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

The result was keep. - Philippe 19:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance[edit]

Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization. Entire article is sourced to the organization's own documents, or non-critical, non-reliable sources. Jehochman ^Talk 21:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This organization also appears to be a major source of linkspam, perhaps an orchestrated public relations campaign. In addition to deleting this article, the following links may need to be removed. Jehochman ^Talk 21:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • www.religioustolerance.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
  • WT:WPSPAM#Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
• Keep. I added some references, including two reviews of the site and two newspaper articles which quote Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. As well, this review by the Apologetics Index (already mentioned in the article) is critical of the site. --Eastmain (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very well. Let's discuss these references:
  • "Web Site of the Week: www.religioustolerance.org". The Dallas Morning News. September 15, 2001. Retrieved 2008-07-08. ((cite news)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • "Religions Tolerance (review of website)". School Library Journal. 1 April 2004. Retrieved 2008-07-08. ((cite news)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • "Paganism growing fast in U.S., Canada". UPI. June 26, 2008 at 1:42 PM. Retrieved 2008-07-08. ((cite news)): Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Draper, Electa (June 26, 2008). "NEO-PAGANS-ART-DEN". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-07-08. ((cite news)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• I do not see how these establish notability. The first two require payment, so I could not check them. The last two are mere passing mentions. They are not articles about the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Being quoted or mentioned here and there does not necessarily establish notability. Jehochman ^Talk 01:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the first two, the previews ought to be sufficient to confirm that the OCRT's website was reviewed by reliable sources. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance is as much about the website as the organization, so a review of the site is directly talking about the subject of the article. AccessMyLibrary.com pages can be accessed free of charge if you have a library card from a participating library. The paganism articles both quote OCRT, indicating that two newspapers regard OCRT and its website as a reliable source of information. --Eastmain (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jehochman, it is not required that reliable sources have free online archives. That you can't find a way to read them easily for free is irrelevant. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warning: the above comment is a strawman argument. I said, "The first two require payment, so I could not check them," which means I could not check them, not that they are invalid. Eastmain, did you actually read the articles, or just the summaries? Jehochman ^Talk 10:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable group doing notable things. I remember they were cited in a large number of news articles in the late 90s and there were articles written about them. COI: I've had very negative personal interactions with one of the founders in the context of the organization. Hobit (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The group's activities seem to have been reviewed by enough independent sources to pass the threshold for notability for organizations. That said, the article appears to need substantial clean-up and additional sourcing, and careful attention to WP:NPOV and WP:RS issues. In general, content about social impact, importance, controversies, criticisms, etc. particularly needs to be sourced to independent sources. Sourcing it to the organization's own sources tends to result in highlighting the organization's own point of view on these matters. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; organization (however small) that operates a fairly well-known and oft talked about website - less so these days than hitherto, sure, but that doesn't change anything. They are, indeed, a poor SOURCE for Wikipedia articles and most references to them should be replaced with something better. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is so well known, where is the coverage by independent sources? All I have seen thus far is a few passing mentions, and a ton of linkspam. Why is it a well-known website? Can you provide a reason, not just an assertion? Tell me please, how did this tiny organization get 1045 external links from the English Wikipedia? There was clearly an organized linkspam campaign going on here. Who did this, and why? Jehochman ^Talk 10:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may well have been inappropriately linked in most or all of those cases, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted as punishment. The notability of subjects is a separate question from the behavior of Wikipedia editors. We wouldn't want opponents of organizations to start linkspam campaigns in hopes of getting the organization's article deleted. --Shirahadasha (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct. However, there is a high correlation between linkspamming and creation of articles about non-notable entities. I brought this article to AfD because I thought it needed close scrutiny. My own evaluation is that this web site is not notable. It's Google PageRank is only 4, as displayed on the toolbar. Most notable websites have a PageRank of 6 - 10. That's a redflag to me. A second red flag is that the article was almost entirely sourced to the organization's own website. Whether this discussion results in keep or delete, there is value in bringing attention to these problems. Jehochman ^Talk 12:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Edge Magazine[edit]

The Edge Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Entry is non-notable. The magazine has a limited circulation territory. Freddyboy (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete appears non-notable and non-verifiable. Appears to be lots of "The Edge" magazines but, I can't find proof that this one even exists (in reliable 3rd party sources) much less its notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*comment, Notability needs to be established. Chikwangwa (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)comment from banned user struck The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this free weekly newspaper sounds like many such newsjournals such as The Phoenix in Boston and Metroland from Albany, New York. Can anyone verify its existence? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir Neerattupuram[edit]

Sudhir Neerattupuram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article has some claims of notability, but is totally unreferenced. A Google search returns only 5 hits, 4 of them being related to the article and its image, and one of them being an unrelated post at the Google Groups Help Forum. All this makes the article a candidate for deletion per WP:V and even WP:N, if we consider that the claims of notability are unverifiable. Also, the author of the article is called Sudhirn, he has a copy of the article on his User page, and one of the first versions of the article contained a "self article for me" at the bottom. Therefore, the author may be in a WP:COI. In addition, the article has been prodded, but it was removed by the author (he also removed some maintenance tags). Victor Lopes (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:N Plasticup ^T/C 23:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - looks like an online resume. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:N, also it claims that the subject is a famous writer but a search on amazon.com shows no results. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 00:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It looks like editor is promoting Himself through wikipedia.Hitrohit2001 (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[reply]
• Delete: Non notable, self-promo ,WP:COI issue. A few books ,going by his own profile read only in Kerala and that too, by a small minority of pro-RSS people. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs)
• Weak Delete seems non-notable and unverifiable. I can't find anything about him anywhere (including non-english search engines). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Delete arguments are weak and outnumbered, but the merge opinion is not a viable result of a debate I can enforce: there are limits to what I can do as the closer. I would suggest that if someone wants to restructure our coverage of this area, they should boldly do so. Mangojuice^talk 17:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M&Ms - Shell Shocked[edit]

M&Ms - Shell Shocked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced 1 liner article about a video game with no indication of its notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:I agree with the nominator. Schuym1 (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Game hasn't been reviewed in any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of PlayStation 1 games, I'm coming up with absolutely zilch from google. The modern gaming sites don't offer a vast amount of coverage when it comes to the PS1 era, if the sources are anywhere they're in magazines. However, since this is a bog-standard licensed game, it's got less appeal to reviewers than say a Capcom game. If someone comes up with magazine sources down the line it can always be sprung out again. Someone another 11:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – There's nothing there. MuZemike (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to Merge to M&Ms Video Games along with The Lost Formulas, following recent addition of information on this article. MuZemike (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, now a valid stub. Game shows up on Google, GameFAQs, and IGN. Consider doing something like what I just did when faced with an article that doesn't meet standards. Do you want to help the article or just be lazy and delete it? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, article should also be moved to M&Ms: Shell Shocked just to be finicky. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge this and M&M's: The Lost Formulas to a new article M&Ms Video Games. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, I belive the above statement is best. Merge several smaller articles into a single medium sized article. mauler90 (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: the article has changed enough since several of the early !votes that it would be worthwhile relisting so the discussion can take place on the article as it now stands.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Article has been moved to M&M's: Shell Shocked per an unopposed request at WP:Requested moves. JPG-GR (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, potentially all the way to M&M's, although M&M's video games isn't a bad idea either. Nifboy (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GR|JPG-GR]] (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, to M&M's (with section redirect), or M&M's video games. Not enough to say about this game for a whole article alone.Yobmod (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to M&M's video games. Even though now there are links to other websites, still doesn't assert much notability, as Gamestop, IGN etc. cover basicly all games. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 16:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City-Link Express[edit]

City-Link Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sham article which serves to promote the Malaysian company. Details are given at Talk:City-Link Express since nobody will bother to review the article's history. Spammer has successfully deleted ((prod)) and ((db-spam)) templates with no consequences. DanielPenfield (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - . Your arguments are well researched, Daniel. It's impossible to save any of this, since the text is too tainted to use it as a basis for a neutral, unbiased article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ,WP:VSCA deluxe. Thanks for the helpful links. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep and Rewrite appears to have some notability [1], [2], and [3]. Also note that removing a PROD tag is perfectly acceptable (and the tag even says it is okay) the Speedy tag was removed by a user other than the author as was one occurance of the PROD. The article needs a significant rewrite to be less "spammy" and improvements tags shouldn't be removed before the issues are addressed. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is is not an "automatic save". CSD#11 states "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Let some good faith editor come along and re-create it. User:Supplychainavid has had more than enough time to remove the promotional text, but has instead merely restated why you should really go out now and buy services from City-Link Express ("cost-effective", "systematically reduces operating costs", "Its logo has been recognized by many in Malaysia") -- DanielPenfield (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but, I bothered to look at the history of the page and the talkpage. I don't deny a possible COI but, that in and of itself isn't a deletion criteria. If you wish I will remove some of the "spamminess" myself (or you could undertake it as a WP:BOLD move yourself. I totally agree with you on the possible behaviour infractions btw in regard to the removal of improvement tags but, that isn't an issue for AfD. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per Daniel Penfield, and salt for at least 6 months. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kevin Grevioux, because DarkStorm Studios no longer exists.  Sandstein  23:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alius Rex[edit]

Alius Rex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable comic book. Aside from a link to the publisher's site, there are no sources of any kind, reliable or otherwise. A Google search turns up only a handful of relevant hits. Contested PROD (removed by original author with no explanation whatsoever). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kevin Grevioux, where it already gets a passing mention. Grevioux is notable, and his launch of the Darkstorm imprint seems to have made an impact of a sort in the world of comic books (see mentions here and here, for instance), but none of the other Darkstorm titles seem to merit a Wiki article and this doesn't seem notable enough to be the exception. --Karenjc 18:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to DarkStorm Studios - as mentioned above the launch seems to have got attention and we can slot that into a section on their titles. I found this on Alius Rex at Broken Frontier, as well as stuff at Newsarama [4] and Comic Book Resources [5], all from a quick skim of the comics sites I usually draw on for reviews and interviews. It'd then give us precedents for dealing with any other similar titles and if any section gains enough sources and material that it looks viable we can split them off. Note though what Broken Frontiers say: These are imprints from Alias Enterprises (where some are already listed) so another option might be a merge there (although it could need splitting off quite quickly) but that is an option (which works lsihgtly better, for me anyway, than a merge with Kevin Grevioux. (Emperor (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 01:49, 3 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, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to either Kevin Grevioux or DarkStorm Studios per both arguments above. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring themes in The Mighty Boosh[edit]

Recurring themes in The Mighty Boosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Anything of use could be added to main article. This is like on big trivia page relying heavily on bullet points. An example of trivia: "When trapped in a life threatening situation, Howars and Vince have a tendency to recall good times they have had together, usually involving food. This almoast always leads to a song." Tenacious D Fan (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Love the Boosh, but this is pretty much unreferenced original research. --Canley (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Eassentially an OR essay. Nsk92 (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — OR. Wikipedia is not a collection of indescriminate information. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 23:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LDS Test and Measurement[edit]

LDS Test and Measurement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously tagged as spam for speedy deletion but contested. Article was created by user:Lds.spx and is peppered with phrases such as LDS is a name that has been traditionally associated with high quality vibration test systems, LDS' solutions are designed to perform the most demanding tests, Engineers around the globe rely on LDS instrumentation and LDS' vibration test systems meet virtually any test requirement and have proven themselves under the most demanding requirements Ros0709 (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged again. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it's listed on the NYSE, so putting aside the current tone, doesn't that fulfill notability reqs? Niczar ⏎ 23:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it is not listed on NYSE, it's parent company is. Notability is not inherited from parent companies to their subsidiaries, it must be ascertained on it's own. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:CORP. No assertion of notability in article, and news search shows nothing. It is on the verge of CSD#G11 for blatant advertising too; if kept it needs a very thorough copyedit (read: removal of most of the prose). Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I punched down the language a bit; the sensible thing is probably a merge to SPX Corporation. WilyD 01:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as corporate spam. From the title, I thought this would be something about some alleged ritual in the the Mormon church (Latter Day Saints, LDS) I hope some hardworking young exec doesn't lose a job over this. Mandsford (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as corporate advertising for non-notable company. Anything relevant can be merged to the parent company's article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, also as too close to the Mormon church (LDS) and thus likely to be confusing. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslimania[edit]

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

Unsourced neologism (see WP:NEO). Contested prod. Speedy close and delete, anyone? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly fails WP:NEO and probably WP:OR. Ros0709 (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rob Banzai (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NEO. 23:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, neo, no sources, blah blah. - Merzbow (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a google search for Muslimania returns some hits, but the term appears to be a neologism every time it is used. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definitely WP:NEO. There's not much information on the article...only one sentence, plus, there are no references. --Grrrlriot (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How I hate articles by people who seek to invent a "neologism", especially by bigots who want to tell us how misguided they think Muslims are. Muslimania? Are you kidding? After Beatlemania and Wrestlemania, I don't think anyone would quite use this particular word. Mandsford (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable term Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as above, non notable neologism. What ya gonna do brother, when Muslimania runs wild on you! ITAQALLAH 20:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially a dictionary of made-up words. Lehoiberri (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete no references, no notability. Recommend speedy deletion. Chikwangwa (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)!vote from banned user struck The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unreferenced dictionary definition of a neologism. Aleta ^Sing 21:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Clean Skies Foundation[edit]

American Clean Skies Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Besides the mess of other issues, the organization flunks notability.
Speedy Keep. I retract my nomination. —Latischolar^talk_{contributions} 21:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: 19 Google News results, including Forbes. Seems notable. Plasticup ^T/C 21:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although the article in its present form is atrocious, there is enough information available to write a decent article. I've flagged it for rescue, so hopefully it will get some help. BradV 23:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect (non-admin closure), redirected by nominator, nom withdrawn.. Protonk (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Mario DS[edit]

Paper Mario DS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Crystallballism, unverified sources, speculation. I couldn't find a speedy deletion criterion. Corvus cornix_talk 21:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Paper Mario. It sounds like the game is just a port, which is generally not considered inherently notable, especially when it has not been released yet. The redirect article already has a better written section on the topic. -Verdatum (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't aware of the other article. That works for me, I'll redirect and this can be closed. Corvus cornix_talk 22:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Bduke (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Losing streak (sport)[edit]

Losing streak (sport) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sorry if this is linked from the main page somewhat but this term is nothing much than a dic def, and a list that has the potencial of being be way too broad and WP:NOT#DICDEF Delete Secret 21:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also, tries to be an article and a list at the same time which does not work. I don't even think a list on this theme could stand without defining much more narrow and specific parameters for inclusion. Nsk92 (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Neutral. It could be that this article may be developed into an analog of the Winning streak (sports) article. I don't have particularly strong feelings on the issue, but I am not a fan of the latter article either. The criteria for what is or is not a winning/loosing streak and could/should be included in such an article are rather arbitrary. But maybe this one should be given a chance.... Nsk92 (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What about Winning streak (sports) then surely that should be up for deletion as well. Personally I'm neutral on the subject as I think as they both currently stand they could be good but also have to somehow avoid getting too long and I'm not sure what the answer is. Therefore I won't nominate Winning streak for deletion. Dpmuk (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, at the risk of invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF, I don't see why this article can't be developed into something like Winning streak (sports). Yes, the quality of the article right now is poor, but that's not a good reason to delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. Extraordinary losing streaks are certainly notable and worthy of inclusion. But I agree with the nominator that the dictionary definition is inapproriate. If, besides the list, this is all we have, the article should probably be retitled List of Famous Losing Streaks in Sports or something similar; the same with Winning streak (sports), which really is just a list. —Latischolar^talk_{contributions} 01:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Kind of a clever vehicle for sports trivia, isn't it? First, a John Madden explanation of what the phrase means (Ya lose one game, then another, and another, and another, and BOOM, ya got yourself a streak going... only it's a losing streak), and then the Al Michaels follow up with, "And speaking of losing streaks, Tampa Bay lost 26 NFL games in a row once, John." "When was that, Al. Twenty-six huh? When was that?" "I got no idea John-- the damn Wikipedia article doesn't say." "Al, you gotta have information so people have information, some sourcing so that people know the source where the sourcing came from... touchdown, you got an article. And that's the name of the game. Mandsford (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong rename to List of losing streaks in sport. user:Everyme 05:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - to trivial to me. -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - under this name or as a list. It's consisitent with our outcomes. Bearian (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not meaning to WP:OTHERSTUFF but I think the winning streak article does show the potential this article has. I think it's an encyclopedic enough topic and could become a good, well sourced article. Vickser (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied. — Scientizzle 21:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wood in popular culture[edit]

Wood in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

article created as disruption to make a point - no useful value Toddst1 (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. This was created by an SPA for the purposes of trolling. Lets not waste any more time. RFerreira (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Like he said. -- Alexf⁴² 21:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by Athaenara per CSD G12 as blatant copyright infringement. WilliamH (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Richard Johnston[edit]

Sir Richard Johnston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Confusing, Bad quality, looks like crap. AlwaysOnion (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of peerage.com and the geocities page linked in the article. So tagged. Deor (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflist) Keep: Sounds like a candidate for a good cleanup, not for deletion. I'll have a poke around, but regardless this does not mean any of the WP:AfD criteria. Just saw the copyright violation. Clear speedy del candidate. Plasticup ^T/C 21:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per consensus, snow and iar. — _Maggot^Syn 13:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eyeshield 21 characters[edit]

List of Eyeshield 21 characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears to contain a list of characters in an anime/manga series. It is far too long, contains excessive detail, and uses only the primary source for its information. The article also does not establish how all this character background is relevant beyond the scope of the original series. I'd call it Fancruft...but that seems to be a derogatory term these days. Several Times (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A character list is a legitimate spinout article to keep the main series article from growing too large. This article being too large and too detailed is a sign it needs improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Nomination gives no reasons for deletion, only for cleanup. Character lists are considered acceptable spinoff articles, by consensus. Doceirias (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - nominator's rationale indeed is a cleanup one, not one backed by any sort of policy or guideline. Aside from that, character lists for long-running series are widely considered acceptable spinouts per current consensus. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the more-or-less established consensus that spinout lists of this type are acceptable for fictional topics of long-running series. Overlong and/or excessive detail is, per editorial policy, reason to clean up not delete, and I note that WP:FICT specifically recommends that a merge back to the parent article be attempted before proposing deletion. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - rationale is pure clean up, not a valid deletion. A list of characters for an anime/manga series of this length is a very appropriate spin out from the main. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd like to clarify that this deletion proposal is primarily based off of the lack of sources, and does not demonstrate real-world notability as described in WP:FICT. I'd love to see the page merged and/or edited instead of deleted, but it doesn't appear to meet the existing guidelines at the moment independent of what the consensus on character lists is. --Several Times (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - According to the relevant section of WP:FICT#Creating_fictional_element_lists, character lists are acceptable splits. Primary sources are usually considered sufficient for characters lists when the notability of the series itself is not in question. Certainly, the article contains very excessive coverage, and that needs to be trimmed - if real world sources are available, those should also be added. Neither of these are grounds for deletion, merely specific things that should be mentioned in the cleanup tags. Doceirias (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Battling fancruft is indeed a fine intention, but I consider general character lists a legitimate spinout for almost any series, no matter how messy the lists are. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This nomination seems to be the equivalent of "Clean the article up or I'll get the article deleted" and that is not okay. JuJube (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but with a Massive Cleanup: I think maybe we sort of went overboard with some of the character information and making the article as big as it is but I did think of a way to clean it up: we split off certain teams into their own articles (just like Deimon, Ojo, Seibu & Shinryuji) and then every other team on this page will have a drastic reduction in information to shrink it down but keep all that we currently have. Then we can go back and add notability information to the seperate team articles. -StrangerAtaru (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator's rational simply makes no sense. We do not delete articles because they need cleanup. The nomination is especially dubious when the nominator has done nothing to cleanup article the list beyond nominating it for deletion and has not even discuss a cleanup effort on the talk page. --Farix (Talk) 13:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulab A. Khan[edit]

Ghulab A. Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another HOAX biography. Subject had a (suspiciously?) starry education - Le Rosey, Eton,Trinity, Stanford, and Harvard - and is now "one of the most successful venture capitalists" worth $3 bn; his success has "garnered international media attention", but relevant results from Google are only this article and a reference in ILW.COM which is headed "here are some entries from Greg Siskind's blog" and which links back to an earlier Wikipedia article Ghulab Khan, deleted by PROD last December.

His firm Ghulab Khan Capital Partners (GKCP) is "one of the world's leading venture capital firms" and has an equally (suspiciously?) starry list of investments - Apple, Cisco, Ebay, Google... but its "official website", linked from the article, is a single text-only page on a free hosting service. A Google search produces 5 entries, two for this article and the others link back to it. (Question - when we delete a hoax article like this, should someone notify sites like timesdaily.com who have picked it up and repeated it?) A search for GKCP produces nothing relevant.

Author Peter1001 (talk · contribs) has no other edits. This one got past New Page Patrol and has been here since May; congratulations to Xn4 for spotting and tagging it. Time to Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (maybe even a speedy as an obvious hoax?), per nom. Just in case, I also did a GoogleNews search which produces 12 hits[6], that all appear to be unrelated to the subject of the article. Nsk92 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly non-notable. (Sadly, being a hoax is not grounds for Speedy.) Edward321 (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax, though probably not obvious enough to be speedied - after all, ILW seems to have believed a previous version of the article. Huon (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Hoax articles are speediable as vandalism (per the misinformation "clause"). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect all four. Fram (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Ranch[edit]

Jesus Ranch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable song. Never released as a single, never charted. Reliability is not asserted. I contributed most to this article, but can say that it is fancruft.

I am also nominating the following Tenacious D-related pages for similiar reasons:

The Metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Non-notable song. Did not chart. Not released as a single.

Kickapoo (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Non-notable song. Did not chart. Not released as a single.

Sax-a-boom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - only of note amongst Tenacious D fans who have seen The Complete Masterworks. Page is well cited - I cited it - but notability is not asserted.

I have merged all useful (cited information) into the relevant Tenacious D articles, so nothing of use is being lost.

Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All except The Metal as it is probably there most notable song and was featured in Guitar Hero (3 i think...) - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 00:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing to discuss. You (nom) say you were the main author of these articles, that deletion will be uncontroversial, and that you've merged all useful content. Deleting would be a GFDL violation, because you've merged. Just be bold, redirect the articles to the relevant albums (or whatever page you used as a merge target) then speedy close. No AfD discussion is needed. AndyJones (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This content fork was the wrong way to go about moving the page, and the new name is inappropriately commercial. Instead, USB NX was moved to the new name NX (software) per Latischolar. Closing early because this isn't really about deleting article content. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NX - a Siemens PLM Software solution[edit]

NX - a Siemens PLM Software solution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is a duplicate of UGS NX, which contains the article's edit history, and title is blatant advertising. —Latischolar^talk_{contributions} 20:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response by normsch. Yes, this is a copy of UGS NX. It was created because Siemens PLM Software acquired UGS. The intent is to redirect all links that had been to UGS NX, to this page. When that is completed, UGS NX will be eliminated. I am concerned about the blatant-advertising comment about the title and am open to suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Normsch (talk • contribs) 22:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't do it myself because I'm not autoconfirmed; otherwise, I would have fixed this myself a long time ago. I propose MOVING UGS NX to NX (software) or another similarly neutral name. It has to be UGS NX, not NX - a Siemens PLM Software solution, because otherwise you'll lose the history of the article, which is illegal under the GFDL. Once that's done, UGS NX can be made into a redirect while links are updated. I'd be happy to take care of all of this. This article should be deleted because of the title and to preserve the edit history of UGS NX. —Latischolar^talk_{contributions} 23:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally, regarding your plan that "UGS NX will be eliminated"... you can't delete the article yourself. Only administrators can delete articles, and that only after consensus (except for speedy deletions and the like). —Latischolar^talk_{contributions} 23:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: if nothing happens by the time I'm autoconfirmed, I'll just be bold and take care of the UGS NX page move myself. —Latischolar^talk_{contributions} 00:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). And the award goes to...those who came out in unanimous favourable consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictitious Academy Award nominees[edit]

List of fictitious Academy Award nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Interesting trivia, but doesn't merit its own (short) article. SeizureDog (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Definitely needs a change of title, and no excuse for not sourcing this. Stated briefly, the article is about actual nominees, whose nominations were made under a cover name not their own. Thus "Robert Rich", 1957 winner, was actually Dalton Trumbo; "Roderick James" was an alias for the Cohen brothers, Joel and Ethan; "P.H. Vazak" was actually Robert Towne; Pierre Boulle and Ian McLellan Hunter received awards in place of other people; etc. Neutral on this one, because it might have potential but it needs a lot of work. Mandsford (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I strongly oppose deletion of this article. I will offer my responses to the above comments.
  • I would not categorize the information in this article as "trivia" at all. At best, that classification is a matter of opinion, about which reasonable minds may differ.
  • Academy Awards are among the most prestigious (if not, the most prestigious) awards given within the film industry. And, certainly, having fictitious people and/or fictitious names as either winners or nominees is indeed a rare, yet notable, event. It is certainly encyclopedic. (For what it's worth, I have seen far worse pass for "encyclopedic" on Wikipedia.) This is by no means trivial or "trivia". In fact, there is clearly encyclopedic historical information and encyclopedic historical reasons underlying some of these fictitious nominees (Hollywood blacklisting during the McCarthy Era, for example). This is exactly the type of information that belongs in, and one would expect to find in, an encyclopedia.
  • I agree with Mandsford that this material needs to be sourced. Sources will be – and are – quite easily found and readily available. All of the information contained in this article is certainly not in dispute. It is rather well-known and generally accepted. Sources are not going to be difficult to find to verify the information herein contained. And, just because sources are not included, does not mean that they do not exist. As such, the article should be improved … not deleted. Such improvement would include the addition of sources. Furthermore, as Mandsford states, "it needs a lot of work". I can agree with that. And, by policy, working to improve an article (as opposed to deleting the article) is the preferred means to addressing poorly-written or poorly-sourced articles.
  • As far as a rename, that may be slightly tricky, but not impossible. In many cases, there was an actual nominee (a real person) who, for whatever reason, used another name (in some cases, a fictitious name and, in some cases, the name of an actual person). Mandsford has delineated several such instances above. However, there has been at least one case in which a completely fictitious person was nominated for an Academy Award: Donald Kaufman was nominated for Best Writing for Adaptation. in 2002 at the 75th Academy Awards. To that extent, Mandsford's post above is not fully accurate. And, to that extent, renaming of the article must consider instances such as Donald Kaufman in which the nominee is indeed fictitious. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep based on Mandsford's info. While the article is badly named and badly in need of sourcing, it is a notable subject. Edward321 (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename I thought this was a list of movie characters who had been nominated for Oscars, but it's actually a list of occasions when an award or nomination has been granted to person working under an an alias. That's a pretty notable topic, not trivia, and as Mandsford says, there should be no excuse for not sourcing this. --Canley (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: for all the above reasons. It needs renaming, citing and possibly a restructure. I agree that ficitious nominees isn't completely correct, but I'm not sure what name covers fictious nominees (Donald Kaufman), "one off" pseudonyms (Robert Rich, Roderick Jaynes, P.H. Vazak) and covers (Pierre Boulle, Ian McLellan Hunter) without covering any name that isn't the nominee's real name. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable enough, but needs sources/refs! Lugnuts (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, of course, but it does need better sourcing and it must be renamed. You would expect an article with this title to reference Diana Barrie. AndyJones (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an interesting encyclopedic list. But it does need sourcing and a rename. Vickser (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Someone's reordered the page, I've added a few cn's and started a discussion about what it should be renamed on the talk page. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with Bangin' on Wax Waggers (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steady Dippin'[edit]

Steady Dippin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod was contested without any edit summary. Reason was "very short article. Can't go further than a track listing and infobox". Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 20:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - no reason given for deletion. --T-rex 20:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nominator's history with this rap group's article and album articles is worth exploring; it is full of contentious editing. User may be attempting to make a WP:POINT with this nomination. Chubbles (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh... no. Actually AfD is the next step if the prod was contested. Read WP:PROD. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Immaterial; my point still stands. Chubbles (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to album, not enough content for a separate article. Ten Pound Hammer

and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to album. No evidence the song has charted found at allmusic guide, no claim of meeting WP:MUSIC in article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mangojuice^talk 17:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madrasah 'Arabiyyah[edit]

Madrasah 'Arabiyyah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced oneliner; no indication that this school is secondary or otherwise notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Raiwind. I have not found anything significant in a Gsearch but such schools often have little or no web presence and, to avoid systemic bias, we may have to await local searches. At the moment a merge to the locality seems the way to go. TerriersFan (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait. I just notified the page creator about the AfD. If information can be provided to substantiate that the school really is "famous" and that notable 'ulama really did graduate from there, the article should be kept. —Latischolar^talk_{contributions} 01:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete, no notability claimed and no content to keep. (But waiting, say, a week until the creator comments would be worthwhile.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge. No notability established.Yobmod (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 08:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine rhetoric[edit]

Byzantine rhetoric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced oneliner with minimal context and virtually no content. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no sources. WillOakland (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is a tiny stub, but that's not a deletion criteria. It satisfies WP:N and WP:V, with 462 Google books hits, including many that show clearly non-trivial discussions of the term. I've added one reference to the article resulting from seeing this AfD; it's not a topic I'd usually edit, but I figured it would be a good idea to provide some context showing that it is a term discussed in scholarly literature. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Informative, sourced stub on a notable topic in a notable ancient civilisation. Possibly merge to a suitable article until there's some more content.  Sandstein  23:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. It's a notable subject, and there is a source now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Prah Jr.[edit]

Robert Prah Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

User:Feickus tagged this for AFD on June 12, but didn't complete the nomination process. They did, however, leave the comment "There isn't any references for this article." on the talk page. This person is the current mayor of Smithton, Pennsylvania, however, so although it is a very small town (pop. 444) whose mayors may not be inherently notable, the article itself isn't speediable since it does make a notability claim. Procedural nomination, no !vote. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A local politician and a mayor of a very small town. GoogleNews gives a grand total of 26 hits[7], but most are false positives. A few are about him[8][9]. Too little coverage to pass WP:POLITICIAN, in my view. Nsk92 (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Would be happy to switch opinion to keep if some RS were added. --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD G11 and A7. Oren0 (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Coacha[edit]

La Coacha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:WEB and WP:BIO, reads like advertising Madcoverboy (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per wp-a7. AlwaysOnion (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD G11 and so tagged. —Latischolar^talk_{contributions} 01:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Keating[edit]

Joseph Keating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mayor of a small town. No assertion of notability, no references. BradV 19:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Joseph Keating because he is a CITY MAYOR not a "small town mayor". Go to Pittston and Luzerne County, Pennsylvania's wiki links and they will tell you that Pittston was incorporated as a CITY in 1894. If Luzerne County's three other city mayors have a wiki sight, then why not the fourth CITY and it's MAYOR of Pittston, Joseph Keating, have one too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesr55 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Don't be so quick to have a go at someone else. Certainly in the UK Pittston would be considered a small town based largely on it's size as we don't incorporate cities the same way as in the US. I don't know if the proposer is based in the UK but don't be so quick to assume they are delibrately belittling either the city or its mayor. See WP:CIVIL. Dpmuk (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what kind of legal entity it is, it has a population of 8,000. Where I live that's a village. BradV 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As it stands the article gives no reason why the mayor is notable and so fails WP:N, as being the mayor of a small city is not itself notable. Dpmuk (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no inherent notability in being the mayor of a small town of 8,000. Typically such an official will only have local news coverage and will fail WP:N. If he is inherently notable, then every mayor of any town of 8,000 or larger throughout history would have inherent notability, and I have seen no consensus for that. Edison (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, individual is well below the standard for WP:POLITICIAN. For that matter, so are Lou Barletta and Thomas M. Leighton (even Wilkes-Barre is under 50,000). His predecessor Tom McGroarty is barely more than a stub. If there is a mayor of Nanticoke with a page (John Tool is the incumbent), I couldn't find it. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Relevant information belongs in the Pittston article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If this were merged with the article on the city/town/whatever itself, there would be no change in content. --Earin (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First of all, according to the United States: "populations of 8,000 or larger" are not considered "TOWNS" like the previous speaker continues to portray it as; THEY ARE CITIES !!! Not as notable as New York City, but if they are considered cities by Luzerne County, one of the most populated, largest in landsize, and notable counties in all of Pennsylvania, then it is worthy for Wikidedia. The Luzerne County link is very proud of its four cities, which includes Pittston. For this notable county to even consider Pittston as a city then Wikipedia must too. Remember: On the WIKIPEDIA wedsite for Pittston it says that Pittston was "incorporated as a city". This can not be disbuted: United States of America, Pennsylvania, and Luzerne County, and even Wikipedia consider Pittston to be a CITY !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.157.186 (talk • contribs)
• Delete it's too small a city (or town, whichever word you'd like) to justify notability ex officio. Vickser (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Stop getting so up tight on whether people call it a town or city. I'm sure every one here will happily apccept it's been designated a city but this does not mean that this is a term they themselves would use in everyday life as different countries have different defintions and so they may call it a town regardless of its offical designation and mean no offence by this (as discussed above). Ultimately what one person would call this settlement is irrelevant to this discussion. The discussion here is whether the mayor is notable enough to have his own article. The size of the settlement is largely unrelated to this and being mayor of a city does not automatically make him notable although obviously mayors of large cities (which this clearly isn't) are likely to meet notability requirements easily as just by becoming mayor they are likely to get significant press coverage. Could we please now keep this discussion to whether the mayor is notable enough for his own article rather than discuss what this settlement should be called. Dpmuk (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments The countries of Nauru (10,000), Palau (16,000), Tavalu (9,700), and the Vatican City (less than 1,000) have populations close to that of Pittston. If these countries can be called "countries" then Pittston can be called a "City". And if these lands have websites proclaiming their leaders, then why not Pittston? Pittston City Mayor, Joe Keating is notable because he governs over a city that represents the Greater Pittston Area. The Greater Pittston Area has a total population of over 50,000 people, and covers over a landmass of 65.5 square miles. JOSEPH KEATING is notable because of what his city has been through over the course of the last few decades. The city has been through an economic depression since the 1980's, in which it lost 10,000 + people since the loss of manufacturing jobs. TheKnox Mine disaster, Battle of Wyoming, Bufilino Crime Spree, and much more history occurred in the Greater Pittston. Mayor Tom Leighton is also notable because of what his city went through: Economic Depression !!! That's why he has his own wikipedia website. Lou Barletta is notable because he is running for U.S. Congress and is a strong advocate for ending illegal immigration in his city of Hazelton. These are all notable mayors of cities (that have populations equivalent to or greater than some countries in the world).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.157.186 (talk • contribs)

  Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims? If so, put them in the article and it will likely be kept. BradV 14:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This AfD does not propose to delete the article on Pittston nor that on Greater Pittston; the AfD concerns whether the article on Joseph Keating is to be retained. —SlamDiego_←T 13:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:The assertion that this mayor is on par with notability with Lou Barletta is laughable. Barletta was the face of one of the country's toughest illegal immigrant laws and got his city sued for it. (although interestingly, none of this made it into Barletta's article) The coverage of that alone is enough to throw one over the top. Montco (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: I put in a "Reference" section today. Sources are now cited. I also added important, factual information. Now let us end this debate and give the City Mayor article back to the readers of Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.132.243 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Bradv asked you for reliable sources for the claims to notability that you made in the comments above, not merely for the few claims about Keating that are made in the article. Those few claims don't establish notability for Keating. —SlamDiego_←T 13:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, moving any peculiar, properly sourced content to other articles. Just three sentences of the eight sentences in the article are actually concerned with Mayor Keating. The content of those three sentences is, in sum: that he's the mayor, that economic conditions were tough when he took office in '05, and that some people want him out because they think that he's corrupt or ineffectual. The political unit of which he is the chief elected official is just 8000 people, and he's been mayor for less than four years. —SlamDiego_←T 13:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pending any sourcing to establish notability. Just being a elected doesn't necessarily confer instant notability. If there was really something notable going on with this guy, then the author should be able to run over to the Times-Tribune or The Times Leader archives (the larger news rags in NEPA) and find something substantive. And if they can't be bothered to cover him, I guess he isn't all that notable. Montco (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, unsourced WP:BLP oneliner.  Sandstein  23:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itamar Orbach[edit]

Itamar Orbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced oneliner about a rabbi, with nothing to indicate that he's notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article doesn't assert any notability. There's

practically nothing on google and nothing at all on google news. With no easily available sources, and none suggested, I've got to go with non-notable. Vickser (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete Rabbi Orbach is a Rabbi of a large American community in Israel. Merkaz HaRav is a notable institution, and its faculty should be treated as such. Searching for his name in Hebrew will bring better results.- Ygerst

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iron pit[edit]

Iron pit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not establish notability and contains personal attacks. Includes a list of pranks; that's not WP material. Several Times (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nn gym. Actual article content is mostly a violation of WP:NFT --T-rex 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn, fails WP:CORP. I deleted out the practical joke stuff because it appears to violate BLP. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. I excised more non encyclopedic content. --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Loyd[edit]

Marc Loyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[((subst:FULLPAGENAME))|View AfD]])

Not notable article, not even an article just a couple of lines and a waste of space! Adster95 (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:55, 2 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, Davewild (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. -- iMatthew _T.C. 23:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Darrenhusted (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Apsouthern (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prisha[edit]

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

Delete unsourced oneliner about a given name with no indication why this name among millions is significant; WP is not a baby naming guide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per wikipedia not being What Should We Name the Baby? and the lack of any other encylcopedic content. Vickser (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete due to crystal ball and notability problems. Davewild (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italian American Network[edit]

Italian American Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS (the Reuters link is actually a press release that ran on Business Wire, not an independent news story). Ecoleetage (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Pure spamvertizing, fails WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N, WP:CORP, and possibly WP:SOAP. Created (doubtless by some harried wage-slave with a boss demanding "More publicity!!!" breathing down their neck) concurrent with the articles about founder, board members, et al that were recently deleted. When they actually start a television network and relaible sources write about it, then perhaps an article would be warranted. L0b0t (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reasons outlined by Lobot-- right on. The article says that they have "plans" to "soon" launch an actual TV network. Well Mamma Mia!!! The fact that there's no date given for a launch should be a clue about how well those plans are going. For now, it's just one more website. Mandsford (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Let's wait until they get picked up by an actual cable provider before they have an article here. As it is, it's just a bunch of internet videos for now. Nate • (chatter) 00:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  23:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Subirana[edit]

Victor Subirana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A shadowy historical figure -- so much that even the vague and contradictory article acknowledges that almost nothing is known about him, and the very few texts that cite him play like a conquistador equivalent of "Rashomon." In any event, it fails WP:BIO. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Failing WP:BIO is a good way to lack notability. Leonard^(Bloom) 21:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I wonder if this is a hoax. The references seem to exist, but even though they are on Google Books, I get no hits on Google Books or Google Scholar for "victor subirana", "subirana de veliz", "siboney forucan", etc. --Groggy Dice T | C 22:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baldip[edit]

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

Thing made up in one day. Other than that, it really defies description. UsaSatsui (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, agree with UsaSatsui, Czar Brodie (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, even if it is a common term in and not NFT is still Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TStein (talk • contribs) 21:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Neologism, unverifiable, Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. Accurizer (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, with the expansion, consensus has shifted and believes that the article is notable. Davewild (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ranch Road 1[edit]

Ranch Road 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced oneliner about a road that bypasses a former president's ranch, is that sufficient to confer notability? If so, let's break out the maps of Plains, GA; and Santa Barbara, CA, Crawford, TX, to find out what roads are near the ranches and farms of some other former presidents and soon to be former president. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. no notability whatsoever. Czar Brodie (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a state-designated road straddling two counties. [10] WillOakland (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:N. It is hardly surprising or notable that a road led to the ranch of L.B. Johnson. Edison (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm usually kind to roads, but an ordinary ranch road being notable just because it's near LBJ's ranch? I don't think so.--Oakshade (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep for now based on TheCatalyst31's expansion. Per general consensus on state designated highways. If there is something historical or unique about it, that would help convince a lot more editors. --Oakshade (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirected to "Farm-to-market road" until someone writes a decent stub. WillOakland

(talk) 08:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a state highway: [11] and the only "Ranch Road" as opposed to the more common "Ranch to Market Road": [12]. I'm not sure about the notability of FM/RM roads in general, and the article's really not great, but being the only one of its type should be worth something, as well as being old US 290. Maybe there should be a list of park roads in Texas, with this mentioned in it; it's technically not one, but serves what is essentially a park, and there are two in the same area: [13][14] --NE2 13:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it's expanded. --NE2 03:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a state-designated highway, and farm-to-market roads/ranch-to-market roads are generally considered notable. This road also has the distinction of being the only RM road designatied as a Ranch Road, as mentioned above. As for the quality, I've expanded it so it's at least a decent stub now. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per above this is a state-designated and maintained road. If it's removed, then all Farm to Market and Ranch to Market roads in Texas and all county road articles for the U.S. will technically need to be removed as well. 25or6to4 (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a state-designated and -maintained road. It is part of Texas's secondary highway system. I'm not absolutely convinced of secondary highways' notability, however, compared to the higher bar that's set for the primary system (if it were a really important road, it'd be bumped up to primary status, no?) but what notability it loses from being in the secondary system, it regains from being the street LBJ lives on. So, adding up the minuses and the pluses, you get a "keep" vote from me. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that the new sources found during this AFD establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liebert (company)[edit]

Liebert (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP, seems purely promotional with no secondary sources. It used to be a barely-decent stub and has now turned into an advertisement. -WarthogDemon 18:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:CORP and is basically an ad created by User:Liebertwiki (COI?). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anon adding more to the article is also registered according to WHOIS to the same Liebert Co. hmmmmmm.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a very notable company in its field, and there should be plenty of information available on it to write a decent article. I'll see if I can find some. BradV 19:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references. I think the company is notable. I also removed at least one exclamation mark and in general tried to make the text more NPOV. --Eastmain (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep major company in the field. DGG (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Added references establish notability. The peacock terms have been removed, and the article no longer reads as advertising. Jim Miller (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nothing to delete, merged to List of sustainability topics. If people think that is useless, it would need its own AfD.  Sandstein  19:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of sustainability topics (0-9)[edit]

List of sustainability topics (0-9) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete not a good idea even if we were to all agree what sustainability topics are and why 0-9 should be a division of them... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no content --T-rex 20:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One of those articles that makes you say out loud, "What the hell?" Mandsford (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What is a "sustainability topic", why are they divided into subdivisions, and why is 1907 populations in that list? DarkAudit (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we have a List of sustainability topics. Was this perhaps broken out from there? It's not very clear to me what it is all about, though. AndyJones (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See here. Several people are currently merging stuff to form the list. The reactions to the lists for each letter of the alphabet varied from speedies to prods, but only one person went all the way to AfD, as far as I can tell so far. I'm going to merge this along with two others that got missed (W and S). So speedy close as dealt with already, and separate AfD for the merged list if desired. Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify a bit more, User:Granitethighs (a new user who is an academic, but who is still learning the ropes) did this topic listing as separate alphanumeric pages, instead of one page, and User:Yamakiri initially PROD'ed some of the articles, while others tagged them with speedy. Then Yamakiri merged a lot of the articles, but the history still needs to show that Granitethighs wrote the original lists, so I've been making sure all the redirects are undeleted and properly merged. Only a few people, including Yamakiri, actually went to the user's talk page to try and sort things out. I'll drop him a note to explain how to do this sort of thing in future. Carcharoth (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • See also Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#List of sustainability topics and User talk:Granitethighs. Carcharoth (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I see. Speedy Close and Keep (as redirect) then. AndyJones (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as it is used for top level sport in an (albeit small) country. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Village Park (Stadium)[edit]

Village Park (Stadium) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unreferecned oneliner about a stadium on an island with 600 people, unlikely any stadium there is notable - and certainly no showing that this one in particular is...WP:N Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Curious: This page says that the stadium has a capacity of 5000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasticup (talk • contribs)
  • Actually it says that the other stadium in the town has a capacity of 5,000 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I've cited a source and categorized/wikilinked it. There are only 2 stadiums in the entire (admittedly small) country; both in a capital city that supports quite a few teams in one of the upper-level leagues of the Oceania Football Confederation. I would hope that helps some regarding notability. L0b0t (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - given that there's only two stadia in the entire country, it think it would be feasible to merge this and Niue High School Oval into Niue Soccer Tournament and/or the relevant team article (if they exist). Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 16:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think that the sourcing and the lack of other comparable stadia makes it notable. matt91486 (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, indisciminant, nothing additional to category. Davewild (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lebanese businessmen[edit]

List of Lebanese businessmen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Should be a category. Damiens.rf 18:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no reason to have this. There is nothing notable about a businessman being Lebanese --T-rex 20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - Category:Lebanese businesspeople is already in exsistance --T-rex 20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is what's called the indiscriminate list. If all you want to do is have a list of names... it's been done. Mandsford (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was endorse redirect and protect.  Sandstein  23:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moezilla[edit]

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

Article was resurrected for no good reason. Habanero-tan (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Moe Anthropomorphism, per teh last AFD. Could this be a speedy? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Habanero already redirected it to that article anyway. Maybe we could get the space full protected instead? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 00:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-mt 03:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broadlands bridgend[edit]

Broadlands bridgend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, removed by author. Article is about a non-notable housing estate. Fails WP:RS, WP:N. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I tried to do some elementary cleanup, no opinion as yet on keep vs. delete. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge anything useful to Bridgend -- even in a Wiki-world where every town is notable, this is just a subdivision of Bridgend. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - needs a bit more of a tidy up (better referencing, probably a move to a better title) but it looks like a reasonable start to an article, and is distinct enough as an area to merit an article of its own. Waggers (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mere subdivisions or housing developments are not notable the way towns are. There are no sources here to indicate the significance of this one. Mangojuice^talk 17:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 71 (U.K. series)[edit]

Now That's What I Call Music! 71 (U.K. series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While it is a near certainty to be released, this article should still be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL without any verifiable sources Wolfer68 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Eventually the article will be needed, but we need to wait until there is an official source. WP:CRYSTAL. Plasticup ^T/C 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Now That's What I Call Music until at the very least a track listing is avaliable, althought the only thing to merge is the likely release date. If it does get merged the main article page will also have to be updated to include Number 70. Dpmuk (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Dpmuk - exactly right. The release date is the only thing preventing this from being a redir commentCastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 18:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably worth noting that the release date isn't sourced and I can't find anywhere else listing it, so I would presume that it's fabricated. BillyH 12:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it - what's wrong woth it existing, it will be an album, so why delete it when we're just going to recreate it in a few months...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.37.127 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - future albums without a tracklisting should be deleted --T-rex 20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-just put a lock on this page for gods sake, that way encyclopedic info can be added when they come out, release date, cover art etc. By locking it anonymus users cannot spam the page

Besides the USA Now 29 is allowed to stand, and that hasn't got much on it, so theirs should get deleted if ours goes under the axe ICryOverSpiltMilk (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now 29 is allowed to stand because there is no AfD for it. This debate is for NOW! 71 (UK) not NOW! 29 (US). Also Now 29 has a confirmed release date posted on its offical website and is sourced on the article; no such confirmation exists for Now 71.

Good point, I'm nominating it for deletion --T-rex 23:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unsourced spam magnet etcetera. And for those who ask, the problem with allowing it to stand is simple. If Now! 71 is allowed to stand on the grounds that it will "almost certainly" be released, then why shouldn't somebody then create (and spam) Now! 72, which in all likelihood will also exist? And then Now! 73? And then Now! 74? And then Now! 100? And so on? The line clearly has to be drawn somewhere, and the only logical place for that line is with the current release. I've tried to have this series protected before (back around the time of Now! 67), and their response was to send it to AfD. It's clear that the only way to deal with these is to shoot on sight and recreate once some sourced information exists; and no sourced information is ever available beyond the latest edition. Kinitawowi (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreaming about giraffes[edit]

Dreaming about giraffes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although the founder could be notable, I don't think the company is. StaticGull  Talk  17:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. If any user wants to merge, trim or "clean up with a chainsaw", well that's an editorial matter. Though if enacted without any kind of consensus, don't be surprised if it's quickly reverted. I'm sure all you lovely people, who give a damn about this article, will work things out. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raccoon City[edit]

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

Nothing but a plot summary. Even though it's the central setting for the games, there doesn't seem to be any out-of-universe info at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The last debate closed in january on the basis that the article "was sourcable". This is the difference between that version and the version today. I don't see an assertion of notability from the sourcing. I'm also suspicious that the source in question even exists. WP:FICT tells us that notability is not inherited (or WP:TOYS, take your pick for a community standard). This seems to be a textbook case of why we ought to be cautious in closing articles on the basis that they will be brought to marginal status over time. A (gated) search of that EGM issue doesn't come up with that article name, just a review of RE that doesn't mention Racoon city. Electron Gaming Mon ~ Electronic Gaming Monthly ~ 2008 January Jan 01 224 in Wilsonweb. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, maybe even speedy keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. One of the most notable fictional locations in video games that also appears in film, in books, even spoofed on Robot Chicken. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How is this notable outside the game, besides the Robot Chicken spoof, if there are no sources to back up the info? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is also the major setting of two films and numerous novels and comic books (check all of these books and reviews of them, for example). And it's not a one time location in some random game, but in many, many games and yes, I have seen it covered in video game magaines as well. Also, it has considerable reader interest. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The setting of Raccoon City has transcended the video games, and has entered the general pop-culture consciousness. Examples: The Kentucky Kernel [15] took a novel approach in reviewing the Resident Evil (film). The New York Times states Raccoon City is "played, for once, by a proud, undisguised Toronto, complete with CN Tower" [16], in which Toronto City Hall is portrayed as Raccoon City Hall. There is also the aforementioned Robot Chicken parody and the documentary "Beyond Raccoon City: Unearthing 'Resident Evil: Extinction'" [17] which appears on the special edition of Resident Evil: Extinction. Regarding Raccoon City in television commercials, George A. Romero(of the "The Dead" fame) directed a commercial for Resident Evil 2 which depicts the Raccoon City Police Station.[18] To date it is the setting of multiple, games, movies and novels and part of a recognizable and notable international franchise. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm inclined to think that we should build articles from sources, not look for sources in order to justify an article. Not all mentions of the text string "Raccoon City" will amount to significant coverage of the topic. We are sure (as it is a setting in a major VG and film franchise) to see the name bandied about but mere mention does not denote significant coverage. But I think further reminders would serve to be unhelpful so I'll leave it at that and take this one off my watchlist. Protonk (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: I have begun revising the article further and I encourage Ataru to use the sources he found to help in the effort. Thansk! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've cited the New York Times source in article. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep — Gathering that this is the 2nd nomination for AfD in six months, along with the article being flagged for rescue, this sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MuZemike (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)'[reply]

• Comment While I do support keeping this article, I'd note that the article was flagged for rescue after the AFD nom. [19] I believe Ten Pound Hammer's nom to be in good faith. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Six months is a perfectly reasonable time to ask for some non-trivial sourcing to be added to the article. TPH acted in good faith. If it was 6 days or six weeks, I would be inclined to believe you. Protonk (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This fictional city transcends the original game media. Raccoon city is almost synonymous of 'zombie apocalipse scenary' in popular culture. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Clean up with a chainsaw and if neccessary merge to the series' article. This does not in any sense transcend Resident Evil (any reference to Raccoon City is an RE reference) and any sources would fit just as well into the series article; let's get this cut down (there's a lot of crap), merged up, and split it if there's so much well-referenced info that it can stand on its own later. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Cleanup or Merge when AMIB doesn't vote Delete, I think that's a pretty good signal that an article shouldn't be deleted. JuJube (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the subject is perfectly valid, notable and backed up with good refs. Everyking (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Le Grand and Everyking. Plenty of valid info here with proper referencing. GlassCobra 21:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there is a longer article for Libery City from Grand Theft Auto... can't delete this and keep that. - tbone (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Alright. I said I wasn't coming back but I guess I lied. I've found the text for the egm reference. Seeing that, as well as the NYT and the USA Today reference (both available free online) convinces me that the coverage in the three reliable secondary sources is trivial. Each is approximately a 1-liner and none are separate from the comment on the movie or game (whichever applies for each article). Raccoon City is no more significant from being mentioned in those reviews than Rura Penthe is for being mentioned in a review of Star Trek VI. I'm not saying that Raccoon City isn't the central location for the series. In its current form, the article could be merged with the RE series article. But I am kind of boggling at the comments here about the soundness of the sourcing and the depth of the coverage. Please read the sources in question. They (EGM, NYT, USAT) no more cover RC than to mention it as the setting for the movies and games. This isn't about inclusion or deletion, per se. It is about applying the spirit of WP:N (and WP:NOT). We may disagree about the guideline itself but as it stand we ought to let the process reflect it. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Meh. I seriously doubt this will be a standalone article in two weeks time. Editing will tell. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If the decision is to keep, then it would violate the spirit of that decision to edit it down and merge it. Everyking (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Since when? A keep AFD has never been a badge of protection against editing and merges. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No, seeing as AmiB and I both did a good deal of the editing down. I have no problem with this being deleted or merged. It doesn't have reliable sources, WP:EFFORT is nice but doesn't mean a page meets guidelines. Protonk (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Decently sourced at the moment. HiDrNick! 14:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I agree about renaming and will do that. Bduke (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Customs House[edit]

The Customs House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable arts centre, though just where this is located is never entirely clear in the jumbled text that is being put up for nomination today. Too much of the article reads like marketing collateral, and the WP:RS problem is obvious (this was cited when the article was declined a speedy delete). Ecoleetage (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unable to find sources establishing notability. --Crusio (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but reduce to stub if necessary. It's a reasonably well-known theatre in South Shields, Tyne and Wear. I'm not sure what the notability criteria is for theatres / arts centres, but I believe the Customs House does get a fair number of professional theatre productions coming its way. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename -- I have just tidied it up, wikified it, and added an introductory sentence, but it still needs more. "Customs House" is ambiguous, since all important ports have or had one. This problem is not cured by prefix "The". Rename to The Customs House, South Shields or The Customs House Theatre or The Customs House (theatre). Not being a local, I cannot suggest anything better, but perhaps some one else can. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kjell[edit]

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

Looks to be non-notable. There seem to be no sources in English at all; I can't read Norwegian, but unless someone can supply some sources beyond the trivial coverage linked from the Bokmål Wikipedia ([20]), it should be deleted. Ptcamn (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, delete it. This is basically a humorous sketch from a tv-show. Not worthy of an encyclopedia article.--Barend (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for violation of WP:OR, WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. As a native speaker of Norwegian I cannot manage to find any reliable sources, except promotion for the television show where it was "proposed" (this show is not particularly serious either, making rather fun—in a respectable way—of Norwegian culture). The discussion page on the Norwegian (bokmål) Wikipedia has a bunch of editors arguing about their original research on the matter, with quarreling of where to put it in the alphabet. User:meco, who is also active on the English Wikipedia, claims he found no references at all after extensive research at the main library in Oslo. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bolt (2005 film)[edit]

Bolt (2005 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable film; no non-trivial mentions; won one non-notable award - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article fails WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:MOVIE. L0b0t (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no notability assertion nor reliable sources--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 18:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NOR. Nobody seems to rule out that an article could be written about the topic, but this is not it. "Merge all except the OR" isn't possible either as long as nobody has identified what of this is not OR (it appears that all of it is).  Sandstein  22:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Representational theories of consciousness[edit]

Representational theories of consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be WP:OR, or synthesis. ukexpat (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as poorly sourced, primarily original synthesis; loss of consciousness might result from reading this dull article. Mandsford (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Reads like an essay. Completely WP:OR. Plasticup ^T/C 17:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article surely needs some cleanup, but "representational theory of consciousness" yields 53 Google Scholar hits, and "representational theories ..." 96. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article on the subject. This is a significant and somewhat meaningful topic in philosophy. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Representation (psychology) (with redirect) and Representative realism after stripping the WP:OR - Eldereft (cont.) 08:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The vast majority of this appears to be original research. Whether or not this is a good thing to have an article on, this isn't a proper article. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the SPA creator has the same name as the article. Either the user's name must be blocked as promotional, or the article must be deleted. Admins, make your choice. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. One RS citation, and even in that, reference to this company is fairly trivial. Dweller (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filiquarian Publishing LLC[edit]

Filiquarian Publishing LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted, and it doesn't appear that reliable sourcing is out there to support a notability claim.Delete SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is asserted in the lead: the online retailer Buy.com lists 339 titles under the imprint and some titles score highly in the Amazon.com sales ranking. It is a company making cutting-edge use of "print on demand" technology and as such has engendered main-stream media interest, including a piece in Fortune magazine. The article is not uncited: at the time of this posting there are nine separate sources listed. (Included are the sources for my assertions here: I have not repeated them in this post.) Other citations (in addition to the nine quoted) are in the form of inline links to compare the text in the company's published works with the original Wikipedia sources: the compared texts are themselves the source. However this format has drawn criticism from one detractor (now undergoing a one-week block for contentious editing in regard to the page) and these could be converted to more explicit footnotes if required. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: having read the instructions after making this post, it seems that I need to disclose myself as the article creator. Apologies for the omission. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are citations offered, but they don't seem to be enough to indicate notability, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the company. The Fortune article is not about the company itself, and doesn't seem to give significant coverage to this particular company. The other sources are forum and blog posts (not reliable), from the company's website (not independent), from websites that are selling the company's books(not independent, or significant coverage of the company itself), or from whois (not significant coverage). I'm not sure the number of imprints is very useful in assessing notability. Do you know of other sources that can be used to establish notability? Silverfish (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:CORP as non-notable. No reliable sources to assert notability, and a news search finds nothing. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, having read multiple edits by Moonraker and Dougweller, it is apparent that these individuals have a vendeta against Filiquarian Publishing, llc. My immediate fear is that the company could decide what these two individuals are writing is slanderous / libelous and that Wikipedia could be held responsible. The anonymous poster that has been discussed at length a number of valid points which would make be believe that either Wikipedia or these two Wikipedia editors could be targets of legal action. Maybe that is their intention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnldfl (talk • contribs) 04:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on the anonymous post above: May I assert that my intention was to provide a neutral and fair article. This is the reason that I did not include in my initial posting here in support of "notability" the company's republishing, for money, of Wikipedia articles: I did not want "Wikipedia as part of the story". It is illogical to complain that the article is part of a vendetta, when the tendentious posts by the IP editor only started after the creation of the article. I do not recommend that every post the less-than-edifying history of this piece be reviewed: it would be highly tedious and unlikely to throw much light on the proper subject of the "keep/delete" review here. It would, however, demonstrate that the two editors named are the victims of a vendetta, and not the perpetrators. The IP editor concerned is currently serving a one-week block for harassment.

The piece is not libellous: every fact is sourced. Some sources are not up to the normal WP standard, and in some cases these were submitted to community assessment on the talk page before inclusion (example here). There are few valid points in the IP poster's numerous emendations to the page, but where found they have been copy-edited for retention. Examples here and here. Indeed the other editor named above has sought to engage with him/her over the article. One paragraph was deleted in response to an error the IP editor pointed out (example here).

The claim that "Wikipedia or these two Wikipedia editors could be targets of legal action. Maybe that is their intention?" is nonsensical. It probably falls short of the no legal threats policy, but I would ask that contributors to the discussion remain civil. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In no way did I threaten Old Moonraker. I just stated a fear that I have by his actions. I have gone through the history section of this article and am worried about a number of things he has written. This article quickly became more of a hit job on a company that he is not happy with than an actual informative article. That is why I voted for deletion. Please don't bring personalities into this. It needs to be also said that if PediaPress is not notable enough for an article, which has gotten a great deal of media attention, than why would this similar company without media attention be notable enough to get an article.—Preceding comment added by --JNLDFL (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want personalities brought into this, why did you attack Moonraker and me? You have specifically accused us of carrying out a vendetta and of possibly trying to cause a lawsuit. You could have brought up these issues on either the article's talk page or my talk page or Moonraker's, but you decided to attack us here. If you really had read the history, you'd see how I responded to the complaint that Elibron did not own Filiquarian by removing the statement with an edit summary "I can't verify the Elibron connection so I've taken it out". The anonymous IP editor clearly has a grudge against PediaPress, but if you think he has any other valid arguments please put them on the article's talk page. Your arguments are about fixing the article, not a reason for deletion. I don't know if the mention in Fortune Magazine is enough or not, but it is not 'no media attention'. (I have looked hard for anything else and come up dry, so if that isn't enough, I agree, it should be deleted). As for PediaPress, could you please point me to where it was decided it was not notable enough for an article?

I would like an apology for what is a pretty unpleasant attack on other editors.

Doug Weller (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I did not attack you or Old Moonraker. I merely stated that your actions were worrisome (and I stand by my previous statements). The fortune article states that this company a. publishes books and b. uses print on demand technology. Those are merely facts, and are in no way newsworthy. There are over 7,500 companies that publish books using print on demand technology, but that alone doesn't make them notable enough to deserve their own page. Your contributions and Old Moonraker's contributions to this article are laced with attacks on this company for which the article was started. There is an attack on the fact that the webpage doesn't include contact information. There is an attack on the type of content that this company uses. There is a comparison section of books and their wikipedia counterparts which appears to be an attack and doesn't even have a reference to state where or how the comparison was made. There is clearly false and/or intentionally misleading information to make it sound like this company is breaking gfdl rules (which IMHO based on the facts they clearly are not). For me to say that your actions could be a legal concern is not an attack on you, but is how I realistically intrepret your actions (and Old Moonraker) and once again I find them to be worrisome. —Preceding comment added by --JNLDFL (talk) —Preceding comment —Preceding comment was added at 12:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the clearly false and/or intentionally misleading information on gfdl rules? I may have contributed to that bit. I want to see the diffs of the edits you claim I made. I don't see how this can be construed as anything else but a personal attack ('clearly false', 'intentionally misleading') and you should be providing evidence. Doug Weller (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I have mentioned specifics instances above and have not personally attacked you. Stating facts in not an attack. The reality is that you apparently have a problem with this company that you have attacked and should abstain from posting about this company due to your obvious negative opinion. Jnldfl (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you refuse to provide any evidence that I have actually been involved in anything. [21] shows me amalagamating some stuff that was scatterd and adding the missing words 'comply with' to the sentence " Filiquarian Publishing, llc claims to comply with all legalities related to using wikipedia content". [22] shows me removing some nonsense about sheepdogs, Filiquarian making toaster ovens, and the sentence "Accept for the fact that Filiquarian Publishing does have web addresses for author information in every single book they publish." which was an IP editor's personal comment and not backed up by the source he gave. [23] is where I removed the same IP editor's statement that all legalities were being followed and all rules complied with (again with a source, a blog, that made no such claim) with Filiquarian "claims to all legalities related to using wikipedia content in their books by following the GNU Free Documentation license although they apparently do not meet the requirement that calls upon anyone distributing the work to acknowledge "the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement)." which is both tentative and so far as I know accurate. I did not and have never asserted that they do not meet the requirements, only that it appears that they do not. Is that clearly false or intentionally misleading? The pdf of a book I read didn't have links, etc. And finally [24] where I removed the speedy delete tag. Closing Admin, I'm sorry that I've had to post this and that the editor attacking me insisted on doing so here, perhaps you would like to remove the attacks and any responses of mine. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although I think most of the problems with the article were due to an IP editor, possibly because he feels mistreated by PediaPress, I have been thinking about the notablity issue and I agree that the Fortune mention, which seems to be the only RS comment on it, isn't enough to establish notability. Doug Weller (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Doug, I never attacked you.Jnldfl (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, I note that you wrote "clearly false and/or intentionally misleading information to make it sound like this company is breaking gfdl rules" and "Wikipedia or these two Wikipedia editors could be targets of legal action. Maybe that is their intention?" which I can't construe as anything other than an attack. I have provided the diffs for my edits to the article and asked you what was wrong with them, and all you do is claim you haven't attacked me. Now if what you mean by that is that you accept that my edits were not false or intentionally misleading or that you think there is any chance that my edits were an attempt to provoke legal action, please say that clearly. If not, then please be specific about what edits of mine you think are clearly false or intentionally misleading and why. Doug Weller (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, though without prejudice to recreating as a well-written and referenced article. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Botswana rock scene[edit]

The Botswana rock scene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a horribly written, unencyclpædic article that isn't needed on Wikipedia. Tavix (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Is filled with WP:OR. No Reliable Sources as most are to MySpace and Geocities. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless a lot more RSs are added.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Culture of Botswana#Botswana Music (which needs cleanup in the first place, and there isn't much to merge). — Gwalla | Talk 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article need to be rewritten, but couple of reliable sources indicate there is a considerable rock music scene in Botswana [25][26][27]. Julius Sahara (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - original research based on unreliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, and merge Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks to Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks.  Sandstein  19:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Content fork of Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks and Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

On 5 April 2008, user Imad marie (talk · contribs) launched an AfD of Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks [28] with this comment:

"This is an anti-Palestinian propaganda launched by some editors. The title of the article gives the impression that celebrations broke out in multiple countries all over the wold, however when you read the article you find that it only covers the Palestine's celebration. What relevant material here is already covered in the International Reaction section of Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks and there is no need for a separate article here."

The AfD was closed as Keep.

On 17 April 2008, user Imad marie started a new article[29] named International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks which was later renamed to Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

On 24 April 2008, user Imad marie next launched a second AfD of Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks [30] with the comment:

"I have already nominated this article for deletion three weeks ago, the result was "not delete" and a recommendation to discuss merging the article. So why am I nominating the article for AfD again now? Because a new article has been created: International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks, and discussions happened on whether to merge/delete the celebrations article, no consensus was reached about that, and that's why a deletion review is needed here. The way I see it, the celebrations article is a content fork of the international reactions article, and arguably a POVFork, the celebrations article covers a minor event in the context of the reactions to the Sept 11 attacks, and does not include any significant information that the reactions article does not."

This second AfD was also closed as Keep.

Since that time user Imad marie has been trying to push through a merge of the Celebrations article into the Reactions article. There have been numerous CoI issues raised during the merge discussions and subsequent actions taken by Imad marie.

As I see it, the "Reactions" article was actually created as a content fork of the "Celebrations" article. The specific purpose of this article was to downplay (or elminate) issues brought up in the "Celebrations" article and replace them with pieces of material brought in from other articles such as Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, September 11, 2001 attacks timeline for September, and World political effects arising from the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Due to the heavy COI influence shown by the primary author and the clear purpose behind the creation of this article I believe that this article should be deleted as a content fork. If the authors of this article wish to improve and expand the scope of the "Celebrations" article, that discussion should take place on the "Celbrations" article talk page to achieve consensus on the scope of any resulting changes. StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per my nomination --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Very strong keep Such an article is definitely warranted, even if its current condition isn't good, though the celebrations article should definitely be merged to this IMO, it has too small a scope, I would have said delete in that AfD myself.--Serviam (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the Celebrations article into the Reactions article. Celebration is a reaction and as thus should be merged. Tavix (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge agreed, celebration is a kind of reaction. This will help maintain a non-point-of-view.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Tavix. mauler90 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Super-strength Keep. No valid reason given at all for deletion - of course the reactions from world leaders, other personalities and the wider public is worthy of an article here. In addition, the nomination appears based as well on some fairly odd thinking -

1) How can a wider article possibly be a content/POV fork of a more specific article (celebrations being of course, by definition, only one type of reaction)?

2) WP:COI refers to commercial or other involvement in the topic under debate, not to an editor having known views about a related article.

3) This article was only created fairly recently because no proper article had been put together earlier, and it is wholly inaccurate to claim that it was built up from material brought in from existing articles and that the aim of the article was to "eliminate" or "replace" material in the Celebrations article. It was meant in part, yes, to provide some balance to that article - but isn't that what WP:NPOV & WP:UNDUE are all about?

4) How on earth is material about the condemnation of the attacks that is included here going to fit into an "expanded" article called "Celebrations of ...", as the nominator recommends?

Possibly the worst AFD nomination I have ever seen. Nor has the nominator notified people involved in editing the article that they have nominated it. --Nickhh (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As an additional comment, and just to clarify where I stand given that others have suggested it, my view is that not only should this "Reactions" aticle be kept, but that the "Celebrations" article should be merged into it (as has been suggested previously, and as in fact the substantive material mostly has been). The "Aftermath" article is a separate issue as it covers very different ground - practical issues and consequences that followed from the attacks, mostly internal to the US, as opposed to condemnations, comment or celebrations from around the world. --Nickhh (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Recommend merging the "celebration" article (which IMO, grants undue weight to the issue of celebration of 9/11 among disaffected Palestinians) into this one. the topic "reactions to 9/11" is likely to always be a lightening rod but the it is notable. Protonk (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge"Celebrations" into "Reactions". Comment: User:StuffOfInterest makes it look like I had hidden agenda to eliminate the "celebrations" article, this is not true. I (and User:Nickhh) made it clear in Talk:Celebrations_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks that the "reactions" article should replace the celebrations article. Comments like this and this were made before the creation on the reactions sandbox, so there is no conspiracy going on here. Imad marie (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge "Celebrations" into "Reactions," and flesh out "Reactions." There have been plenty of reactions to constitute an article separate from "Aftermath," as aftermath would cover circumstances beyond verbal comment and stated political positions as I believe are denoted in the content of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aratuk (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - IMHO a 'celebration' is a reaction but is also separate from "aftermath" and the content in both articles is enough to warrant a separate article in its own right, even if it is a combined one. Taifarious1 22:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It does not matter if one page was created before the other, Reactions to the September 11 attacks is the logically ordered parent article to Celebrations of the September 11 attacks, not the other way around. It is my further opinion that Celebrations... should be merged with Reactions..., and a poll is currently being conducted here. Please consider voting. ~ smb 21:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Celebrations... into Reactions.... Consensus appears to be emerging. ~ smb 23:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - "Celebrations" into "Reactions". It does not matter in the slightest which article was created first; the latter is logically the parent article of the former and thus cannot be a content fork. Also, this AfD is a gross WP:POINT and a rather obtrusive failure to WP:AGF, but with consensus already moving towards a merge here, I guess it's a moot point. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, as a separate article, with no merges. Yes, a celebration is a reaction, but the "celebrations" story is a distinct controversy in and of itself, with sustained coverage and significant effect beyond the time of the events in question. Much of the coverage in the "Reactions" article is of very generic short-term type, such as condemnations by various heads of state and hightened security measures. Most of this coverage falls under WP:NOT#NEWS category, but there seems to be just enough in the article beyond such short-term coverage to justify keeping it. By contrast, the "celebrations" story had sustained in-depth coverage that lasted months and years after the events, and is still continuing. Examples include [31][32], [33], [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35516], etc. (the last one discusses a book that appartently also contains substantial coverage of the event). The issues of balance and neutrality can and should be addressed in the "celebrations" article itself. Nsk92 (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Content and POV fork, Imad has shown that she is unwilling to merge the information properly due to CoI and bias related issues so merging is quite out of the question. Also, duplicates material included in the "Aftermath of 911" article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although it is not the reason for my vote, I must say that I am leading towards the view that any AfDs which comment extensively on the actions and motives of other editors, rather than the content of the article in question, should be immediately and ruthlessly closed. On point, "reactions to (major event)" spin-out articles are completely standard practice on Wikipedia - see [[ Reactions to the 2004 Madrid train bombings]], Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, Reaction to the 2005-2006 Fijian political crisis, Reaction to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Response to the 2005 civil unrest in France, Responses to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, etc. etc. <eleland/talkedits> 13:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The Celebrations article into the Reactions article. Setwisohi (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is nothing wrong with a "reactions" article. Its content is very different from both the "celebrations" and the "aftermath" articles. YahelGuhan (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicki Minaj[edit]

Nicki Minaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Plasticup ^T/C 14:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 14:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet wikipedia standards on notability. Kalivd (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per not meeting WP:MUSIC.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep, but probably clean up and rewrite to be about second moon theories in general, not just the titular one.  Sandstein  22:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lilith (hypothetical moon)[edit]

Lilith (hypothetical moon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is a ridiculous combination of original research and synthesis of material ranging from Jules Verne's fiction to the "research" of the astrologer Spharial. Article fails WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SYN, WP:N, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NOT L0b0t (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The wording of the nomination comes perilously close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. References to to Petit, Verne, and Goldstein-Jacobsen, in published works satisfies notability and renders WP:FRINGE (which is guideline, not policy) in applicable. Since this article does, however, address other hypothesized second moons, I would support the article being renamed something that addresses its more wide-ranging nature, and turning this into a redirect to that article. 23skidoo (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Delete. Yes, it is riddled with OR, but it links to a couple external websites and it certainly satisfies WP:N. The article needs a thorough (and skeptical) re-write, but I am not convinced that it should be deleted. You might be able to make a case under WP:FRINGE, but right now I don't see it. Plasticup ^T/C 14:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is Lilith The Dark Moon, the only cited source for this is the "research" (if one can call it that) of an astrologer named Sepharial. The Petit and Verne mentions speak of a moon but not the Dark Moon that Sepharial claims to have discovered. There is some heavy original research and synthesis going on to connect these disparate claims and events. Article is sourced to 2 astrology books, one of which was written by this astrologer Sepharial who claims to have discovered this moon. Having just 2 sources, only one of which is independent of the subject, fails WP:N and WP:RS. WP:FRINGE tells us that "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources." Article has no reliable sources so it fails there too. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced. Plasticup ^T/C 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is about an one hypothetical moon named Lilith or about all hypothetical moons of Earth? Your definition fails. Zero Kitsune (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per L0b0t's excellent summation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment why not convert it to a serious account of the History of the hypothetical moon? Unless one exists already? I see Paul Schlyter has an account covering 1846 to the present day in German. I have added this start to the Talk page. -84user (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see why L0b0t's arguments justify deleting the article rather than rewriting it. Yes, it's pseudoscience, and yes, Sepharial was probably a crackpot. But he's a notable crackpot, and his ideas are of historical interest. Further, astrology books are certainly unreliable sources if you want to use them to prove the existence of such a moon (which the article doesn't try to do), but they are reliable sources on the practices of astrologers, and the concept of Lilith is indeed used in astrology. --Ptcamn (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep But only as part of an article on hypothetical moons of earth (so, really a merge into a new article and delete this one?) I was about to agree, but look here [34] The same Google Books search on Lilith and "Dark Moon" turns up something in a Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology: Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, some other stuff as well. I agree with 23Skidoo, we should have an Doug Weller (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Strong Delete. The subject is interesting. Astrological theories are notable regardless of their correctness or if they seem ridiculous (as agreed this one is). The articles big weakness is a serious lack of references, given the subject matter (that is new to me) I can not help but wonder if it is almost totally made up. The section "In astrology" has had plenty of time to come up with references (September 2007), and should be deleted as these were not forthcoming. Although the article is quite old, and with the exception of the said paragraph "In astrology", I note that many of the reference requests date July 2008. Accordingly, the article needs more time to prove it's authenticity in other parts.Czar Brodie (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing this article does not need is more time. The current tags are recent but if you check the talk page and the article's history, you'll see it has been tagged, untagged and tagged again several times since its creation in September 2006. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a brief scan of the talk page and history. I could not find evidence of tagged, untagged. Can you direct me to a point in time or a link to this behavior? Otherwise my position continues to be the article needs references, not deletionCzar Brodie (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, first tagged here[35] on 27 Sept. 06, 2 days after article creation - tag vanishes in about 45 minutes[36]. Article tagged again on 28 September 06[37] - tag vanishes about 3 weeks later on 16 October 06[38]. Tagged again on 25 October 06[39] - tag vanishes on 15 November 06[40]. Tagged again on 15 November 06[41] (this tag is still on the article). Second tag (footnotes) added 24 September 07[42] but Smackbot didn't date it until February of 2008, this tag is still there. The article has had a lot of material added and removed from it but it has yet to improve. The 2 sources cited are the very same sources that have been there all along and they fail WP:RS just as much as they did in 2006. The article still suffers from the same lack of focus it did in 2006. The factual astronomy portions of the article could be the basis for an article dealing with the history of astronomy but this article is not that by a long shot. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced. Thanking you for the links, Czar Brodie (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A number of Google Books hits suggests that the topic is notable. OR, NPOV, etc. are reasons for cleanup, not for deletion. In addition to astrology books, I found a couple of more mainstream books[43][44] that mention Lilith within its historical context; apparently there were several claims of "new moons" during the late 19th century that proved to be false (just like there were many false claims of new chemical elements). --Itub (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itub, your opinion was my thinking until L0b0t kindly directed me to the article's editors dubious behavior of deleting the tags requesting a cleanup, see above. What I think is the problem here is, is not so much the existence of Lilith as a false claim, this is noted in the "discoverers" page: Sepharial, but the various unrefereed information that springs from this "discovery" in the article. I am not against the mixing of astrology and astronomy in an article, what I find seriously odd is that given the amount of literature on both these subjects, no proper references were given to back up the articles numerous claims. The article has had plenty of time to clean up, deleting the tags requesting a cleanup is not, in my view, the proper way to address the problem. Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the tags is, if anything, a behavior problem of the editor who deleted them, and should be handled by the usual dispute resolution procedures. It is not a reason to delete the article. The article may need a substantial trimming, but even some of the dubious "original syntheses" invoked in the nomination turn out not to be so original on further inspection. For example, the relation with Verne. See [45] (first result). --Itub (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, though perhaps rename to something like "second moon theories" or "second moon hypothesis" to include claims not directly related to Sepharial's Lilith. --Groggy Dice T | C 22:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea, I was thinking that some sort of rename would be an option but hadn't thought of a good name. History of the hypothetical moon was suggested earlier, but it sounds a bit awkward to me. --Itub (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, all that hokum about fortune tellers would need to be excised in favor of actual history of astronomy type info. L0b0t (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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