reliable sources because we can't prove that they're notable reviewers, and I don't think they're used as reliable sources at all on Wikipedia. I would prefer to keep the article (and expand Wikipedia), but as Wikipedia is now, it fails notability. Would the sales make it notable? --Raijinili (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BK. No significant coverage anywhere. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BK, no reliable sources to establish notability. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comment the sprout article was submitted by the author, however they do edit all articles before acceptance meaning that any false information would not have been accepted onto the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquilis (talk • contribs) 10:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response It's not a problem of fact-checking, it's about a conflict of interest in how notable the book is. --Raijinili (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Redirect (non admin closure) Beeblbrox (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Cote[edit]

~~Non-notable person, article does not establish notability.~~Merge and redirect Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Madder Rose, until he does something else that the press takes notice of. Speaking of redirects this should be included in the debate. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made that into a redirect. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Beeblbrox. DreamGuy (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Madder Rose, as he is not notable outside the band. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment If the nominator has no objections, we could just do the redirect and close the AfD, I think WP:BAND is pretty clear on this type of thing. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Not notable, may need redirect.Annaklein92 (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (will redirect for now but content is of course available for merging) Wizardman 00:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singleness of Purpose[edit]

Sources are all self-published. This is language and a concept used exclusively in twelve-step programs. Should either be deleted or merged with twelve-step program. -- Scarpy (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Undeath (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree that it is language used within twelve-step programs. I disagree that within that context, it is not notable. There are many articles and seminars around this issue, and it is of great importance to the recovery community. Bruce Garrison 07:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advocate70 (talk • contribs)

Merge Outside of the Fifth Tradition of Alcoholics Anonymous and other Twelve Step Programs, the term has no notability. Eauhomme (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Twelve traditions, since it's an analysis of a facet of a twelve-step program. Singleness of purpose isn't exclusive to addiction recovery programs, so it's kind of ironic that this article about singleness of purpose seems to serve only one purpose. The only thing that would make it more ironic would be if the article was created by a "single purpose account". Ironic or not, however, this commentary on one of the traditions in a "12 tradition" list doesn't merit it's own separate article. Mandsford (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Twelve traditions - appears to be the 5th tradition, not step. PhilKnight (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect to Henry Hill per a general consensus. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Hill[edit]

NN gangster's wife... She was born, she met some guy (who might have been a gangster), they got married, the marriage sucked, they got divorced, she now lives under a new name... article shows no real signs of notability here... Adolphus79 (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Henry Hill. Her ethnic background is notable. Ottre (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can someone's ethnic background be notable? -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 00:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...one of three daughters of a strict Jewish family and grew up in Nassau County, New York." Ottre (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

am I missing something? is there an obsene lack of Jews in Nassau County? - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Karen Hill"...be deleted? Why? While it's obvious that there's almost nothing public to write about Hill's life, even in the context of her life with her former husband, Henry, no curious reader knows that until he or she reads Karen Hill's Wikipedia bio. Yet, if Wikipedia deletes Hill's bio for having no content, it should also delete probably a third more of its' biographies for lack of content, or for being, "Stubs." Canihaveacookie 10:30 (CST), August 4, 2008

It's not a matter of being a stub or not, it's a matter of notability... There is nothing in the article that says why she is notable enough to warrant her own article... Just because she was a gangster's wife, does not mean she is notable enough for her own article... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that you haven't either read the book or seen the movie - if you had, you would know that most people instantly want to know what happened to Karen Hill. There has been enough interest in the subject that even her two children (who had virtually NO mention in the book or the movie) have now written a book about what happened to them. Somebody's buying these books, so I don't see why you think there is no interest and that Karen Hill's entry should be deleted. Who's buying the books if nobody wants to know what happened to Karen and her kids? Why would a publisher (Time Warner Books) publish it if there wasn't any interest? The movie itself is regularly voted in various "Top 100" movie lists - it is generally considered to be the best mafia film made. Karen Hill was such a "nobody" in the film that it launched Lorraine Bracco's career. The suggestion to delete this entry is typical Wikipedia busybodying.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.159.186 (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People wanting to know what happened to her does not mean she is notable. Her two kids writing books does not mean she is notable (maybe the kids are though?). The movie being in the top 100 does not mean she is notable. The actress that played her in the film did not win awards because of Mrs. Hill, she won the awards because she is a good actress. The bottom line is this, What did Karen Hill do that would make her notable enough to warrant her own article on Wikipedia? hint: being married to a mobster doesn't count, nor does being played by a good actress... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep and improve She is notable insofar as she was married to a notorious man and has been written about. Woefully poor article, though.BatYisrael (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)BatYisrael[reply]

Being married to someone is not notable, see WP:NOTINHERITED... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero claim of notability --T-rex 04:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Henry Hill. Prominent enough in the film Goodfellas to be a valid search name, but not notable on her own. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Clarityfiend. JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Democratic National Convention protests activity[edit]

Delete or merge into 2008 Democratic National Convention - I can't really pin what this article is meant to do. It is like a media clearing house for protests at the 2008 DNC or something.

This information is better put in 2008 Democratic National Convention. This is a copy of some of the sections of that article. mboverload @ 22:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC

NOTE: It has been brought to my attention that 2008 Republican National Convention protest activity exists. However, just because "the other side gets one" isn't a valid objection. That article is well written and just facts and should probably be merged, as well. --mboverload @ 22:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea that article is terrible and is almost entirely concerned with acquiring permits for the protests. That could just as easily be merged into the article for the RNC convention. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Both articles cover the same topic. Much of the article is supposition and crystal ball gazing, not in line with Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Five pillars). Put the facts from this article in the 2008 Democratic National Convention article and delete the rest. Truthanado (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Planned protests at the 2008 Democratic National Convention." Redddogg (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and it is not a social networking site. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and redirected the page, once all the POV OR advertisements for WCW were removed, there was nothing remaining except a duplicate section (identical to this) and an intro virtually identical to the DNC article. If anyone disagrees, feel free to undo the change. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And for what it's worth, I think the page should be deleted completely since this isn't a likely redirect target. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fırat Kocaoğlu[edit]

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I though Galatasaray was a premier league Turkish soccer team. If he really plays in this team, he should pass WP:ATHLETE. Artene50 (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league". There is no indication that he has actually played a game. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TFF.org, he has only played in the amateur PAF League, and fails WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recreate if and when he makes an appearance. --Jimbo^[online] 12:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he has never played on a professional level. Recreate when he does. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 00:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Backup keeper for several games. But not backup keepers don't make it onto the field unless something happens to the primary. Nfitz (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beloved's Cry[edit]

The article concerns an independently released demo, and according to WP:MUSIC, "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources". The demo was later reissued twice, and an editor has linked to just one review to assert notability - however, this isn't a print review, but merely a rough shod review in a webzine (click the link to see what I mean by "rough shod", ie. unprofessionally written). However, this demo has not been the subject of "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". Also, "all articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines". This demo doesn't meet the basic notability criteria for the aforementioned reasons, so I vote to delete. LuciferMorgan (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vicuna (album)[edit]

Have tagged the band Nuclear Rabbit for deletion, am also tagging this page, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 10#Nuclear Rabbit for ins and outs, but the band page has been deleted a number of times via speedy and so it makes sense that if that is the status quo this page should likely be deleted too. Hiding T 21:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Hiding T 21:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait to see what happens on Nuclear Rabbit before we trash this one.GreenRunner0 22:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't see any real reason too. This can be deleted or redirected even if that is kept. Otherwise it become a circular argument. Hiding T 22:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would help the 'keep' argument (for both band and album) if some sources for the reception of the album could be added to its article. Was it reviewed? Did anyone buy it, etc. Occuli (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the band is kept this is not notable. There is essentially nothing to merge, either. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Rabbit[edit]

This article has been deleted by prod once, and then minor recreations speedied twice since then. It has again been recreated, in a more substantial form, and I have taken it upon myself to merge page histories with the prodded version and to bring it here to afd to get a proper airing and generate discussion, since it seems the current state of affairs cannot continue, with speedy deletion followed by recreation without a decent listing here. Hiding T 21:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. This doesn't seem to assert notability through reliable sources, and reads promotionally. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nuclear Rabbit is a major underground group and very well known.Green Runner 0 22:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article to verify that claim with reliable sources. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured in Zero Magazine, January, February, and August of 2003.[16]Mutopia reviewd in March 2004 issue.[17]Green Runner 0 22:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt a reliable source. --neon white talk 02:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks reliable enough for the information it's verifying. Reliability is dependent on context, let us not forget. Hiding T 07:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up significantly and add more citations. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Cannot find anything that pass WP:MUSIC. Article is badly written and unsourced. --neon white talk 02:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for this and for this review as well. I'm not 100% convinced of the Zero Mag reference as well, but at least it's something. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - there are 29000 google hits so I don't think there should be any problem working up a reasonable article (eg this review of Mutopia, an album - there could be a section on Mutopia). There also seems to be no great difficulty sourcing an article on Jean Baudin (created and deleted several times). Occuli (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unreliable, self-published sources and blogs are of no use to asserting notability. We need reliable sources, preferably something better than allmusic. --neon white talk 18:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"We need... preferably something better than allmusic"? No, we don't. An allmusic is the very archetype of an RS in terms of whether bands are notable. tomasz. 19:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Esradekan & F. D. Kirtaran. tomasz. 19:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bronson (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural listing; saw that someone tried to relist this on AfD but didn't do it right, so here you go. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but keep reading). I voted keep at the last AfD which (unfortunately, in my opinion) resulted in the article being deleted. This version isn't in the same realm as the last one, but I feel that it could be. The band passes WP:MUSIC: releases on notable indie labels (Lengua Armada Discos and Slap-a-Ham Records), has members from other notable bands (MK-ULTRA and Los Crudos), and was a huge part of the Dekalb/Chicago powerviolence scene. Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Ack! This would be eligible for CSD A7 due to its lack of asserted notability, and it seems to consist almost entirely of a list of albums (see my essay at WP:COD). It's interesting that the list of labels they're signed on is so long with only four years of existence, impossible unless they signed with a new one every couple months. This combined with the lack of reliable sources makes me think it ought to be deleted. Maybe it deserves an article, but this one is not it. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above poster. Lady Galaxy 22:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for they must have the world record for most record labels in the shortest amount of time......kidding. Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article doesn't establish notability to justify inclusion in an encyclopedia. It also bothers me that it was judged not to be notable, but this was ignored and hte article was just started again, without even any improvements (correct me if I've misunderstood this) Boleyn (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Charles Bronson was an important group in the powerviolence scene, and contributed future members of Das Oath and Holy Molar. Please note that I have added eight references, from reliable sources, to this article. WP:MUSIC indicates this criteria: The group "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." This criteria has been met. With that in mind, I feel strongly that the article should be kept.
I appreciate the effort you've gone to adding references. However, I feel that the article still does not indicate notability. Boleyn (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that eight sources, from sites such as Spin magazine, Pitchfork, and smaller newspapers, *does* indicate notability, according to Wikipedia guidelines. They're not my favorite band or anything, and I didn't create this article. I feel I'm reasonably unbiased. I just happen to like underground punk rock, and I think Charles Bronson's had a notable impact within that scene (and there are sources which back this up). I think that the article could be merged into the Mark McCoy page, if that compromise is necessary. However, with this many sources, I feel that the page can stand on its own. Aryder779 (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Do you mean the article itself should be rewritten in order to make its notability more clear? I'll go do that. Aryder779 (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avenger (truck)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This truck seems to fail WP:N. While it survived a discussion in 2005, it seems to me that consensus has changed, and individual monster trucks are usually no longer considered notable. Note that the two sources given are not independent, they come from the owner and from the racing league. On Google, I found the truck mentioned in press releases, YouTube videos, and so forth, but substantial independent coverage seems to be missing. B. Wolterding (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is little that can be said about this truck, and google hits (as cited in the last AfD) are not a reliable indication of notability at all. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: how come that this truck is notable? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 22:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as anyone interested in keeping this could have spoken up by now. I'm not relisting this again, as it seems pretty clear to me this isn't notable. If you disagree, let me know and I'll consider reopening it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Exiles[edit]

Notability in question since May '07, fails WP:V as well. Wizardman 14:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply having notable alumni doesn't necessarily make something notable. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non-notable team in a non-notable league --T-rex 00:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marmalade (song)[edit]

Very little content. gracz54 ^(talk) 20:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is very little content because it is not notable. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN bonus track from the Japanese version of System of a Down (album). Anything that can be said about the song (that its only available on the Japanese version) is already said in the album's article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to List_of_Star_Wars_races_(P-T)#Twi.27lek. Many of the arguments - on both sides of this debate - have no grounds in policy. However, it is abundantly clear that consensus is against retaining this as a standalone article. There is likely sufficient content at the redirect target, but the edit history here will be maintained behind the redirect for potential merging of information. Shereth 16:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twi'lek[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Delete: only Star Wars fans are familiar with the subject. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only opera fans are familiar with opera, only cricket fans are familiar with cricket. etc. Edward321 (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uh... fancruft? Lady Galaxy 22:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fancruft is not a valid reason for deletion. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of any notability from reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Star Wars races (P-T) Umbralcorax (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable due to significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject and as WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. Anything that gets any on topic Google news or especially Google books hits is notable by any reasonable standard. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conveniently, Wikipedia has a standard by which notability can be judged, the general notability guideline. All I see there are requirements for significant independent secondary coverage, which this article lacks utterly. Protonk (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely in-universe detail in the form of fictional background information and a character list which is only plot summary. No evidence this species is notable by having received substantial coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As indicated by the hits above, it has received substantial coverage from reliable sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources and redirect to List_of_Star_Wars_races_(P-T)#Twi.27lek. Do not merge any content, since entirety of article is uncited in-universe plot summary and trivia that wholly fails to offer any encyclopedic content. --EEMIV (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirectable articles do not require deletion discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd rather delete this unencyclopedic content just to help prevent people undoing the redirect to restore cruft -- as continues to happen at River Tam, Jayne Cobb, Planet Express, etc. It's also been my (and Judgesurreal's) experience that a redirected article often is un-redirected by zealous fans and article-owners, leading to AfD down the line to settle things. So, yes, Judgesurreal could have just redirected (as he has done many times before), but I don't begrudge him "skipping" to AfD. If the underlying point is whether to retain the article history...well, there's nothing of encyclopedic value in this article now, so might as well ditch it. --EEMIV (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This encyclopedic content should be kept, especially since WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. Even redirects should actually be discussed on the talk page first. Deletion is an extreme last resort when all else has been tried and failed. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I disagree that "it's cruft" is "never" a valid reason for deletion, especially when "it's cruft" is used as shorthand for "non-notable and lacks reliable sources" -- which I just did, with my "[it's] cruft" in my second note being a shorthand for "lack of reliable sources" in my first one. But this is a tangent better suited for a re-re-AfD of WP:CRUFT. And please don't summarize for me a "how-to" process for article (non-)deletion -- although I, too, often skip to AfD for pure cruft (used here as shortcut! don't get your gourds in a pie!), I'm no stranger to talk-page discussion and the like. But, perhaps I will heed your unnecessary input and maintain my ways by following the example you offered when you engaged in discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Fancruft before nominating that essay for deletion. --EEMIV (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am increasingly finding that use of cruft actually means that it is notable and has reliable sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, well, keep on processing things that way. I'll, uh, just be over there... --EEMIV (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Have fun! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Umbralcorax. Edward321 (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The subject seems slightly notable, as several famous characters (Bib Fortuna, Oola) are members of this race, and there are some Google News and Google Books hits. But it doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. It should be merged and redirected to this list, as suggested above. 96T (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, unorigninally researched fancruft. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per significant coverage in reliable sources such as Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Characters by Andy Mangels and Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons, and also multiple independently-written and independently-published fictional sources which involve the Twi'lek. DHowell (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, little or no notability outside the SW universe. More appropriate to a list or a specialist wiki such as Wookieepedia. Stifle (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 00:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luminara Unduli[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability of any kind. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to astonishing degree of notable coverage in multiple published books and news stories. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable as evidenced by the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is never a valid reaosn for deletion, especially due to the significant coverage in reliable sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced, non-notable, in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion, especially for topics covered in multiple published sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, look at all the insignificant, passing references...the lack of meaningful third-party coverage...and all the plot. This looks like a wealth of knowledge to justify inclusion...at Wookieepedia. --EEMIV (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Plus all the significant substantial references in third-party sources and out of universe information (such as this review of the action figure) justifies inclusion in Wikipedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You mean, of that list of hits, the one third-party text that just gives the character's name...oh, and that really interesting three-line excerpt where the name is actually part of a sentence? You gleaned significant coverage from that? --EEMIV (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I mean all the various sources, including those that review just her action figure in a critical manner. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Besides the all-important action figure review, which source that you've linked to do you think is a third-party reliable source offering "significant coverage" of this topic? --EEMIV (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The scores of others that turned up in the various searches as indicated. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Please provide a link to a specific third-party/secondary source that you think offers "significant coverage" of this topic. --EEMIV (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I have already provided one. If you type in her name with key words like "interview" and "review", you'll find others. For example, in this interview, an author is asked: "The Jedi Master Luminara Unduli is an unusual and entertaining character. How did you create her character -- were you given much guidance as to her?" And the author replies: "No guidance at all. Just a name and a couple of artist's renderings. I wanted to make her as different from the more familiar Jedi as I could without overstepping the bounds I alluded to in the previous question. It's unreasonable, for example, to expect a female Jedi to think exactly like a male Jedi...or an alien one...in every situation." Which is out of universe information from a reliable source. And complements the out of universe critical review of her action figure, i.e. yet another iteration of this character who has appeared in films, books, toys, etc. All of these sources add up. I would reckon you may also want to check relevant Star Wars magazines that don't necessarily have online archives. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character has appeared in two movies, two novels, two video games, and an animated series. Edward321 (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Coverage of the subject that exists is brief, tangential and shallow. It isn't the extreme example of "trivial" offered in the footnotes to WP:N but it isn't far off. I don't think that this article cites significant coverage in independent sources, failing WP:GNG. But as there are some citations and some out of universe coverage, there is hope for it. Protonk (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Update: Article has been referenced and expanded to include out of universe information. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per improvements. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the improved article now meets the standards for both notability and verifiability as well as covering the subject in an encyclopedic manner. - Dravecky (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - The article has now established a very small modicum of notability, and i believe we should adjourn this AFD and go for a merger to a character list, as the character has demonstrated enough notability for a paragraph of information in one of the star wars character lists. Great job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. John254 14:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Judge, but it has enough now for an article. The RW information would fit better there than a character list, which just briefly describes the character without the RW part. When there is sourced RW information, then, for those holding to the General notability criteria, the article is an unequivocal keep. DGG (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, unorigninally researched fancruft. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Yanushevsky[edit]

Contested PROD. Article fails WP:BIO. Secondary (that is, not primary) sources cannot be included to establish notability of a living person. None of the references are verifiable. MuZemike (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think a professional gamer is usually notable, especially when the article consists primarily of lists of trivia (see my list at WP:COD). Also, it contains future events and speculation. However, please note that academically speaking, news is not really a primary source, though it sometimes can be; a primary source would be a scoreboard or screenshots or something. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. WP:BIO (WP:ATHLETE) says:

Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.
Yanushevsky won two major international Quake competitions—QuakeCon and Electronic Sports World Cup, hence notable. Sources given in article are e-sports news or official competition websites. Why don't put a proper template in the place of missing/wrong reference, ((fact)) for example, instead of nominating article for deletion? Visor (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

((Primarysources)) and ((notability)) templates were placed on the article prior to the article being prodded (see diff). MuZemike (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, exactly in the place of sentence. What exactly source do you need to proof scores other than official competition website? Visor (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO stipulates: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. It further reads: Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
I consider all the references in the article primary sources because they are closest in relation to the person. I do not see any verifiable secondary sources, that is, sources outside these official sites that contain information about Cypher.
As far as templates are concerned, I always try to tag articles appropriately (i.e. ((notability)) or ((unreferenced))) and wait a few days before going the deletion route, which is strongly recommended per WP:AFD. With that said, if I thought there were places in the article that were missing references, I would place a ((refimprove)) tag on top and, if I am in a generous mood and have the time, place the appropriate inline tags. However, I thought the bigger problem was that it lacks secondary sources, which needs to be addressed before we address any missing citations/references. I hope that clears things up as far as tagging is concerned.
Finally, in regards to WP:ATHLETE, I'm not to argue whether or not the person falls under its description, as it likely does; nonetheless, it still must meet the basic notability standards set forth for articles about people. That's where I disagree as far as notability is concerned. MuZemike (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if I understand primary and secondary sources correctly, three of the six sources listed (I added another one) are secondary since they ^[1]^[2]^[3] depend on other sources (mainly websites) to report about the tournament results in question. Zerter (talk)

Strong keep (disclaimer: I started the article) Yanushevsky himself is definitely notable. As far as any problems with sourcing or possibly writing that in the eyes of some do not meet wikipedia standards, this does not seem reason enough for me to delete the article - improving it would serve the project better. I'm willing to help in this regard, when time permits me, if anyone can point out the irregularities.Zerter (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - not really an athlete, but a professional who is recognized to be among the best in his field. --T-rex 00:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfying WP:BIO for competing at the highest level of play. — brighterorange (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Talent Search[edit]

Non-notable program offered by a university. The only sources are linked with the university, and this AfD about a similar topic demonstrates that this sort of thing is generally not suitable for inclusion.

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons:

Reyk _YO! 20:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. This is an extremely local thing and doesn't even assert notability. This is the kind of information I would expect to find on the institution's website. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: who outside the university cares about the subject? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 22:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PC Muñoz[edit]

Does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (music). Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 20:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You are correct, unless there is some significant third-party coverage of this person we don't know about. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article is filled with non-reliable sources and subject is non-notable. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 22:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to List of CHERUB characters Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Reilly (character)[edit]

Co-nomination with:

All the suggested articles have multiple issues. The main issue seems to be copyright violations. They all, IMO, fail WP:N. Also, see the other tags on the articles. Further, most of the other characters from this series don't have articles and the OC (of connor) is a serial vandal. - My vote is Delete. John Sloan (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of CHERUB characters. They are basically plot summary. No objection to deletion if copyvio is proven. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all. They're not notable themselves, and this information was taken seemingly verbatim from pages on chiki.info which is a wiki on the subject. It might be a copyvio as I couldn't find any kind of license on that wiki. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of CHERUB characters. The individual characters don't merit their own separate article. Artene50 (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of CHERUB characters - not independently notable --T-rex 00:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nom. – iride scent 19:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotic Nigras[edit]

This has now been ((db-web)) deleted twice. Rather than keep playing whack-a-mole, bringing it over to either get a consensus that it's notable enough to warrant keeping, or get a consensus that it's deletable so it can be G4'd next time it appears. Personally, I see no reason why an group of players within an online game is notable, sourced or not, but am perfectly willing to be convinced. – iride scent 20:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They have had two articles in the New Scientist and one in The Telegraph, as well as many other less reliable sources, so they do meet the primary notability criteria. I know an in-game group does not seem like it would be notable but people are obviously interested in them. - Icewedge (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this, how does crashing the SL servers (see this Wired article[18]) count for notability? - Icewedge (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They sound like a reprehensible group of racist internet bullies/cowards, so if I could oppose on IDONTLIKEIT grounds, I would. However, there is coverage in multiple reliable sources, so I am inclined to support. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 23:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you know you spend too much time at RfA when you vote "support" in AfD for something called "Patriotic Nigras"! Make that "keep". Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 23:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:RS and thus WP:N. The article is pretty well written for a group of idiots, which is essentially what they are. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 23:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I (the article creator) would just like to assert that I am not a member of the Patriotic Nigras. - Icewedge (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep check 4chan and ED articles for sources (See the Julian Dibbell talk cited on the ED article, he talks about PN). Meets the WP:GNG marginally. Protonk (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Per just about everyone above. No problems. Asenine 19:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:COMMONSENSE. Product easily meets the notability guideline. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Babybel[edit]

Non notable, blatant advertising, sources aren't that good. WhoopRoot (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although poorly written, the company does seem to have enough notability. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 20:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and obvious keep this product is very well known, at least in the UK, where I am. Why not actully check how notable in WP:RS a thing is before nominating it, rather than going on whether you've personally heard of it? [19] Sticky Parkin 21:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Hawaii[edit]

Notability in question since May '07, fails WP:RS as well. Wizardman 14:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Legislation and government programs are almost trivially notable: it should be relatively easy to find reliable sources and third party commentary about most of them. The issues here seem to be mostly stylistic and in the title; this is about a specific program of the state of Hawaii and efforts to change it. It is referenced to eliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perfectly good legal stub. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus; (default keep all). Although relisted three times, the discussion has gone stale without any consensus. The deletion policy requires a keep outcome in such a case. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aivars (name)[edit]

co-nominating the following pages;

Delete nn given names, no evidence that the names are borne by anybody notable (these are a series of nn stubs created at the same time, one already deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laimnesis (name)) Mayalld (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, just like the previous one. ww2censor (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Aivars (name) - Articles beginning with Aivars. Notable: Aivars Endziņš, Aivars Lembergs.

keep Dzintars (name) - Articles beginning with Dzintars. Notable: Dzintars Zirnis.

keep Gatis (name) - Articles beginning with Gatis. Notable: Gatis Gūts

keep Imants (name) - Articles beginning with Imants. Notable: Imants Kalniņš, Imants Bleidelis, Imants Sudmalis.

keep Indulis (name) - Articles beginning with Indulis. Notable: Indulis Emsis.

keep Laimonis (name) - Articles beginning with Laimonis. Notable: Laimonis Laizāns

keep Miervaldis (Name) - Articles beginning with Miervaldis. Notable: Miervaldis Jursevskis.

keep Modris (name) - Articles beginning with Modris. Notable: Modris Eksteins.

delete Sīmanis (name) - Articles beginning with Sīmanis

keep Uldis (name) - Articles beginning with Uldis. Notable: Uldis Bērziņš, Uldis Sesks.

Above evidence shows that most of the names are born by people having an article on Wikipedia. Some of the people are notable, some are not. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 17:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

move Create the article List of Latvian given names and move all the names to it. Denis Tarasov (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

move - Agree with Denis tarasov. The page should be created and those names placed into it. 78.146.213.30 (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't watching the other articles, Imants is also the name of a famous Latvian chieftain. Before we decide on keep and move, I've noticed there are separate articles on other names, does that mean these are not considered "notable" enough? If it's a notability issue, the proper procedure would be to tag the articles as such, no? (And can people please log in when offering opinions on what to do with articles?) —PētersV (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Especially when [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.146.213.30 they seem to spend most of their time thinking about what articles to delete.) —PētersV (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - There is little information an article on any name can give - the origin and meaning of the name and a list of people who bear that name - such articles are doomed to be stubs and mostly serve as disambiguation pages. Names are significant and tehnicaly meet notability guidelines - they are well known, they have been subjects of published works, for example, Aivars is name of more than 13 000 men living in Latvia, it has a name day and is described in at least one book (according to population register's database [20]). Whether we have many articles on people named Aivars or not is not important as it is not subject of the article - it is just as relevant as asseing notability of Cat by counting how many articles on famous cats we have would be. Now if other pages on names in Wikipedia are left to hapily exist as disambiguation pages I see no reason why these couldn't, as for Sīmanis - it is Latvian variation of Simon could be merged into that article as a variation or redirected there. As for moving to seperate list - there was a list of Latvian women names, which as far as I remember was moved to Wiktionary along with other similar lists ~~Xil (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 11:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence the names are notable. Having someone with the name doesn't mean the name is noable. Wikipedia is not a name guide and the existence of other name articles is not a reason for these to continue to exist. Note I'd say the same for a lot of English names, they don't end up at AfD as often. I don't think List of Latvian given names is a solution because how would it be defined. Could any Latvian word be a name? Couldn't any name be used by a Latvian? TravellingCari 04:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Latvian names in question above, except Sīmanis (Simon), are unique to Latvian culture, language and dates back to times prior to christianisation of the Baltic tribes. To answer your questions: 1. No, not any Latvian word can be a name. The names has roots going seven to eight hundred years back, something similar to the names from the Norse mythology. 2. Any name can be used by a Latvian, but that is not the point. The point is these names are tied to Latvian culture and language through history and mythology. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 13:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all One or two notable names doesn't mean the name should get its own article. That's like saying every music group signed to a record deal should have their own article evne if they've never released anything or recorded anything.MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 06:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The names are listed for deletion due to the following reason: "nn given names, no evidence that the names are borne by anybody notable" I provided the evidence and still you think the articles should be deleted? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 13:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, these names have no place in Wikipedia and it's irrelevant whether someone notable bears the names. Punkmorten (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it is irrelevant whether someone notable bears the name, then it is irrelevant to list the articles for deletion since that is the reason for listing the articles for deletion. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 13:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there was a recent AD delete for a similar list of Indian names. no reason why this should survive — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiragPatnaik (talk • contribs)
Keep all. Part of the greater scheme of Category:Given names that are all inherently notable by the very fact that they are manifest and widespread. There seems be some confusion with editors at this afd whether there is someone notable with these names or not. The claim to notability had nothing to do with notable people having that first name. Otherwise, there would be grounds to make an article about not only the notable persons first name, but also the pair of pants that he wears. Rather, all widely used first names are considered notable, where there are articles about people with that first name and whether there aren't. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*D elete all per nom. ww2censor (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Duplicate !vote strikethrough by Jerry[reply]

Keep all (except perhaps Sīmanis, which can redirect to Simon). Articles on given names are extremely well established as a type and these fall squarely within the established pattern. Latvian names are no less article-worthy than anyone else's. Whether or not the names are used by anyone notable, is totally irrelevant, but it's been demonstrated up above that in fact they are, which puts paid to the nomination as stated. And no-one has come up with any other reason why these articles should be deleted. HeartofaDog (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, aside from Imants all the article says is "... is a masculine given name." So they make no claim of notability. No sources are provided. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added source and refs to Dzintars, Gatis, Indulis, Laimonis and Modris, plus an assertion of notability (I would need longer for the others). Bearing in mind (1) that these are stubs and by definition require further expansion and (2) that as User:Xil has already pointed out, there is not that much to be done anyway with a name article, might these now make it over the bar? HeartofaDog (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've done the others too, except for Simanis (as above). ~~But as 7 out of the remaining 9 are DAB pages in any case, which don't need either notability or sourcing, this was a pretty time-wasting and trigger-happy nomination~~. HeartofaDog (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep, changed my opinion, the source provided, "Siliņš, Klāvs, 1990: Latviešu personvārdu vārdnīca. Rīga: Zinātne", suggests that the topic is the subject of scholarly attention. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yippee. However, I've taken the opportunity to re-read WP:DAB - which of course I shd have done before tackling this lot - and have re-tagged them correctly (I hope). If kept they all need to be renamed as follows:

Aivars (name) to Aivars; Dzintars (name) to Dzintars; Gatis (name) to Gatis; Imants (name) to Imants;Indulis (name) to Indulis; Laimonis (name) to Laimonis; Miervaldis (Name) to Miervaldis; Modris (name) to Modris; Uldis (name) to Uldis

HeartofaDog (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~K eep~~ Duplicate !vote strikethrough by Jerry - These were useless oneliners when nominated, but now have some content, sources and an assertion of notability - which is a lot more than the majority of existing Given Name articles have. They are still stubs, ie, they are still very short articles with room for development: the remedy for that is additional work, not deletion. HeartofaDog (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To whichever administrator decides to close this, please DO NOT relist it again. No reason to. Thanks, Wizardman 17:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 16:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Based Engineering[edit]

Non notable neologim, and probably a hoax. A quick Google trawl throws up a few blogs using it, but nowhere notable/reliable Ged UK (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources or reliable references unfortunately. Artene50 (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant misinformation. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 22:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, but a hefty WP:TROUT for Alexius08 for tagging this ((db-g3)). In what possibly way does "unreferenced" equate to "blatant vandalism"? – iride scent 23:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Unreferenced nonsense, and likely a total hoax. Edison (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete But what a good laugh to read, though. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You do all realise this pretty much describes the way Wikipedia runs? Maybe we should redirect it to ANI – iride scent 17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've already made a short cut to its author's contributions page on my desktop. Can't wait until the next article comes along. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Real faith is arguably how everything runs. Even reason itself was originally defined as a demi-god by the greeks, something along the lines of a holy spirit that mediates between man and divinity. So the Greeks invented and originally defined reason as a faith-based system. Guess one could blame them as much as anyone. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable source, though this unreliable one is funny. Remind me never to fly on a plane designed by FBE. JohnCD (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 16:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gran Loggia Madre C.A.M.E.A.[edit]

Declined speedy, but there's no assertion of notability, and it doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." There's no siginificant coverage of any kind, and the only information is on their own webpage, which is not objective (and appears to be unreliable in that it isn't written clearly in English). However, it seems to indicate it is a small splinter group [21]; Scottish Rite has existed in Italy since 1805, but CAMEA dates to 1958. With no indication of numbers or Grand Lodge affiliation, and no objective evidence, it is not notable. MSJapan (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With no independant secondary sources, the article does not meet the critera for notability set out in WP:ORG#Non-commercial organizations. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Street[edit]

No sources, nothing with in the article to say why it's important and notible since all it states is that it's a street named after Summer and that it forms part of an Highway. Bidgee (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:V. Article is full of original research. It is claimed to be a road which goes through a city. Might also nominate the other 3 "seasonal" streets in the city. Edison (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article of a kind that could be written about any street in Australia. The article does not attempt to establish that there is anything notable about this street. No references, no citations - all unsourced material. Dolphin51 (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mitchell Highway. Summer Street appears to be the name of a portion of this main road. The Mitchell Highway article needs more content anyway. There is no need for outright deletion as the redirect would be useful to have. --Polaron | Talk 02:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless to merge and redirct an article that has no sources and a street that most likely is widely used world wide. Bidgee (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do those streets have articles? If so, a disambiguation page should be made then. Outright deletion is still not the most appropriate course of action. --Polaron | Talk 02:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not but someone who comes in searchs for Summer Street but isn't after the Summer Street thats on the Mitchell Highway (IE: Should be deleted and only used if there is other articles that are only about Summer Street, Location). Outright deletion is appropriate for something that has no sources and the only content that would stay if merged would just be the two images. Articles such as Sturt Highway and Olympic Highway don't use what streets that form the highways since it's not Encyclopedic. Bidgee (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article does nothing to assert or prove notability. Based on some research, this does appear to be a historic routing and as such I've made a referenced note about this in the Mitchell Highway article. - Dravecky (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 16:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Placement papers[edit]

Fails WP:N, does not seem to be any more than a recruiting tool, with no citations. Zeppomedio (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete little more than a dictionary definition, no sources, not notable. JohnCD (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Kinda Girl[edit]

Completely unsourced, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Asenine 18:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC#Songs, too. JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced. Crystal balling? Lady Galaxy 23:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unity and Integrity[edit]

Yet another unsourced "forthcoming album" article based only on rumour. Not due for release until next year. Sources listed are only the singer's own sites, and I don't find this album mentioned even there. Google finds nothing relevant except this article. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:CRYSTAL. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why bother if there's nothing to actually say about the album? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC. Aspects (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS; no reliable sources provided, none found. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: fails WP:MUSIC and thus WP:CRYSTAL. Cliff smith ^talk 03:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pervasive Arcane Substance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I still believe that after the rewriting, it still fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). A Google search reveals one (1) mention outside of Wikipedia, on an online forum. The article itself says the book is self-published, and I still can't find it in the Library of Congress, British Library, or National Library of Australia catalogs. It meets none of the inclusion criteria or exclusionary criteria. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 18:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is kind of promotional anyway. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. As per nom, only google hits outside wikipedia on online forum, no hits on library of congress, British Library, or National Library of Australia. In addition, no hits on World cat ([22]), amazon.co.uk or amazon.com. No hits on Google news, a google blog search, or google groups search. A search on yahoo get the same forum hits, a dogpile search gets only get wikipedia, the forum hits, and irrelevant hits, while an exact quote search gets nothing on Ask Jeeves. If this exists at all, it is extremely non-notable. The forum posts make it unclear if this (if it exists as a book), has been released yet. Silverfish (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was not aware that only notable authors were allowed to take up space, sorry guys. Nousoul
Delete It can exist before publication, certainly. But how can it be NOTABLE? Wikipedia is not for listing every book ever, nor is it for gaining notability (i.e. promoting an otherwise unnotable book.) It is for listing books that already have notability, as attested and verified in significant secondary sources. I do hope your book becomes notable, and thus worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. :) Until then, your willingness to have it deleted is commendable. Good luck to you! 98.215.48.213 (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree author's acceptance of this is commendable; but to avoid disappointment he should read Notability (books) and realise that just being published won't qualify his book for an article. JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Could find no reliable sources, fails WP:BK. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Several opinions from either side were discounted for addressing only irrelevant issues or being a pure vote. Sandstein 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rijeka terror attack[edit]

This incident did hit the news, cf links on the talk page. But does this mean we should have an article on it? I think no - per WP:NOT#NEWS, mere news reports don't belong into the encyclopedia. I'm sending it to here (from PROD) since deletion seems to be controversial per this comment on my talk page. B. Wolterding (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. Article is writen with my poor english but "incident" is important because it is clear evidence about connections of mujahideens during War in Bosnia and Herzegovina and al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya. I have asked user:DIREKTOR with better knowledge of english language and his knowledge about Balkan wars to enter this discussion.--Rjecina (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less notable terrorist attacks were included on Wiki, I'd say Keep. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't explain why this one is notable. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but this was a "genuine" car-bombing of a police headquarters by islamist terrorists. Huge casualties were avoided only by freak chance. Also, I do not see why precedents of lesser notability should be ignored. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There are plenty of sources here, they just aren't listed in the footnotes. WP:BIAS also plays a role here, since attacks in small US cities have taken place and are duly noted, but an attack that took place in the third largest city in an European country doesn't generate as many English language sources and as many intersted editors on the English Wikipedia. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:You are from same contruy like Rjecina and can not be taken as unbiased. Your country did massacre in Ahmici and destroyed old bridge of Mostar. The city is not third Osjek Zagreb and Split are far larger in your contry,l which is not EU country but Balkan country with unreliable local news. We can not trust write every article about trafic acident in some country, there are far more noteable events in Muslim world that are not for article not every news by every unreliable speculative newspaper is for article. HallalBosne (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC) This is writen by banned user:PaxEquilibrium (see block log). His 50 puppets are telling enough about his honesty,[reply]

The bias I was talking about is the lack of English-language sources for Croatia and Bosnia events, not conflict of interest, from which you accuse me to suffer in the context of the article we are discussing. Now, I don't see what conflict could I have as a Croat against Bosniaks, since the article doesn't accuse Bosniaks of anything. It simply presents information about an attack committed by Egyptian Muslim terrorists. The connection to Yugoslav wars is very much borderline here. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Needs a rewrite, but this is notable. Suggest closure. Asenine 19:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —— Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the author he wrote this "because it is clear evidence about connections of mujahideens during War in Bosnia and Herzegovina and al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya." Wikipedia is not place for speculation or any kind of political promotion, for instance you can write article about mujahideen in Zagreb and Split (the place of their gathering) and their Croatian passports as a "clear evidence about connections between Croatia and Mujahideen" before they came in Bosnia. It is well known that Bosnian government didn't control its borders with Croatia. Why Croatia let them enter in Bosnia? Historičar (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article needs a rewrite, but this is a question of notability of the attack itself. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and rewrite~~, although I'm also suspicious of the motives of the author. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - I'm withdrawing my vote because I'm unsure about the notability guidelines for this type of event. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My only reason for writing is that I am from Rijeka. Comments about Bosnian War are only given like argument so that article can survive deletion discussion :)--Rjecina (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into Rijeka or Croatian War of Independence. That there are other articles on other terrorist attacks is irrelevant. To various comments above, I'd reply that we must bear in mind that WP:AADD and especially WP:OSE apply. BTW, it is also irrelevant that the article is badly written. That can be cleaned up if consensus is to keep. The question here is whether this incident is sufficiently notable to be worthy of an article on its own. In my view it is not. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Atempt to blame Bosniaks everything. Rjecina is from Croeshia, a country that made agression on sovereign BiH and is not objective user but edit warrior. This is a POV attack page with no basis in truth. Unreliable news story is not note worth, and link to Bosniaks not proven HallalBosne (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC), Vote of banned user:PaxEquilibrium is deleted. --Rjecina (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an attack page, but a page about a terrorist incident. Your dislike Croatia because of taking sides in the war is no reason at all to delete a page about an unrelated incident. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 11:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is about a terrorist attack commited by an Egyptian organization. It is in no way connected to either the events in the Croatian War of Independence, or the Bosnian war. Anyone daring to comment here, please do not have your opinion shaken due to regional hatred leftovers from the wars. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 11:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or more specifically, it is related to the Yugoslav wars, but is not an attempt to implicate the Bosnian Muslims. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (or delete) content into Rijeka. Lack of WP:RS. Kruško Mortale (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not many sources listed is no excuse to delete an article that passes WP:N. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. User has declared that New York Times, CNN, Reuters are not reliable sources :)--Rjecina (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but possible rename to remove "terror" from the title (see WP:AVOID). While this article is not about an event of international significance , it is about an instance of international terrorism (an Egyptian group carrying out an attack in Croatia) and has significance in the context of Croatia. Merging into Rijeka (or elsewhere) may be a valid option, but it would be best discussed outside of AfD. Reliable sources covering the subject do exist ([23][24]); that they haven't yet been adequately incorporated into the article is no reason to delete the page. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the "terror" part either, as it isn't gramatically correct. See the article talk page for move suggestions. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 09:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not about 70 kg of TNT used in the rockmine (and even that is too much for a mine to be used at once), but in the very center of the 3rd largest city in Croatia. How many such attacks ever happened in CE Europe and in that part of Mediterranean? Rijeka must thank to Our Lady of Trsat for having not a single dead person from this. Kubura (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the terrorist died. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 09:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plus find and add some photos--TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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; WP:HOAX. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When It Was Me (Jamahl Seden song)[edit]

A song which apparently reached number one on both the hot 100 and the rhythmic top 40 even though allmusic guide doesn't even acknowledge that the artist existes and doesn't even mention the song which supposedly had this success. Also, the article claims the song was written by Ciara yet her repertoire according to BMI doesn't feature this song. Based on the content being unverifiable to any reliable sources, I'm sensing a hoax here. AngelOfSadness talk 18:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - hoax; singer doesn't exist. Macspaunday (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear hoax. I know I'm going to get trouted by Iridescent if I say G3 as a hoax, but hell, it is a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious and vanity. JuJube (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. Maxa megalon 2000 18:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - G3 should be added, but I am with TenPound. We are so trouted. Asenine 19:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Hoax song by hoax artist. Aspects (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing verifiable. Townlake (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in one form or another, but no consensus about whether this should remain a standalone article and/or be merged and/or renamed. That, however, can be resolved through the editorial process. Sandstein 16:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Olympics attack on American nationals[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a second nomination. The first was withdrawn by the nominator. I am resubmitting it. This is a tragic, but not especially notable event. It's unfortunate that this type of thing happens all the time. There is no indication that this has any historical significance. Elliskev 16:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment I realize where the discussion was going, and I understand the reasoning behind the withdrawal. However, I think that this requires more discussion. The open-close window was too narrow to garner enough input. --Elliskev 17:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it passes WP:V and is thus notable.--WhoopRoot (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't verifiability and notability two separate criteria? --Elliskev 17:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. To be notable it ought to pass WP:N. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the guideline WP:NOTE – "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage." --Elliskev 17:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge into "Concerns" article - and redirect from "Todd Bachman", etc. - The nominator does not likely have a crystal ball, and thus is no position to know whether it's notable or not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. :). I've never seen the crystal ball argument turned around like that. --Elliskev 17:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nei, more like the article itself is crystal balling. .:davumaya:. 17:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is asserting it's not notable, without giving a reason for that assertion, whereas various reasons have been given why it is notable. It's a bad-faith, deletionist nomination, especially as a previous attempt was just ~~defeated~~ withdrawn hours before this one was posted, as the notability questions had been met, in his opinion. ~~which, as I understand it, is against the rules.~~ Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith? Thanks for that assumption. --Elliskev 22:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your letting me know about the nomination, so I might be overstating things. But to post it for deletion again, after the previous nominator withdrew it, and for the same issues that the original nominator concluded were settled, is disruptive behavior. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier debate was deeply flawed. It started as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Bachman and was summarily altered to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Olympics attack on American nationals midway through the debate, then was withdrawn by one editor (granted, the nominator) when there was a variety of opinions around keep/merge/delete. This debate was always going to happen because the first attempt was problematic. WWGB (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm rather concerned over the debate of the previous AfD. One particular comment went the press is going wild with this one as a justification for keep. And since AfD is not a vote ~~I wonder on what grounds the admin closed the previous AfD~~(was withdrawn by contributor, thus we never heard judgement by an admin). Anyway back to policy. WP:N#OBJ Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage. Isn't this why we have Wikinews? Perhaps editors do not even know Wikinews exists and may be blurring the idea that news is for Wikinews and Wikipedia is for knowledge. .:davumaya:. 17:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I reposted this from the talk page I'm sure they meant to say it here) .:davumaya:. 18:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Another thing, there is so much wrong with the logic of even considering deleting or merging this article. 1. This is an ongoing event. 2. The people suggesting amending this page should be better occupied with more worthy matters, SORRY. 3. You are almost all misguided... Wikipedia is not supposed to be this bureaucratic. Lastly, this topic deserves a separate page from the side-issues regarding Olympic matters, international conflicts or sporting events. Back to our regularly scheduled program and please stop over-thinking things and doing too much. Bye. Crashingthewaves (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll need to hear a Q&A interpretation of that comment from the OP. I don't think I follow it. --Elliskev 18:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge and Redirect - First I would like to thank Elliskev for letting me know of this discussion. However, I think it is strange that after its first nom, 24 hours ago it is being resubmitted for AfD. Can we not wait a few days? --mboverload @ 18:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern. I resubmitted with similar reasoning. There was less that 24 hours of discussion the first go-round. I think that there is value hearing from more people on this. --Elliskev 18:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I'm just going to cut and paste my reasoning from the last AFD (and thanks to Elliskev for letting me know about it). My logic really hasn't changed since then. "As murders go, this one is pretty notable. The press is already going wild with this one, and no doubt will continue to do so. The title of it does seem a bit unwieldy though, perhaps a name change?" Umbralcorax (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to 2008 Summer Olympics. There doesn't seem to be enough content to justify it's own article, and it would fit well in a "controversy" section of some kind. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Happens all the time"? Does that mean murders happen all the time? That's true, but: China is suddenly a major center of worldwide attention because of the Olympic Games; these people were not only there to attend the Games but were the family of a former Olympic athlete and an Olympic coach, and the event is getting worldwide publicity precisely because of that confluence of circumstances. The murder victim, Todd Bachman, also has some claim to notability in his own right, even if this event had never happened. As I've said elsewhere, I never give any thought to gardening, buying flowers, etc., so I am remote from their market, but nonetheless I know what their logo and their distinctive trucks look like. Ergo, they are known. There's a reason why USA Today called the murder victim "a noted horticulturalist". Michael Hardy (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and ~~suggest close~~ - Article establishes notability. Asenine 19:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Clearly a Wikinews item, and definitely belonging there. Just as clearly, does not belong in Wikipedia at this time as its' own article. Elliskev summarized it effectively. Will it belong in Wikipedia evetually? Perhaps... consider, for example, Munich Massacre. But I rather doubt it - my spider sense suggests this will fall into obscurity in less than one year. Hence, not notable. 98.215.48.213 (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. Most of the stuff in this article is covered in the Concerns article besides. D.M.N. (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be fair, if nothing new develops on this currently-separated story. It certainly falls into the discussion of the supposedly tight security around the Olympics. Not that that's notable or anything. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This passes notability guidelines, but so do lots of news-of-the-week items. There isn't enough worth saying about the topic to merit a separate article. Merge all relevant content somewhere appropriate (take this to mean that you should consider me part of a consensus for basically any reasonable merge target), such as Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. We can always spin it back off into its own article if it somehow needs to be. Croctotheface (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's my main concern about this article, that at the moment, there is no news beyond what's already or mostly covered in that "Concerns" article. Notability is unquestionable. The need for a separate article, at this time, is debatable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Stabbings happen all of the time. The person who attacked them was mentally ill, so it was not politically motivated. These people weren't notable before they got stabbed. No one will remember this in a few weeks. --Tocino 20:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - I'm sure the many employees of Bachman's [25] as well as the countless citizens of the Twin Cities who patronize Bachman's will appreciate being classed as "no one". There is a silver lining, though - they'll be able to get funeral bouquets at cost. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Since it is asserted above that Todd Bachman was notable independent of this event, do you have any counterarguments rather than just an assertion? Why did USA today call him "a noted horticulturalist"? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The last I read (correct me if my news is out of date), there was no known motive, so you have no basis for that statement. In any case, mental illness and political motivation are not mutually exclusive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Todd Bachmann's notability is that he was stabbed at the 2008 Olympics in a "controversial" country. There are dozens of CEOs out there who have founded their own companies, CEOs are fired and hired often, and we don't devote a whole series of articles to say Cargill's CEOs. Bachmann's own notability is weak in the context of the Olympics. Is it because he is the father of a daughter who isn't competing but happens to be the wife of the U.S. volleyball team coach? Perhaps its because we have termed the article as an "attack" instead of a more descriptive stabbing or in legal terms an assault. Attack connotes intention thus falsely motivating notability for this article. .:davumaya:. 21:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What do you mean by "attack connotes intention"? Are you saying this man did not intend to stab these people? Or are you saying that the word "attack" implies there was premeditation? If it is the first case, he had some pretty bad aim (and bad luck) if he was just trying to chop up some chicken for dinner. If it is the second case, "attack" means there was an attack! That is why we have wonderful adjectives like "premeditated" in order to discern between "premeditated" attacks and "impulsive, spur-of-the-moment, dancing in the rain, breeze blowin' on my naked balls" attacks. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notability is a splint in the eyes of the beholder. I've never heard about it (in Germany), maybe it is notable only in the U.S.? But nevertheless I say Merge it into something more bigger, maybe for all nations, crimes, non sports negative events ...? Thank you Sebastian scha. (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is more notable than a typical murder suicide, because the victims were foreigners, and supposedly attacks on foreigners are rare in China, therefore this is not common, the attack was covered widely in the media, and there is an abundance of sources. Also contrary to what some have suggested, there is no verifiable proof the perpetrator was suffering from any mental health issues Thisglad (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A host of notable, reliable sources have covered this substantially enough to write at least a short, verifiable article. Whether this "happens all the time" or not, an awful lot of professional journalists seem to think this is notable. "I don't like it" is not an acceptable rationale for deletion. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about why you would oppose merging. There's lots of content here that meets WP:N guidelines but is covered under the auspices of a single article. Why is this information better presented as a separate article than merged into something else? Croctotheface (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging this into the "concerns" article would not be appropriate in my opinion. The article being discussed here doesn't cover "concerns," but rather past events. However, as I said in the first AfD, "If someone devises a better article title to cover this and other events like it, great." DickClarkMises (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The information itself is, in my opinion, notable. However, it is notable because it is part of the larger picture of the Olympics and not so much on its own. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 20:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. This information isn't particularly notable as-is, and would be much better if integrated into a general article about security issues during the games. It is certainly far too much details for the main 2008 Summer Olympics article: the "concerns" article was split from the main article to allow us to go into these issues in more detail. Bluap (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, at least until a later date. Similar attacks such as the Akihabara massacre have individual articles, and this attack is not something that can be wholly attached to "Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics". An article about the Olympics does not seem to be an appropriate place to describe a perpetrator, motives, modus operandi, investigation, or consequences of an attack; rather a place to shortly discuss the event with a ((main)) tag. Notability is plausible based on the nature of the attack, implicit relevance to and influence on the Olympics, as well as international and U.S. presidential recognition. As a side note, the name of the article would possibly be more appropriate if renamed in a manner that does not overlook the Chinese tour guide. — C M B J 22:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: The attack has now been additionally recognized by Hu Jintao. — C M B J 04:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but for heaven's sake rename it - it's a notable event because of who was involved, the timing of the attack, and the fact that Beijing is being widely reported in Olympics coverage as a relatively safe community, thus suggesting that this kind of thing does not, in fact, happen all the time. The naming of the article is sensationalist and, to be frank, bloody awful. On first seeing it I began to wonder if American nationals across the board were being targeted either at or because of the 2008 Summer Olympics. But lo, it's two individuals (and their Chinese tour guide). Find a new name. But still keep it. -- role^player 23:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Like you said one of the primary reasons -- and IMO, only reason -- that this is notable is that it took place during and directly related to the 2008 Olympic games. Then why is it innapropriate to merge it with Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics? Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although we know that if it hadn't been for the Olympics these particular people wouldn't have been where they were we don't know at this stage that it definitely is because of the Olympics that this has happened. It has other notability factors, as I pointed out above. Besides I'm with CMBJ here - over time a lot more about the incident can fill out the article. It's new, and if it hasn't changed after six months I'd be happy to nominate it to be merged somewhere. -- role^player 00:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge or rename. How's that for options? I prefer the delete option, as I believe that beyond a few days this particular incident will have no long term notability, as per Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. I dislike the current title for two reasons: the fixation on "American" when a Chinese was also stabbed, and the reference to Olympics - that's what caused them to be there, not the reason for the stabbing (unlike say Munich massacre). Perhaps consider renaming the article Murder of Todd Bachman as has been done with many similar deaths. Merging with Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics would be OK; the article is a rather generic catch-all, but still much better than the current title. WWGB (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics as I already had voted in the first nomination. --Philip Laurence (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge- For fucks sake, will wiki bow to chinese nationalism, will wiki change articles just to sooth over racist chinese citizens. I hope fucking not. Midousan (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with "Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics." --Ixfd64 (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems indecent to merge this with concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. If you're worried about adjusting the water termperature in the swimming pool, that's a "concern over the 2008 Summer Olympics]]". It trivializes a murder to lump it into that. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elisabeth Bachman or Hugh McCutcheon, unless this event get brought up over and over again in the coming week, it won't be notable a year from now. --Voidvector (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Should the article stay, I'll have a good laugh in a month when it becomes absolutely ignored. This reminds me of June 2008 Midwest floods which to this date still says several states are flooded. .:davumaya:. 07:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, many articles face the same neglect. However, when all factors are taken into consideration, this does not always relate to notability. Some of the articles are necessary content forks, and will likely be the focus of related WikiProjects in the distant future. — C M B J 08:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename in a maner that reflects that one victim was Chinese. The murder is notable because of the timing and the fact that Todd Bachman's daughter is a former olympian and his son-in-law is a current olympic coach. He was also the CEO of a moderatly large corporation. Bachman's floral has 29 retail stores, employs 1,100 to 1,600 and in 2005 Bachmans did $81 million in business. (found in an AP report - [26]. Although a few comments have stated that CEOs come and go, Bachman's is a family run business, and Todd Bachman likely would have remained CEO for some time, unlike one users example of CEOs of Cargil. There are also plenty of reliable sources about the attack, Elizabeth Bachman, and Bachman's Floral. I do not support merging to Concerns of the 2008 Summer Olympics per concerns brought up in previous comments. -JWGreen (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to 2008 Summer Olympics related crime and repurpose for a greater use. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oddly, as much as I favor the merge into Concerns... I would also support a renaming that converts the article into a larger scope as above. .:davumaya:. 07:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename 2008 Olympics attack on tourists, as the current title suggests there was a wide-scale attack on American nationals at the 2008 Olympics, rather than an isolated attack. The conclusion reached at the deletion debate for the murder of Tim McLean (aka the "Greyhound passenger beheading incident") is that certain homicides are notable even when the victim or the killer is not. Also, the article should be expanded (by the Heymann standard). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just one problem, the Chinese tour guide (also attacked) was not a tourist. I have reverted your bold (but premature) move. WWGB (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while sad for the families, it is news, therefore verifiable, but not notable. Attacks on tourists visiting foreign cities happen from time to time. In this case they were visiting an ancient Drum Tower, not an Olympic venue, so the title "Olympics attack" is somewhat misleading. If Chinese tourists were attacked during a visit to California so that they could visit Disneyland, would there be an article about 2008 Disneyland attack on Chinese nationals? However, this incident and security and law enforcement concerns in general could have a place in Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 10:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But their visit to Disneyland would not be part of a world-wide media event, the way the Olympic Games are. This murder got attention throughout the world because of that circumstance. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe the argument being made there and somewhere else in this list is would the event be notable on its own without the Olympics? Most likely no by WP policy. However the event being related to but not located in or near the Olympics create a false WP:Synthesis? As in, this crime is notable because it is related to the Olympics therefore notability is established. See WP:Synthesis#Synthesis of published material which advances a position. As such we also get into the problem of what to specifically name this article. .:davumaya:. 17:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's being covered by the media as an Olympics news story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. The event is notable because of the world-wide media attention, the Olympics, and the connections to the volleyball team. If the victims were only tourists attending the Olympics, the argument would be less compelling, but the event had a material effect on the volleyball competition (the coach wasn't present at one of the games, at least).--Appraiser (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As if there was any doubt of what I said in the past. I want to bring up a few points. I am decidedly not in favor of "heavyhanded" approaches to journalism; what happened to being semi-professional, Wikipedians? This is exactly why some people dispute the importance of this website. It is supposed to be a true representation of facts, not conjectures. Besides Appraiser makes a good point: the coach is still not present at Team USA's games. Another coach is filling in for him.

The arguments on this page are often stupefying in their idiocy. Why are we disputing the impact of this matter? The notability question has long been settled: Todd Bachman was quite known. Bachman's Inc. is a company of substantial size. I submit that the people who want this article removed do not know what the word newsworthy means. It isn't like there haven't been incidents at other Olympics, there have. It is irrelevant whether or not the crime was premeditated, abetted by terrorists. The facts are plain. There are two connections to Olympic participants. End of story, move on to some other topic. Crashingthewaves (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is Wikinews material. The event is not notable by its own, did not have any consequences on Chinese security policies or the normal course of the Olympics or the behavior of tourists and athletes. Eklipse (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't? Wow, is it August 25th already? How time flies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NEWSFLASH No longer on CNN.com front page. Oops. No additional security measures taken [27]. Oops. Games go on after 'random act of violence' Tourists seem to accept officials' claim that attack was isolated incident [28] Oops. Well the media sure is going wild over this. ::blatant eye roll:: .:davumaya:. 22:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NEWFLASH Olympic Games end early, defering to wikipedia editors assumptions about what will happen in the next 2 weeks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're talking about the possibility of new developments in the future, which is an obvious contradiction of WP:CRYSTAL. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat weak keep, renaming to 2008 Olympics attack on tourists. Well resourced, verifiable, notable article. There's significant coverage in independent sources. Consider WP:N/CA. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 00:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. However, WP:N/CA is a proposed guideline. --Elliskev 01:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it isn't one, just that the guideline exists. I simply think that it's notable enough for coverage, and that it couldn't all fit under the headline of "concerns". Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 02:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I understand. --Elliskev 02:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming to 2008 Olympics attack on tourists completely overlooks the fact that one of those attacked was a tour guide, not a tourist. WWGB (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What else could it be named? I don't have any other ideas. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stabbing of people by a man in Beijing. I don't see how this could be remotely notable. The only thing that makes it stand out from all the other crimes that were committed in Beijing on that day was that some of the victims were American. Unless this has provoked a diplomatic incident or suchlike (and it didn't), there is no difference between it and all the other assaults or homicides that happen everywhere, every day. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has significant media coverage. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most incidents are not international incidents that lead do media discussions of security at the Olympics and whether the Chinese government is doing a good job of it. --C S (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not yet notable. A random killing, happens all the time all around the world. The connection to the Olympics is tenuous at best, and unless something comes up that makes it significant in some way, or Wikipedia adopts a policy of making an article for every random murder as it occurs, it should be deleted. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tenuous"? They were there because of the Olympics; one member of the party was an Olympic coach; another was a former Olympic athlete. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This "tenuous connection" argument is pretty original. I would never have thought of that after reading the news stories especially since some of them even explicitly say something about the Olympics in the title, as in "American killed at Games was coaches father-in-law" [29] instead of "American killed in Beijing while coincidentally somewhere nearby there is a sporting event."--C S (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is crystal clear due to major press coverage. Everyking (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not again, Elliskev. You are incorrigible; people have complained about your "editing" before. You were previously accused of engaging in editing wars. Wikipedia is not the forum for your activities. This event is not one that is over-exaggerated. You obviously don't know about the terrorism at the Atlanta Games or in Munich. Enough is enough. Keep this article. Crashingthewaves (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be taken seriously on Wikipedia, I suggest you read (and follow) Wikipedia:No personal attacks. WWGB (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't seriously be comparing a pathological killing of an athlete's relative to terrorism at Atlanta or Munich... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I'm getting it from every direction lately. Anyway... Comment It's becoming pretty clear to me that there is no consensus to delete this article. A merge/redirect into something sounds reasonable. If that's the result, I'll continue my "activities" at the talk page. --Elliskev 12:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not of long term or international interest. A minor incident.Lucaskant (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If something is reported around the world, how can you claim it is not of international interest? Everyking (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This thing had "international interest" while it was fresh and unresolved. Now the perpetrator has been identified, his motives have been confirmed, the case is closed. The case will have zero lasting impact on the world, despite what some editor thinks about baseball customers in the twin cities (whatever that is). If this deletion nomination achieves no consensus now, I am confident that consensus will be established in two weeks' time when the world forgets about it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - CommentThe Twin Cities of Minneapolis-Saint Paul is a metropolitan area in Minnesota. And I have no clue where you got baseball from. Bachman's is a landscape and floral company, and if not the largest, it is one of the largest in the Upper Midwest. Judging by your edit history you edit mainly articles relating to China. While it may not seem notable in China, it is notable here in the United States. Worldwide notability is not a criteria of WP:N as I remember it. -JWGreen (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ASSUME makes an ass of U and Me, JWGreen. In my part of the world, the Twin Cities means Albury-Wodonga. So is your argument now that this murder is notable because the victim is connected with a company which may be notable in the restricted geographical region of the Upper Midwest? I doubt that the largest "landscape and floral company" is itself notable, but even if it is, the murder of its boss is not, without more, notable enough to warrant an article. If it was, there would be an article on the man himself first. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be the first one to admit that if that was the only clame to notabiltiy that it wouldn't be notable at all. Combine all claims to notability together (CEO, Father of Olympic athlete, in Beijing for Olympics, Father-in-law of a Olympic coach, one victim an Olympic athlete, timing of the attack durring the olympics, etc) all add up to be more notable. Such is the case with articles such as Murder of Dru Sjodin, which wouldn't have been notable had only one condition of notability been present. Any of that make any sense or am I going off the deep end here? -JWGreen (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was following right up until "one victim an Olympic athlete". Huh? WWGB (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... one member of the party attacted was an Olympic athlete. -JWGreen (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge and/or rename. (edit conflict)Attacks on foreigners in China are rare, and because this happened to a relative of an Olympian, and George Bush even gave a condolences speech on it, this deserves some mention within Wikipedia. However, if the main article is kept, it should be re-named, because this isn't an Olympics attack per se, it happened in Beijing while foreigners came over for the Olympics, and it got significant media attention because of the Olympics which are happening in Beijing. ~A H1^(TCU) 17:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the subject of renaming the article, ~~Beijing tourist attack during the 2008 Olympics or~~ Drum tower attack during the 2008 Olympics may be an appropriate alternative to the current name. Additionally, the Epoch Times has recently reported on further related controversy. — C M B J 09:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing tourist attack ... is not an appropriate title as one victim was not a tourist. WWGB (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very ambiguous and complex event from a naming perspective. A tourist attack could imply that a tour guide was also injured, but I'll go ahead and withdraw the suggestion if it is easily misconceived. — C M B J 11:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

It's not complex or ambiguous. It's because the event is non-notable, which is why there is no name for it. If it was memorable or sensational to the degree of notability, it would have a name by now. "The Drum Tower Murders" or something.

And gosh, the Epoch Times? This discussion is really going crazy. What next? "Weekly World News reports on the alien connection behind the Drum Tower Murderer"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main article - comparisons with the terrorist attacks at Atlanta and Munich step waaaaay over the mark. Random killing, wrong place, wrong time, coincidental to the Olympics. Will barely be remembered outside the families in a fortnight. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, this isn't even funny, but I can't get over a chuckle at how asinine this debate has become. Palaceguard, you are corrupt. Your name is wack too. WWGB, you are also wrong. What can you two possibly gain from creating a ruckus? What justification do you have for any of this nonsense? Just give up, move to another zipcode or country, you lost. It isn't a personal attack; you guys are just a tad moronic and acting a little like buffoons. I realize that a consensus can not always be had. Furthermore, really weak-minded people look for holes in arguments that are as ironclad as the ones we have brought up. The sad part of all of this is what is BEING LOST in the discussion. Do you naysayers even watch any Olympic events? Do you pay attention to the huge story the VOLLEYBALL teams for the US thinks this is? What about the other athletes, both American and from other countries???? Ignoramuses fail to see how small a community athletics is. There are close bonds between athletes - regardless of what country they reside in. Deep friendships are formed even though the parties have uncommon citizenships. You nuts need to back off and go somewhere. Quit trying to get me or other conscientous people to bite at your bait, your horrifically stupid nonsense. Last thing for now: the fact that this incident was ONE circumstance is irrelevant; also it occurred three miles from Beijing National Stadium. The worldwide media recognizes this as still being an Olympic matter. Regardless of future events, this happening is a substantial part of Olympic history and I and other sensible people will not let it be hidden away as a footnote to an article almost no one will ever see (Concerns of the 2008 Olympic Games). Bye clowns!Crashingthewaves (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment very good rant. It's important the US volleyball team so perhaps it should be moved to the US-volleyball-pedia? Wrong place, wrong time, like most murders by mentally unstable people. Olympics = coincidence. It's worth a sentence in the main article but nothing more. "I and other sensible people will not let it be hidden away as a footnote to an article almost no one will ever see" - this is not a memorial. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Rambling Man, you are rambling for sure. I did not say it was a memorial. You need to get an education. Really, enough of this back and forth. AND no, it doesn't belong on the USA volleyball teams' pages. One of the big problems here is that too many of you yokels have no clue as to what journalists do. Crashingthewaves (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Crashingthewaves (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If not a memorial then why are you so hell-bent on getting it seen?
There's no back and forth from me, merge a sentence or two into the main article or one of the forks, and redirect from here.
"...too many of you yokels..." could be construed as a personal attack (as in "a person who is not very intelligent or interested in culture"). Thankfully I'm thicker skinned than that.
Bet you don't know what I do for a living...! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you knuckleheads will attempt to gang up on people in a weak fashion, so as to feel more important. I have been on Wikipedia much longer than any of you. I choose to use a separate identity when dealing with morons. I am going on a mini-break now, don't bother commenting for at least four hours. I can appreciate that you will never realize how far afield you have strayed. Crashingthewaves (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being somewhat hyperbolic - that I'll "never realize how far afield" I've strayed? Come on, reality check please. I read above a comparison between this random stabbing and two major acts of terrorism. Now that is straying afield! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Wait, sure killings are common enough like the nominator said but the huge difference about this one is the massive press it got all over the world. I believe this article should be kept, or at the very least kept until a future AFD post-olympics. (a lot can very quickly change during the olympics, such as many more attacks etc...) Mathmo ^Talk 01:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a bit like crystal ball thinking. My suggestion based on that reasoning would be to delete, and then create a more comprehensive article if many more attacks were to occur. The press coverage has pretty much died out. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename but not for any of the reasons listed above. This article should contain some sources that show just how far the government has come. If Hu Jintao is willing to talk publicly about it on xinhua, amongst other sources, this is actually a positive sign. Benjwong (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. An article devoted to such an isolated incident isn't necessary. Outside of Minnesota, there isn't a great deal of notability here that warrants article creation. An article of this type falls under Wikinews. RyguyMN (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability requirements for criminal acts. Also, with ties to notable individuals connected with the Olympics, substantial media coverage, and the potential that one of the victims may be notable enough to have his own article makes me think this topic deserves its own article. I would, however, suggest a name change. To what I am not sure.Nrswanson (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:N/CA is a proposed guideline for notability requirements of criminal acts. That doesn't make it invalid, but it does beg the question whether or not that work-in-progress carries enough weight to be used as an argument. --Elliskev 00:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's too early to tell if this article should be merged or merits its own article. What's the rush with merging this now? As for deletion, there never was any merits for that. There are way too many sources for that. --C S (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Subsystem[edit]

The only verification of this band other than their self-published myspace account is their unknown record label. This band fails WP:MUSIC with flying colours. --Seascic ^T/_C 16:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. The separate Orangebomb source lists this band with 4 other music bands. Artene50 (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hopkins[edit]

Doesn't quite meet A7, but still not notable as there are no sources to support claims of being on PBS and HGTV. Jonathan speak out 16:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Source for HGTV: http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/ah_personal_care_other/article/0,1801,HGTV_3148_1378633,00.html

http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/ah_personal_care_other/article/0,1801,HGTV_3148_1379425,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotchricki (talk • contribs) 16:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - Nowhere near A7 status, as a sense of notability is claimed. I think being on television several times, performing on television with an orchestra, and authoring a book are all hints at notability... Article just needs wikified and citations added to prove such notability, just as most other new articles... Then again, if sources can't be found for each of the claims, then it fails WP:V... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Well sourced with notability shown, changing my vote to Keep... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Citations noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.90.165 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be done to remove the deletion heading at the top of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotchricki (talk • contribs) 16:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First, this AfD needs sufficient time to generate enough discussion that a consensus is reached, or it is clear that one cannot be reached. Then, if there is no consensus to delete the article, and admin will close the debate with a 'keep' result and remove the tag. If there is consensus to delete the article, the admin will remove the tag, along with the rest of the article. This usually takes place five days after listing, but can sometimes be longer or shorter. gnfnrf (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Keep. As it currently stands, the article supports verifiability and notability with a variety of strong sources. gnfnrf (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veg box scheme[edit]

Its a product provided by one company. I was unable to find secondary sources or find anything to establish notability. Drunken Pirate (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, it isn't just one company. Looking at the veg box recipes website, they provide a list of local suppliers for different parts of the UK (see all about veg boxes, find a beg box scheme). A quick search for "veg box" has found a number of secondary sources. From A blog for The Observer, The Yorkshire Post, The Telegraph, BBC, The Times, and a possibly notable blog. It's possible to nitpick some of these sources, but I suspect it should be too hard to find other sources, given that it didn't take much effort to find these. Silverfish (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a single-company product at all, but a countrywide phenomenon with plenty of ghits and references. I've added a couple of statistics and a refs section to the article which should help assert the notability of the subject. Ka renjc 19:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Nomination I may screwed up the nomination for this. Regardless, since they found sources, if no one else objects I'll withdraw the nomination and this can be closed. Drunken Pirate (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closeBoldly redirected per below. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbatoir[edit]

A disambig page that links to one article that had been speedily deleted and a misspelling of a variation of a word (abattoir for slaughterhouse) IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 16:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it serves no purpose. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)}
Speedy redirect as a valid mis-spelling. PC78 (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Redirect. Now. -- Swerdnaneb 17:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Heron[edit]

Does not pass on basis of notability as per WP:BIO and conflict of interest as per WP:COI. The subject of this article does not meet notability standards. Nearly all references to this subject have been prompted by the subject himself (i.e., personal website, facebook listing, linkedin). As per his own website, there is nothing particularly notable about his career and he has not garnered any significant coverage from any real news source. Additionally, the article was created by several Single-purpose accounts prompting concerns over WP:COI. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.

Comment - In addition to nominating the article, I spend a significant amount of my time on wikipedia in and around the private equity section and have been spearheading the Private Equity Task Force. Although this does not give me any special say as to what is and is not notable, I can provide some perspective. This appears to be just a young, self-promoter with no real notability and should hav been a good candidate for speedy deletion. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I declined a speedy request on this as there was no legitimate reason given – it's certainly not blatant enough to qualify as spam – but he doesn't appear any different from any other reasonably successful venture capitalist. – iride scent 16:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO, nothing notable about this guy,borderline spam.--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 16:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, completely unverifiable, and badly fails WP:BIO. ^S._D.Jameson 21:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant self-advertisement. Lajolla2009 (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that I would call it "blatant", or even "self-advertisement." It just seems like a guy who's not notable enough for an article, as I pointed out above. ^S._D.Jameson 22:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seems to be a fairly straightforward delete and would propose closure.|► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most Phallic Building contest[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is not notable enough for its own article. Meaningful content can be merged to Cabinet magazine. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cabinet magazine, doesn't quite deserve its own page, little hope of expansion. "The tower was finally erected in 1890."... huh huh huh, brick dick, huh huh huh, erected... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cabinet magazine as per TPH. Har har, silly pun. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 19:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or in this case, Castrate) As per WP:NOT#NEWS. A smutty humour piece in a magazine is neither notable nor encyclopedic, sorry. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this passed AFD with a keep decision in February. Articles shouldn't be renominated in such a short period (I consider 6 months to be short) until a desired result occurs. The AFD discussion was also quite extensive, so it's not a case of it being an under-debated keep decision, either. 23skidoo (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cabinet magazine per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. (What? They didn't consider the erotic gherkin?) Grutness...wha? 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- This was a clear keep nomination only a short time ago, the re-nomination has no basis, and seems to consist of invalid arguments like "silly article" and "smutty". There were pages upon pages of argument on the previous AfD, and nothing has been said here to refute any of the conclusions or arguments drawn from it, simply a bunch of one liners calling for it to go. None of it addresses the mountain of discussion, articles and sources that were debated heatedly in the previous AfD, and which resulted in a clear keep vote.- JJJ999 (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per our notability policy. It has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. It also seems to be more than just a short burst of news reports as policy addresses in What Wikipedia is not: News reports. What policy dictates notability as to whether or not it has a "hope of expansion" or if it is a "smutty humour piece"? Altairisfar _talk 03:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A definitive Wikipedia article, supported by the most responsible element among the editors. --Wetman (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wetman. Still notable enough. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both preceding on notability grounds. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 23skidoo. Atom (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to clear consensus in previous discussion and overwhelming consensus above. Verifiable topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree that this isn't the best subject for an article, but it passes WP:N. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N. Has several reliable sources that prove notability. Europe22 (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 9 independant reliable sources simply sink any arguments about non-notablity. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no evident consensus, the evidence provided by DGG & John Z demonstrates adequate notability. — caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 19:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas E. Woodward[edit]

Author of two books promoting pseudoscience (creationism). No references, no assertations of notability. Article lists his two current teaching assignments as "adjunct faculty," which shows how unnotable his research is. We66er (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The creation/evolution issue is a noteworthy topic that generates a large amount of reports in the media and other references. Just being "adjuct faculty" does not mean the reaserch is not notable. I found plenty of references on Google to support the notability of this individual.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really an academic as such and should be considered under WP:BIO. I looked around and could not find substantial coverage of him by independent reliable sources. Nothing of relevance in GoogleScholar[30]. GoogleBooks produces a bunch of hits for his name[31] but upon checking closer almost all appear to be false positives (there are some exceptions such as a citation of his book here[32] and another one here[33]). Very little in GoogleNews also[34] (20 hits, all but one are false positives; the single non-false positive is an article by the subject himself[35] in Christianity Today). Does not appear to be a sufficinently prominent figure within the intelligent design movement and does not appear to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO per Nsk92. Edison (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His books don't seem to be with an academic press. His only claim to fame would be as an academic, and his publishing record does not satisfy that kind of notability. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 04:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment welll.... the claim of notability may be considered religious-based instead. It's worth considering from that angle.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The article makes no claims about religious notability, whatever that might be. He's not a leader of a large sect, one that has been covered extensively in the news media. He is a scholar with a religious agenda. As a scholar, he is not notable, per the guidelines at WP:PROF. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 14:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response the first sentence of the article states "professor of missions, evangelism and science at Trinity College of Florida/Dallas Theological Seminary (Tampa Bay Extension) and a prominent Christian apologist" seems like a claim to notability to me, and that claim is based on religious topics--particularly as a "Christian apologist."--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. The first sentence says he is a professor at a school that grants associates and bachelors degrees. That is a statement about his academic position. His being an apologist also signifies that his primary activity is writing and publishing arguments. Both of these suggest at look at WP:PROF as the proper guideline. The kind of research he does is irrelevant if his primary activity is research. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 14:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Interesting. I'd pursue further, but it looks to me like consensus has spoken (and it's not me).--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as outlined by the above people, fails both WP:BIO and WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because not covered by secondary sources, not because of his point of view however. Northwestgnome (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable author. "Doubts about Darwin" is, much to my surprise, shown by WorldCat as held by over 300 US libraries, including most major academic libraries. Not a scholar exactly, but an author. DGG (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: article is wholly unsourced and thus provides no verifiable information (let alone verifiable specifics) about the topic's notability. Woodward is a minor (though not obscure) figure in creationism circles. His stature in Christian apologetics circles is unclear (as there is little in the way of objective/intersubjective measures of prominence in this field). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Better gnews, etc results for this search, including this newspaper article about him, it appears he usually doesn't use the "E". He debated Michael Ruse on one occasion. Looking at some gscholar hits, it seems that his history is considered reasonably reliable, although sympathetic.John Z (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable author per DGG.Nrswanson (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the newspaper article that JohnZ found has significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mensa Records[edit]

Non-notable record label. The only act to have released on this label is Adam Gregory, who is irrefutably notable, but I'm finding no sources unrelated to Adam and his album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We66er (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With either Adam Gregory or Aquarius Records. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Aquarius Records (record label). --Caldorwards4 (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Elizabeth Hurley. Wizardman 17:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Nayar[edit]

This person does not meet the notability standards. He has zero public profile, except attending London parties with Liz Hurley. He is recognized only through pictures of him with his wife and is sometimes mentioned in tabloid media as the husband of a celebrity. He has no noted professional accomplishment and has never been pictured at a public event or given an interview in his own right. The only relevant information about Nayar known publically is his nationality and education, which is duly added to Elizabeth Hurley's page, which has ample room. The prod nomination tag for the article was removed by a one-time IP user. Busillis (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Liz_Hurley#Marriage. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the famous beau... :) Poor guy, I pity him. His only claim to fame is that he married a celeb. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources. Their treatment is non-trivial. He is notable enough for Wikipedia. DickClarkMises (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nayar is not the subject of these sources. Hurley is the subject of these sources and Nayar is mentioned as her husband (only exception: "Mr. Elizabeth Hurley" profile). Hurley's son is similarly (or even more) mentioned, but we do not create Wiki articles about family who have no public function or profile. Adnan Ghalib, the paparazzi who dated Britney Spears, has had much more media exposure but he was rightly not considered a notable subject for an encyclopedia and his entry is now redirected to Britney's article. I think the same applies to Nayar. Once again, apart from all this, there really is no info known about Nayar that would possibly transform his page into an encyclopedia-standard article. Busillis (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tan ǀ 39 15:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Hurley. As noted at WP:BIO#Family, "Being related to a notable person confers no degree of notability upon that person." ---HidariMigi (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Someone appears to be working on it, so on second thoughts I believe this passes. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Took[edit]

Close to an attack page created by a sockpuppet. Sources seem reliable, The Guardian etc, but I'm not entirely sure. I know that POV articles should be cleaned up rather than deleted, but I'm not convinced this meets the guideline, so I open it to community consensus. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Covenant Churches of God[edit]

This article has been speedy-tagged, prod tagged, deleted, recreated but never in all that time has actually had an AfD discussion. Bringing its latest incarnation over for discussion so we can either decide it's keepable and bring an end to the tag/untag cycle that has graced this article's history from the outset, or get a clear consensus to delete it so any future repostings can be G4 deleted. Procedural nom, so I abstain. – iride scent 15:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt--Creator "bishopgilson" may well be the "Bishop J-M Gilson-Levi" referred to in the article, leading me to suspect a WP:COIN. Though apparently about the Restored Covenant Churches of God, approximately a quarter of the article by wordcount is a biography of this Bishop Gilson, who purports to be "the Senior Apostle of the Restored Covenant Churches of God, the Chairman of the European Apostolic Union, the european presiding for the ICOF (International Circle of Faith) and the Senior Pastor of the Midnight Hour Ministry in Folkestone" but generates "about 67 hits" on Google, none of which are even remotely reliable sources, and most of which are actually illiterate. Claims in the article of 3,000 affiliate churches seem equally wildly exaggerated; google generates a derisory number of hits for such an allegedly important organisation. Most of the relevant hits I do find have the appearance of highly amateurish self-promotion attempts.

The article makes a derisory attempt at citing references but none of them even remotely meet WP:RS. Bishop Gilson fails WP:BIO, the article fails WP:ADVERT, and the church itself fails WP:ORG. All three of them fail WP:N and WP:V.

I do not think there are any redeeming factors whatsoever. Make it go away.--S Marshall (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I second the motion to "make it go away." Most of the Church's claims to notability seem to be completely untrue. Paragon ¹²³²¹ 19:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete ~~and Salt~~ While the author may have good intentions, the article fails on so many levels. Is it not G4 or G11? Failing that, delete per the above. 98.215.48.213 (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC) [Preceding edited by myself, originally created by me anon... see response below S Marshal. LaughingVulcan 02:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Comment--We can't G4 something unless there's been a full AFD procedure; Iridescent does explain that above. In other words, if we don't speedy this, there are grounds to G4 it in future if it gets recreated under a different name. Because of this, please could you withdraw your speedy recommendation?--S Marshall (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I understand you correctly, I can do as I did above, withdraw the speedy and leave it as regular delete, which should allow a future G4, if any recreated? I have no objection to do that, and (hopefully!) understand Iridescent's point better thanks to your explanation. (Just coming out of a long Wikibreak, and created the above earlier without logging in.) LaughingVulcan 02:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly; articles deleted via a full AfD discussion can be speedied-on-sight if they're recreated without improvement, whereas merely speedied articles can be recreated as often as the creator likes. – iride scent 19:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drake & Josh: In New York![edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Drake & Josh: In New York!

The article itself seems to be about an upcoming film making it a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. But after researching this topic, it appears that one of the actors, Drake Bell, said that the film is a false rumour in an interview on TRL on March 18th of this year). So far I can't find any official confirmation of this film release (only entries on showbiz/gossip sites/user generated content sites and imdb) therefore making the infomation unverifiable with no reliable sources. AngelOfSadness talk 14:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Drake Bell says it's a false rumour in these two interviews [36][37]; although some sort of film seems to be in the works, there's nothing to base an article on, certainly nothing that would pass WP:NFF. PC78 (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PC78. Based on a false rumor. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Stated as being false rumour. Asenine 17:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom and above; and even if it were real, it still fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 17:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Merge to Drake & Josh Go Hollywood since it is possible that in the 5 months since Drake spoke, things may have changed. However, I agree with PC78 that it fails NFF and with AngelOfSadness that it fails CRYSTAL. Put the rumor, true or false, where it will be expected to be found. Schmidt (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the falsehood of this topic. Per WP:CRYSTAL, the coverage is unverifiable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modified my vote. Why not toss it over to Drake & Josh Go Hollywood as a supposition? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Campton massacre[edit]

Blatant and unreferenced hoax – iride scent 14:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:HOAX. I tried searching for literally any sources about this alleged massacre but the only link I found was to this article therefore, it seems, the content is completely unverifiable and probably original research making it seem like a hoax. AngelOfSadness talk 14:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a hoax. There isn't even a place called Campton, Alberta. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~G3 Hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete Hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Declined. TPH, please stop it. You know as well as I do that hoax isn't a speedy criteria, and that speedy-tagging articles when they're at AfD is inherently disruptive. – iride scent 15:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Hoax. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does seem to have been a Canadian TV show dealing with Windigo activities in or around Fort Kent, Alberta, but the details in it (at least as it is described in forums and such elsewhere on the Web) seem to have differed considerably from the story told here. I can find absolutely no reliable sources to back up this article, either as a true report or as a variant of some modern legend, so we have a failure of WP:V. Deor (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. No sources show that this ever happened. Heck, there doesn't even seem to be a town called Campton, Alberta. Don't write nonsense because you're bored. Hoaxes don't meet Speedy Delete criteria, although they really should be. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook
Delete Obvious hoax. Wish it was speediable. Edward321 (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--looks like a hoax to me. --Eastlaw (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banished Words List[edit]

After 7 months, this article still has no reliable sources or assertion of notability. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 14:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourceable, trivial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: too trivial for an encyclopedia. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 23:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above. Lady Galaxy 02:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 00:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yellayapalem[edit]

Non-notable "small village". Could not find any online source that covers the village substantially - all sources I found were either simply lists of places, or mention the village extremely briefly. Samuel Tan 13:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article claims a population of 10,000, which in my opinion justifies notability. Naturally, sources are needed. Computerjoe 's talk 13:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indian Registrar General & Census Commissioner claims a population of 8215. [38] Computerjoe 's talk 13:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Earth says it exists. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Villages are inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- In the future please do a google search with the site:.in filter to determine its notability before listing. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request - could someone link the guidelines that make villages inherently notable? I couldn't find it. Thanks! -Samuel Tan 17:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations)#Human settlements =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - That section doesn't say that villages are inherently notable. It says that they considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. -Samuel Tan 05:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It also goes on to say that it merits inclusion if covered by secondary sources. Here are some links through Google News =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real villages are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kodavalur unless cultural history that is distinct from the containing mandal is available. Is there anything that can be said about this village that is not also applicable to Kodavalur? --Polaron | Talk 02:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Ecoleetage's stub on Dixie Lullaby: A Story of Music, Race and New Beginnings in a New South. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie Lullaby[edit]

Pointless dab, none of the songs listed here have pages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Why is it "pointless" because its linkless? Its more informative than no dab page at all. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How about creating articles to go with the entries on the dab page rather than just recklessly deleting the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecoleetage (talk • contribs) 03:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update I just created a new article for Dixie Lullaby: A Story of Music, Race and New Beginnings in a New South - it took no more than 25 minutes to put together. In view of this, the page does not appear to be a "pointless dab" and I would respectfully request that the nomination be withdrawn. I would also invite my fellow editors to create new articles for the other titles listed on the dab page. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gash[edit]

Previously contested PROD, stating he may pass WP:BIO. However, I see nothing in the article of note that meets WP:BIO. The player clearly fails WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional competition. --Jimbo^[online] 12:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I previously prodded the article in July but the prod was contested with the edit summary, "remove prod - may be notable for other reasons that WP:ATHLETE - meets WP:FOOTYN and also may meet WP:BIO because of media coverage - http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=ca&q=%22Mi" (n.b. the google link doesn't work as it is truncated). I spent a bit of time researching google hits and also Newsbank (an online reference facility of newspapers available through UK libraries) to see if there was any substantial coverage of Gash to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. However, almost all references to Gash are in match reports with just a few about his career that I have used to expand the article to what you see now. Of the three references used, only one is solely about Gash ("Striker Gash seals Ebbsfleet move") and even that is not very much. Gash not only fails WP:Athlete but also WP:BIO in my view. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:ATHLETE. The references do not separately meet WP:BIO. The BBC and many other UK media organisations routinely record movements of non-league players. Smile a While (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google reference should have been [39]. He seems to get an inordinate amount of national news coverage for a Conference team. Meets WP:FOOTYN. Plays for a fully professional team. Nfitz (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, none of those on Google news meet WP:BIO. Anyway, there seems to be no more than any other non-notable player in the same league e.g. John Akinde, Adam Bartlett, Matt Tubbs or Darren Stride. --Jimbo^[online] 07:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radomir Spetik[edit]

Non-notable Czech "inventor" with two patents. Corresponding article was deleted from Czech Wikipedia for lack of notability. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete remarkable lack of sources mentioning him [40] for someone claiming to have made breakthroughs in cancer research. -Hunting dog (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even Czech wikipedia deleted his article. - Darwinek (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a vanity article; weak and unsupported notability assertion; no independent sources; deleted from Czech wikipedia. Interesting comment on article's talk page may add weight to the vanity idea, though can't be confirmed unless you read Czech. Ka renjc 19:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article from tabloid news, which is linked on the talk page talks about Špetík, who sold false drugs to people ill of cancer, giving them a false hope. There are dozens of such stories in every second country. It only proves the non-notability of this person. -- Darwinek (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- comment to Darwinek: that is where the misleading information starts-Mr. Spetik has never been found guilty of selling false drugs. There are dozens of such gossips everywhere. To keep Wikipedia well running you should beware of similar conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooch (talk • contribs) 23:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

- - Actually, if there are multiple verifiable sources regarding Spetik's alleged conviction, then that would pass WP:N. But then the article would mostly be discussing the conviction.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you Aervanath, i was thinking about the same, will try to fix the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooch (talk • contribs) 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even Czech wikipedia deleted his article. Jedudedek (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not-to-be-Deletedstating that the article was deleted on Czech Wikipedia shows no importance, since it was deleted before it was finished thanks to the constant violation made by its editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooch (talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ballard (Singer)[edit]

Not notable Chris (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Also large portions are copvio of http://www.paulballard.co.uk/about/index.html. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability given. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried various searches in Google News archives, as well as in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but could not find any sources that would help to establish WP:N notability. Delete unless sources are forthcoming by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 15:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC entirely, no coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wasn't aware when i made this for Paul that Wikipedia was about "Claim to Fame". Especially when the "Oxford Dictionary" clearly defines it as "A book giving information on all branches of knowledge or of one subject". I think his achievements merit inclusion. He is the only one of his kind aka A British Person releasing an original JAPANESE song worldwide. If you want to see EVIDENCE look on every iTunes store in the world (it's not hard to search). Apple controls iTunes and it's contend in other words it is run by a "3rd party". Or are you going to ask for notability on iTunes now? If you want to delete unnecessary articles I suggest you look at the other Paul Ballard articles on here who have done far less (in my humble opinion) yet seem to have gotten away scot free regarding the "claim of notability" card everyone seems to be lovingly waving about on here. Oh and you won't find him in English papers because he is aiming for JAPAN. Sadly I am not living there now so i can not search the libraries. Aki PBMusic (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any artist can put material up on iTunes. What we require on Wikipedia is verifiable coverage in reliable sources about Paul Ballard, and that seems to be lacking. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that he would be notable in the Japanese Wikipedia but not in the English one. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent references can be found. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Closing admin please consider userfying to PBMusic (talk · contribs) as this does seem to be a good faith effort by a newby who was unfamiliar with notability guidelines particularly Wikipedia:Notability (music). Banjeboi 00:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no indication of meeting WP:BIO. Dlohcierekim 20:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moot as already merged. GRBerry 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles T Payne[edit]

He is Barack Obama's great uncle. That's it, which is not enough to pass WP:BIO. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another Obama relative non-notable in their own right. Ka renjc 18:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness sake. This article was nominated 14 minutes after creation when the editor was still working on it. It's now an hour and a half. This is silly. He passes WP:N and WP:BIO, but fails WP:NOT#NEWS. I'll withhold judgment until and unless the article gets expanded but from what we see now it looks like it should be merged into the Family of Barack Obama article -- it's alrady been added -- and redirected. Wikidemo (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not see him pass WP:N. Sure, he has received media coverage, but it is highly questionable if he was really the subject of the coverage. The news articles of him taking part in liberating Buchenwald are obviously only a response to the critics of Obama's Memorial Day Speech, where he told about an uncle who helped liberating Auschwitz. While Obama mixed up the concentration camp, the underlying statement was generally true. The point made by the article was: Obama is no liar. So Payne's media coverage is just part of the election campaign.

Furthermore, WP:N also states that notability is not temporary. As it stands now, apart from other statements what a good boy Obama is, Payne will not receive any major coverage. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE: (if not to keep) not to delete all its content, per Wikidemo >--^. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 15:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Maybe I'm overstepping but I'll snowball merge. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 15:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ForFILL Yo Dream[edit]

Contested PROD. As per the PROD, this article fails WP:CRYSTAL. No sources have been provided, and it is even stated to be "rumoured" in the article. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even supposing this does not fail WP:CRYSTAL, it quite probably fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When the article's only sentence is about the title merely being a rumor, it's a case of crystal hammer. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. This article really speaks for itself: Absolutely no reliable sources have verified even the title, so this fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. Cliff smith ^talk 16:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Falcon Kirtaran. SE KinG (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Hip Hop Albums[edit]

I am asking that this article be deleted since there already is an article 2008 in hip hop that covers the same information as 2008 Hip Hop Albums and some additional info. The only information of 2008 Hip Hop Albums that is not included in 2008 in hip hop is the addition of every single hip hop album most of the them released by non notable artists who do not have a wikipedia article. Sergiogr (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, be bold create a redirect youself. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i just found out that the page is copied and pasted from rap.about.com and also contains some releases by artists that have nothing to do with hip hop such as Gnarls Barkley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiogr (talk • contribs)
Strong delete per nom. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote copied from one placed on the main afd page by mistake. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Honorable Fraternity of the Amici[edit]

Hoax -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious hoax. It's a secret society that's so well known that there's enough material for a WP article, yet so little known that there's only one ghit on a fringe site. Fails WP:VER. andy (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not actually 100% sure this is a hoax, but I do find it unusual that the internet contains so little information on it. The print references are nice, but alas, I cannot verify them, and in any case, I don't think this sort of thing is actually notable. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete According to Google, the only article on it is this one here. Artene50 (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~G3 Hoax~~ Delete per Andyjsmith and nom. ~~So tagged.~~ Hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Declined and (as per comments at your RFA), please don't do that. If it's deleted following an AfD, we can re-delete it when it gets reposted; if you slap a speedy tag on it, we can't. – iride scent 14:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious schoolboy hoax. - Macspaunday (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vandalism/hoax. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tiptoety ^talk 02:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Programs currently broadcasted by FBT[edit]

Same as below, as the supposed "station" did not exist. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~G3 Hoax. So tagged.~~ Strong delete Clear hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed. Also, the rivalry between ABS-CBN and GMA 7 makes it unlikely, if not impossible, to collaborate on a joint venture. And no press release or valid statements, if any, were made regarding this. It is a hoax. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. No online sources as given by the nom in the other afd.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. No such network exists in the Philippines, therefore this list is a definite hoax. Starczamora (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tiptoety ^talk 01:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family Broadcasting Television[edit]

Hoax article, claiming to be a joint venture between Global Media Arts and ABS-CBN; I did a Google and Yahoo search on the station and it seems obvious that it is, adding to the fact that the two major stations are unlikely to sign a contract between each other. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google only brings up links to Wikipedia. So yeah, it's a likely hoax. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 12:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~G3 Hoax. So tagged.~~ Strong delete Hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely a hoax, I also did a quick Google search that yielded no results except the actual article. RedThunder 12:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed. Also, the rivalry between ABS-CBN and GMA 7 makes it unlikely, if not impossible, to collaborate on a joint venture. And no press release or valid statements, if any, were made regarding this. It is a hoax. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax per the nom's google search. My cable and local tv channel surfing also concludes that this does not exist.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definite hoax (that coming from a Filipino TV junkie). Starczamora (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete to end its misery. --Howard the Duck 03:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. We don't need hoaxes here, you know. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants to redirect them they could. Wizardman 18:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BMW Z2[edit]

All articles listed here are about products that do not exist, nor have they been formally announced. All info in these articles are based solely on editor speculation and some very minor automotive media outlet speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. roguegeek (talk·cont) 08:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons listed above. All articles are unreferenced and based purely on editor speculation. Again, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.:

Delete The car is real but its still in the planning stage. This is all crytal ball matters at present and 2010 is 2 years away. One can't base an article on rumours Artene50 (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree about WP:CRYSTAL in general, but it is not a bar to articles about future events or products when there is sufficient information to write an article. For the BMW Z10 (the only one I had time to look at, no opinion as to the others) I quickly found two new sources, and fixed the link on a third one that was in the markup language, but wasn't showing up. I think they provide a reasonable basis for a stub. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a major contributor to those articles, you agree that it does violate WP:CRYSTAL. That's grounds enough for the delete. I think the bottom line is nothing listed above has been formally announced and all articles have little to no references. And any minor references that are provided clearly state it's speculation. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not exactly. First, I'm not sure that my two edits to add references makes me a major contributor to the article :) Second, I do not think that WP:CRYSTAL is violated here, rather I agree that as a general rule we should avoid having articles when there is nothing to say that is not speculative. In this particular case (that is, the one article I actually commented upon), I think that there are reliable sources that we can use to create a stub, noting that the vehicle is planned, but not yet released. I do see that reasonable minds can differ here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not crystal ball. BMW Z1 is succeded for Z3, Z3 to Z4, and Z4 to... Z2? No Z5? If the BMW is not more interesting in compact roadsters? I can't see any reason for keeping this article. Zero Kitsune (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Partial delete. I agree about deleting the pages for the speculative models (the Z2, X1, Z10, etc.), but I want to disagree on the specific case of the BMW F10. The F10 is the platform code for the next-gen 5-Series, and that is under testing, has been seen many times, and is not a secret at all, any more than the Boeing 747-8 is a speculative venture. Granted, formal specifications have not been released for the next-gen 5-Series, but of course it's coming, and coming soon. It's been seen repeatedly on test tracks, and every article I've read says that it will be out as a '10 model. Per WP:CRYSTAL, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." While a new type of BMW sport-utility may happen (the projected BMW X7 was just cancelled last week), a redesigned 5-Series almost certainly will happen. Here's an article about it from Britain's Car magazine.[41] Although speculative, it does discuss a "development [that] will occur." Sacxpert (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that there's enough info out there on the F10 front that makes me believe it exists in some form or another, but I still don't think it should be exempt from deletion because the info is still speculation until a formal announcement. Although unlikely, what if the chassis designation is announced and it's called something other than F10? Well then the encyclopedic value of the info in the article is, well, non-encyclopedic and false. The article in whole is still clearly breaking the WP:CRYSTAL policy. Specifically with the F10 article, though, it doesn't state a single source, speculative or not. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Car article offered a good estimation of what will be coming on the 5-Series; you could easily find articles from other mags and blogs that would have similar details. If you added those sources, then the article makes some sense. Plus, let's face it: if we delete the article today, we'll just have to re-add it in about 6 months, when the details and press release start leaking early before the car's unveiling. Seems kinda silly to bother to me. The car will apparently be called the F10 chassis, from all named reports. If for some reason it's not, we can rename it. I know that this one is right on the edge of violation CRYSTAL, but as I quoted from the policy, "It is appropriate to report...whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." Let's find some sourcing (I found one already), add it, and keep that article. Sacxpert (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. A compromise, then, would be to redirect the articles to the most appropriate article for each. It's the same compromise we did for the Nissan 370Z. Everyone knows it's coming out, but there is no formal announcement yet so it was redirected to the Nissan 350Z article instead. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V music[edit]

A one man band and his one record to date. Article written by user:Vmusics suggests spam to me. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both for failing notability per WP:MUSIC. WP:COI too. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:N Artene50 (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable musician. JIP | Talk 09:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above: fails WP:COI, WP:MUSIC, WP:SPAM, WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 15:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information Music[edit]

Interesting project but since it is only at the research and development stage, I question whether it is yet notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't find anything to establish notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shifty Capone[edit]

A biographical article on a person who does not have any reliable sources on them. A possible hoax, it saws they are a porno actor, but the only references to their name found on an internet search are discussion forum profile pages. Is there some kind of porno actor database where one can confirm the bona fides? Wongm (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment page creator has previously created an article at Shifty Caponesi that was speedily deleted. Wongm (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to WP:V and WP:PORNBIO. Google only produces hits related to a (non-notable) rapper with that name who is also credited with the mentioned catchphrase. According to IMDB, Lars von Trier has not produced any movie in 2001 - I also cannot imagine him producing an outright porn film. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable and likely hoax. I've looked in the Internet Adult Film Database ([42]), and the Adult Film Database ([43]), under taylor rain (note, the 2nd link isn't safe for work), and the nearest to slut's butt's, is either Butt Sluts 2, or butt brats 2, 4, and 8, with no shifty capone listed. I'm not sure how good the databases are, but they seem to be the main databases (other than IMDB), linked to for porn actors on wikipedia. Shifty capone isn't listed as an actor in either database. A search for '"lars von triers" satin nights', found nothing relevant. No hits on google news. Silverfish (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 16:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian UFO Network[edit]

Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:ORG and perhaps WP:N Artene50 (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Wedderburn[edit]

Nathaniel Wedderburn has not played a game of fully professional football and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO WP:ATHLETE, H2H (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 09:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Clearly part of Stoke's first team, as per media references. Season starts on Saturday, seems WP:POINT to be nominating a first-team player for deletion 5 days before the start of the season! Nfitz (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wedderburn is a 17 year old who was released by Wolves. The fact he has featured a bit in pre-season doesn't mean he will be anywhere near Stoke's first team in the league season. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He was released by the Wolves when he was 14! Let's see if he's anywhere on the bench on Saturday before we start deleting the article, given recent media coverage. Nfitz (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't been given a squad number by Stoke.[44] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! I'll withdraw my keep. Nfitz (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 consensus here is that the sources presented are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Shereth 16:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stoney Point Airfield[edit]

A bunch of homeowners got together and made a runway for their private aircraft. That is in no way notable. It fails WP:RS and WP:N. If the same bunch of rich home owners got together and made an olympic swimming pool, would that be notable too? Just because it is a runway recognized by the FAA does not make it notable. The FAA locator site is just a list, which should be excluded from WP:RS standards. Delete as there is nothing to merge this with. Undeath (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment You're still using the "swimming pool" argument? Ignoratio elenchi--irrelevant conclusion! An airport is not a swimming pool.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone is not needed. Also, see my below post about comparisons to understand what they truly are. Any two objects being compared do not need to be the same thing. Undeath (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for how my tone came across. I do still stand by my point that the argument made is indeed an irrelevant conclusion... if A is a subset of B and A is a subset of C does not necessarily mean that B is a subset of C. Please read Ignoratio elenchi.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to read it because I already know what it means. However, you are missing the point. You do not have to compare two like items. It is not always like that. People compare totally different things all the time. For example, this airport is like a community pool in the sense that a community owns and operates it, and only the community is allowed to use it. There is no gettin around that comparrison. It's not irrelevant. Undeath (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I think you do need to read it and I don't think you understand it. Your "swimming pool" argument is this: 1) The airport is private. 2) Some swimming pools are private. 3) Private swimming pools should not be listed in Wikipedia. 4) Therefore, private airports should not be listed in Wikipedia. It's a textbook example of irrelevant conclusion. If you truly understood the meaning, you most likely would stop insisting on using the argument.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this H2H (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WOW that's a reason to keep!--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is a private grass landing strip, no pavement. The cited "references" available for the facility appear to be from FAA Form 5010-7 information that all private landing sites must submit to the government so the FAA can compile a list of runways and landing sites. Filling out government paperwork and having the data contained on the form published on various internet sites is not an assertion of notability. There are many websites that display the 5010 data and constantly update that information, wikipedia does not sync this information from the database making it inherently unreliable and potentially unsafe to use as an airport directory. Not all grass landing sites in the world are notable, there are 250 Turf runways in Georgia alone. Notability could be established by significant news coverage, notable aircraft accidents etc. 5010 data alone does not establish notability. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What difference does the suface make in notability? Savusavu Airport is a grass (okay mud) landing strip...--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not notable. Touchdown Turnaround (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Why? Please give details. Just saying "not notable" is not a reason or argument as explained in WP:JNN.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It might possibly be worth including in a list (but without a redlink). It is certainly too NN to warrant an article. We had another of these a few days ago, which to my surprise was kept. But then being in England, I am poerhaps ill-qualified to judge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chadwick Airport where nominator argued to delete a similar airport for same reasons but consensus chose to keep the airport.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, you cannot even compare this to chadwick. For one, this is a homeowners little fun strip. They are the only people to use it. They all own aircraft so they built something to take off from. The list that the FAA has arranged is just that, a list. It only confirms it's existence. Look at the talk page on WP:AIRPORTS and some of the recent merges due to the fact that many of these private airports are non notable. Undeath (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You compared it to a swimming pool... I can compare it to an airport. Besides, it sounds like this one gets even more traffic than the other if there are indeed more planes.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this really is starting to smell like "forum shopping" where one article isn't deleted and so another article is targeted in hopes to sway consensus.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recognised by the FAA (6GA0), which would suggest more than a little notability. The quirky nature of the airfield's ownership should not disqualify its inclusion here. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FAA basically lists the runway based on a form that the owners filed out and mailed in. Then the FAA assigns an airport ID number to it. Similarly, the FCC receives paperwork to license amateur radio operators, they then assign that operator a number / license. Having a ham radio license from the FCC doesn't make that person notable for inclusion and having an FAA ID doesn't mean a grass runway is notable. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the article is not about ham radios, so the comparison is irrelevant. The fact remains the FAA recognises the airfield, regardless if it is made from grass or asphalt. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FAA doesn't recognize anything, they simply list that it exists. Being listed and having a name or number is is not a judgment of notability. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop saying that comparisons are irrelevant. A comparison does not have to be direct. I could compare a house to a frog, if the right situation applied. I compare this airport to a community swimming pool, because, like a community pool, it is owned by the community and it is kept up by the community. Also, please see the new consensus on the WP:AIRPORTS talk page. There are non notable airports, and this is clearly one of them. Undeath (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant comparisons are irrelevant. Like comparing an airport to a swimming pool. Relevant comparisons are relevant--like comparing an airport to an airport. You won't let me compare an airport to an airport, but we have to let you compare an airport to a swimming pool? Please.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, please provide a better link to the WP:AIRPORTS notability consensus you mention. The words "notable" and "notability" are not on the main page, and the listings on the talk page seem to provide one of the project members refuting your statements. There was a reference to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide, but it only contains notability guidelines for airplanes and air disasters, not airports. Please reference.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In saying since the Chadwick "airport" article exists, are you saying all runways, helipads, seaplane bases, landing strips and airfields, public or private, in all countries of the world are inherently notable as long as some agency or website has previously published data about the runway? I'm curious where you would draw the line. Do general rules like WP:N still apply to these types of articles? Shouldn't some "Significant coverage" exist to establish notability? Does the result of the Chadwick airport afd, about an unremarkable 1,500 ft private grass runway, mean that now all runways over 1,500 ft may have their own article? If not, where should the line be? Thanks. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. I'm merely pointing out that 1) the nominator made the same arguments on another article that resulted in a consensus of keep and provide a reference to that discussion, and 2) that the reference for WP:AIRPORTS does not seem to have a notability guideline for airports, as the nominator asserted--at least, not one I can find. With that, other editors and admins can quickly complete research and draw their own conclusions. Consensus can and does change, I've just seen no indicator to believe that it has.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you personally draw the line for inclusion? I would think the line would be something similar to including facilities containing runways over say 5,000 ft or facilities that received significant coverage, ie. first of its kind, something important/historic happened there, etc. -Dual Freq (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not use an "arbitrary number" for size of runway, as described in WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. Why 5,000 feet? Does that mean that a runway of 4,999 is just one foot short? I would, however, encourage WP:AVIATION to come up with guidelines that are right for their specialist topic! And until that happens, Chadwick Airport and Stoney Point Airfield look pretty much the same to me. And since the arguments for deletion look the same and are from the same two people, I'm going to come to the same conclusion. If there is new information, or a different argument, or additional data, please bring it up now.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the reason I suggested 5,000 ft was in the FAA's Airport Data (5010) & Contact Information search pages when you look for an airport, in Georgia for example, they have a printout option called "Emergency Plan Airports" "containing basic airport facility, contact and runway information at airports with non-water runways 5,000 feet or more in length." That seemed to me that they made some kind of value judgment of usefulness of those runways and a similar judgment could be made here. As for the Chadwick discussion, I made one comment about the availability of sources there, I don't think I even voted on that one. I'm waiting on this one to see a compelling reason to keep it other than the WP:OSE and the "FAA says its real" arguments. I'm also curious where others would draw the line. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An FCC directory listing does not confer inherent notability on a strip of grass a few people own and use as a private air strip. Fails WP:N due to lack of substantial covereage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Of course not. But the FCC and FAA paperwork, coupled with all the other sources, are worth considering.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the fact that FAA paperwork has been filled out means they have been properly licensed. A corner store would also need to fill in paperwork to gain a license to operate. However, fulfilling legal paperwork obligations is not the same as being notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Proposed deletion of Oregon Airports] for discussion on the FAA as a reliable source.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if a corner store had a runway and operated as an airport, that would probably be pretty gosh darned notable, wouldn't you think? Of coruse, if you're simply trying to say that a corner store has a "business license" that comparison doesn't apply because business licenses (at least in the US) are granted at the state and local level, not by the FAA.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - government paperwork is government paperwork whether it be at the local, state, or federal level. Pretty darn notable is established by coverage about the subject in reliable sources. FAA licensing is essentially a directory entry. -- Whpq (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response I would hope there is a big difference between a ten dollar local permit to open up a shoe store and whatever must happen to be declared an airport by the FAA. But in response to coverage, anyone bothered to google this thing yet?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply Which of those are writing about the airfield? I see a the wikiepdia article, some photos and website for the airfield. The closest thing is a porsche club article that mentions the airfield. I really don't see any reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Sigh okay, I'll play that game. Map to the airport, Relics of the Space Race article, County commissioner's meeting concerning the airport development, Georiga Aviation Dealers (indicating that more services are avialable at this airport than at Chadwick Airport), The airport website, and photos of planes at the airport. Not enough? Try +"Stoney Point" +Airport +Georgia for a broader listing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply I'm sorry if you feel I'm playing a game. I'm not. I think we will have to agree to disagree on what constitutes reliable sources for notability. I reviewed the same sites you've reviewed, and I come to a different conclusion. What I see are primarily passing mentions and directory entries. -- Whpq (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed on that part! We've both made our points, admins can evaluate from here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why you think this is a game of sorts anyway. Please explain to me, and I actually want to know, I'm not trying to sound like an ass, but how do you think this is a notable airport? Why does, in your opinion, an FAA code make the airport notable? Undeath (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - sigh It's not just the FAA code, although that counts for something. It's all the other references that I pointed out from the two separate google searches. Further, consensus agreed that Chadwick Airport is notable. This one is larger, with more traffic, has a bigger runway, and therefore it would seem to me that if the smaller lower-traffic one is notable then the larger higher-traffic one is also notable. Further, there have been no new arguments presented on this airport that were not presented at Chadwick. And if from all those reasons, the smaller lower-traffic airport was kept by consensus, why should this one be any different? I just see this as "forum shopping" where editors fail to get their way on one article, so editors can tend to target another hoping to find a different review more favorable to their stance and then backtrack to the other articles. And that is why this is coming across to me as a "game" of sorts. If there is a new reason, or if you think that the old reasons no longer are valid, then bring them up and explain why--but re-hashing an old argument without new information is pointless...--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - One more comment and I've said this before: if you really think that consensus was incorrect on Chadwick, then go to WP:AIRPORTS and start working on notability guidelines. It was referenced above stating that "new consensus has been achived" (or something like that) but I could not find anything along those lines. Here, I'll get you started: Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports\Notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop comparing this to Chadwick. Chadwick is nothing like this. For one, there was no proof that it had less trafic, and, if it did, I'll probably re-list it for deletion in a couple months. I'm not going to start a notability page for airports because I am not in that project. Let them decide their notability section. Either way, it must abide by real standards like WP:N and WP:RS. If it doesn't, it does not deserve to be here. End of story. Also, your google searches only base their small information off of the site for the homeowners group. It gives no substantial information nor does it make the airstrip notable. As it stands, the consensus for this is delete. Undeath (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm basing that Chadwick had less air traffic based on the number of planes and hangars available. And you probably will re-list Chadwick for deletion in a couple of months, using this article to support your stance. This is called "forum shopping" as I mentioned above. Is that your plan, or do I owe you an apology?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the plan and I am starting to think that you do not know what you are talking about. I know what is non notable, and this grass strip clearly is not. There are no decent mentions online. Chadwick had some sources, this does not. The FAA code accounts for nothing but to prove exsistence. (which other editors agree) I don't need to make a consensus page for the wikiproject. All articles must abide by certain rules of wikipedia. Undeath (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident in leaving judgement on that topic to passing admins.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So am I. We aready had a "passing admin" and he said for delete. Undeath (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asked for revisit I have asked several of the editors who placed one-time "delete" comments to revisit the page as it has gone through changes and additional sources have been added.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further I have also notified editors who commented at the Chadwick discussion who have not participated here about this discussion. This notification went to all editors regardless of their stance at Chadwick.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No change in my opinion. The sources are a passing glance at the airsrtip and testimonias from the neighbors that live there. The one interesting thing was a government helicopter had to land there, but that was an accident which doesn't deserve much attention. Undeath (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a private grass strip for which interest appears to be mostly of directory or routine regulatory nature. WP:RS coverage is not there and the strictly-private nature of the field makes the likelihood of finding RS per inherent notability a very long stretch. Outside the homeowners' private use, this is just slightly more significant than a golf course. • Gene93k (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia is not a directory. JohnCD (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "not notable" isn't really an argument, it's just a statement... and the article contains much more information than would just be found in a directory.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chadwick Airport. If people don't engage in discussion at WP:NOTE or WP:AIRPORT then these type of 'not notable' nominations could go on forever with quite variable results depending on who turns up. Just agree on a guideline and stop using wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. MickMacNee (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rule appears to be: if you have a lawnmower and a pen to fill out FAA paperwork, it goes in Wikipedia. But the sources should probably meet Wikipedia's standards (i.e. not self published or self published or self published or self published, others are not exactly shining examples of the peer reviewed literature). There is also something wonderfully quanit about an article that spends about 1/3 of its text talking about vintage car contests, fish frys, and the fact that someone had a charity auction that raised 93$ . Pdbailey (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm a supporter of keep, but I'm not sure why those were expanded. I had simply entered that other events take place, and then one of the delete editors expanded them. Perhaps that editor can respond to why?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added that because some other user kept referring to a fish fry as "other local and regional events" which overstates what the actual references say. The dogs catching frisbees thing isn't even at the airfield its at a flying dog farm next to the airport. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh My Did you just admit to using Wikipedia to prove a point or to making a bad faith edit? maybe not directly, but it sure seems like you are heading that direction. If you disagreed with the expansion in being good for Wikipedia, why did you make the change that way?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The FAA airport registration and the other lists are a primary source and there is no evidence of coverage in reliable secondary sources. The homeowner's associaton is not independent of the subject. A mention in an all-inclusive lists is not "significant coverage." WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, etc... SDY (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I've heard that before and asked, and not gotten what I thought to be a good answer: Exactly how is the Federal Aviation Administration not a reliable source?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're very reliable, but their lists are primary sources. See WP:PSTS. A phonebook is a reliable source for addresses and phone numbers (not that such things would be used on wikipedia much), but that a person is listed there does not make them notable, despite what Navin Johnson might think. SDY (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nuther Question How is the FAA a primary source for a private airfield?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Primary source" does not mean "Self published source." It means raw data. The list is just a comprehensive list, hence the phonebook analogy: it's a list of everything, not a list of important things. It's a detailed list, and the information is reliable, but it is not "significant coverage." Is every street in Harlowton, MT notable because it's on a map? Is Uncle Bob's Hardware Shop notable because it is on the list of members in the local BBB? Both of these are independent of the topic they describe, but they are clearly both primary sources. SDY (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment you've mixed several arguments there. Rather than re-hash the "comparison to something other than an airport" argument (addressed above to ad nauseum), I'd like to dig a little deeper on the issue of "primary source"-- 1)if "raw data" is a primary source, then why would not the examination and re-analysis of that raw data not then become useful data by Wikipedia standards--for example, if the FAA data was assembled and prepared in a more usable referenced format like one of the many, many aviation data websites referenced in the article? 2) How do all the aviation sites not amount to "significant coverage" (albiet specialist)? 3) How can this "comprehensive data" not be relevant to the article? 4) While the information is indeed identifier data (such as address, locator, etc) there also is other information that has been brought together--age, plane count, runway type and size, contact info, services available, history of incedents, other events, etc. Much more than a "phone directory" would provide.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "(1) ...the examination and re-analysis of that raw data not then become useful data..." Please read WP:OR (another obvious problem with primary sources). (2) Their coverage is not significant because it does not discriminate: they cover all airports exactly the same way, this airport is there because everything else is. (3) It is relevant to the content of the article (WP:V), but it does not demonstrate notability (WP:N). (4) Sure, there's a lot of information, but laboratory notes or a census or an interview with a WWII veteran all have a lot of information. Level of detail doesn't make it a secondary source. SDY (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because just because it has an FAA code, doesn't mean its notable, because according to Location identifier, every single airport must have a code, doesn't matter what organization.(I didn't quote that from the article.) Imma copy one of the delete arguements from the Chadwick airport one. Lets say I live in the US. I have to pay taxes because the Federal Government knows I exist, but it doesn't mean my house is notable. Similarly, just because the FAA(a federal entity) recognizes the airport, doesn't make it notable. Notable incidences make it notable. The incident listed doesn't make it notable because the crash wouldn't have warranted an article, would it? Also heres my comment quoted from the CHadwick discussion:If we delete this one, I can easily type in airport in the search and 1000s more articles like this one would have to be deleted. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 17:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question How about if a AH-1 SuperCobra made an emergency landing on top of your house? :) --Paul McDonald (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer Then that would be a fairly cool thing, but nothing worthy of an encyclopedia mention. Undeath (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Airports, like railway stations, have a lot of history, whether they are big or little. An airport is not a house or a garage band. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. This airport is a garage band. Some guys got together and registered a piece of land where they can fly their cessnas. That they filed a trademark for their name doesn't make them notable. There is no history beyond "a couple of guys and their big boy toys." It might become something in the future, but wikipedia doesn't care. SDY (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable per WP:N, no significant coverage from reliable sources. Minor, non-notable self-references only. Having an FAA location ID and the presence of 5010 data alone does not establish notability. There are 250 turf runways in the state of Georgia alone, and many thousands more worldwide, they are not all notable no matter how many fish frys they have. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hadn't noticed when I voted, that as of 24 hours ago there alread was an airport notability proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Airport_notability_proposal. I suggest people contribute there rather than here their views on FAA codes etc, the sky is not going to fall in if this particular article is/isn't deleted on notability grounds right this minute. MickMacNee (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Wizardman 18:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Is My Time Tour[edit]

Prod declined by author. Non-notable tour, little more than just a list of tour dates. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 06:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep I sourced the tour dates, what more do you need. It is a true tour I went to it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenfan4ever (talk • contribs) 06:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Comment I'm not questioning whether or not the tour exists. Rather, I'm questioning the notability of the tour itself. The article is little more than just a list of dates, and the tour itself doesn't seem to be too notable. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 06:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course it’s notable. It was her first major headlining tour. I supplied more than enough information on this tour. Do you know how many other tours on wikipedia, that have way less information than this and are more up for notable clauses than this article ex: Headstrong_Tour_Across_America, Come_as_You_Are_Tour,Ms._Kelly_Tour (Prime Example)There are plenty more, that I just don’t feel like searching for. And as I look around a lot of tours on wikipedia has just about everything this one has and looks just like this tour page. What makes those tours different from this one?

Simply being her first tour does not make it notable, and Other stuff exists is not a valid defense. The tour itself is not notable. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 07:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And who died, and made you the decision maker of what's notable and what's not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ravenfan4ever (talk • contribs)

Comment Nobody died, and I'm not the decision maker. Rather, it would help if you read WP:MUSIC to get an idea of wikipedia's guidelines for music notability. Also, WP:OUTCOMES#MUSIC deals more specifically with tours. The thing is, there isn't enough information to get this article to grow very far beyond a stub, and the tour itself just wasn't notable enough. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 07:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raven-Symoné: Live in Concert Tour added. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 07:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

well, were just gonna have to wait and see what everyone else thinks. And if it gets deleted, hey.. I was wrong I'm not here to start no arguement I am way to grown for that. I just feel its something that needs to be mentioned and I dont find your reasons enough reason for deleting as well as you dont find my reasons enough for keeping

STRONGEST DELETEper nom. The nominator has expressed everything although I think CsD would have done the job. H2H (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot. The few references supplied show the tours exist, but not how they are even remotely notable. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP I agree with the creator, this page as well as the Raven-Symone Live page should be kept. I think both tour are notable. The This Is My Time was a sold-out tour I have to look for the link but Raven deff said every date sold out (that shows finacial), both Raven tours are refrenced, idk about relationship to audience but I know that all of Raven's both tour has gotten GREAT reviews and I have sources for that. And I dont care about the other stuff exist excuse because its just not fair that these tours get singled out wen over 3/4 of all tours on wikipedia look like these so if your gonna nominate these tours for deletetion you need to held over to the Category:Concert_tours of wikipedia and get busy. Why is it always like a prison guard watching over the RS section that makes sure nothing new gets posted on the oh so highly respected, always reliable and creditable wikipedia (LMAO) no one references wikipedia. SO to just pick these tours is real dumb of you and i bet half of the tours you may edit look just like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raheemistheone (talk • contribs) Note: This user's only edits are for this AfD page. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 06:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice, I also nominated the other tours mentioned, not just Raven Symone's tour pages. It is my feeling that a great deal of the tour pages on Wikipedia are not notable, even if the artists are. There just isn't much to say about them other than posting a tour schedule and setlist, which isn't encyclopedic. If you will, take a look at the AfD discussions for some of the other tour pages I've nominated to get an idea of the arguments against these pages. Change for Change Tour, Love on the Inside Tour. And if you want to know what a notable tour article looks like, take a look at the Soul2Soul II Tour page. I originally nominated it for deletion, but after some discussion, I helped re-write and organize the article to contain more substantial content. Honestly though, that was an absolutely record-breaking tour, and I don't think that Raven Symone's tours can begin to compare to the kind of precedent set by the Soul2Soul tours. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is some precedent (including AfDs referenced in that one) that tours are not notable nd this one does not appear to be any different. No one is doubting these tours happened, just that they aren't encyclopedically notable. TravellingCari 23:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all They fail WP:N and WP:RS. Undeath (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even notable enough to argue about. Dayewalker (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the Raven-Symone Live Tour should stay because that has plenty of reliable sources, and I believe its noteable, but I think the This Is My Time Tour can be deleted because it's so old and there's really no need for it, and the rest the Ashley one can be deleted that tour isnt even big enough for mentioning purposes plus it was a mall tour, and that nelly tour can be deleted b/c its a sloppy mess. If anything all these tours can be merged in the albums page, except the This Is My Time tour that can be deleted all together —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rscp123 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Comment. This was the first edit for Rscp123. Dayewalker (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we need a checkuser for that one. My bet is it's a sock of ravenfan trying to tally up keep votes. Undeath (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RS:LICT article is very notable and worth remaining on this site. You have not provide any proof that this tour is non-notable other than "just having information and tour dates". Raven is not a major artist thus, her tours are not going to get as much coverage as Miley Cyrus, etc. Within the market of which this tour is aimed at, its is getting significant coverage and has numerous reliable sources outside the artist's main website. This article does not meet any terms for deletion. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem is, I have shown why the article should not stay. There is a lack of significant content in the article. The article is unlikely to grow past a stub, and there simply isn't enough evidence that the TOUR is notable. It doesn't matter how notable the artist is, if the tour on it's own is not notable, then it fails to meet WP:N. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, you have not provided adequate explanation as to why this tour is not notable beyond the fact that this article "may or may not" grow beyond a stub. No matter how you try to alter your words, you are still saying the same thing. Bottom line is when an artist goes on tour, its notable no matter how big or small. As stated before, the tour is not going to make the headlines because Raven is not a headline making artists. Thus, it will only make news in the demographic the tour is targeted to. There is siginicant content know and as the tour progress and either Raven herself, Hollywood Records or the various venues release more information, more information will be added to the article. That is how things work. You are not a fortune teller. You do not know how what lies for this tour. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you just made several major arguments for deletion. For one, you say that if an artist goes on tour, then that tour is automatically notable. This could not be further from the truth. If you would actually READ WP:NOTINHERITED, you would see that any subject HAS to be notable on it's own, completely regardless of any relations it may have. In this case, the tour is not notable because Raven is notable, it must be notable in it's own right. Secondly, you said yourself that Raven is not a headline-making artist. Then why, pray tell, is her tour notable enough for it's own article? Third, you say that while there isn't much significant content now, more content may be added in the future. This is a textbook case of crystalballing if I've ever seen one. An article has to be notable now. An article cannot be kept purely on speculation that it may become more notable in the future. Let me know if you have any more questions. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have struck both comments by the sock puppeteer and the sock puppet. Undeath (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This tour really existed abd exist on Wikipedia articles about others tour with only tour dates and nothing more.Voices4ever (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? I can't understand what you're trying to say. Also, just because other stuff exists, that is not a valid reason for keeping this article. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of UFO Research Japan[edit]

Fails WP:ORG. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. [45] Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All references I found were fringe sites. Also, there is no assertion of notabilty in the article. The lead just says its a "UFO research organization". We need something more since anyone and their mom could start a website and claim to be a "UFO research organization". Drunken Pirate (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ufocom[edit]

Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG, WP:N, and WP:RS. Undeath (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.Gazi moff 12:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Summers[edit]

Likely nonsense claim about an academic, as there is nothing to verify. Shunyi (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 05:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks likely to be a hoax. Apart from the Google search results provided by the nom[46],a GoogleScholar search for "Eugene Summers" returns nothing relevant[47]. Fails WP:V. Nsk92 (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Name variants, searching on supposed book, etc. turn up nothing anywhere. If he isn't a hoax, he would make much more money teaching people how to disappear from human ken.John Z (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX and WP:V Artene50 (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 16:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specialized Information Agency UFO News[edit]

Fails WP:ORG. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. [48] Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 05:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no assertion of notability. - Icewedge (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NOTE. H2H (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tule Desert (Arizona)[edit]

Non-notable. Apparently the only published reference to this place is a name on a topographic map. A Google search [49] returns only references to this map and this WP article. This is not a notable place. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —Pete Tillman (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Geographical features such as deserts are inherently notable. Just a google book search alone brings up in-depth coverage of this desert. [50][51]--Oakshade (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical features are certainly not inherently notable. A glance at any topographic map will reveal hundreds of features that lack WP notability. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has generally found that geographical features such as mountains, rivers, lakes, etc. as indicated in WP:GEOG are notable. I've never seen an actual desert (arguably a feature of larger geographical scale than a single mountain or lake) up for AfD so this I suppose is a test of sort.--Oakshade (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade. Major geographic feature with substantive coverage found in Google Books. • Gene93k (talk)

Keep Geographic feature that recieves strong coverage in books on Google Book Search RedThunder 12:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Notable geographic feature. Asenine 19:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep Notable geographic feature with plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Townlake (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep The previous editors said it best (and first). Ecoleetage (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 00:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of government responses to UFOs[edit]

Fringe soapbox, article is redundant to Category:Government responses to UFOs. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, per nom. A clear-cut case. Nsk92 (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Neutral. Have to read-up on how lists and categories are to be treated. Nsk92 (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists are complementary to categories and are not superseded by them - see WP:CLS. There are lots of blue links here and there is no fringe editorialising as the nomination misleadingly suggests. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It will be a civil fashion if you lay-off your carefully guided snide comment and thinly veiled insult. You are saying there is no fringe here. Are you suggesting there are extraterrestrials behind UFOs? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article lists numerous official government investigations of these phenomena. Their status, by definition, tells us that they are not fringe. I have no particular views on their findings but recent news reports about the Bebo signal indicate that it would be prudent to keep watching the skies. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Instead of arguing about the existence of UFOs, someone should find a policy on notability of lists ( or list and category redundancy or something ). Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigational_templates says lists and categories are complementary. There is no editorializing or POV so WP:Soapbox doesn't apply. It's just a list and it's not named List of Government coverups of UFOs. I read WP:Fringe and I don't see how it applies. Please point out what specifically is wrong with this list. Drunken Pirate (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Drunken Pirate. Neither fringe nor a soapbox. By the way, if you're assuming that the name of the list implies the existence of UFO's, and if you're implying that this is POV...well, if something is unidentified, if it's flying, and if it's an object, then it is, by definition, a UFO. I realize that there is a sense in which "UFO" has become synonymous with "flying saucer from Mars," but technically, were it to be identified as such, its status as a UFO would be diminished to the extent that it became an IFO. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, lists and categories are meant to complement each other, per WP:CLN. "List-category redundancy" has never been a valid deletion criterion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as valid list. Some text should be added to make this list more useful.Biophys (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets every guideline I can find for lists. Agree with Biophys that a short descriptive for each list item would improve its usefulness.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York Resources Project[edit]

nn website Narmy5421 (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 05:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice page, but fails web notability. It has 5 references, but they go to itself, a forum post, or a "whois" search Drunken Pirate (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debminer[edit]

nn website Narmy5421 (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 05:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources and "Results 1 - 8 of 8 for debminer.com" doesn't suggest notability. Drunken Pirate (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging can be discussed further on the article's talk page. Wizardman 14:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stretch-o-Vision[edit]

per WP:NOT, slang term, likely a neologism KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 05:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 05:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't have time to review the hits or pick a side on this, but I can say that it does appear notable. It appears in quite a few (what look to be, I could be wrong. As said above, no time to review them) legitimate hits. Leonard^(Bloom) 04:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I see are forums and trivial mentions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete Per Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. All references on a google search look trivial. The concept itself should already be covered on the HDTV article. Drunken Pirate (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect - Very notable concept, although I haven't heard it described with this term. If it's already discussed somewhere, redirect. If it isn't, merge it somewhere. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ~~TNT (TV network)~~Turner Network Television article since it's been associated with that network in a January 2007 TV Week article. Also right now the term "Stretch-O-Vision" receives about 9,300 Google hits but most of them aren't reliable sources. Thus there's not too much to write about SOV at this moment of time.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I take it you meant Turner Network Television? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 06:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it just now. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It if it's merged into TNT HD only people who go to that page will have access to it. if it has it's own page anyone who clicks the link Will have access to it. I created it, because there were pages that had red links to it. that usually means to me that someone wants it created it's already a stub, and I doubt to many people will edit it. It will just be there in case someone doesn't understand the concept. Joeloliv8 07:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added Andrewlp1991's reference showing it's not just a made-up term since it has been used by a reliable source. I guess we could keep this then unless it can be redirected to an article that already has this content or has a more accurate name. But for now the article is starting to look good Drunken Pirate (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, we may wanna merge this into video scaler one day, but that article is a mess. I have fleshed out the article a bit, with more information, and comments that this isn't a TNT-exclusive problem. ViperSnake151 19:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cutty Sark (band)[edit]

Group fails WP:MUSIC guidelines, in my opinion. One of the criteria which a group can be deemed notable is if they have "released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." They released a mere three records in the 1980s, and all were on Mausoleum Records (a label without an article), and one which cannot be deemed one of the more important indie labels. Delete. LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found the same as LuciferMorgan, unless someone can show that Mausoleum Records is a major label ( I'm no music expert ). Drunken Pirate (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JIP | Talk 09:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. I looked, couldn't find nuffink. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moot (non-admin closure), article speedily deleted as WP:CSD#G11 & WP:CSD#G12 Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True Loan[edit]

Procedural nom. I initially speedy deleted this as (I thought) blatant advertising for Ajene Watson, LLC; however, the creator has insisted that this is not spam and just happens to be about a particular company's product. Since someone's put a fair bit of work into this, and if it's not spam it would be unfair to delete it, I've undeleted and AfD'd the article to get a consensus as to whether this is or isn't a valid article. – iride scent 03:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge appropriate content with Securities lending and redirect to that page, as "stock loan" already does. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Changed to Keep (see below).[reply]

Securities Lending is a completely different industry than the one referred to in my poorly written article. Securities Lending is a practice where broker dealers lend each other large blocks of stock for the purposes of shorting. A stock loan as it is mentioned in my article, is the practice of creating and funding loans that are collateralized by stock. Unfortunately the word "stock loan" and "securities lending" contextually can mean the same thing and participants from either industry use either phrase at will when referring to their own industry. The True Loan platform is a lending model that can only be used for the purpose of creating a loan that is collateralized by stock. OsirisB (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does seem to be a WP:ADVERT case. As far as I understand, the article is about a particular financial product offered by a particular company, Ajene Watson, LLC, or even its division, TRUE LENDING PLATFORMS. If we were talking about a common financial instrument widely used in the market by many providers, it might deserve a separate article. As it is, the subject might deserve some coverage in an article about Ajene Watson, LLC (WP currently does not have such an article). The references and links listed in the article do not reference the term and I do not see evidence of its independent notability, per WP:N either. Of course, the phrase, "true loan" is fairly common and doing a googlenews search produces a bit of a phonebook consisting of apparent false positives. But filtered googlenews searches, such as "True Loan" "AJENE WATSON"[52] and "True Loan" "TRUE LENDING PLATFORMS"[53] produce zero hits. Given that there is no indication of notability and coverage by third-party reliable sources, I do not think this even merits a merge to Securities lending for the moment. Delete per WP:ADVERT. Nsk92 (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Ajene Watson et al might be a suitable topic for an article based on his unique accomplishments in the finance industry, and could probably put something together on this in the near future. As far as widespread use, that is exactly what the platform was made for. The biggest hurdle is that the platform is already beginning to be used by several private banking entities, however this is a niche industry utilizing private loans with no filings. Because of this, you will never open up your paper and read about the True Loan platform, regardless of the fact that the avaerage loan amount is north of 5 million dollars and the marketplace is ridiculously large. I can tell you from having met with Ajene and worked with him closely on several occasions is that one of the most frustrating things has been to receive recognition for the platform because almost no one knows what the heck it is or how it works. Perhaps I can scale tha article way back and rebuild it with more references come along?

~~Keep~~Switched to Delete ~~Rather encyclopedic and I see much potential for improvement. We just need to get some good writers to get working on this.--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 05:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)~~ Fails WP:N--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 05:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate on your opinion? There appears to be no coverage of the topic by independent reliable sources, as required by WP:N and the article talks about a financial product produced by a single company. Why is that an encyclopedic topic? Nsk92 (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No independent reliable sources?Mmmh...--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 05:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADVERT. The concept's title is fully captialized, and the article sounds very promotional. And the clincher is that the first G-result leads to this site, where the concept is registered as a trademark with the ™ mark, and other results (429 exact hits) are just referring to other loans in general. Nate • (chatter) 09:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADVERT, as it's blatantly an advertisement - and it's reasonable to suppose that it's on WP mostly so that the sellers can tell potential customers, "But of course it's legitimate - look at the huge article about it on Wikipedia!" -- Macspaunday (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several lenders are out there who are allowed to use the True Loan name and literature. As far as it's legitimacy, there are about 13 opinion letters from several experts and attornies, not to mention an ex SEC enforcement attorney that have declared that the platform is completly compliant, so a Wiki article is not neccessary to back it up. If it is blatantly an advertisement, who exactly am I selling to? I have been in this industry for many years. If I wanted to sell the product I could simply send out emails and direct mail pieces to my database of over 40,000 contacts holding in excess of $1MM in securities. You have to understand, that this lending platform took a ten year old industry and is almost turning it upside down overnight. I get calls from the SEC about once every six months checking in to make sure that I am not bending or breaking any rules. When this program came out, it made it virtually impossible to do anything nefarious, which is something that many of us had been waiting for for a long time. If deletion is needed, then fine. I will go back though and try and write a beter piece and cite better references, as there will be more coming along slowly in the future. OsirisB (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could post some of those letters (with full signatures and letterheads) on your own site, instead of asking everyone to take your word for it? Wikipedia depends on verifiable information, not marketing claims (like "turning it upside down almost overnight") that don't seem to be supported by any independent news organizations, etc. If an industry really is being turned upside down almost overnight, surely there must be some independent commentary about it, because that's an extraordinary thing to happen. Meanwhile, deletion seems appropriate. Macspaunday (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion letters Mr. Watson has have so much proprietary information and were so expensive to have produced would make it impossible for them to ever see the light of day. While the platform can be used by anyone to whom the technology has been licensed, it is not "open source", and only lenders and institutions who have signed bulletproof non-disclosure agreements are ever allowed to view these docs. I know for a fact that he spent over $200,000 dollars just to get the reviews and letters produced, so obviously that is out. Based on the responses I am getting on this page, I think I know what I need to do to create a better article, which is make it more easily referenced and verifiable, and I think with a bit more work that will be easy to accomplish. Til then I understand that if it needs to go. OsirisB (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could simply post the paragraphs in which outside experts confirm that the scheme is legally compliant, together with the names and credentials of those who say so. Surely that's the kind of information that you want to get out there. Without it, you're asking people to take your word for everything, since there seems to be absolutely no publicly-available verifiable independent confirmation of your claims. All this can only benefit you, as well as benefiting Wikipedia. Macspaunday (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on that as well, but the more we talk about this the more I see where I went wrong with my approach. I can probably get some excerpts that I can attach names to, however verifying this for Wiki purposes will still be impossible if not difficult. I know that there is beginning to be some media interest and a few publications have expressed a willingness to write about the platform, which might be a good starting place to use for references that are at least somewhat credible, and easily referenceable. Til then I want to pull down the article and start over, so do I do this myself, or is there someone out there willing to do it for me? Also, thank you to all of you who have spent your valuable time in this matter, I appreciate your insights and guidance. OsirisB (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the decision is made to delete the article, you can request that it is "userfied" into a sandbox of your own, e.g. User:OsirisB/Sandbox or User:OsirisB/True Loan. There, you will be able to work on it at your leisure until such time as you feel it is ready to re-enter the main article space. When it is, I suggest having another Wikipedian in good standing take a look at it first, in order to help judge whether the issues outlined here have been overcome. To request userfication, simply request it here. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 12:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep tentatively per OsirisB. This user seems knowledgeable about the topic and intent on improving the article. No reason to assume that it isn't well on its way to becoming wiki-worthy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's reasonable to assume that the user who wrote the article is someone who is extremely closely associated with the person who created and is selling this trademarked financial instrument. No one else could possibly know as much about it. The article an advertisement for a very specific financial product, sold apparently by only one company, about which there seems to be absolutely no independent sources of information. Are you absolutely sure that you think it ought to be kept? Macspaunday (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that I can WP:AGF enough to think it should be tentatively kept. If the article doesn't improve, and no independent sources show up, then it can always be AFD'd again. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The "history" section is mostly cut and pasted from one of the references. The rest is probably copyvio as well, but I'm not investing the time to locate it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Moving the page took care of the notability concerns, and this is clearly no longer a deletion discussion. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Olympics attack on American nationals[edit]

This person's only claims of notability are:

being related to another notable person (namely, being the father of an Olympic athlete); and
having been murdered earlier today.

Per Invalid criteria and One event, this is clearly not enough. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject of a large media event and even discussed by President Bush. Article should be renamed to something like 2008 Olympics attack of American nationals or something like that. Article is only just being put together. President George Bush, in China for the Games, spoke with reporters and said, "Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. And the United States government has offered to provide any assistance the family needs." Feel free to disagree, I am open to changing my mind --mboverload @ 02:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE:Article has been moved to 2008 Olympics attack on American nationals --mboverload @ 03:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I have adopted the article and I have significantly changed its focus since it was AfD'd.~~ --mboverload @ 03:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was also initially in error about the daughter's status. She participated in the 2004 games, but not this year. She is married to the men's volleyball coach, who is a participant in the 2008 games. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - International news story with potentially serious implications for Chinese authorities and their alleged "security". That part remains to be seen. Renaming the article takes away the "non-notable biography" complaint, although the guy isn't just some tourist, he's also a corporate CEO. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now at least. All indications are that the perp was a lone deranged individual. Unless something more develops from this, I don't see this as ever being worth more than a couple of sentences in related articles. Wikinews already has a well developed article on the subject and that's where it belongs unless something bigger develops from this. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at new location. Substantial coverage is available in a number of reliable sources. If someone devises a better article title to cover this and other events like it, great.DickClarkMises (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to neutral Per Elipongo and the wikinews story we already have coverage of this event. --mboverload @ 03:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable other than circumstances of death, see WP:ONEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You deletionists kill me. How about you wait a couple of days and see if this evolves into a larger story concerning the security gap in this supposedly tightly-controlled country. If it doesn't, well, then you can kill it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I was saying before. The "lack of notability" argument doesn't fly in this case. Also I noticed one of the people who is making statements on this matter has made himself responsible for keeping track of obituaries in each calendar year. Get a new hobby, maybe? How morbid. This topic does not fit the category you want to assign it to. Keep in mind there have been incidents at other Olympic Games. I don't recall people trying to change facts or news into something else in those cases. BB has it right, go do your "editing" somewhere else. Also I think the junior crime experts who posted in this section are wrong too. Crashingthewaves (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrariwise, it could just as easily be re-created if it does indeed evolve into something more significant. As things stand now I'd have to say that this event is more suited to Wikinews than Wikipedia. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 04:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, as long as you don't also delete the wikinews story in the process. Meanwhile, the notability rules on this site make no sense. This guy was a corporate CEO, connected to an Olympic athlete and an Olympic coach; he gets murdered in an event that catches the attention of the U.S. President and gets wide coverage; but it's "not notable". Meanwhile, we've got a cadre of editors trying to claim that everyone who has ever played professional baseball on any level is notable. I wonder how many Florida State League dropouts were millionaires? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews stories are in charge of the Wikinews project. .:davumaya:. 10:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Todd Bachman is the CEO of a moderately large corporation in Minnesota, it has caught the attention of President Bush, wide news coverate, father of a former Olympic athlete, and father-in-law of an Olympic coach. -JWGreen (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A tragedy that captured worldwide attention is very notable. Completely agree with Baseball Bugs. Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 05:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a worldwide news item. They were there for the Beijing Olympics, a center of the world's attention. Todd Bachman was notable anyway as the head of a corporation whose name is recognized by the public, even if he had not been related to an Olympic athlete. Note that we have numerous articles like Murder of Dru Sjodin, in which the crime was notable even though the person was not, and in this case the crime is far more notable than that one, and the person was already notable even if the crime had not happened. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- As murders go, this one is pretty notable. The press is already going wild with this one, and no doubt will continue to do so. The title of it does seem a bit unwieldy though, perhaps a name change? Umbralcorax (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into the Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics article. --Philip Laurence (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to create a 2008 Summer Olympics related crime article. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. Although that article is looking a bit long. BUC (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Concerns article. This reminds me of the Craigslist killing deletion debate. The events will not require their own page which will likely remain a stub for months after more CNN-esque news stories pop up. .:davumaya:. 10:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until further information is known. Other attacks such as the akihabara massacre have individual articles, and this is not something that can be wholly attached to "Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics". An article about the Olympics does not seem to be an appropriate place to describe a perpetrator of an attack, rather a place to shortly discuss the event with a ((main)) tag. Whether or not the article satisfies WP:N will not be known until a later date, but given the particular connection to the Olympics, it may be assumed that there is reasonable potential for notability. — C M B J 11:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per JJL's suggestion. Any further discussion will go on the article's talk page. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Juice (Odwalla)[edit]

The company that produces this is inherently notable by virtue of being a Coca-Cola subsidiary, and does have its own article, so I don't think a separate article is necessary here. Delete or merge. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 02:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No! I created this article, and I've been working on the Odwalla page too, and this article is is notable enough! The reason I created this page (as opposed to many of the other Odwalla products, which are Not notable) is that Odwalla apple juice was the main thing recalled in the E. Coli 0157:H7 recall of odwalla products, which led to a 90% drop in sales for Odwalla, and almost ruined the company! I promise not to create articles for every single product! :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something about the E. Coli incident, which was surely notable. JJL (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per JJL. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mert Günok[edit]

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 01:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jogurney (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 09:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. If he ever makes his Sunderland debut, leave me a note and I'll restore. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Yves Mvoto[edit]

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 01:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he currently fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if and when he plays in a fully-professional competition. --Jimbo^[online] 09:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on. Sunderland starts it's season on August 15th. It would make sense to see line-up before deleting the article. Nfitz (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fair comment, he does have a squad number and they spent some money on him, therefore there must be a reasonable chance he will play soon. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rich La Bonté[edit]

I've just declined a speedy on this one, as he looks reasonably notable at first glance, which is what A7 boils down to – however, on a brief skim there seems possibly to be less here than meets the eye. Procedural nom, so I abstain. – iride scent 00:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of his novels were self-published, and while some of his works were part of a compendium, I see no reliable, nontrivial third-party coverage. The articles were created by a SPA (User:Flatrich) whose name makes me believe this is an article about a living person written by said person. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no good reason to delete this article. LFOD (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ouch. I was all ready to agree with LFOD, but upon second inspection I think Falcon has the right idea. Article was created almost three years ago, and has seen no improvement. I'll need to see third-party reliable sourcing to change my !vote. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I initially PRODed this as a non-notable self-promo bio. If you check the article's history, it was created by one Flatrich (talk · contribs) (i.e. the subject of the article). There's not a single article or reference to Rich La Bonte to be found via search engine, outside of those he's created himself-- so there's no way to reliably verify any information. (I can only pull up 86 ghits to his name altogether.) So far as I can tell, Rich is not the same person as the slightly-more notable (but not much) Canadian Richard Labonte, who writes/edits gay erotica. --HidariMigi (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per independent source. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the same person, as I mentioned above.--HidariMigi (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. HidariMigi is correct: the Canadian Richard Labonte appears to be a different person. The subject of this article is not notable per WP:BIO: all the books are self-published, no reviews of his work that I could find and no coverage by independent reliable sources either. Nsk92 (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HidariMigi and Nsk92. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article appears to assert notability but doesn't. Also, I notice this guy's name is Rich, and he created a software company called fLAtDiSk. Article creator's username? Flatrich. Hmmmmmm! Reyk _YO! 10:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's all been said in the above. Lady Galaxy 22:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Count not locate any reliable sources to establish notability. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by RHaworth. Non-admin closure. Cliff smith ^talk 05:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Space Shark[edit]

Non-notable pseudo-religion, best source is a personal website on Freewebs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 01:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

This article serves as an easy to read source for people who wish to get quick info on this new internet religion/belief/phenomenon/etc. to discuss on messageboards, in internet communities, etc. Deleting a source of information does nothing to help the subject to those that wish to debate it and know what is being discussed/thought thus far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duder99 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That does not exempt it from WP standards. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitting it for verifiability basically suggests that any religion that hasn't been around for years and has a huge following with many documents published on it isn't good enough to have an entry, thus limiting those with open minds. --Duder99 (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can try again when it is established. But that is not going to happen through Wikipedia and does not happen in half an hour, as I just saw that the article was speedily deleted before: 01:28, 10 August 2008 Sam Blacketer (Talk | contribs) deleted "Giant Space Shark" ‎ (A7 (web): Web content which doesn't indicate its importance or significance) (from the deletion log) Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed it had been speedily deleted before because of lack of any sources at all. And considering that Wikipedia is a great source and widely used for information on the internet, considering this is a recently popular internet discussion topic, I figured this would be a great place to find the basic info to learn and discuss until it is able to grow further. --Duder99 (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd like to note that Vampire Lifestyle is in a similar position, but is notable because it is prolific, which this is not. Nonetheless, Wikipedia remains an encyclopedia, and this smacks of original research. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As non-notable, unverifiable nonsense. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Boffob (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged Speedy A7 (group). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anyone who wants it deleted is a bigot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.196.203 (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) — 24.15.196.203 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Somebody found it funny enough to put it on Uncyclopedia.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it got deleted there too. " * 01:01, 10 August 2008 RAHB (Talk | contribs) huffed "Giant Space Shark" ‎ (All very interesting. It's not funny though. Oh and also UNCYCLOPEDIA IS NOT WIKIPEDIA'S TRASH BIN!)" --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. No idea how or why it got there. Though they apparently found it interesting.--Duder99 (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V, no sources, and there's no chance that any will ever be available. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Gunnar: lacks verifiability through reliable sources. Cliff smith ^talk 01:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A freewebs page is not a verifiable reference for a made-up religion Cocomonkilla (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But how do religions truly get a "reference" or "source" to stop being made-up? When somebody writes a book about them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.87.54 (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, actually. That is almost precisely it. See WP:V and WP:NOTE. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It doesn't need sources. It needs faith. And I have faith. Coles (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While faith will keep the thing going, it will not justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a religion, it has a right to be here along with the other ones. It has a source. It's fine. If people want to get to know this religion, they should be able to find it here. Tsaturo (talk)— Tsaturo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Once they can find it in many other places, we would doubtless welcome an article on it here with open arms. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, partly based on the above. How do you verify the sources for a religion, anyway? Religions are based on beliefs, and only very rarely actual facts that can be proven and backed up 100% by a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.87.54 (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC) — 65.185.87.54 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You understand, of course, that you must sign in to vote, right? Thank you for your comments, though. The thing of this is not that we seek to prove the religion. If that were the case, it is correct that we would have no articles on faith at all! The problem is that some of us are having issues verifying this whole thing, and Wikipedia generally accepts only notable things (see WP:NOTE) besides. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay. I much appreciate this answer, as I was just confused on what kind of "source" or "verification" a set of beliefs could possibly have. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.87.54 (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet Wikipedia standards of notability. ... discospinster _talk 02:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - silly nonsense which should have gone to PROD. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or a source for new Internet religions. --HidariMigi (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's obviously not a discussion forum. But it is a source of info that can be referred to in discussions, can it not? Calling this "silly nonsense" is extremely unfair, as is calling anybody's beliefs nonsense.--Duder99 (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -- useless case of new internet religion that is far from credible.TheHeroOfTheDawn (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)— TheHeroOfTheDawn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy delete: Rather amusing, but in all likelihood a WP:HOAX. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The single ref also looks like a WP:SPS violation. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Obviously a hoax perpetrated by a single individual who is solely responsible for its existence. Just follow Duder99's argument, and look for anything independent of him - it doesn't exist. 03:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macspaunday (talk • contribs)
- A hoax perpetrated by me and not existing anywhere else? "http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=8&topic=44764233" Is one such place I've found discussing it without searching the web too hard. I'm fine with it being taken down because of not having a verifiable source, I understand that. But to say it's a hoax? That's unfair and giving me far too much credit.--Duder99 (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly a speedy A7 case. Looks to be somebody's idea of a public joke. No independent sources and no evidence of notability of any kind. Nsk92 (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually, A7 is limited to organizations (and a few other things)... as this is clearly not an actual organization, and neither a (blatant) hoax, I don't think we can quite do that. However, we can probably use WP:SNOW in a bit. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Alexf as CSD A7. (non-admin closure) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Widdrington[edit]

Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/N. – LATICS talk 00:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 01:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Only google hit shows him playing as a junior. Probably wishful thinking, totally lacks WP:V. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is, at best, an obvious vanity page. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing worthwhile left after you remove the vanity stuff. Also, per Gunnar Hendrich. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a joke. The kid has two Google hits playing for some non-notable team called "Ossett Town". Should have been speedied as soon as it appeared. WWGB (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above: fails WP:ATHLETE and is wholly unverified and unsourced. Cliff smith ^talk 01:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references and an article not fit for an encyclopedia. --Cocomonkilla ^{(talk) (contrib])} 02:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW. Undeath (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete NN youth football/soccer/black and white checkered ball game player. Likely made by friends because they were bored. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 06:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved crimes[edit]

Subject adequately covered by List of unsolved murders and deaths. PhilKnight (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I nominated this for speedy deletion previously because it's basically just a comment on List of unsolved murders and deaths, which belongs on that article's talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Good call, Larry. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I don't think redundancy is a valid speedy criteria. TravellingCari 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Redundant. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least redirect to List of unsolved murders and deaths. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 00:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luminara Unduli[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability of any kind. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to astonishing degree of notable coverage in multiple published books and news stories. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable as evidenced by the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is never a valid reaosn for deletion, especially due to the significant coverage in reliable sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced, non-notable, in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion, especially for topics covered in multiple published sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, look at all the insignificant, passing references...the lack of meaningful third-party coverage...and all the plot. This looks like a wealth of knowledge to justify inclusion...at Wookieepedia. --EEMIV (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Plus all the significant substantial references in third-party sources and out of universe information (such as this review of the action figure) justifies inclusion in Wikipedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You mean, of that list of hits, the one third-party text that just gives the character's name...oh, and that really interesting three-line excerpt where the name is actually part of a sentence? You gleaned significant coverage from that? --EEMIV (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I mean all the various sources, including those that review just her action figure in a critical manner. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Besides the all-important action figure review, which source that you've linked to do you think is a third-party reliable source offering "significant coverage" of this topic? --EEMIV (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The scores of others that turned up in the various searches as indicated. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Please provide a link to a specific third-party/secondary source that you think offers "significant coverage" of this topic. --EEMIV (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I have already provided one. If you type in her name with key words like "interview" and "review", you'll find others. For example, in this interview, an author is asked: "The Jedi Master Luminara Unduli is an unusual and entertaining character. How did you create her character -- were you given much guidance as to her?" And the author replies: "No guidance at all. Just a name and a couple of artist's renderings. I wanted to make her as different from the more familiar Jedi as I could without overstepping the bounds I alluded to in the previous question. It's unreasonable, for example, to expect a female Jedi to think exactly like a male Jedi...or an alien one...in every situation." Which is out of universe information from a reliable source. And complements the out of universe critical review of her action figure, i.e. yet another iteration of this character who has appeared in films, books, toys, etc. All of these sources add up. I would reckon you may also want to check relevant Star Wars magazines that don't necessarily have online archives. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character has appeared in two movies, two novels, two video games, and an animated series. Edward321 (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Coverage of the subject that exists is brief, tangential and shallow. It isn't the extreme example of "trivial" offered in the footnotes to WP:N but it isn't far off. I don't think that this article cites significant coverage in independent sources, failing WP:GNG. But as there are some citations and some out of universe coverage, there is hope for it. Protonk (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Update: Article has been referenced and expanded to include out of universe information. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per improvements. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the improved article now meets the standards for both notability and verifiability as well as covering the subject in an encyclopedic manner. - Dravecky (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - The article has now established a very small modicum of notability, and i believe we should adjourn this AFD and go for a merger to a character list, as the character has demonstrated enough notability for a paragraph of information in one of the star wars character lists. Great job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. John254 14:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Judge, but it has enough now for an article. The RW information would fit better there than a character list, which just briefly describes the character without the RW part. When there is sourced RW information, then, for those holding to the General notability criteria, the article is an unequivocal keep. DGG (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, unorigninally researched fancruft. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to List_of_Star_Wars_races_(P-T)#Twi.27lek. Many of the arguments - on both sides of this debate - have no grounds in policy. However, it is abundantly clear that consensus is against retaining this as a standalone article. There is likely sufficient content at the redirect target, but the edit history here will be maintained behind the redirect for potential merging of information. Shereth 16:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twi'lek[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Delete: only Star Wars fans are familiar with the subject. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only opera fans are familiar with opera, only cricket fans are familiar with cricket. etc. Edward321 (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uh... fancruft? Lady Galaxy 22:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fancruft is not a valid reason for deletion. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of any notability from reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Star Wars races (P-T) Umbralcorax (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable due to significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject and as WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. Anything that gets any on topic Google news or especially Google books hits is notable by any reasonable standard. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conveniently, Wikipedia has a standard by which notability can be judged, the general notability guideline. All I see there are requirements for significant independent secondary coverage, which this article lacks utterly. Protonk (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely in-universe detail in the form of fictional background information and a character list which is only plot summary. No evidence this species is notable by having received substantial coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As indicated by the hits above, it has received substantial coverage from reliable sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources and redirect to List_of_Star_Wars_races_(P-T)#Twi.27lek. Do not merge any content, since entirety of article is uncited in-universe plot summary and trivia that wholly fails to offer any encyclopedic content. --EEMIV (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirectable articles do not require deletion discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd rather delete this unencyclopedic content just to help prevent people undoing the redirect to restore cruft -- as continues to happen at River Tam, Jayne Cobb, Planet Express, etc. It's also been my (and Judgesurreal's) experience that a redirected article often is un-redirected by zealous fans and article-owners, leading to AfD down the line to settle things. So, yes, Judgesurreal could have just redirected (as he has done many times before), but I don't begrudge him "skipping" to AfD. If the underlying point is whether to retain the article history...well, there's nothing of encyclopedic value in this article now, so might as well ditch it. --EEMIV (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This encyclopedic content should be kept, especially since WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. Even redirects should actually be discussed on the talk page first. Deletion is an extreme last resort when all else has been tried and failed. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I disagree that "it's cruft" is "never" a valid reason for deletion, especially when "it's cruft" is used as shorthand for "non-notable and lacks reliable sources" -- which I just did, with my "[it's] cruft" in my second note being a shorthand for "lack of reliable sources" in my first one. But this is a tangent better suited for a re-re-AfD of WP:CRUFT. And please don't summarize for me a "how-to" process for article (non-)deletion -- although I, too, often skip to AfD for pure cruft (used here as shortcut! don't get your gourds in a pie!), I'm no stranger to talk-page discussion and the like. But, perhaps I will heed your unnecessary input and maintain my ways by following the example you offered when you engaged in discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Fancruft before nominating that essay for deletion. --EEMIV (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am increasingly finding that use of cruft actually means that it is notable and has reliable sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, well, keep on processing things that way. I'll, uh, just be over there... --EEMIV (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Have fun! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Umbralcorax. Edward321 (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The subject seems slightly notable, as several famous characters (Bib Fortuna, Oola) are members of this race, and there are some Google News and Google Books hits. But it doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. It should be merged and redirected to this list, as suggested above. 96T (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, unorigninally researched fancruft. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per significant coverage in reliable sources such as Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Characters by Andy Mangels and Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons, and also multiple independently-written and independently-published fictional sources which involve the Twi'lek. DHowell (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, little or no notability outside the SW universe. More appropriate to a list or a specialist wiki such as Wookieepedia. Stifle (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Disruptive nomination. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Tsang[edit]

Unknown Chinese figure from Hong Kong. Fails WP:Notability Hyakugojuuichiasian (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyakugojuuichiasian is an idiot or a vandal or did not read the article he proposes to delete, Tsang is the main political person in HK. I propose to remove the delete tag immediately. --Lgriot (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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