< August 13	August 15 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Seems to be a notable band. Ruslik (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fun (band)[edit]

Procedural nom. I've declined a speedy on this as the creator's posted a potential defence of the article on the talkpage (basically summarised as: the band's new, but all the members are already notable). Bringing it over for consensus one way or the other. – iride scent 23:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As we all should know, wikipedia is for articles about things that are verifiable and indeed notable as of the time the article is written, claiming that it will become notable some day is a violation of Wikipedia: cristal ball DubZog (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment WP:BAND criteria 6 is what's being claimed; "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". The creator's a new account so doesn't know how to word it in WP:WIKISPEAK yet. Not judging either way whether the claim is valid. – iride scent 00:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I must apologize for not being aware of that particular sentence in that particular guideline; however, I stick to my original opinion, due to the problem with verifiability. DubZog (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep The author has responded to the request and added references, no reason to delete it now.DubZog (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the references are not ideal—Relix, AbsolutePunk.net, Buzznet—but neither are they hopeless. This band passes WP:MUSIC criterion #6, with members of The Format, Steel Train, and Anathallo forming a supposed "supergroup". Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC#C6. References provide enough verifiability to pass. Even though you only need to meet one of the WP:MUSIC criteria, the general consensus here is that #6 is considered the weakest one of the lot. I can see this one coming back to AfD in 6 months or so if no more ref's to prove notability in any of the other areas arise. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Esradekan, does pass WP:MUSIC under guideline C6, the members alone give the band notability. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable per above, and since there are five notable people forming this band there's no good redirect target. --Amalthea^Talk 20:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreeing with the reasoning, notable people forming a band implies a certain notability for the band. Needs some cleanup though if kept... So Why 08:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WASHIS[edit]

Fails any notability test. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NP. just trying to add some information that i thought was relevant. Feel free to wipe if you think that's the way to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taffydave (talk • contribs)

Delete - No notability is established, and the article is not relevant in any way. The List of WASHIS should also be deleted.--S_RX 00:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a term that seems made up, it doesn't appear to be used by any mountaineers or geographers, and it's unlikely any metric term would be in common usage in Wales. – iride scent 01:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability whatsoever, and neither the term nor the list is in popular use. Seems to derive from a single website. Even in the unlikely event that it were notable or popular, it should be merged into List of Hewitts and Nuttalls in Wales. — ras52 (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Even the external link provided does not go to the list! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have now closed the AfD of List of WASHIS. All those who had "voted" there have given the same "votes" here. Discuss both articles here. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've tried this Google search and found this http://www.lilnick.co.uk/node/32 and this http://www.walkeryri.org.uk/files/washis.pdf. --Cyfal (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Per WP:SNOW. Ruslik (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Anning[edit]

Fails WP:Athlete NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —–MDCollins (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- This article fulfills the criteria as he has played List A class matches which is the criteria required by a cricketer to become notable. 02blythed (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - per the user above, some notability is established per playing in a big league per WP:ATHLETE, though it could use expansion.--S_RX 00:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has played in a competition that satisfies WP:Athlete, and satisfies the notability requirements (and precedence) set by WikiProject Cricket. I've tidied it up, and will expand a little more. It is a valid stub however.–MDCollins (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRIN. Moondyne 01:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator Which one of the clubs/competitions is a major league one. I looked, but couldn't find any of them. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devon County Cricket Club. CricketArchive (a respected and reliable source) classes teams playing in the Minor counties of English cricket league as playing "List A" level cricket, which is the one day equivalent to first-class cricket. Moondyne 02:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does satisfy WP:Athlete and article is now a good quality stub especially after work done by MDCollins (see above). BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List A cricketer, therefore meets WP:Athlete and two independent sources provided. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Moondyne. Johnlp (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two list A matches = one more than is needed for notability. --Dweller (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). No consensus to delete. Ruslik (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Welcome Lodge[edit]

No assertion of notability, historical WP:CRYSTAL (what its notability would be never actually occurred). Prod rm'ed as supposedly notable. The article topic (a Masonic lodge) looks notable because it was a specialty lodge for Labour politicians (which looks like a nice conspiracy theory piece), but special interest lodges are nothing new in Freemasonry. That doesn't actually figure into the deletion criteria. what does is that the article states (from a source) that later in the same year the Lodge was founded, the Labour Party fragmented, and within five years the membership was opened up to all Westminster Palace employees. Therefore, it never actually succeeded in its goal, meaning its supposed notability was never really actualized, which is historical WP:CRYSTAL. MSJapan (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG, local chapters of international organizations are rarely notable. I think the nom has it right... The only thing that might have made this lodge notable would be if a reliable source claimed that some sort of nefarious connection between the Lodge and the Labour party existed. But since no sources claims this the connection (apparently because the connection was never actually made), the lodge simply isn't notable. Question: the article uses past tense, does this lodge even exist any more? Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are Herbert Morrison and Hugh Dalton notable enough? One doesn't have to believe them (it's a stretch to be honest) but the fact was the claims were made that the New Welcome Lodge was credited by two prominent politicians with changing the course of British political history. This is a claim repeated by a number of historians. JASpencer (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Herbert Morrison claimed that this lodge was responsible for him losing the Labour leadership in 1935. I'd say that this on its own makes it notable. It was also commonly believed to have been set up by the then Prince of Wales specifically to stop Labour MPs being blackballed from London lodges. That also makes it notable. I'd suggest that MSJapan withdraws his nomination. JASpencer (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable and a very well sourced article. Dwain (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IF there some way to independently verify the assertions in a single, somewhat obscure, secondary source. The sourcing for this article depends on the footnotes in a particular minor journal which cite a number of primary and secondary sources. If everything asserted here is true (or at least individually verifiable), the notability criteria of WP:ORG are clearly met; but my concern is that the importance and notability of the subject may have been synthesized by assembling these indirect sources, as opposed to having a real source that says directly that the Lodge was important because of its connections to particular political events. Thus given the presumption of fundamental accuracy of the sources, I argue for keep in the hope that the article can be improved. --MCB (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —JASpencer (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —JASpencer (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —JASpencer (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —JASpencer (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —JASpencer (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- This is not WP:CRYSTAL but a legitimate counter-factual historical argument. The influence of Freemasons on British public life has been a notable subject in recent years. This is a significant contribution to that. While the article is largely based on the work of one academic, it is based on proper academic sources. These are summarised in the article. Furthermore the synthesis is not that of the WP author, but that of the academics quoted. Note: I have just tidied up some of the unnecessary repetition in the reference apparatus. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's a "counter-factual historical argument"? JASpencer (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zef (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koreatown, Vancouver[edit]

Notability, made up neighborhood. Simonkoldyk (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs sourcing, but on Google, once you got past the Wikipedia clones, I found [1] and [2] and [3] so there are reference acknowledging this neighbourhood, any one of which could be added to the article. I also found a real-estate page that lists Koreatown as a Vancouver neighbourhood([4]). Addtional Koreatown has also been the subject of a panel discussion at a conference ([5]) 23skidoo (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Cites 1 and 2 are clearly pastiches drawn from Wiki or wiki-mirror content like Nationmaster or Answers.com, i.e. the references are circular as deriving from Wiki articles where Koreatown was added/named/linked in wikipedia. They're not valid in the least; the clincher is the phrasing, the sequence of 'hoods named and so on (including that "Greektown" thing which doesn't show up on anything but wiki-mirror sites). As for No. 2, this would appear to be the "parent" site of teh idea that that locality is somehow Koreatown because there's a Korean nightclub and a bibimbap joint there; see below about what else there is; does the Montreal Fried Chicken Joint next door qualify this as "Quebectown" or the dessert place on the corner make it "Moussetown"? There's three or four fine French restaurants around there, and lots of francohpones, but it's not Frenchtown, either; it's just the West End, the Denman neighbourhood, verging on what's called the Stanley Park neighbourhood (the residential area west of Denman). The West End is incredibly diverse in all kinds of ways, yet the only even vaguely ethnic locus in the area was the old German community; the name Robsonstrasse remains only; other than that the "ethnic" affinity in the West End is gay, very gay (in fact that Korean club used to be....."The Underground"....but it's been lots of things before that, too), and Davie Village carries that "ethnic" tag even thugh Denman's clientele and stores are "just as gay"; there's gypsies around there, too, and lots of Arabs and Persians and assorted new-arrival Europeans. Korean business promoters are always trying to launch a Koreatown in Greater Vancouver so they can have their own ethnic enclave; they've tried to make one on North Road, but efforts to re-name that area after buying it up/taking it over were blocked by remaining non-Korean merchants and also the largely non-Korean population of the same area; efforts to start another "Koreatown" in Surrey were stopped by the businesses the Korean developers wanted to evict in preference for Korean-only tenants, and the general resistance of the three otherwise-multicultural-friendly city councils whose turf it is. Yes, there's a desire to create a Koreatown (or two or three or four) in Vancouver, among certain Koreans that is, but nobody else has bought into the idea and there is no civic designatino, or even anything vaguely resembling so much as an endorsement; instead there's comments from pols liek "we have no intentions of establishing an official Korean enclave" (it should be noted that Chinatown, Japantown, Punjabi Market and others like them have historical and community underpinnings, and were not "invented"). Referring to the Denman & Robson area as Koreatown is just asinine. I know I'm supposed to be diplomatic and "in good faith"....but I can't in the face of an article which isn't truthful, and while its promoters are in earnest, their reality isn't.....the additions to the article which tried to justify it by referring to the Seymour/Hastings concentration of language schools is also bunk; yes, there's a Korean-langauge internet/employment/travel agency there, but that's not a Korean-only area in the slightest either; Koreans might want it that way, but it's not (there's at least much Brazilian Portuguese overheard in that area as there is Korean or Japanese or Spanish....or stock-promoter-speak for that matter, it's a business area and the presence of Korean-only businesses doesn't make ever4ybody else Korean, or it a Koreatown....it's a student ghetto, but not a Korean ghetto, or anything that makes it anything more Korean than it is anything else....Skookum1 (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Those aren't reliable sources and this article will never be sourced beyond a handful of marginal driveby references. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - perhaps not by Wiki's narrow standards, but the one from Canada.com (the Southam newspaper chain) that I just added to my comment above referencing a conference related to Koreatown is. 23skidoo (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a source that uses the term but does not describe it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not only doesn't say where it is, but puts it in quotes in a way that wouldn't be used for, and is unnecessary for, Chinatown, Japantown and Punjabi Market/Little India or Little Italy. Quotes would be used for names that are proposed/fictional/theoretical....and that article in any case is a press release from a racially-oriented political group, including no doubt people who want there to be a Koreatown, and want it discussed at a conference as to how it can be brought about. Like the immigration law site (no.1 cite above) it's a business/organization which has its own motives for pandering to Korean powergroups. And by the way, Southam Newspapers print lies and promotional material all the time.Skookum1 (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Merge Sources that use the term but do not describe it are totally fine, as long as they are used to prove that the term is actually used :) Also, a number of non-interrelated sources, which according to some guidline aren't reliable, is still a lot better, than no sources at all. So, in general, it has potential to be well sourced, it is only a matter of someone taking it up, there are some 25000 google hits on koreatown+vancouver, and there are articles about other districts of the city, so I can't really find a reason why this article shouldn't be given a chance to get better. DubZog (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no it isn't. First of all Google hits are not an accurate measure of reliability. Second of all, if there aren't any reliable sources, a well sourced article can't be written and therefore does not meet the guideline for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Last, if you read the link I provided (WP:NEO) it specifically says that sources that use the term but do not describe are, in fact, not sources at all and also do not meet the guideline for inclusion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of google hits alone isn't a sufficient criterion for inclusion, however, one cannot claim that it provides no information AT ALL. And mind you, the article itself is not about the neologism, but rather the district, so perhaps the option of keeping the article but renaming it should be considered? (Even though I am not too sure if it is a good idea...). Anyhow, I will stick to my WEAK keep arguement, since I believe that even though the article lacks reliable sources at the moment, it can be improved, and the topic itself (a district)would make a fine encyclopaedia article.DubZog (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep until district boundaries are officialized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Stanford Farm (talk • contribs) 07:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make much sense. Do we delete the article once district boundaries are finalized? The fact that the "boundaries" are still in flux suggests that the article is premature, if anything. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with most of the other articles in this category. I haven't even heard anyone use the bogus inherent notability argument with respect to mere neighborhoods. Until someone can produce reliable secondary sources for this area, it fails WP:N.Kww (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If not kept, this article can be merged to Koreatown. Sebwite (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it fails WP:V. Realtors are known to regularly make up neighborhoods and lie about the boundaries of real neighborhoods in order to sell real estate. Neighborhoods in Seattle makes for interesting reading about the pitfalls of designating neighborhoods. Our own map of Vancouver's neighbohoods doesn't show it. The city's own map doesn't show it. The entire West End neighborhood that this neighborhood is supposedly within is only about 0.63 square miles, only about 9 by 10 blocks. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, the West End is tiny, but here we're talking about a claimed place based on two service stablishments, maybe twelve if you count lower Robson (as is also named); amid many other kinds of estabslihments, and a dominantly non-Korean population also. Worth mentioning in terms of scale that Japantown is very small - four or five square blocks in total and no longer visibly Japanese, save for one or two businesses and teh Japanese community hall; yet it has a designation because of its historical profile, even though it is now barely Japanese at all (the Asian presence there is mostly Chinese now). The Korean microcosms this article wishfully promotes as a Korean equivalent to the established/official ethnic enclaves are dwarfed by a number of other areas with greater concentrations of Korean businesses in the suburbs; the aforementioned North Road, but also the southeastern end of the Metrotown area of Burnaby, and elsewhere on Kingsway as well as variously in Coquitlam and Surrey, and that includes areas with not so much Korean neighbourhoods as an entrenched Korean presence across suburban neighbourhoods, focussed on particular malss and stores; what's being promoted here is a commercial space, based in ethnic marketing/identity - one that doesn't exist, EXCEPT as a promotional idea. Essentially, that makes this article spam.Skookum1 (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Nasty Delete This article is bunk, put forward by people who want there to be a Koreatown and are trying to create one by "buzz". The one comment above "until district boundaries are officialized" is so glib it's quite laughable; there is no district to have boundaries, the alleged boundaries will not be officialized; well, maybe thirty years from now once Vancouver is all officially-named ethnic ghettos, but it ain't happened yet. If there's a Koreatown in Greater Vancouver it's on the New West-Burnaby-Coquitlam boundary on North Road, a good 15 miles away from the West End. I have comments about the "cites" provided in one of the first entries above which I'll make up there, but suffice to say that there's a number of French estabslihments in teh same area, but it's not Frenchtown; there's a number of Vietnamese places in teh same area, but it's not Little Saigon, and tehre's far more Japanese eateries (and generic fast food joints) in teh same area than anything Korean. It is totally unverifiable; it's not on the city's website for a good reason - it doesn't exist.Skookum1 (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment_"This article is bunk, put forward by people who want there to be a Koreatown and are trying to create one by "buzz"."_ You don't seem to have any evidence to support this claim, so instead of commenting on other editors of wikipedia you should consider trying to stick to the point in the future. After all, you surely must be aware of the assume good faith guideline, right? DubZog (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply Oh, I can't comment on faulty logic put forward by an IP user, who by my guess (in all good faith) is probably someone from one of the two establishments that cite 2 above is from?? I can't point out suggestions that the article should stay until the place it describes comes into existence? Sorry, this isn't about good faith, it's about calling something what it is: unreal, a fantasy, a make-believe promotional scam! Designed to favour two businesses in particular, in fact. I don't have evidence to support my "claim"?? Good grief; I just listed all the non-Korean elements in the neighbouurhood which make it NOT-Koreatown. It's not a Korean residential enclave, it's not even a Korean commercial enclave, and what Korean enclaves there are elsewhere in Greater Vancouver are much larger, but also not "Koreatown". it's definitely an agenda of something someone wants to exists, but it is not about something that does exist. It's bunk, pure and simple, and "in good faith" you shoudl accept my word, as a thirty-year resident of Vancouver, that it just doesn't exist. I'm sure other Vancouver and BC editors will come forward here to underscore that in various ways; would a snapshot of the other businesses in the blockx in question satisfy you that what I am saying about it is not a "claim"?? You're asking me to prove something's non-existence, when in actuality its only-purported existence is what's at issue here. The onus is not on me to disprove it, but for it to be proven. Somebody seeding the internet with information about a supposed place doesn't make that place real....you impugn me further by saying that I'm "commenting on other editors of Wikipedia". I commented on one IP address editor and their faulty logic; you, by extension, jump all over me for supposed lack of good faith. Faith and truth are not the same thing; I repreesent the latter.Skookum1 (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riight, well, first of all, the article was created by a registered user; other registered users have contributed to the article, (as well as unregistered ones, which doesn't mean that they weren't trying to improve the encyclopedia), and all comments on this page are by registered users, including the ones which suggest to keep the article. Haven't you ever considered the opportunity that all these editors are just mistaken by the large numbers of internet-based resources, which claim that there indeed is a Koreatown in Vancouver. I'm not trying to say that this article should or should not be deleted at the moment, it is just that assuming that all those editors who have contributed to that article (or even the majority of them) are trying to trick wikipedia by writing about a thing that does not exist needs to be explained in my opinion, because it's surely not something as obvious as you are trying to make it look like. However, our arguement isn't improving the article, nor getting us any further in this AfD discussion, so this is my last contribution in this particular field. And one last thing, I'm not trying to force you to believe any of what I'm saying; I just think that if you thought about it for a moment, it would be good for me, you and wikipedia alike. Cheers. DubZog (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I remain unconvinced that there actually is a well-defined "Koreatown" in Vancouver, it just looks like a neighborhood which happens to have a large percentage of residents of Korean descent. That someone might mention the word in real estate advertising does not mean that the term has any widespread acceptance, and that leaves the factual foundation for the article rather shaky. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't even have a large pcercentage of residents of Korean descent; that's the point. There is no one particular ethnicity dominant in that part of the West End, not even close; we're talking only about commercial storefronts, not a focussed community.Skookum1 (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:V, and unless sources are added, it fails WP:N. - DigitalC (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Skookum1 and Sjakkalle. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Skookum1. It is insufficient to cobble together a few references on the web to a Koreatown in Vancouver. To satisfy WP:V, we need reliable sources that show that this neighbourhood/district is widely recognized. So far, I am not convinced that this place exists. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Delete. This is simply targetted real-estate boosting and a "Koreatown, Vancouver" just does not exist. Dionix (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD G4) by Toddst1. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 23:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Knights[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article was previously deleted because it was non-notable and self-promotional. This is the third time this article has been posted, two of which are currently active (the other Virtual knights). The user's account was created solely to promote the book. Beemer69 ^chitchat 22:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. andy (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Advertising Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Quote Palace[edit]

Apparently about as non-notable a website as it's possible to get outside of Geocities. This has been speedied-and-recreated by a couple of SPAs three times already. Procedural AfD to either get a consensus that it's notable and can be left alone (I don't think it is), or that it's non-notable and we can get a consensus to delete it so it can be G4'd next time it appears. – iride scent 22:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable sources attesting to any notability of this website that I could locate. (Indeed, there are almost no sources outside the site itself and its entry here, which seems to suggest that it is unusually non-notable.) Accounting4Taste:talk 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete not only is article lacking any verifiable content or evidence of notability, website is also lacking any substantial content. Very unlikely to become notable in foreseeable future even with Wikipedia 'advertising'. Closer to WP:MADEUP than failure to meet WP:WEB -Hunting dog (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above. Lady Galaxy 22:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the website, I doubt this would ever contain a valid assertion of notability so what are the benefits of having this 'procedural' nomination just so it can be hit with G4 instead of A7 each time? - Icewedge (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I agree with the nom and not with Icewedge. Where an article gets repeatedly created, A7d, created, A7d, created, A7d, it can be a good idea to bring it here to AfD. That course assumes good faith on the part of the creators, and gives them a forum to argue for the existence of the page with other wikipedians: which they might otherwise not be aware of. At the very least it makes the creators aware why we have an issue with their article, and they see the community supporting those reasons. Otherwise they can easily feel that they are being bullied by high-handed admins. That is the perception of many a new user. AndyJones (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Exactly right; especially in a case like this which is being recreated by multiple accounts, it's possible that the uploaders are right and we're wrong. Admins aren't infalliable, let alone speedy taggers; I'd estimate that between 30-50% of A7 speedy requests are made in error and declined. – iride scent 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's no coverage in reliable sources about this website -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This website is here for the community. Please explain why it should not be kept, it seems as if it is providing a good source of information on the "little guy", and it should stay on Wikipedia in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrosproto (talk • contribs) 19:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm afraid you are going to have to explain why it should be kept. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we have standards about what we include. In this case the standard is to be found at WP:WEB. Please read that page, then comment on why this website fits our criteria (if it does). Providing a good source of information for the little guy isn't mentioned there. AndyJones (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enlightened caveman[edit]

Apparent neologism which only seems to be used in the single book it references. I've declined a speedy on this – it's certainly not "blatant spam" – but I question whether it's a notable enough term to warrant a Wikipedia article. (Wiktionary wouldn't want it in this form so transwikiing is a nonstarter). – iride scent 22:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was considering the same situation when the nominator, Iridescent, very kindly relieved me of the necessity of AfD'ing this. I agree that it's not blatant spam, but I think it's subtle spam. I can find no reliable sources other than the author's own works to demonstrate any usage of this term in any context other than the author's own works. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe theory. Inadequate reliable sources. Axl (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Maybe It's not for speedy deletion but it definetely is publicity. --Varano (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO problems. I was half-expecting a mysterious black monolith in the article -- wrong enlightened caveman, I guess. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD G4) by Toddst1. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 23:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual knights[edit]

Non-notable and unsourced subject, and article is self-promotional. User keeps reposting the article even after it was previously deleted, which equates spam. Beemer69 ^chitchat 22:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted, recreation after numerous deletion discussions and other deletions. Keegan^talk 07:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical 4: The College Years[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Madcoverboy (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom Toddst1 (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:NN, WP:CRYSTAL. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe there was already an AfD for this, so is this a re-created article. -- iMatthew _T.C. 23:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 23:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 Sceptre ^(talk) 23:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (and will tag it as such). The log for High School Musical 4 says it all. PC78 (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Dexheimer[edit]

Biography of local actor with only two minor film roles and unspecified local theatre roles. No real suggestion of notability, nor any references to back up what minor claims its makes. CalendarWatcher (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom Toddst1 (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a general biographical article about Mr Dexheimer. Wikipedia is not the place to post general biographies. The article fails to establish that Mr Dexheimer is particularly notable for anything. The appropriate criterion is found at WP:BIO. A plethora of biographical trivia is not a substitute for demonstrating notability. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although additional information and citations would be helpful to this article, there are references (IMdB). --Rowdywriter (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reference, it's a convenience--and a single one at that. Even if you grant that assertion, 'references' does not mean 'one', nor does this single source provide the slightest suggestion of even minor notability. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IMdB is a reference used in a large number of Wikipedia articles. --Rowdywriter (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether IMDB links are elsewhere is immaterial: it's not a reliable source, nor does it demonstrate notability, as it's a user-generated site. Links to it are a convenience for further information on a subject. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nn as an actor and borderline at best from the TV show but many hits as a lawyer [6] (cf. [7]); city prosecutor for a large city [8], lots of hits from indexed cases of apparent significance. In totality, I feel he's notable. JJL (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first link proves nothing other than, perhaps, he's a lawyer in Fargo, North Dakota; the second proves that he can upload a photograph to IMDB, and the third proves that he works for the City of Fargo, one of at least two people holding that job title in a city of 90,000--which is smaller than Tunbridge Wells, making it not a 'large city' by any reasonable measure. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More information than "perhaps, he's a lawyer" can be found on the North Dakota Supreme Court link; There is more than an uploaded photograph referenced on IMdB; and, although Fargo may be smaller than "Tunbridge Wells" it is the largest city in North Dakota.--Rowdywriter (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only further information found on the North Dakota Supreme Court link seems to be the names of cases that his name are attached to; hence, it only shows that he's a lawyer. As for Fargo being the 'largest city in North Dakota', given that North Dakota is the 48th in population (out of 50) States of the Union, that's a marker of no distinction, not to mention Mr Dexheimer is one of TWO holders of his job title listed. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per nom- simply not notable. --Alinnisawest(talk) 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, just plain fails WP:BIO standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Freshwind Band[edit]

This band does not achieve notability per WP:MUSIC. Sources are their own and Myspace, and Google doesn't turn up anything more significant. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 23:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A7 seems appropriate. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many nonexistent links, in addition to the reasons above. There's been quite a few articles about non-notable Canadian bands this week. Beemer69 ^chitchat 01:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Green caterpillar (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could find nothing in Google News archives, and nothing in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, that would help to establish WP:N notability. Delete unless some sources are found. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, as per above. Not signed to any label, no notability or even assertions of notability. justinfr (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as keep, nominator has withdrawn request, and no other deletes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups of South Asia[edit]

The article "Historical definitions of races in India" directly contradicts this one, and the references there are more current and credible: Recent studies of the distribution of alleles on the Y chromosome,[3] microsatellite DNA,[4] and mitochondrial DNA [5] in India have cast overwhelmingly strong doubt for a biological Dravidian "race" distinct from non-Dravidians in the Indian subcontinent. The only distinct ethnic groups present in South Asia according to genetic analysis are the Balochi, Brahui, Burusho, Hazara, Kalash, Pathan and Sindhi peoples, the vast majority of whom are found in Pakistan[6]. Ajoykt (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Inaccuracies (if that's what they are) are a reason to edit an article not delete it and I can't think of any other reason why it should be deleted. Dpmuk (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trouble is the two articles mentioned are virtually duplicates. One talks of "Ethnic groups of South Asia", the other the "Races of India" (actually it deals with the races of South Asia). The two disagree at a basic level. The second has more credible references to back it up. Why keep the first? Ajoykt (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is informative and useful. Yes, it needs more references and perhaps better separation of the genetic issue but this are grounds for improvement. Artene50 (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am withdrawing the delete request, because of the clarification on the talk page - this article is supposed to deal with linguistic, cultural and religious groups. Hard to make out from the article though; will take the discussion to the article's talk page. Ajoykt (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Consensus is clear—keep this article. By the way I agree that this village is notable. Ruslik (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bajgorë[edit]

Very little content consisting mostly of original research about an unremarkable place. Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All towns are notable. --Eastmain (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just want to emphasize that this position has no support in WP:N.Kww (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep consensus has shown that all verifiable places are notable, per common outcomes. Glancing at a quick Google News search,[9] there are some notable events verifying the existance of this place. This village is not unremarkable, as shown by[10][11][12][13][14] EJF (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All real towns are notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just want to emphasize that this position has no support in WP:N.Kww (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Notable only for being associated with the Kosovo Liberation Army. Despite popular myth, the concept of "inherent notability" is not recognized by any policy or guideline, and there is no exemption from WP:N for geographic locations. This village does not merit an individual article.
Kww (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I agree that "inherent notability" of populated places does not have consensus, this town has plenty of secondary sources; it was fought over in the Kosovo War, just as an example. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Place articles are the basis for other articles to be merged into if they fail to meet criteria and as such are useful even though they contain minimal information. As per above there are several things for which the place is known for. Keith D (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes, repetition is necessary: all real towns are notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All towns are not notable, and there is no policy on Wikipedia saying that they are. Notability must be established for all articles, regardless of their subject. This particular article is unreferenced, and makes claims about "amazing wildlife" and popularity that are unsupported. At the very least, it should be merged with Kosovska Mitrovica. Even Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Places states that there must be a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Have to back up Scjessey on this one: there is no such thing as inherent notability, and there is no reason to believe that all towns are notable. There is no exclusion for towns in WP:N, and towns need to meet the same notability standards as any other topic: direct and detailed coverage in multiple independent sources. The most that anyone has shown for this town are passing mentions. Anyone care to point at two direct and detailed examinations of the town in question?Kww (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually towns are inherently notable, just by virtue of being a population center. Never has a verified town been deleted because of this. Just by their existence historic government documents exist, either historic or contemporary. Even WP:N states at the top that the guideline "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." --Oakshade (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Common sense tells me that we shouldn't write articles without verifiable information, and that the million or so unsourced articles about villages that people seem bent on including in Wikipedia are far from an occasional exception.Kww (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems to interpret "occasional" as to the types of topics, not to the raw numerical article amount of them. We are free to disagree with consensus, but we need to respect it.--Oakshade (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We know that, but it doesn't appear it has. --Oakshade (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the pool of larger, more easily verified populated places without Wikipedia articles has shrunk, the remaining villages are qualitatively and quantitatively different. This is why resistance has increased of late. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see this "resistance has increased of late" occurring. I've not seen any town AfD, recently or otherwise, that was anything close to "resistance." --Oakshade (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahammadkati. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that AfD was closed incorrectly (it was more of a "Keep" than a "no consensus") and the closing admin has been known to have a deletionist POV. --Oakshade (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed early, by an admin who ignored WP:PSTS and WP:V which put the burden of proof on the article creators. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what always makes these things so painful. Inherently notable is basically Latin for I like it. It's an argument that should be essentially discounted by the closing admin, and certainly weighed less than the plain language of WP:PSTS and WP:V. Unfortunately, these things turn into votes, and admins tend to count keeps and deletes instead of evaluating the arguments.
Kww (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Inherently notable is basically Latin for I like it."

I'm sorry, but that kind of insulting language is not helpful in discussing the merits of this article and I won't respond to it. --Oakshade (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you thought it was insulting language. How's this for a better version: Inherent notability is an argument that has no foundation in any guideline or policy, and, as such, should not carry any weight in an AFD.
Kww (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(new indent for readability) We're going in circles now. As WP:NOTABILITY states very clearly on top; "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." WP:CONSENSUS has long found that settlements as one of those common sense exceptions. Two users fighting tooth and nail on the WP:GEOBOT project talk page arguing against this is not a change of Wikipedia consensus.--Oakshade (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far more than two editors. Didn't you notice that when the question of including locations based on atlases, the nose count was 2:1 against including locations based on atlases? That doesn't seem like a consensus for inherent notability of settlements to me, and it was not just "two editors fighting tooth and nail."
Kww (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2:1?? Every "survey" I see on that page is not anything close to 2:1. And remember, you're just talking about a project talk page, not a guideline or policy one. --Oakshade (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The debate over Geobot is pretty good evidence that it has ... it was required to insert a notability check before approval. I would describe consensus as being in flux. There seems to be a small core of people that attend to AFD discussions that truly and sincerely believe that all places are notable. Once you get out of that group, opinions are far more diverse.
Kww (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a very large group of people attend AfD discussions and a comparatively very small group of people have participated on that Geobot talk page debate (Geobot of course being a project page and not a guideline or policy). --Oakshade (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per EJF and Eastmain. Settlements are the kind of subjects which one would expect to find in a paper encyclopedia, so we should be very lenient with inclusion standards for those subjects. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Leniency on inclusion should be met with rigor on verifiability. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I agree with you (and I see you also went with keep on this particular article.) My feeling is that articles on real verified settlements should not be deleted because of a overly strict reliance on a wiki-created definition of "notability". Articles on settlements/neighborhoods which cannot be verified to even exist should be deleted, hence my vote to delete Koreatown, Vancouver. However, even if the present sourcing is only sufficient to maintain a short but verifiable article, then that article can still be better than nothing since even a skeleton article can provide some benefit to a reader (commercial encyclopedias are full of such articles which we would call "stubs"). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per most above. Towns/villages are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inhabited settlements whose existence is verified merit articles. Davewild (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gem-In-I[edit]

Delete - non-notable album that is not yet released. Article for Ak'sent has been already deleted a few times as A7. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 20:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to fail the WP:MUSIC criterion for future albums even if the artist wasn't also a WP:MUSIC fail. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and thus WP:CRYSTAL; presently devoid of any sources. Cliff smith ^talk 23:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, a non-notable album by a red linked artist. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Esradekan. tomasz. 17:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 16:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in Star Wars[edit]

Delete - An un-sourced, in-universe, non-noteable article. While Star Wars might be noteable, its timeline/chronology is not. This belongs on a fan site, not an encyclopedia. The article falls foul of WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:SYNTH, WP:SIZE and WP:FICT. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter stories (2nd nomination) for a recent discussion of a similar nature. Dalejenkins | 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice to re-submit. There probably should be some general discussion about "fictional timeline articles" if this keeps up...--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

→KEEP - While I consider myself likely more of a deletionist, and I hate fancruft, I think that this article serves a significant purpose. I read through it and it was both interesting and helpful in understanding the so-called Star Wars universe. As much as I hate to say it, at the very least I think this is a good time to invoke Ignoring a couple "rules" (guidelines and policies) in favor of keeping a useful article. There's far worse on Wikipedia, even though I know that's not a real Keep argument, it's meant as perspective. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{21:22, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Keep The fan-created Star Wars Timeline (that might be a better name for the article) is a real thing worthy of a WP article. Redddogg (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above comments are valid. "It's useful" doesn't mean that it is noteable per WP:NOTE. Show me reliable secondary sources; there are none.I think WP:ILIKEIT is being applied. Dalejenkins | 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems one author made up a time line and put it in a book. There is nothing to support the validity of the information or even show it is accepted by the Star Wars community. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

→Firstly, to Dalejenkins: While it is admirable that you are drawing parallels between this article and another (and in this case, I think a potentially valid one), that article was most recently KEPT and the current discussions, upon a cursory look, is leaning toward at worst No Consensus and possibly Keep. This sort of reinforces the KEEPability of the Star Wars page, using your own analogy. Perhaps there is an aspect of I like this article, but that is also not a reason to delete. I Like and I Don't Like... neither bears much weight, so countering with 'you're just saying you like it so you're invalid' is wholly insufficient as well.

→Secondly, to Gtstricky, to say "There is nothing to support the validity of the information or even show it is accepted by the Star Wars community" is wholly inaccurate. There is the book listed under references (now sources, as a more appropriate heading considering non-inlines and multiple sources). Moreover, there's additional sources available for verification, and while they are not by any means clear-cut or authoritative, combined they show continuity. The official book, though, is official. That's enough to show that it is accepted by Star Wars. Is it concrete? Probably not. Could it be changed through retconing later on? Sure. But it is solidly-based and documented.

→As for the original nomination, "An un-sourced, in-universe, non-noteable article" ... It is in fact, Sourced (though not INLINE, but sourced nonetheless), reality-based (through phrases indicating that information is in-universe and not real, such as "In the official continuity’s Star Wars universe" and "Fans of the Star Wars fictional universe keep track..."), and at least vaguely notable. Is that the only problem now, notability? That, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.

→→Bottom line is that while the "Keep" camp is being challenged with "you're using ILIKEIT", the "Delete" camp is likewise relying too heavily on IDONTLIKEIT. As I said before, because of its nature and its scope, I believe that even if it is not "notable enough", it should be retained in a RARE instance of IAR. VERY RARE.

My thoughts on the matter. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{23:13, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Weak Keep - Keep if it could somehow get a few more sources.--English836 (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure all of us agree in principle with this conditional keep. But the condition is not met; I couldn't find any truly third-party secondary sources that would establish so much as the existence of the topic as a real-world fact. user:Everyme 13:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much as I love this sort of cruft, I gotta go with the nominator. A wonderful as it is, the Encyclopedia is not the place for it. It's inuniverse without any real-world significance. The sources look good-- but that just means this is authoritative cruft that should be on a fan site. Nothing shows how the timeline has any meaning in the real world. Dlohcierekim 00:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note well-- Vengeance asked my opinion on my talk page. I don't see this as canvassing as I don't think he could predict my response, and I've come out against his position. Dlohcierekim 00:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- There's plenty of potential for real world notability, and its hardly OR. Just make sure its written from a real world perspective. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well its pretty much fancruft really. Personally I don't consider it encyclopedic but for all the Star Wars geeks out there (of which there are many) it is probably a useful reference point for a chronology of a fictional world. Not the sort of content I want to see but if some people find it useful I can't really comment either way to keep or delete. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge the tables into Star Wars. Like every other fictional timeline article, this page tries to use (fictional) time stamps as an excuse to circumvent WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF in a huge way and can never abide to them even if they tried. They thus lack la raison d'être as separate articles. (No need to point me to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF; PLOT and WAF already support my position well enough.) – sgeureka ^t•c 14:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, no notability, complete fancruft, no sources, and completely non encyclopedic content. Knowitall (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

Wallace, Daniel (1996). Star Wars: The New Essential Chronology. New York, NY: Bantam Spectra. ISBN 0-345-44901-0.

Star Wars: The Essential Chronology

Star Wars Time Tales: A Fan Supported Star Wars Timeline

Ultimate Timeline at TheForce.net

The Star Wars Expanded Universe Timeline

Timeline of galactic history on Wookieepedia, a Star Wars wiki

Yeah, "no sources" at all. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{16:19, 16 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

There's really no cause for sarcasm: None of those sources are reliable, third-party sources. On their own, these cannot support an encyclopedic article. user:Everyme 01:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep. I've found it serves its sole purpose to occupy and entertain fanboys quite well. I regard it as sort of a fan sandbox. Give 'em that, or they will "write" "articles" about each and every last one of the ~5.000+ minor SW characters. user:Everyme 13:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Wars characters

Yeah, "~5.000+ minor SW characters" have pages. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{16:22, 16 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

~~Not yet, but I'm sure with sensible editorial judgement like yours, they will occasionally be pushed on us. user:Everyme 01:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)~~ Nevermind that, VengeancePrime has been indefblocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. user:Everyme 01:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to genuine keep due to the sources found by DHowell. It seems the SW timeline has been discussed in major news outlets in its own right, and whatever the current state of the article, it can now be improved to satisfy our core content policies. user:Everyme 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break 1[edit]

Extended content
BOTTOM LINE... Pillar One: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." Is this of sufficient interest/notability/importance for a "general encyclopedia", a "specialized encyclopedia", or an "almanac"? No, Yes, and No. "follow our no original research policy, and strive for verifiable accuracy" Are there sources of information? Yes. Can it be verified? Yes. Is it accurate? Yes, per the verified sources. Pillar Two: "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view." Is the article written in a neutral fashion, not giving undue weight or preference to a particular point of view? Yes, it is. In fact, it is the perfect type of article for neutrality because it is truly fact-based. Pillar Three: "Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit." Is the article copy/paste? No. Is it collaboratively-written? Yes. Pillar Four: "Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them." 'Nuf said. Pillar Five: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here." Does this timeline violate a pillar? No. Beyond that, are rules firm? No. Is there any prohibition against doing something that is best rather than codified? Absolutely not. "Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required." Is the article perfect? No. Does it need more or better references? Probably. Is perfection necessary to prevent deletion? Totally not! The Bottom Line: This timeline meets all the PILLARS. After all, isn't that the thing for which we all strive. Back to the basics here; there is no good reason to delete this article.While DELETE-ers will say that "ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep", they also say "Quality of references is more important than quantity", which is just a smokescreen for "IDONTLIKEIT". (Evaluation of references in this way, especially without stating WHY a reference is "not good enough", makes for a personal, bias-ridden, evaluative judgement... i.e. IDONTLIKEyoursource.) Finally, allow me to point out that this timeline is less OR (less date-mathematics), less unsourced, and equally-well organized (or even better-organized/written) as 2007, 1977 (unreferenced), 1775, and 1611, all of which are also timelines; should we delete all those as well as they are OR and unreferenced? It's simple, really. FIVE PILLARS. Keep. Carry on. and Keep smiling. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{16:49, 16 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Extended content

BOTTOM LINE...

Pillar One: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs."

Is this of sufficient interest/notability/importance for a "general encyclopedia", a "specialized encyclopedia", or an "almanac"? No, Yes, and No.

"follow our no original research policy, and strive for verifiable accuracy"

Are there sources of information? Yes. Can it be verified? Yes. Is it accurate? Yes, per the verified sources.

Pillar Two: "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view."

Is the article written in a neutral fashion, not giving undue weight or preference to a particular point of view? Yes, it is. In fact, it is the perfect type of article for neutrality because it is truly fact-based.

Pillar Three: "Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit."

Is the article copy/paste? No. Is it collaboratively-written? Yes.

Pillar Four: "Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them."

'Nuf said.

Pillar Five: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here."

Does this timeline violate a pillar? No. Beyond that, are rules firm? No. Is there any prohibition against doing something that is best rather than codified? Absolutely not.

"Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required."

Is the article perfect? No. Does it need more or better references? Probably. Is perfection necessary to prevent deletion? Totally not!

The Bottom Line: This timeline meets all the PILLARS. After all, isn't that the thing for which we all strive. Back to the basics here; there is no good reason to delete this article.While DELETE-ers will say that "ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep", they also say "Quality of references is more important than quantity", which is just a smokescreen for "IDONTLIKEIT". (Evaluation of references in this way, especially without stating WHY a reference is "not good enough", makes for a personal, bias-ridden, evaluative judgement... i.e. IDONTLIKEyoursource.) Finally, allow me to point out that this timeline is less OR (less date-mathematics), less unsourced, and equally-well organized (or even better-organized/written) as 2007, 1977 (unreferenced), 1775, and 1611, all of which are also timelines; should we delete all those as well as they are OR and unreferenced?

It's simple, really. FIVE PILLARS. Keep. Carry on. and Keep smiling. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{16:49, 16 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

That sounds like desperation to me. If we applied to those rules, nothing would get deleted. 86.138.16.237 (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the problem whith that? Deleting as much as possible is not a goal. The only articles that really need to be deleted per the Pillars are the ones that do not have any business being in an encyclopedia, violations of copyright, hoaxes, and articles that can not be verified. 96T (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:VengeancePrime has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. user:Everyme 01:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since "Ignore all Rules" is a pillar, we would have no rules, just chaos and random, indiscriminate "stuff" whether encyclopedic or not. That's why we have notability guidelines, to remind us that this is an encyclopedia. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Keep, well done, sourced, and a very good point of reference to understand all the other Star Wars articles. If this isn't kept, the most relevant stuff (the years in which the various films take place, the explanation of the year system) should be merged into Star Wars galaxy. 96T (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Vote changed to keep per DHowell's sources below. 96T (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't it occur to anyone else how strange, unbecoming and also symptomatic it is that we have an article about the fictional, in-universe chronology, but no page about the real-world publication chronology of the franchise? There'd be plenty of third-party secondary sources to create a great and interesting article about the real-world chronology, yet people are hellbent to keep this poorly (and frankly: insufficiently!) sourced pile of OR. And as I said above: The OR in this article does not merely extend to some or even most material in the article — it includes the very topic, which is the fabrication of some fan editors. You just have to let yourself be asked that question: What kind of fans are you that you favour such substandard coverage of your favourite subject? Go write a real article about a real-world aspect of Star Wars. That would be really good. (Another big suprise (not) is that we have no article about Star Wars fandom, although there are plenty interesting sources, e.g. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Also note that this comment is not a WP:WAX argument. I'm just wondering, and I'd like you to pause for just a moment and wonder along with me so that I may feel a bit less lonely wondering.) user:Everyme 13:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not then write those articles, instead of working so hard to remove the work of others? You can lead volunteers far better by creating better examples for them to follow, than by threatening to destroy their work if they don't improve it to your satisfaction. DHowell (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I don't "threaten" anything. ~~And I don't argue to delete this article because it isn't being improved to satisfy our core content policies, but because I have come to the firm conclusion that it cannot possibly be.~~ But you're right that leading through example is usually the preferred method. I've tried things like e.g. looking for sources and putting them on articles' talk pages for interested editors' convenience — to little avail. user:Everyme 14:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources such as the Los Angeles Times, the Lexington Herald-Reader, Chronicle Telegram, and Star Wars: The New Essential Guide to Characters. There are enough reliable, independent sources to improve this article without necessitating original research, and so it should not be deleted. DHowell (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work finding those sources (except for the tie-in "Essential Guide" which I regard as a 1.5 source at best). Changed my !vote accordingly. user:Everyme 14:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's no process problem with this AfD; a mistaken "keep" closure by Wikidemo was correctly overturned by Stifle per WP:DPR#NAC. Sandstein 16:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jews in the history of business[edit]

This article/list is essentially a "List of Jews in business" which had been nominated for and remains on the deleted list since 2005, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews in business and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish bankers. The reasons for asking that this article be deleted are the same as the earlier one, that such lists are WP:LISTCRUFT that easily lead to conspiracycruft and are automatically unencyclopedic and unmaintainable and could potentially have thousands of entries, a violation of Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference, there is no one single definition of what "business" means (some writers and even Shylock are in this list and they are clearly not in any "real business"), it also sets a bad precedent for a slew of articles that could be called Christians in the history of business, or Muslims in the history of business, or Hindus in the history of business, or Atheists in the history of business. In the case of most of the people in this article almost all are non-religious secular and highly assimilated people who may not even be universally recognized as Jews by all Jewish groups, with little or no connection to Judaism or even to their supposedly fellow Jews so that to retroactively connect them with their alleged or assumed religious and ethnic background makes no sense, and may even be offensive and insulting to them and others since most of them do not adverstize their Jewishness, and so all this serves no purpose because surely in this case religion/ethnicity and profession are not provably and definitively related. IZAK (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OVERCAT — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Why is this list being nominated for deletion, when Lists of Jews in various other fields of life are not being nominated? Don't prominent Jewish businesspeople and bankers also merit recognition? Jheald (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Jheald: Not all questions have clear-cut answers. Yours is an old question but there has never been one clear-cut policy. The two schools of thought, pro and anti lists of any Jews have never had a meeting of the minds and there is no policy guideline about it, so each list and AfD is taken on its own merits and stands or falls on its own merits or demerits. These have been deleted so far AFAIK:

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners (September 2004) (Deleted July 2007)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish engineers (October 2005)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (2nd nomination) (November 2005)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American criminals and victims (March 2006)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews in the media (June 2006)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Peruvian activists (and other trivialised lists of Peruvian Jews) (February 2007)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination): List of Jewish Nobel laureates (July 2007)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians (July 2007)
List of people of Polish Jewish descent (July 2007)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of religious leaders with Jewish background (August 2007)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American social and political scientists (August 2007)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American engineers (October 2007)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American fashion designers (October 2007)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Foreign Ministers (October 2007)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists (October 2007)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish jurists (2nd nomination) (May 2008)

and as you can see the lists often verge into quirkiness and can be easily abused and twisted. IZAK (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- So will you be nominating the other Lists of Jews while you're at it? It seems to me that your nomination reasons are just as applicable (or not) to those lists as well. Jheald (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If at all possible, yes, and I have made no secret of it for a long time, see User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews, but for now we need to strike a balance between mass listings that defy WP:NOT#DIRECTORY etc and those who like these kind of things and imagine that they have some real use. IZAK (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename it and refocus your efforts on an attainable task. Since lists of jews rightfully exist today, this one has a right to exist too. But it must be renamed as a list, and the proponents of this list should really weigh their capabilities to compile a wholesome, worldwide view on the subject. Right now there's an arbitrary pick of US businesspeople, plus the inevitable Shylock - and no prospects of a balanced worldwide presentation. I'd be quite comfortable with List of Jewish-American entrepreneurs or something like it, provided that each individual is properly, individually referenced (right now there's a single source for dozens of people, with a dead web link). NVO (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it's a large task because the subject is pretty big. You may be right that it's better to narrow it. However, adding a third intersection, nationality, would be limiting and perhaps arbitrary because the issue is Jewish culture, not Jewish culture in America. Presenting the worldwide view is usually preferable to writing yet another America-centric article and adding "In America" to the title. As it stands a number of examples are given from Asia, Europe, and the Americas - it's a worldwide subject. Regarding sourcing the article is simply in its early stages. I added enough that, I thought, notability and the article's existence would be unimpeachable. The link isn't dead, at least not on my computer. You might have to page down a couple times to find the article. The source establishes the notability of the subject and relevance of the intersection. I could add more but I would rather edit in due course rather than doing backflips on cue for this silly deletion exercise. In the meanwhile the Wikipedia article and that source mention a number of scholars, commentators and others who have written about the subject throughout history so indirectly they establish notability as well. 18:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I can't think of any utility this list would have, other than subtly perpetuating the negative stereotypes involving Jews and money. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quartermaster sums my thoughts up exactly Sceptre ^(talk) 23:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion was closed early by User:Wikidemo, a non-administrator. As per the guidelines at WP:DPR#NAC, I, an administrator, am cancelling this early closure and reopening the debate. Note that the withdrawal of the deletion nomination would not result in this AFD being closed as there have been other delete opinions. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nominator's rationale is sound and reflects policy and the wider consensus that represents. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discssion regarding closure and reopening to talk page. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close (without prejudice) - the process is so messed up that any deletion result is flawed. I would simply recreate the article and we would be in AfD again if anyone cares to nominate it. Let's start again the proper way so we can have a legitimate discussion about the merits of whether there is an intersection between Jewishness and the practice of business. There are many books on the subject, academic and otherwise, so notability is hardly the question. There is no coatrack, overcategorization is not applicable here, and any complaint that the article is biased or crufty is simply speculation on what might happen, nothing about the article in its present state. Wikidemo (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Wikidemo: Just to clarify, at no point did I withdraw the nomination, with my last edit I had meant to to bring it back to the version it was at before I tried editing it and then nominated it for deletion which Wikidemo seems to have misunderstood. I followed procedure and should have checked to see the result of my last edit, which has now been clarified. Sorry for any unintended confusion. IZAK (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another randomly slapped-together, non-scholarly, non-encyclopedic essay. Wildly incomplete, unfocused and a bit peculiar in parts (who let Shylock in?). Ecoleetage (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per items 1-4 and 9 at WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, or else turn into an actual discussion of the topic, not just a list. I am certainly aware of the possibility of ethnic prejudice for articles of this type, but proper NPOV handling can deal with it. But as a list, the entries are sourceable and significant. DGG (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi DGG: I have no objections to well-researched articles of any sort but in this case Jews in the history of business is just a rambling and confused list and not much else. There is a serious problem with definitions here as well, what to call "business" (should characters from Dickens also qualify?) since it's not defined, and it can't really be, because the selling and buying of anything could be called "business" and how is that different to trade, commerce, industry, sales, etc? IZAK (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I'm a pretty good Wikipedia editor, and there's a reason the material is in the state it's in. It's a very large, important subject that lost its set-up as a Wikipedia category. Speaking with the deleting administrator I was encouraged to create a more focused article. As it is, I assume this article is going to get deleted, basically for being a skeleton article that nobody has improved and that can't be brought up to standards during a 5-day deletion discussion (nor would I want to make the effort given the initial hostility to the subject). So that leaves me scratching my head for another approach that avoids whatever the final reasoning when this article is (likely) deleted. There isn't any real question whether Jewishness and business are related to each other. Anyone who thinks otherwise is going to have a bit of a row with tenured professors in history and ethnic studies departments whose life work is on the subject. It would meet any notability criterion here: hundreds of books, probably thousands of articles, many scholarly endeavors, philosophers, religious tennets on the subject, museum exhibits, and lots of interest from the public in reading about the subject. Amazon.com's Jewish business category has 934 titles:[21]. The real question is how to address all that material in an encyclopedic fashion. One could probably take it in smaller chunks and write a dozen more narrow articles on the subject. Dealing with the material constructively to find out how to best present it would have been a lot better. It just seems a little pointless to go about improving the encyclopedia this way. Instead of arguing about racial prejudice, overcategorization, ethnic sensitivities, who is a "real" Jew, etc., all quite hypothetical concerns (none of those are present in this article), it would be more productive to actually help figure out how one can write about Jewish business culture. Wikidemo (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference as IZAK says, and per Quartermaster's astute point as well. --MPerel 05:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G7 by JForget. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gleb Kalashnikoff[edit]

A Russian artist who I think does not meet the notability guideline for creative professionals. The article does not mention anything that would make this person notable, and the references are to YouTube, LiveJournal, and what appears to be a blog. There may be some Russian sources out there that might confer notability, which is why I'm bringing this to AfD. Bláthnaid ^talk 19:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid ^talk 19:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability per WP:CREATIVE. No reviews of his work or articles about him in relaible sources that I could find. Google gives nothing relevant except youtube and livejournal. Just in case, I also did some searches for his name, "Глеб Калашников", in Russian: Google[22] and GoogleNews[23]. Nothing relevant there either. There is another person with the same name who is some kind of heraldic advisor to the Russian President (the GoogleNews hits in Russian are about that person), but nothing about the subject of this WP article. Nsk92 (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is a work in progress. If there isn't enough notability, the article will be withdrawn until further notice until said notability is attained. 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine but technically there is no way to withdraw the article other than to delete it from the WP mainspace. Since you are the article's creator and since nobody else substantially edited it, if you do not object to its deletion now, you can either blank the article's page or to place the ((db-author)) tag at the top of the article. If you want to keep working on improving the article in the meantime, you can copy its content in your user-space (that is, as a subpage of your user-page) and work on it there. Nsk92 (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 17:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mythbuntu[edit]

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks secondary sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment invalid reason for nomination. We do not delete articles for lacking secondary sources, only for being unsourcable. Have you looked? It would help the discussion to know, especially considering that you have just previously prodded several dozen Unix distros of various sorts in alphabetical order at the rate of 1 minute each, including, incredibly, Novell Open Enterprise Server. Another editor quite properly removed the tags on the basis that they were indiscriminate. I sincerely hope you are not going to repeat this at AfD. Incidentally, "procedural nomination" does not apply here--we use that word when something is being nominated as a matter of form, for example at the request of an anon, without the nominator having any opinion about whether it is notable. DGG (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a cursory look on google, yes. At the same time, I don't think it's reasonable to expect any editor to examine every ghit for a particular topic. So it boils down to the fact that I believe the subject may be non-notable, but I can't be entirely sure since I'm not an expert on these topics, and I welcome others to try finding a reliable source. I do not, in fact, have an opinion regarding notability -- why do you assume otherwise? I'm just basing these nominations on the fact that I was unable to locate reliable sources and I'm more than happy to vote keep or withdraw the nomination if someone can provide one. Another editor brought up the merit issues with the Novell nomination and I conceded the point (I don't plan to AfD it). That should not become a blanket reprieve for all the other nominations, however. The nominations were done as a batch for my own convenience (they are all linked from a list). The articles were all looked at prior to this. In fact I had posted a request for an expert to decide on nominations at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linux, which received no response after several days, so I went ahead and did it myself. And yes, there might be a few mistakes, but that's why I'm labeling these as procedural noms. I think it's unfortunate that so much of this debate is being based on ideology and a lack of AGF. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

at the very least, it would have helped had you made this clear. But I see that you are trying to judge the notability of technical topics where you are not an expert. I am not one either, and I consequently made a comment, not a keep !vote. The proper procedure for bringing a large number like this is to try a few of the weakest and see, because if they are successfully defended there's no need to waste others time on the rest. I defer judgments on whether to AGF on mass nominations, and leave others to judge if they are disruptive. I do call attention to them. DGG (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the phrase "procedural nomination" from these AfDs. Regardless of whether the phrase is appropriate or not, I would prefer that it not become a point of contention for the discussions. Please look at the articles and judge by merit, that's all I'm saying. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of sources for anyone who cares to look, like this one: http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=mythbuntu, 5th on the Google hits list. It's quite apparent that Ham Pastrami just lies and claims he searched for sources and couldn't find any, while anyone who looks can easily find them. StuRat (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A profile at distrowatch is hardly a reliable source or significant coverage. Content at that site is user-contributed. It's telling that you resort to personal attacks instead of addressing the concerns listed in the nomination. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 19:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm puzzled how the nominator thought this was non-notable considering that there are numerous sources on the first page of Google: distrowatch, phoronix, Wired, and others. While we need to prune junk out of Wikipedia, editors should be trying even harder to improve the good content of Wikipedia. This article, while not perfect, is a good start for something that should be kept.—Mrand ^{Talk • C} 20:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These are all questionable sources. Phoronix is a blog. Distrowatch is user-contributed. The Wired article is published in the site's blog section as well. If people want to lean on these as sources, I won't press the issue. But these are not ideal for meeting WP:N and WP:V, and it shouldn't puzzle anyone who has actually researched the sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there seem to be some good sources that discuss this distro specifically, rather than just passing mentions - Mrand pointed out some good ones. Certainly seems to have the potential to be a well-sourced article. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as it fails to meet the generally accepted criteria for English football clubs. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fc team[edit]

Non-notable football club, likely WP:COI, possible non-sense Madcoverboy (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 20:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Madcoverboy, and the fact that Jake the Snake and Moses "play" for the squad ClVa (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 08:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete team definitely exists but has never played in the top 10 levels of the English football league system or entered a national cup competition, the usual benchmark of notability applied by the WP:FOOTY project. Hard to Google such a generic name, but I haven't turned up any sources whatsoever thus far -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn team as per reasons stated above. --Jimbo^[online] 12:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a genuine and legitimate team. The details provide factual information and this should be open to the public. Why should lower league clubs not be allowed to have pages on Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FC Team (talk • contribs) 22:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a completely arbitrary thing really, as the team is level 11, it is clearly completely unnotable, while a level 10 team is clearly absolutely notable. Seriously though, if there was some amount of media coverage, etc., of them, particularly of a national level, it would go to supporting their inclusion here. The article has no references. Can you produce some? Nfitz (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "completely arbitrary" at all, it's based on the level at which teams are allowed to enter the national cup competitions (FA Cup and FA Vase) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to [24] there are level 12 teams playing for the vase last time. So perhaps that makes level 11 teams notable then, if that is the basis? Nfitz (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any level 11/12 teams which have entered the Vase must be truly exceptional, as the requirements of the competition include a floodlit ground, which pretty much no level 11 teams have. A proposal to make level 11 teams inherently notable was raised last year and categorically defeated. Specific examples were found of level 11 matches drawing less than 10 paying spectators, and in fact many level 11 clubs don't even charge for admission, or even play on public park pitches. It would be pretty farcical to make such clubs "inherently notable". If this team had ever entered the Vase, I might be tempted to !vote to keep, however they haven't. I also would have !voted differently if any coverage in reliable sources could be found, but none appears to exist -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, of course, this team doesn't play at level 11 anyway :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, it would appear that the first Division is level 12, and the Premier division is level 11 (how one can have both a first division and a first division is beyond me, don't the English speak English any more?). I'm not arguing that this team is notable, simply that the hard cut-off of Level 10 is arbitrary - that link I provided showed that 66 of the 489 teams in last years vase were below level 10. Nfitz (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing like a notable team. More like a pub team —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinnocranes (talk • contribs) 14:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why does this bother people so much? It is a legitimate team, provides factual information about them and does no harm being included for information purposes on wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.207.46 (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable team; hasn't played in high enough levels of competition to make it notable. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Arch Linux. Wizardman 16:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archie (Linux)[edit]

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Arch Linux. Small article, struggle to be expanded, could be simply merged as a one-line mention in the Arch Linux article. -Halo (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 19:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Halo. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaiyapoj Netsiri[edit]

The subject of this article appears to lack sufficient notability for inclusion: the subject does not seem to have received non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. No such sources are given in the article and an online search for sources (including a standard web search and Google News, Scholar and Books searches) yields only about 30 non-duplicate, non-mirror results, most of which provide only directory-level coverage or passing mentions of the person. The only source that provides non-trivial coverage is this CV. Proposed deletion of the article was contested, so I am bringing it to AfD. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 20:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Black Falcon says, there is very little evidence of third party sources and even the article contains nothing particularly remarkable. The original author was one Cnetsiri, also. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. GoogleScholar returns little in terms of citability of his work:[25], three papers with citation hits of 23, 9 and 6 (all three joint papers and only one, with 6 hits, has him as the first author). Similarly scant results in WebOfScience: 4 papers by him listed there with top citation hits of 10 and 7 (MEDLINE lists 3 papers by him). For an active expeimental field like brain imaging that is rather scant. He seemed to have held a temporary research position, presumably on somebody's grant, at Columbia's brain imaging lab, as he is listed under "past members" there[26], but it is not clear where he works now. No significant awards listed on his CV either. Does not pass any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Nsk92 (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated above, the scant academic evidence of notability is basically joint effort stuff. --Stormbay (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 16:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Byrd (musician)[edit]

Non-notable musician. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 20:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A related debate has been created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wildflowers (Jonathan Byrd album) -MrFizyx (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has received wide coverage (for example: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-8143.html ; http://www.fishrecords.co.uk/reviews/theseaandthesky.htm), won prizes; a decent discography; performed together with other notable artists; besides, the article itself is well written. DubZog (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: You'll find he is notable if you look even a little bit. I probably should have sourced the article better when I started it. I actually did a better job sourcing an article on one of his albums (see This Is the New That). I always figure I'll get around to these things eventually.

Comment: Actually, the most detailed profiles of him aren't online. He's been covered in long-form articles in Dirty Linen and Sing Out!, I don't have the details at the moment, but can dig them up too. -MrFizyx (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added a "Further reading" section with these and more. Referenced the album article that is up for AfD too. -MrFizyx (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 16:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wildflowers (Jonathan Byrd album)[edit]

Non-notable CD. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 20:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion could we merge this discussion with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Byrd (musician)? I created this album article 15 min before this was brought to AfD. Byrd is notable so are his albums (see, e.g. This Is the New That). Being that this was his first album, there are fewer reviews than for some others, but I'm planning to add those eventually. Obviously I vote to keep. -MrFizyx (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added a couple of references that might help illuminate things a bit. -MrFizyx (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Just becasue an artist is notable doesn't automatically make their albums notable without including "independent coverage". The ref's that were added help it pass WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW — caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 06:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House hugger[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find absolutely no verification at all. - Icewedge (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT, WP:NEO. We aren't urbandictionary. --Dhartung | Talk 19:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unverified, unsourced neologism. Cliff smith ^talk 20:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides what others have said, a house is too large to literally hug. Redddogg (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this AfD supposed to be a joke? Speedy delete it and get on with it. user:Everyme 22:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the least, it could go to Wiktionary. Lady Galaxy 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What we really need here is a categorical list of everything people like to hug. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family Literacy Fair[edit]

Non-notable fair. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a merely WP:LOCAL event. The literacy project itself may merit mention in the library article, but not its individual events. Wikipedia is not a community calendar. --Dhartung | Talk 19:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 16:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wakwella Bridge[edit]

Non-notable bridge. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Some sources on the internet claim it's the longest bridge in Sri Lanka which might make it noteworthy. Since the article has just been created, it should be given a chance to improve (e.g. it might get a pic of the bridge actually depicting the bridge :) ).Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Best I can do is a claim that it's the longest bridge in Sri Lanka built by Sri Lankan engineers, in contrast to the recently opened Sri Lanka-Japan Friendship Bridge, which reliable sources confirm is 302m long (990 feet), so Wakwella can't actually be a 1300 foot span. There really aren't any sources which meet WP:V for this at this time. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to resubmit and edit. I'm willing to assume some good faith on this one. Even if it isn't the longest bridge there, it seems to be a fairly significant one. WP:BRIDGES might want to get involved.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm looking for information to add to this article. If I find it, I'll restructure it fairly drastically, and lose the existing picture since the picture doesn't show the bridge. Structurae doesn't list this bridge. The web mentions it but no more than that. I've sent a query to the Institute of Engineers in Sri Lanka to see if they might be able to point me somewhere useful. If I find anything of relevance, and/or they send me something useful, I'll be sure to update the article. As it is, I can't do more to fight for this article, which as an "inclusionist", I find bothersome. I think it'd be better without the misleading image. - Denimadept (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. But it needs cleanup and references. Lady Galaxy 22:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The May Day Mystery[edit]

(Prod removed by an anon IP, so officially listing at AFD.) Nothing in the article even tries to establish any sort of notability for a listing on Wikipedia. There are no sources other than a single website by a former student, which clearly does not meet WP:RS criteria. Article has been tagged as unsourced for more than a year with no sources being provided. I just tried to Google up anything that might qualify as a reliable source and there's nothing out there but the original personal site by that former student, mirrors of this Wikipedia page, and minor blog refs to this article or that site. No books, no magazines, no anything remotely resembling a reliable source. Could be a hoax, could be real but completely insignificant, but either way it's not encyclopedia-worthy. DreamGuy (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No Lexis/Nexis hits. Unless someone finds a RS, I'll have to conclude that this is of local interest only. Gamaliel (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a minor curiosity with no coverage in reliables sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RS qualifications seem to be mysteriously elusive. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as speedy keep. Nom withdrawn. per improvements made by Grist. Dlohcierekim 00:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowmasters[edit]

Article reads like an advert, and it's sourced only by the company website. Accounting4taste had tagged for speedy deletion per WP:CSD_G11. I was searching for sourcing and notability, and the creator detagged. I found nothing at Forbes.com or Galenet. There are copious web hits that I've not sorted through so this is procedural, no vote. withdrawn Dlohcierekim 18:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and sounds like advertising. Wikieditor06 (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether or not notable, it totally ignores wikipedia's manual of style and does not provide much useful information so anyone willing to write a proper article on that topic would have to start all over again. DubZog (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Weak Keep. Since the article has been completely rewritten, the only problem remaining seems to be the notability one, yet in my opinion it is not much of a problem in this case. DubZog (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reference USA gives annual sales of $1million to $2.5 million. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. The article as it stood was actually a copyvio of this page, but I've rewritten it and added some reasonably good sources. Gr1st (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great job on the rewrite. Seriously considering withdrawing the nom. Will see what others think. Dlohcierekim 22:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Gr1st's improvements. Edward321 (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bambina (Idoli song)[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC#Songs standards. LAA Fan 18:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. No sources or notability. Wikieditor06 (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader Movie[edit]

A prod tag was removed without addressing the reasons for the proposed deletion. Films not yet in production don't meet WP:NFF or WP:NOT#CRYSTAL -- a mention in the article about the Narnia series of films might be appropriate Accounting4Taste:talk 18:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 18:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS and WP:NFF. The casting is based on rumor as is release date. End of article states "help this page by expanding it!", but there's no sources to even aid in an expansion. This seems like wishful thinking by a fan. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability guidelines for future films. Even big-budget franchise films aren't guaranteed to begin production. Look at Spider-Man 4, which is still not past the scripting stage. No issue with recreation if filming does begin, since notability of mostly-guaranteed film is likely. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FUTFILMS. Information is sufficiently addressed in the book's article. Alientraveller (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFF, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N and WP:RS. Can always come back when these issues are addressed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Ok i will delete the page if you want me too just tell me how :)~Narnia Fan12

Don't panic... Do this instead: Go to The Voyage of the Dawn Treader Movie article and hit "edit this page". Then highlight the entire text and hit "copy". Next, click this link: User:Narnia fan12/sandbox and create yourself a sandbox page. Hit "paste" to copy the article into this workspace so as to continue working on your article. You can dete it then or wait until this AfD votes to have it deleted or not. Just save a copy to work on. Go look at other film articles and see how they are laid out. Do your research and find your sources. Spend some time making the article as good as it can be. If filming is announced, and you can document it being filmed, then you can consider bringing the article back. If filming is never begun, you will at least had some valluable experience in creating a good article. And feel free to ask for help. A good place to start teaching yourself is to study at WP:Film. (Similar message left on user's talk page) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's ok, I have the article sandboxed here. Alientraveller (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Already covered in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, where a previous version of this article has already been redirected. PC78 (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. Internal links can (and will) be deleted. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Gaudet[edit]

Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. bneidror (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is a little ambiguous; Toronto FC is a fully professional soccer club, but if he signed a "developmental contract," he is not likely to receive playing time except in the reserve division although he is listed on the roster (albeit without a number or biography yet). (According to the club site, he has not had any caps yet, and he has had only one cap for the Canada U-20 men's national soccer team.) I'm not sure if that really qualifies under WP:ATHLETE. I think article will meet notability guidelines once he actually plays a game with Toronto FC, but as of now, the article does not meet WP:ATHLETE. --Wikieditor06 (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE, recreated if and when he makes him professional or full international debut. Youth caps do not confer notability. --Jimbo^[online] 12:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I follow TFC pretty closely, attending most home games. And I've never heard of him. No where near the first team. And he's a forward, TFC were completely desparate for forwards until a week or so ago - if this player was notable he would have surely sat on the bench (which was reduced to only 5 players for games since Gaudet joined because of a lack of quality players). Nfitz (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete As a player on Toronto FC and in the talent pool for Canada's youth teams, this player will inevitably be referenced in internal links that, if the article is deleted, will lead nowhere. As an active member of the Wikipedia Football Project, I would like to see this article maintained and will take a role in keeping it up to date as Gaudet gains more notability (a question of when, not if). Themodelcitizen (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. How do we know he'll become notable? This is WP:CRYSTAL. I don't want to sound macabre, but what if he suffered a career-ending injury tomorrow before he makes his professional debut? He wouldn't be notable then. This article should be deleted, then recreated IF he meets the appropriate Wiki guidelines. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 13:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's true, assuming that every single person in the world could suddenly die tomorrow does not violate any Wikipedia policy, and in fact one can make the argument, as you have, that one is just enforcing WP:CRYSTAL - but it doesn't seem to me to be a very useful stance. I don't really think the possibility that Wikipedia will suddenly be overrun by articles about shockingly non-notable footballers (like a guy who is in the squad of an MLS team but.... but....... but.......... he hasn't made an appearance in a first team competition! oh, the prospect of this guy having an article pains my heart considerably) really warrants this scorched earth policy. I'm sure hundreds of hours that could be spent otherwise (you know, actually improving articles... sleeping... sitting around in coffee shops debating politics) have been wasted deleting articles like this one that just barely violate a guideline :-) ugen64 (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finders Keepers Crew[edit]

Apparently non-notable group of street artists in London. Sole mentions are blogs and other non reliable sources. D*Face may or may not be notable (no-consensus AfD) but even if he is, that doesn't provide notability to a group he's associated with and "Details of each exhibition are kept as closely-guarded secrets until minutes prior to their opening" doesn't inspire hope for RS coverage. TravellingCari 17:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 17:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 17:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources demonstrating notability are added to the article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I found this and this which are both in Italian. Based on a google translation, they are passing mentions but does seem to imply some notoriety within the art community. However, there does seem to be a complete lack of sourcing for which to meet verifiability which is a concern. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless proper sources are provided that establish notability during AFD period, eg reviews in newspapers or other periodicals. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johan santana (disambiguation)[edit]

Unneeded disambiguation page. Ervin Santana did not go by the name Johan by the time that he reached the major leagues. Official MLB biography does not mention alternate name at all. Ervin Santana's original name is already covered in his article, but this bit of trivia does not need a disambiguation page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely useless. This tidbit could be placed on the top of the Johan Santana article (ie for the Los Angeles Angels pitcher once known as Johan Santana, see Ervin Santana). There's no need for a dab page with only two entries. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bikram Dasgupta[edit]

The founder of the Globsyn Group of Companies written up by user:Globsyn. Not quite NPOV text. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the NPOV comment, and I don't think notability guidelines have been met. Some parts are borderline advertising. There are no references or sources that assert any notability. Wikieditor06 (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsourced and reads like someone's resume. Edward321 (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this completely unsourced article which reads like WP:SPAM Artene50 (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted Mr. Dasgupta is a very well known personality in India. He is one of the peioneers in the Indian IT revolution. His deal with the DELL computers still regarded as one of the top achievements of Indian IT industry. --Meetadd (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

36 (song)[edit]

Non-notable song. gracz54 ^(talk) 16:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. While I am a SOAD fan, and the history of this song is interesting, there just ain't no references to back it up. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep nomination withdrawn. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Investment Technology Group[edit]

Author removed prod tag. No external references establishing notability and creating editor ITGDeb (talk) likely has a COI, based on prefex "ITG" in name. Article borders on spam. justinfr (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the middle of cleaning it up, but hopefully the third-party references added so far should be enough to establish notability. Will move article to Investment Technology Group, which is the location it should be at. Gr1st (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your changes look great. I'll withdraw my nomination in anticipation of a snowball and remove the afd tag from the article. I'll also move it to Investment Technology Group. justinfr (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East yancey middle school[edit]

Non notable educational organisation, poorly written and no external links or sources. Citedcover (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Middle schools are not inherently notable, WP:SCHOOL. No other references to establish notability. justinfr (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above in the nomination. It's extremely doubtful that this passes WP:N, and it's not sourced to anything. Looks more like a test page or student of the school to me. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Burnsville, North Carolina, as we don't appear to have an article about the school's district, Yancey County Schools. Alternatively, delete and create a redirect with proper capitalization. Deor (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources or notability. I think even a redirect with the proper capitalization would unnecessary unless there was a school district page. Wikieditor06 (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 17:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Within: The Dark Lineage[edit]

Contested PROD. Article cannot show any verifiable, third-party sources (Gametrailers does not count.) establishing any notability about this future game. Hence, this fails WP:CBALL. MuZemike (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep though I was going to agree that there's really nothing to base an article on at this point, it's just a trailer with one reaction to it in the external links and another here, I just can't see the point in knocking it down when it's going to spring up again the moment the next source appears. The only difference between this and any other future game stub is that it's a trailer rather than a fluff-piece 'interview', there's still reaction to it from reliable sources which indicates more will be covering it. Someone another 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and See (weak keep), maybe redirect, but hiding the history is unnecessary and probably counterproductive. I don't think WP:CBALL applies to a game with a released teaser that says it'll be out in less than a year. The previous game did make it onto mainstream media's radar, so this isn't a case of "Unknown indie game syndrome". Nifboy (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Not a hoax, looks to be a legitimate sequel from a notable publisher and notable game studio. A trailer exists. This is less WP:CBALL and more documenting a current event: the development of an upcoming video game. Give it time. Randomran (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily userfied as obvious autobiography. ((nn-userfy)) is good for these cases. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok R Subramanian[edit]

I can't even figure the topic of this article! Citedcover (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Why have you nominated the article for deletion when this article can be speedy deleted?. It is not a notable person.--SkyWalker (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. As per WP:CSD#G11, spam. justinfr (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Spam and unnotable biography. Wikieditor06 (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as A7 - Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deffered Success[edit]

Unknown myspace band Citedcover (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Doesn't even assert notability, as per WP:CSD#A7. justinfr (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kihara Waiganjo[edit]

Non notable footballer/sportsman Citedcover (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this player were to join a notable professional team and establish a notable career this page might be warranted, but currently, this article does not conform to WP:ATHLETE. Wikieditor06 (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ,this source states that he is only an amateur player who has not played in a fully-professional competition, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. Youth caps do not confer notability either. --Jimbo^[online] 12:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily gone. "Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation" sounds about the size of it. TravellingCari 17:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Year of the Deer[edit]

Blatant WP:HOAX. Speedy deletion for being nonsense declined, proposed deletion was removed without reason. Feel free to do a search engine test, but this is just another fake article littering Wikipedia. Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax. No sources in sight that verify, let alone assert notability. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant hoax. Google search for the title and Spielberg results in this. Likewise McGregor and the title this. ascidian | talk-to-me 16:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 17:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General list of masonic Grand Lodges[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Having recently AfDed a number of Grand Lodges that simply had no verifiable sources, and considering that no one has touched the article to make any of the modifications discussed as part of the last AfD, I think this article should be deleted per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE. As a "general list", there are no defining parameters - that means there could be hundreds of entries just for the United States, and no way to verify at least half of them aside from their own pages (if even that - the GLs I nominated had dead or non-informative webpages), meaning there would be a lot of redlinks that would simply be unverifiable, which causes another policy issue with WP:V. As far as "not being a guidebook" goes, Pantagraph publishes a book every year for every UGLE-related jurisdiction which has the bulk of this material, and has membership, webpage, etc., just like this list. People say it can be broken down, but if it needs to be broken down, it means there was no need for the original list, and a list of 400 entries really isn't going to be readable or useful, so there's no need for this. As it stands, this list remains unmaintainable, and we would be better s3erved with using nav templates for useful material, like the US "mainstream" GLs, which can easily be expanded to include Prince Hall (because it's also US-based), and we could do "European GLs", "CLIPSAS GLs" etc., as long as there's enough material to do articles on them in conformity with WP:N.MSJapan (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. In addition, the vast majority of the Grand Lodges listed in the article (including most of the so called "mainstream" Grand Lodges) do not meet the criteria for notability given at WP:ORG#Non-commercial organizations. As is repeatedly stated at WP:ORG, the notability of an organization must be established by reliable secondary sources that are independant of the subject. In the case of the vast majority of Masonic Grand Lodges, the only sources that exist are self-published. There are lots of sources that discuss Freemasonry as a whole, but hardly any that discuss individual Grand Lodges. This means that the article is essentially a list of non-notable entities. Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning would be sound if we were talking about a Article on an individual Lodge. But we ar not. We are talking about a List of Lodges. That list is allowed to have redlinks. The only thing that must be adhered to is WP:V, and most of them do satisfy that. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Saying that "a list of 400 entries really isn't going to be readable or useful" isn't really true, or any reason to delete. There are even longer lists that have passed the AFD test under extreamly similar circumstances. Also, why is there a preference about having a UGLE list, instead of a "general list"? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the sake of policy adherence, mostly. UGLE-recognized lodges tend to have websites that work and are informative, secondary sources (like the List of Lodges book that gives foundation date and membership), and publicly available proceedings (though technically primary sources). From the cleanup I just did, most of the "liberals" don't - websites were dead, and the extent of the info was an entry on the CLIPSAS list, which only asserts existence, not notability. As a matter of fact, two of the GLs claimed as CLIPSAS members were in fact UGLE-recognized, and I had to really hunt to figure that out. As a rule, UGLE groups are a lot more stable - other branches tend to have schisms very frequently (RGLE split from UGLE, and within two years of its start split again, and seems to have disappeared (a WP:V issue)). This serves to make small groups even smaller, causing issues with WP:N, V, RS, and ORG. Google will show that most countries have one UGLE-recognized GL (or a few District GLs from other countries) and multiple GLs in other obediences), so there's a definite completeness and maintenance issue. However, as Blueboar mentioned, there are instances where UGLE GLs don't assert notability, either - Grand Lodge of West Virginia is a good one. Started in 1865, and the only info is a lawsuit in 2007/8; I can't find any history books locally, so I'd be inclined to not have an article on that GL either. Also, there is a whole page of bogus US Prince Hall GLs. By the scope of the list as it stands, these are permissible entries, when common sense and WP policy says they aren't, because there's no such thing as intrinsic notability by title, which is what the list implies. MSJapan (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In reply to Exit2Dos: I don't think anyone is indicating a preference about having a UGLE list, instead of a "general list". I think the issue is whether to have a list at all. Most "Grand Lodges" (whether UGLE affiliated, CLIPSAS affiliated, or completely independant with no affiliation at all) simply are not notable according to our notability criteria. So why do we have a list of non-notable entities? Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Exit2DOS2000. Also, I find it to be very interesting and a good reference tool. Dwain (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how the masonic groups arrange their hierarchy is their own concern, and if they appear to be notable, they will have articles here , regardeless of the degree of acceptance among other masons. In a list there is a looser standard--hey do not have to be individually notable, jut verifiable a masonic organiztions. to be notable, just verfiable. DGG (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wasn't going to wade in here as I didn't really have anything original to say, but I thought I would look at MSJ's reasoning. Firstly WP:NOTGUIDE can not apply here at all. None of the categories could reasonably apply to this article. I'm not sure why such a weak argument was put forward. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is a bit stronger. I went through the various examples and the only one that could conceivably apply is the third "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business" or "yellow pages". This is not met as the only contact details are the websites (there are no phone numbers or addresses) and these are incidental to the list. So I think under the terms of the nomination the deletion fails. JASpencer (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zef (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte's Web 2: Wilbur's Great Adventure[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Charlotte's Web 2: Wilbur's Great Adventure

Al the reviews are negative. Schuym1 (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Negative reviews are not a deletion reason. It has received attention from reliablesources, that's basically all that counts. Fram (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: I should have never nominated this. Nomination withdrawn. Schuym1 (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G7 - Author Request (Author notified of AFD here, and replied with request here). UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Niall McIlroy[edit]

Doesn't have a major position within the company, merely a journalist. StaticGull Talk 14:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Article does not indicate why the subject is important or significant (A7). --JD554 (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Peruvian Jews[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Page was deleted after an AfD and restored after a DRV in February 2007. Since then, not one entry has been sourced. I have removed all living persons and redlinks right before nominating this (perWP:BLP), leaving only one unsourced entry for a long dead politician whose article not even mentions Peru at all. Apparently, no one willing to keep this list is either interested in or (for lack of sources) capable of improving this list, making it basically useless. A list of one is not really a list, and if this classification is needed, a category will do just fine. Fram (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of subjective and useless information. Some of these people don't even have articles on them. Wikipedia is not a list of minor or unnotable people. Artene50 (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just looked at the article and one person is listed. You don't even have a minyan, let alone an encyclopedia article.Ecoleetage (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Chapman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previously nominated for deletion in December, but I do not feel that the Keep !votes argued strongly in reference to Wikipedia policies in their reasoning. Furthermore, I believe a better reason for deletion (rather than WP:BIO1E) is that it does not meet the notability standards laid out in WP:MUSIC. Specifically, "Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band" and there seems to be little, if any, non-trivial coverage of him. There are a fair number to of sources to verify that he was briefly with The Stones, but nothing more than these trivial mentions, all of which is already in the article. This is not surprising, seeing as he was not with the band long and has little, if any, claim to notability outside his relatively brief stint. Cheers, CP 14:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not in the article, but he also formed a band called "The Preachers" (produced and managed by Bill Wyman), which was one of the first bands of Peter Frampton and where he was responsible for the first meeting between Bill and Peter.[27]. HE was also in The Cliftons with Bill Wyman. After the Preachers, he went on to play drums in "The Herd" (he isn't mentioned in our article, but he was a memeber for the first two years[28]), again with Peter Frampton, and also with Andy Bown (later of Status Quo) and others. Combined with the Stones, this seems to me to be enough for an article. Fram (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not about how many bands he was in though, it's about the level of non-trivial coverage he receives. While I do feel that, if kept, the article should include the information that you have provided, it still does not address the WP:N and WP:MUSIC requirements. I'm not trying to change your !vote BTW, just wanted to clarify. Cheers, CP 15:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but he does meet WP:MUSIC, which states that "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." He was a member of a very notable band (but for a very short time), and member of a reasonably notable band for two years. It will probably stay a stub for a long time, but it is a very reasonable search term and can't be redirected since it should be redirected to both bands (and perhaps later The Cliftons, with Bill Wyman, as well) at the same time, which is technically impossible. A short article seems to be the best solution.Fram (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at the first entry here[29], it looks as if he may get enough attention there to pass WP:N as well. Someone with easy access to this book should check this of course. Fram (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Rolling Stones#Early_history. Not enough reliable sources to establish any sort of individual notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — From WP:MUSIC: "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." This person passes on this count (as also mentioned above). The article certainly needs some improvement though and I will work on this if I have the time. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — I have added further information and references to assert notability, using the information above (thank you!). — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Withdrawn per Dravecky's overhaul. Good work. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Century Mall[edit]

~~Non-notable mall. No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn per Dravecky's overhaul. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A page on the same mall was previously deleted under a different title, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Century Consumer Mall. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G4<. Seems the old page was significantly different. Still voting to delete, base on non-notability. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to weak keep per addition of reliable sources and expansion. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. No sources. Wikieditor06 (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have just added several references to reliable third-party sources, reorganized the article, and significantly expanded the article. There's more work to do but the subject is both notable and verifiable and this article should be kept. (I would ask that any editor who has already weighed in take another look at the article in its present state.) - Dravecky (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doru Bratu[edit]

Young footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Was prodded, but removed with the rationale "appear to be playing for FC Rapid Bucureşti". However, even though the Romanian season has started, he has never actually played for the club..[30][31][32] пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if he's not playing, then don't see need for article. Is a Rumanian third league even fully professional? Nfitz (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 07:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. I normally don't close AFDs, but I am closing this one because the page in question is a blatant attack page and a violation of WP:BLP. If I had seen this while on Huggle or at Special:Newpages, I would have deleted it under CSD G10. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wued[edit]

A non-notable neologism KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think this entry should stay on wiki because its really emerging as an internet phenomenon, i see this term being used in many of the online games i play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackanator99 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC) — Jackanator99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete — No evidence of notability. macy (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article was previously erased due to its non-notability, so there's no need to add it a second time. It's unsourced and nonsensical. Beemer69 ^chitchat 13:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a dictionary or guide to slang, see also WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. JohnCD (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why wasn't this a speedy? --Ernestvoice (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced neologism; WP isn't a dictionary. Cliff smith ^talk 17:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't look to meet any of the speedy criteria, but that doesn't mean it's notable or sourceable. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was previously speedied and removed, but the page was (wrongly) created again. Beemer69 ^chitchat 21:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang. Longhair\^talk 04:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Shereth 22:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Leaman[edit]

Nothing here makes clear why this academic should be considered notable Grahame (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs work but there are sources which can be used to write an article and he also appears to have been published. Someone else with more experience can weigh in on how much he's cited, etc. but I think he's notable. TravellingCari 13:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain Not notable as an academic. Based on Scopus, which is better for non-US academics, I do not see that any of his work has been cited anywhere. Whether is practical work is important, it's hard to say--the article avoids mentioning his present or past positions, but Cari's refs show he;s widely interviewed and quoted in the Tasmanian press. His popular books is reviewed in a non-scholarly local amateru's journal,and seems to be self published. Whether his travel writing is important, I cannot say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Keep appears to be utilized as an expert in his field by both the Australian mainland as well as the Tasmanian governments, has written books on his field of expertise, has been a lecturer and researcher at the University of Tasmania in the aforementioned field, is widely referred to as a well-established and respected geologist, geophysicist and geohydologist and even volunteers in notable extracurricular activities (trying to save the forests of South Sister in retalliation against the Tasmanian Forestry Department) related to his field of expertise. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a general biographical article that could be written about any career academic or PhD recipient. The article fails to identify adequate notability in accordance with WP:BIO or WP:PROF. A plethora of interesting biographical minutiae is not a substitute for identifying why the subject is truly notable for Wikipedia's purposes. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree with you when you say, The article fails to identify adequate notability but I think the issue is whether the information is available vs. whether it's currently in the article. As I said above, I believe there is information available that provides notability and can be added to the article. If an article can be improved, it shouldn't be deleted. That said, I don't have the time or inclination to work on it, but there is no deadline and having something to start with is better than someone having to start over. TravellingCari 04:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did start this entry in support of some references for the entry on dolerite. It's interesting to see this debate because it highlights the trade-offs between 'notable' and a 'neutral point of view'. Let me rephrase this--- He is notable in Tasmania (partly) because of his work on dolerite, however does notable in Tasmania mean notable for the world? Now putting aside whether he is notable on the world stage as a researcher or academic, he is notable for his (life's) work on dolerite, a rock which is perhaps not very important to the world generally, but very important to life in Tasmania. I would argue to keep this entry because to remove it would be in conflict with a neutral point of view, at least if one feels Tasmania is notable it would be. I would thus argue the entry is important as part of 'supporting documents' for such a major/notable area on earth ( Tasmania) and an epoch in earth's history (break up of a supercontinent, possibly because of the Wilkes Land crater impact) then it should remain. If Tasmania is not notable then it should go. To understand Tasmania one must understand the rock dolerite and David Leaman has done a lot of work on dolerite (among other things). He certainly doesn't come close to the hoaxers on the WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators list for irrelevance --Meika (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the question about whether Tasmania is notable or not, is not relevant to the debate. It matters not whether the geographical/political region is notable; whether it is New York City or some little-known corner of the earth. What is relevant is whether the article successfully demonstrates that the subject is notable for the purpose of an encyclopedia article. The readership of Wikipedia is worldwide, and from every point on the spectrum in terms of education, age, culture and interest. An article in Wikipedia must highlight sufficient notability to appeal to a significant (but probably small) proportion of the whole readership by the interest it generates. I have argued that the article doesn't demonstrate adequate notability, but that doesn't mean subjects located in Tasmania are inherently not-notable. If David Leaman is notable as described in WP:BIO or WP:PROF, an article on him must demonstrate that notability. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I don't really see this as passing either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. First, Dolphin51 is quite correct: Meika's argument that notability of Tasmania somehow translates into notability of David Leaman is certainly not valid. There is a well-established principle in applying all notability guidelines which says that "notability is not inherited". E.g. being a relative or a friend of a famous person does not, in and of itself, make one notable. Even more so, having written something about a notable subject (Tasmania in this case) does not make one notable. Similarly, the NPOV argument of Meika is invalid as well. WP:NPOV talks about how a topic is to be presented within a particular article, and is not applicable as a rationale for keeping an article. The key issue to be considered is notability of the subject, that is of David Leaman. First, let us consider the case for notability under WP:BIO. Leaman appears to be an active conservation activist in Tasmania and he may be considered for notability under WP:BIO on that basis. There are some sources (23 GoogleNews hits) given in Cari's search[sources. However, a closer look at them shows that there is very little coverage in these sources of David Leaman himself, as a person (his life, his accomplishments, his career, etc). Mostly the sources quote his opinion on various conservation matters and sometimes his name is mentioned as having spoken at some political event (e.g. [33]). No significant political or elected offices either. Not enough here to pass WP:BIO, in my opinion. Next, let us consider possible academic notability under WP:PROF. The basic case here is pretty weak. First, let me note, in response to Cari's comment ("appears to have been published") that having published something (or even a lot) was never enough to pass WP:PROF. It is generally necessary to show that one's work made substantial impact in one's academic field. In this case we seem to have a self-published book (Leaman, David, 2002, “The Rock that Makes Tasmania”) and no evidence of citability (high or otherwise) of his research in academic publications and no academic reviews of his work either. As did DGG, I also checked the WebOfScience and Scopus and found nothing at all there. There are no academic awards either. There is one provision of WP:PROF that might possibly be applicable here: "An academic repeatedly quoted, as an academic expert, in newspapers or newsmagazines". (I must admit that this is my least favorite part of WP:PROF; it is rarely invoked and does not mesh well with the rest of the guideline). To some extent this criterion is indeed applicable here. However, the number of quotations is not sufficiently high (in my opinion). Moreover, in most instances he speaks primarily as a political conservation activist and I feel that political activism of any kind should be evaluated primarily under WP:BIO. All in all, I do not quite see this case as passing either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nsk92's detailed analysis. --Crusio (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storytelling (business)[edit]

Delete nn neologism Mayalld (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No references--Puttyschool (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and suggest speedy delete: the last paragraph reveals that this is crypto-spam for a Swedish advertising agency. There's an experience industry? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 17:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Wikieditor06 (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rewrite and remove any spamic tendencies. DollyD (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralf Linke[edit]

Contains no reliable secondary sources to show how the subject meets the criteria for notability of either musicians or composers at WP:MUSIC. Prod previously removed by author. JD554 (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since he meets neither WP:MUSIC nor WP:N. German Wikipedia came to the same conclusion: German AfD. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G12 by PeterSymonds, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 11:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our Mother of Good Counsel (school)[edit]

Delete nn elementary school Mayalld (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is copyvio from the school's website here. It was obvious from the article's tone. • Gene93k (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12 as a blatant copyright violation with no history to revert to, per Gene93k's link. Now tagged with ((db-g12)). ~ mazca ^{t | c} 11:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - This could have just been prodded. --Meld shal42? 11:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and soft redirect to wikt:tombstoning. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tombstoning[edit]

Delete. This article is not really a disambiguation page, but rather a dictionary entry, that exists as wikt:tombstoning. Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 10:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to the Wiktionary page. -- saberwyn 10:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sft redirect - Per Saberwyn. --Meld shal42? 11:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect per above, or delete as a dicdef. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and Soft Redirect to Wiktionary. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lovely House[edit]

The article itself states that the story is not particularly notable in the author's work. Wiki appears to be literary criticism, a form of Original Research (see specifically the section on 'Personal Essays'. May go to meta-wiki or userpage, not mainspace. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is original research. JohnCD (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All original research, no references either. --Meld shal42? 11:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Hovercar. Sandstein 17:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoverbike[edit]

Fails the notability guidelines at WP:N by having no reliable sources. Author removed prod without offering a reason and tagged the article for merging into Hovercar (fiction). I don't think merging into that article is relevant. JD554 (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hovercar as a plausible search term, but the current article doesn't seem to have anything worth keeping or merging - the whole thing is pretty much an uncited "in popular culture" section. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 11:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Removed the WP:OR from the article. Only example of a hoverbike I can think of is from The Joy of Sect in the simpsons. As for the merger suggestion, what would be merged? As of this revision, the article fails WP:V and WP:GNG (as it meets no daughter guidelines). It should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep as references added after the nomination now establish notability. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs in Heaven[edit]

Unreferenced for over 2 years, fails verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:BK #2 as it won the 1993 Los Angeles Times Book Prize for Fiction [34]. I shall add this to the article. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added an "Awards" section, in which I've included the above award (with reference), as well as a References section. I've also added a couple of general references to reviews in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times. There are many news articles listed in the Google News Archives about the book. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Interested editors are encouraged to create a disambiguation page/list page at this title, but I can't mandate that someone do it. Shereth 22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National monument[edit]

Article is unreferenced for over two years, fails the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to a disambiguation page listing only those monuments / groups of monuments with 'national monument' as part their name. Dpmuk (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question and comment: This nom seems to go against common sense as well WP:DEADLINE. Did nominator make an effort look for sources before stating that it fails WP:V? This is a list of monuments. A quick check of member articles show references present. This is a cleanup job and cleanup doesn't have a deadline. Without a better deletion rationale, I'm strongly inclined to keep. • Gene93k (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- additional comment: No objection to reworking as a dab page. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:BURDEN, it is for those seeking that content be included to justify that with sources, not for those seeking that content be removed to show that sources don't exist or can't be found. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Applying WP:V this way skips a an important part of WP:Deletion policy and the WP:GD guide. In common sense application, editors should do some basic homework before nominating an article for deletion. That includes the nominating editors looking for sources themselves. AfDs consume significant editor time and attention. They should be the remedy of last resort. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disambag page - I agree, should be a disambag page. --Meld shal42? 11:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gene93k, with no objection to DABifying per Dpmuk and Meldshal42. AndyJones (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a heterogeneous list, with etnries of various degrees of sourcing and notability/ A proper list based on uniform standards, for various coutnries, might have a reason for existence here, but this is no help towards it. If it can be turned into a dab list, that would be a useful solution. DGG (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone take note of that date and time — DGG and I agreed on something! ;) Stifle (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, we probably agree most of the time--but those are the obvious ones where there's no point both commenting, so the disagreements tend to stick out. This greatly under-represents the extent that we agree on basic principles here. DGG (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 16:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newberger's summation formula[edit]

Article is unreferenced for over two years, fails the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I suspect that references could be found for this. But the article as it stands now lacks context and contains no showing of importance, and as such is entirely unintelligible to non-mathematicians. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This may be better known as Newberger's sum rule, see google books here or scholar here. I lack the mathematical know-how to understand these possible references though. ascidian | talk-to-me 15:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ideally I would have suggested to merge it with something, but since the article deriving the relation has only been cited 13 about 17 times since 1982 it doesn't seem to warrant throwing a relationship which is apparently used very rarely in with something important (e.g. Bessel function) just as a token gesture. I added references so WP:V is OK, and as Ascidian pointed out it would seem a name change is in order. And maybe someone can figure out why it's used in plasma applications so to expand the article. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Agree with THEN WHO PHONE? that the article is verified. The question is whether the formula is relevant enough. Perhaps the original author of this article can give some explanation of the relevance to physics etc? Ulner (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the sources found by Ascidian points out that the summation rule is a weak generalization of a rule (itself a small tweak on a result well known in Bessel equations), found by I. Lerche some years before; For Lerche's rule, take γ = 1. They therefore propose calling it the "Lerche–Newberger sum rule." (Newberger rediscovered it independently.) But this may belong in Wiktionary rather than here. Newberger didn't read Lerche; and they're in the same field; it's only so called in plasma physics because nobody else has read either of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon consideration: Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's verifiable, and a useful definition, but no more, and it never will be. Smerdis' argument is notability and it has not been addressed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added references to several more papers by groups other than Newberger which explicitly argue about whether this is a new formula or whether Lerche (one of the people arguing) should get the credit for publishing a special case of the formula earlier, in 1966. The new sources also make clear the application of the formula to plasma physics. The “response to comment on...” paper writes: What is now called “Newberger ’s sum rule” by the plasma physics community... implying to me not just that this formula is notable but that so is (a version of) the name under which our article is titled. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the only rationale advanced for deletion has been addressed. -- Dominus (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dominus. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fever*Fever. Wizardman 17:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nichiyoubi no musume[edit]

Article is unreferenced for over two years, fails the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNot important--Puttyschool (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fever*Fever, the album it is on, per WP:MUSIC#Songs. ascidian | talk-to-me 14:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fever*Fever per WP:MUSIC. Cliff smith ^talk 17:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the album article, absent any information about its charting, per WP:MUSIC. (Really, it's a very clear guideline: for single and albums, don't delete but merge up to the album or artist.) —Quasirandom (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not only is WP:MUSIC straightforward, so is WP:BEFORE; so, I wonder why we continue to have to clog up AFD with discussions like this. Neier (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it time for another rousing chorus of "AfD is not cleanup today"? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, is now sourced. Sandstein 16:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oba (goddess)[edit]

Article is unreferenced for over two years, fails the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as surmountable problem. WP:RS are easy enough to find for this. Book sources can confirm the bulk of it. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, strongly. A well known figure from world mythology. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added one reference. As an important deity from West Africa and the African diaspora, it should be fairly trivial to add more and to expand this article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While article could still use improvement, sources exist, for example Dictionary of Ancient Deities by Turner and Coulter. Edward321 (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep' and source . The failure for an article to be sourced in two year is not a reason for deletion. (It ha sbeen proposed several times, and each time soundly defeated), The inability tt source it after a reasonable effort made might be, but I see n such assertion here It would be bette to try to improve them--that might benefit the encylopeida--this sort of nomination noes not do so. If the nom insists of nominating on inadequate grounds, its time to cosider how to stop these destructiveand point nomnations eing repeatedly made in feiance of policiy. First step is a snow keep, and perhaps with enough of them he will get the idea. If that does not work,, I will support a block from Afd nominations, if anyone will second it.DGG (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being unreferenced is only an argument for deletion if there are no sources to be cited and not just because there are no sources cited. I am not surprised that African mythology doesn't get much coverage on the internet, but one printed reference is already cited and there must be more out there. Hut 8.5 11:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ubisoft. Sandstein 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ubisoft Singapore[edit]

Delete non-notable subsidiary with no content that needs to be merged back to the parent company Mayalld (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Redirect The company has notable coverage here, here, here, here, here, here and here, here, here, here, here and finally here. What the company does not have is they don't have products. If there are products the article can exist till then redirect to UbiSoft.--SkyWalker (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to an article about Ubisoft. Maybe if more information surfaces, a split would make sense. But in the meantime, there's not much coverage for this office, although it is barely notable. Better to have one great article than a useless stub. Randomran (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ubisoft. Nifboy (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough sources are listed by SkyWalker for the article to meet the WP:GNG. If it meets the general guideline it doesn't need to meet WP:CORP. Even if they haven't produced products yet, the sources listed above are more than enough for a start class article on the subject. Protonk (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop incident resolution gap[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Desktop incident resolution gap

Prod previously removed. Non notable phrase or concept, precisely one google hit to full phrase [35]. - Hunting dog (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - have noted possible WP:COI problem, this page was created by Special:Contributions/Jkragsdale, Virtual help desk also by this user cites a John Ragsdale as VP of Service & Support Professionals Association, that article needs attention also but at least topic is more notable -Hunting dog (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bloated article about a non-notable neologism that doesn't appear to be defined outside of this article. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination Nation[edit]

Delete non-notable variation of a ball game, apparently played at one educational establishment Mayalld (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability Artene50 (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MeeMix[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete rather over the top advertising for non-notable new web site. Article has a large number of sources, but all go back to blogs, rather than reliable sources, and fails WP:WEB. Author has promised to seek out reliable sources, but none have been forthcoming. Mayalld (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the article, I contacted the site's CEO and asked for more reliable sources in order to justify this article's existence. He explained to me that since they're working outside the US and cannot afford using a US-based PR company, they have a major disadvantage in trying to get foot-in-the-door press coverage, as compared to their competitors. I agree that the articles provided are indeed mostly blogs, which is problematic, and I generally agree with Mayalld's position on WP:WEB.

However, in this case I must say that using press coverage as a basis for a deletion policy may be problematic in and by itself. It is no secret that PR companies know how to get press coverage from major magazines. Press coverage from major magazines leads to WP credibility. Small companies are then inherently at a disadvantage, since they usually cannot afford the PR companies, and thus have a harder time getting press, and subsequent WP cred.

In MeeMix's case, for example, the company was chosen as one of the most promising startup companies in a recent startup convention. But, as noted, since it cannot afford a major PR company, it is less likely to have the press spotlight pointed in its direction. As such, when it comes to startup companies, we may be inadvertantly "making the rich richer", and not giving the small guys a fair chance. Obviously, WP is not a company showcase or the yellow pages. However, if we intend to give an objective reflection of reality, we may currently be biased in favor of bigger, richer companies. I think that, in some cases, we can be a tad more flexible when assessing credibility, by allowing the use of other sources besides big magazines to reflect on the subject's notability. Rabend (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite the lack of a PR firm, I can find plenty of press releases. What I can't find is coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we consider The Washington Post as such a source? Rabend (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's arguable as it is a reprint from the Techcrunch blog. It's not enough to sway my opinion at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sources provided cannot be labeled as reliable, accoding to WP rules.

I personally still think that we have a general problem as I mentioned above, in that good PR can get you into big (reliable) corporate magazines, and since this is partly a function of $$, we present a biased picture when using this sort of screening as the sole method for deeming something as worthy of WP existence. I think that perhaps we should consider additional indicators of relative importance, so as to have more information availble on WP, rather than less information. I'd really appreciate your thoughts on this issue. Rabend (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not the forum for discussing policy and guidelines. Perhaps you should take this up at the village pump. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take it up there.

I've been reading through some WP pages about what qualifies as a reliable source, and I think that on the subject of start-up internet companies, well-known professional blogs may be deemed reliable. For example, this page states that professionals writing in blogs may be viewed as reliable sources. The referenced professional bloggers in my article typically write about internet companies, their area of expertise, on their established, popular sites. As such, their sites act as the media through which their reviews are expressed.

Nevertheless, if you are still intent on keeping your position on this matter, I will stop at this point. I hoped this contribution to the WP knowledgebase would meet its requirements (and in my opinion it should, in this particular subject area), but I respect your judgement. Rabend (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per your recommendation, I opened a discussion about reliable sources and PR at the village pump. I hope it would turn out to be fruitful.

Since About.com is part of the NY Times Company, I would like to suggest that the review written there is a reliable source. Rabend (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welford Victoria F.C.[edit]

Article originally PROD'ed with the rationale "Village football team which has never played in the top ten levels of the English football league system or in a national cup competition, the usual benchmark of notability per the WP:FOOTY project. Zero Google News hits and no sources turned up by a more general Google search" but PROD was then removed by the article's creator with the edit summary "Don't understand reson for proposed deletion. Is it due to the use of protected templates? If so these can be removed.The article provides people with valuable information about a local football team". I therefore throw it open to the wider community ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable as per ~~WP:FOOTY/N~~ WP:N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmuk (talk • contribs) 11:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:FOOTY/N only covers player notability, so you may wish to come up with a different argument to use.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point. Was trying to be more specific rather than just WP:N and thought, from memory, that there were club guidelines on that page as well. Anyway WP:N will do. Dpmuk (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 12:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - club does not meet any of the accepted notability criteria (playing at Step 10 or above, or competed in FA Cup or FA Vase). Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 15:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Moshing. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of death (moshing)[edit]

As per WP:NOT, WP is not a dictionary. This just seems like a word/phrase entry to me, and doesn't appear to be very notable as per the sources cited. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 06:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to moshing. Not sufficient to have its own article. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Summarize then merge--Puttyschool (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to moshing per nom and Stifle. Cliff smith ^talk 17:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above ↑. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Meyer[edit]

Trivial mentions and free web sites do not suggest notability for this session drummer. Step hen 04:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BAND. The two current sources, the German one is trivial coverage, and the other may be a reprint of an actual article, but we don't know. Regardless, this would amount to a single source and multiple are needed per WP:BAND and most WP:N guidelines, and does not appear to have any albums or awards for other criteria. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bunch of references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmywalnuts (talk • contribs) 19:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on new sources: See WP:RS regarding most of these, and the rest of those that actually worked (I think about half do not work) may confer notability on The Calling. The info is on that group, not this person. Think newspaper/magazine/TV interviews. Also, all the YouTube links would likely need to be removed even if the article remains see WP:EL as the videos are likely copyrighted, and even as sources they fail as reliable sources. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to correct as many reference hyperlinks as possible. If it's still not up to par, just delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmywalnuts (talk • contribs) 17:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable subject. Beemer69 ^chitchat 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. This is a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. KnightLago (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lola[edit]

This TV series is unconfirmed; searching for it online results in zero noteworthy hits. Note in the page's log that this page has been deleted twice before via WP:PROD. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible hoax. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.--Celtus (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V/WP:CRYSTAL. Search finds only a few items of forum-level chatter, nothing reliable. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs) 05:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 17:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely hoax, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 02:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy crowder-mahlo[edit]

Fails WP:Athlete NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she seems to have only participated in "junior" surfboarding competitions which are usualy unnotable and the one she supposedly one appears to be no exception (I cannot even find verification that it exists). Also, I only get 4 Google results for this person, even without quotes (2 of which are non relevant to surfing) so unless she has a pseudonym or something I doubt RS with be forth coming.[36] - Icewedge (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely seems to fail WP:ATHLETE, and I've had no more luck than Icewedge with a search. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 11:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no showing of importance. Geogre strikes again. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would appear to fail the WP:ATHLETE notability criteria fairly comprehensively. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esuga[edit]

This person might be looking for http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Main_Page. Is that a transwiki nomination, or a straightforward deletion? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google search results make it look like this is a neologism (search - first result is this page), so just delete it. No point in transwikiing content that the destination won't want. Zetawoof_(ζ) 14:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. --Wikieditor06 (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It would appear that there are still concerns regarding the notability of this subject, and an effort should be made to ensure that this article doesn't show up at AfD again sometime down the line by making sure it reliably passes notability criteria. Shereth 22:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clyda Rosen[edit]

No reliable sources to confirm notability. Does she satisfy WP:PORNBIO? Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep belonged to a different era thus lacking RS, has comprehensive credits, some of which are googleable. Annette46 (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked for reliable sources that confirm whether she won or was nominated for any well-known awards, made any unique contributions to porn, or was featured multiple times in non-pornographic media. I didn't find anything reliable in a google search. I couldn't find anything in news.google.com. She performed into the 90s. For such longevity, you'd figure there'd be reliable sources of her if she was notable similar to Ginger Lynn or Christy Canyon. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment she was notable for appearances involving a new genre of big breasted hirsuitism and had a cult following, and now a blogspot offering. There were hardly any industry "awards" in the 70's. Given the time gap, the examples are not strictly comparable. Annette46 (talk) 06:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't like seeing other peoples work deleted and Annette makes a pretty strong case for keeping this article. Albion moonlight (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't think the birthname belongs, but that's no reason to delete the whole article about this clearly notable porn actress. David in DC (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At least what are the sources for her biography? There's 3 rich paragraphs and. as it stands, it's all original research without the appropriate citations. Her notability is not clear without any RS verifying it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepEven if you dispute her real name that is surely no reason to demand the whole article be deleted. She had a career lasting from the early seventies till the early 1990s, appeared in numerous films and magazines and is the subject of many internet articles and sites, worked with historically important pornographic characters eg Lasse Braun, surely that warrants her inclusion on Wikipedia. The “sources” for the information in the article are clearly the films/magazines mentioned themselves, e.g. the existence of the film Sex Maniacs proves she worked with Lasse Braun, the existence of the 1990s titles proves she was still working in the 1990s, we can tell she had a breast reduction in the mid 70s because her physical appearance in films alters around that time. Run her name through search engines and you’ll find many sites about her backing this info up.

I also should mention that this page was marked for deletion before, and was allowed to remain. As the text was pretty much the same, in fact it was less detailed then, this second nomination for deletion seems totally unnecessary. --Gavcrimson (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, WP:OR clearly states "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors" and "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". The movies and magazines themselves are primary sources. Concluding that she had a breast reduction by comparing her appearance or that the existence of 1990 titles showed she was still working in the 90s are all examples of prohibited original analysis. If you admit her biography relies on the primary sources, then you are admitting to original research. Second, nothing in her biography verifies her notability in accordance with WP:BIO with reliable sources. I mentioned before I ran a search and could not find any RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now extensively wikilinked this (and copy-edited a bit, too), but it remains without sources. Can we call off the AfD for a set period, to give the principal editor time to connect the facts to the kind of reliable sources described here -----> WP:RS? If we could, could you, Gavcrimson?David in DC (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest Gavcrimson maintain a copy of this article in his userspace in case it is deleted and work on citing the biography to reliable sources. Particularly he should focus on finding reliable sources that verify/state that Clyda Rosen made unique contributions to pornography or satisfies the other criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gav, just leave it let these people get on with what they want to do, at least then you will be able to give your undivided attention to other sites much more deserving of your quite extensive knowledge and receive the due credit you deserve..the added bonus is you will be able to keep your hair and sleep at night..my best regards Rbt Foot.

I agree, I could cite references for this, but what is the point when there are people here who refuse to believe any published book or internet site is a “reliable source”. For what its worth throughout my entire contributions to Wikipedia I’ve tried to be helpful, provide information and where needed back this up with reliable sources. But over the last few weeks I’ve seen people delete vital information from articles and pointlessly re-write them, as well as forcing me to constantly defend my sources from people who clearly know nothing about the article’s subjects (eg having to defend the right to use Mary Millington’s real name when it can be sourced from multiple reliable books, articles and internet sites). Like RBT foot I care passionately about these Wikipedia subjects, that is why I stuck with this nonsense day in day out, but clearly there are people here whose entire “contributions” to Wikipedia consist of deleting and challenging others material, and thus making valuable contributions to this site virtually impossible. --Gavcrimson (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gav.You are taking things to personally. The deletion process requires consensus and this attempt is very likely to fail. As for sources and all of

that.That too is part of editing Wikipedia. You are not being singled out here or anything like that. You have just walked into the middle of a dispute about using the real names of people who are part of something controversial. Read about the Star wars kid and then read its talk page and you will see what I mean. Albion moonlight (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's worth noting that this AfD has been up for more than 24 hours and it's been on the WP Porn Project's list of proposed deletions only 9 minutes less. So far exactly one editor (the nominator) thinks this whole article is so egregious that it should be deleted rather than rescued. One. Uno. Echad. Ein. I. 1. Would an uninvolved admin please close this AfD sooner rather than later. David in DC (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant, reliable and independant sources. Epbr123 (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a simple google search "Clyda Rosen hairy pussy" will show why she deserves to be retained. She is a pioneer in the "hairy pussy" genre and the "hairiest pussy / armpit ever", and BTW I agree with gavcrimson on what constitutes a reliable source. Annette46 (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The simple google search, "Clyda Rosen hairy pussy" reveals opinions expressed in mostly message board threads and blogs, which are not reliable sources. See WP:SPS. I'd like you to comb through those links and give some examples on what you think is a reliable source and why you think it's reliable. Further, I want you to compare those examples to the type of references cited in the Jenna Jameson article and tell me how your examples are just as reliable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment As the weblinks are clearly not Self Published Sources I am not required to do what you suggest. There is sufficient searcheable internet material on Clyda Rosen to show that she did exist (name change notwithstanding), still has a considerable cult following, was notable for her hairy pussy, her longevity in the smut industry and so on. A good place to start would be here. Not the bio which is admittedly from Wikipedia, but the filmography. Annette46 (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment That good place to start is a forum posting which is a self-published source and is not reliable. All that link demonstrates is that she made movies and had a hairy pussy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment enough movies and hairy pussy to make her easily the most notable entry in British Girls Adult Film Database for the letter "C" Annette46 (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article is hoax and her name is false, good jewish girls do not act in porno films RobertRosen (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "good jewish girls do not act in porno films", then that establishes her notability quite well wouldn't you say ? Annette46 (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alinex[edit]

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of sources for anyone who cares to look, like this one: http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=alinex, 2nd on the Google hits list. It's quite apparent that Ham Pastrami just lies and claims he searched for sources and couldn't find any, while anyone who looks can easily find them. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A profile at distrowatch is hardly a reliable source or significant coverage. Content at that site is user-contributed. It's telling that you resort to personal attacks instead of addressing the concerns listed in the nomination. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLAG Linux and GNU[edit]

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks reliable sources with significant coverage, and the primary claim to notability appears to be a passing mention by Stallman/FSF. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The mentions are not really passing — it is at their links page; this is a passing mention in Linux.com (according to comments, it shouldn't have been mentioned though). --AVRS (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC); added desktoplinux.com articles --AVRS (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its presence on FSF's link page is just a link, I think that is well within passing mention territory. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki_is_not_paper --128.148.68.142 (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability through significant coverage by independent third parties. Appears to be a minor Fedora respin; its supposed claim to fame (being 100% free software) is hardly novel at this point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Still one of the few listed on FSF's website and still appearing in RMS's speeches. Apart from that there are several outstanding aspects, maybe most notably the advent of the Linux kernel's libre version containing no binary blobs, the ability to have rolling releases with bleeding-edge packages through BLAGHEAD, the FREEEEE-project, making it possible to run an EEEpc with entirely free software or the historic BLASTERISK worldwide free phone service. In my opinion it is not appropriate to call BLAG a "minor Fedora respin" because it is no just Fedora with all non-free parts removed, but also with many additional packages from independent repositories, creating a quite unique and well thought-out desktop experience and working state. renilgh (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PAIPIX[edit]

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:NOTE. Not referenced other than an external link to the homepage that provides little useful information. Wikieditor06 (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QiLinux[edit]

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not important--Puttyschool (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NOTE. Wikieditor06 (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satux[edit]

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment another of the several dozen such nominations. Another ed. removed the prods on them. Lack of notability is a reason to delete, not unclear notability. Unsourcable is a reason to delete, not unsourced. I would have a good deal more confidence in these nominations if the nom had reported an effort to at least try to source before bringing them here--a statement that no sources existed as judged by some search would help things along. Consider this comment copied on all the other mass noms. DGG (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per your request: the article lacks notability based on the lack of reliable sources provided and the lack of reliable sources found. The article appears to be unsourcable based on a cursory examination of hits returned by googling. This is assumed to be the case for every other good faith nomination that is brought to AfD on similar grounds, but you're questioning these nominations merely because you object to the quantity. Consider this comment copied on all the other discretely selected noms. Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of notability and seems like advertising to me. Wikieditor06 (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asher Roth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No assertion of real notability; contested PROD with no rationale given Dethme0w (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is listed as the second attempt for nomination for deletion because the article was inadvertantly doubly nominated and the other nomination was closed and this one was allowed to remain. The multiplicity of nominations should therefor not affect the decision of editors in relation to their votes.

Observation creator has removed the AfD tag and claimed in the edit summary to have addressed the central issue, but has not done anything but remove the tag. Twice now - apparently the creator is above policy. 206.116.63.240 (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other wikipedia articles and blogs generally are not acceptable as sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question- I notice there's a review from the Kansas City Star linked as a reference. I can't verify from this computer, but could this be enough for notability? Umbralcorax (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: It's sort of gray -- I say that because, while he did make the paper, so did some guy who was shot by police yesterday in the Bronx for fleeing an arrest, and he doesn't get a Wikipedia article. Legitimate news stories definitely add (if not establish) someone's notability, but one source in one paper on one day is really just the beginning of the journey towards notability, rather than the destination. I added it because I found it, in hopes of perhaps finding more, or instilling in others the notion that sources like this should be sought, rather than blogs and -- haha -- other wikipedia articles. It's when people resort to that type of sourcing that red flags are raised and legitimate entites whose articles may be redrafted are deleted because a mockery had been made of the process. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject is described in several reliable third-party sources including the Houston Chronicle and the Kansas City Star. Article could use improvement and better sourcing but those are issues for cleanup, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not my field, but the quote given seems to imply that he might become notable in the future, which is not usually considered quite enough. DGG (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily closed. Two created at the same time by the same person, likely Wiki bug. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asher Roth (2nd nomination) TravellingCari 13:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asher Roth[edit]

Does not assert real notability; contested prod. Dethme0w (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as this is a duplicate AFD to the one directly above. 23skidoo (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World War III (card game)[edit]

This article is original research on a non-notable variation of the card game War co-created by the article's author. In summary, it is OR, NN, and a potential COI, and should be deleted. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 03:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons listed above Annette46 (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I agree, this is the garbage that makes me rage --98.15.155.163 (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All in favour of a new speedy-delete criterion for "this garbage makes me rage"? :D ~ mazca ^{t | c} 11:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I could go for that. :D Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 15:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as methinks the article falls foul of WP:MADEUP. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be original research if nothing else, and the apparent COI of the creator just confirms that this article probably is not sourceable. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 11:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability or verification. Appears to be WP:MADEUP Artene50 (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete It's an amazing game! Nobody has the right to delete this unless they have played it. Markmustard 19:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in email contact with this user about this article. Further advice, here, from other editors would be nice, too. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 03:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy/snow keep. Nom effectively withdrawn This is an obvious KEEP now. I would withdraw the nom, but since it's already started, might as well let it finish and strengthen the article wih an AfD KEEP under its belt, yes? and there is consensus that as Secretary of State, he is notable. TravellingCari 13:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tobías Zúñiga Castro[edit]

Declined Speedy (or Contested Prod) — "is every politician notable for being a politician? CSD for no assertion of notability and no context or content. Nothing links here (but Tobias, which I linked) ... qualifies for CSD A1, A2, A3, and A7." Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{03:00, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Keep Oh for goodness sake. He has an article on the Spanish wikipedia that we should look at too, but there is a (poor) source that says he was Costa Rican Secretary of State. That makes him notable. If need be, I can forget about going to bed a bring content over from the Spanish Wikipedia. He was born in February of 1854. That means it's going to be impossible to quickly find English sources on the internet better than the one I added. The Spanish article says he was Secreatary of State, among other things. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a poor translation of the Spanish Wikipedia article. Dlohcierekim 03:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the nominator has erred in his interpretation of Speedy deletion criteria. None of those cited apply-- plenty of context, content and assertion of notability. A2 applies to foreign language versions of articles on English Wikipedia that also exist on that language Wikipedia. In this instance, what we had was a bare-bones stub. What we have now is a poor translation of that article, plus information from a poor source. Some leeway must be taken in sourcing trans cultural articles and articles about subjects from before the computer age. It will take a search of Spanish documents to source this, followed by translation. Hopefully, the creator, User:Blofeld of SPECTRE is up to the challenge. I am not. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 04:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vengeance has boldly removed my admittedly poor reference twice. So now I'm scrambling for sources in a language I don't know. Gets better than 20 Google books hits. That's pretty good for a man dead for ninety years. Has significant coverage in secondary sources. Anyone read Spanish? Dlohcierekim 04:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sometimes. (Actually, I thought one "add back" was accidental via edit conflicts or something.)

Ordinarily, I don't go commenting after the nom, instead letting the chips fall where they may. BUT:

Big-D has done great work on this and I'm perfectly satisfied with it now. Did I misread the CSD? Yeah, probably. Someone mentioned in an unrelated page that I'm still battling the learning curve. Maybe.

This is an obvious KEEP now. I would withdraw the nom, but since it's already started, might as well let it finish and strengthen the article wih an AfD KEEP under its belt, yes?

Open for advice on the best course of action. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{11:50, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Well, when I mistakenly propose an article for deletion, and it becomes evident that I was mistaken, I withdraw the nomination so the AFD can be speedily kept. An AFD discussion does not strengthen an article. It merely diverts time and energy that would be better spent article writing. Not withdrawing the thing merely continues to waste time and energy better spent elsewhere. I spent time I could have spent sleeping to develop and support a "keep" argument I need not have made. I knew that Blofield would be back at leisure to to do the work I was doing in a sleep deprived state. But once under scrutiny at AFD, the effort had to be made. My suggestion to the nominator would be that they do a little research with the idea of sourcing and strengthening articles where the speedy deletion declined or the PROD removed. Dlohcierekim 12:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Someone who would have won the Costa Rican Presidency but for the suspension of civil liberties would seem to be a pretty specific claim of notability, and is supported by appropriate sources. Alansohn (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All it took was a little research < BIG ole ear to ear grin >. Dlohcierekim 05:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had found some of the same sources in the New York Times, which does mention him by name in a list of ministerial changes. I'd love to see expansion, but I do see notability. Alansohn (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's a New York Times stub saying he was appointed Minister of War in 1902.John Z (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently his son, Tobías Zúñiga Montúfar was a prominent politician too. So considering how spanish surnames work, this with 142 hits, 19 with limited or full view, gets more.John Z (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close this nomination a Secetary of State and presidential candidate of a nation clearly meets notbaility criteria. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Eng[edit]

Declined Speedy (or Contested Prod) — "Non-notable vanity page. NO EDITORS but for creator (redlink) and robot or copyedit (like me). No claim of notability. CSD A1, A3, & A7." Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{03:00, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Delete, not notable per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of independent notability separate from the band Violent Work of Art, as required by WP:MUSIC. Nsk92 (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Eng[edit]

Declined Speedy (or Contested Prod) — "Non-notable vanity page. NO EDITORS but for creator (redlink) and robot or copyedit (like me). No claim of notability. CSD A1, A3, & A7." Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{03:00, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Delete, not notable per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of independent notability separate from the band Violent Work of Art, as required by WP:MUSIC. Nsk92 (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Record Bar[edit]

Declined Speedy (or Contested Prod) — "Non-notable list." Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{03:00, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Keep Gone but not forgotten. Still has news archive hits. Still gets Google Book hits. Almost forgot. This is not a list. It is an article about a now defunct music store chain with 150 stores. The links will support this. Yes, it's badly formatted-- someone tried to do a year by year historical. But that merits clean-up, not deletion. If one takes the trouble to go through the google hits, they come away seeing that this was a company that met WP:CORP Dlohcierekim 06:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still gets 16 hits on Galenet's Business and Company Resource Center. (You will need to log in through your library patron access, assuming your library is a subscriber.] Dlohcierekim 19:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination gives no good reason to delete (it's clearly not a list although possibly formatted like one) and it appears to me that it could be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmuk (talk • contribs) 12:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article needs cleanup, not deletion, and notability is not temporary. - Dravecky (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaker (band)[edit]

Declined Speedy (or Contested Prod) — "non-notable. Only links are to MySpace profiles. Google search of song DOES give lyrics, though. More than a year without any references." Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{03:01, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to ask did the nominator even do a search before they put this up for AfD, like you're meant to I might add. The second sentence mentions a charting song, and a 10 second search at billboard.com confirms it [37]. Meets WP:MUSIC#C2. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep now why would anyone decline a speedy when the article says, "charted in the top forty?" Allmusic indicates adequate charting for notability. If an article lacks references, my suggestion would be to find/add them rather than bringing it here. There are other venues for article improvement. one could use maybe one of these books listed on Google Books. Significant coverage by third party writers about music. Dlohcierekim 05:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC#C2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmuk (talk • contribs) 12:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSIC. My copy of Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits by Joel Whitburn confirms the song's Top 40 placement (and as does allmusic). I agree some work should be done to add some sources, but Afd is not cleanup. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:Music. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Goodman[edit]

Declined Speedy (or Contested Prod) — "Notability? History shows only contributing editor (all others are categorizing, etc.) and no references." Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{03:01, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Keep Singing the Dogstar Blues has won an Aurealis Award, according to this little anthology profile. Goodman is also listed in Gale's Contemporary Authors. Zagalejo^^^ 03:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, award, CA. There are 10 copies of Dogstar within driving distance of me here in sleepy, li'l old Largo-- wait she's from Australia. Her book appears in over 1000 libraries around the world. She must have something on the ball. (Awards listed on CA added to artcle). (Really, if you can't get to Gale via your library, have a good talk with your Library Director. Tell 'em a former library board member said it's essential.) Meets Wikipedia:Bio#Creative_professionals Dlohcierekim 05:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article explains that Alison has written a book, and won a couple of awards, but it fails to demonstrate notability in accordance with the criterion at WP:BIO. On the matter of having written a book, at Notability criteria it says:

(3) The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is widely used as a textbook; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature.

I know Alison's book is not an academic work, but this is the best advice we have from WP. I see nothing to suggest Alison's book is significant or well-known, or that it is the subject of multiple independent works, or is widely cited by other authors. It would be nice if every person who ever wrote a book and had it published could have his or her own article in Wikipedia, but that is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia has articles about truly notable people. Dolphin51 (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than meeting the guideline by being included in over 1,000 libraries around the world? Dlohcierekim 13:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have done the creator, User:Metamagician3000, the courtesy of notifying of this discussion. Dlohcierekim 13:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to WP:CREATIVE, notability is established if the person's work ... has won significant critical attention. I note that her awards include the Aurealis Award for Best Young Adult Novel and Book of the Year. Surely this meets notability requirements. WWGB (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another award has been added to the list. Dlohcierekim 23:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be sufficient awards to indicate notability. I've found a couple of sources, one from the courier mail [38], another a short book review at the Winconsin State Journal [39]. I suspect other sources exist. I've added a source for one of the awards (the fellowship), which mentions some of the other awards in the list, as well as another award from the American Library Association. I'm not sure what the name for that one should be. Also, the article in the courier mail mentions translation rights for France and Germany (for her new book) in six figures, which seems to be another point in her favour. Silverfish (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on the above, would appear to meet the WP:CREATIVE notability guideline, due to winning lots of awards, as well as WP:N for generally for having secondary coverage in reliable sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was closed with no prejudice (nomination by banned user). Sandstein 17:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roar Uthaug[edit]

Declined Speedy (or Contested Prod) — "Non-notable. Look at edit history not comforting either. No real claim to notability in article. IMDB even has little on him, nothing since 2006." Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{03:01, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

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

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

The result was Keep. Someone might like to add some refs to the article. The song articles aren't part of this AfD and any merging/redirecting of such can be done in the usual manner. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Superstar[edit]

Despite the deceiving list of credits, I do not feel this person meets WP:MUSIC due to the lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable and independent third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with you. Lady Galaxy 02:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (withholding judgement) — I don't disagree, but what becomes of these pages of her songs?

1999 Come Up to My Room/Love-Hate to Be a Player
1999 I Hope I Sell a Lot of Records at Christmastime
2001 Wet!Wet!Wet!/Keith N' Me
2002 Bad Babysitter (chart position #11 in the UK)
2002 Keith N' Me (feat. Kool Keith)
2003 Do It like a Robot
2003 Jam For The Ladies (Moby vs. Princess Superstar, original version on the Moby album 18)
2004 Memphis Bells (The Prodigy featuring Princess Superstar)
2005 Coochie Coo (EP)
2005 Perfect (EP)
2005 My Machine
2006 Perfect (Exceeder) (vs. Mason) (#3 UK, #1 UK Dance Chart, #17 NL)
TBA Lollipop (confirmed on her official website

It seems to me that it would be more logical to delete/redirect all those pages to her profile page rather than delete her profile page and leave all the single song pages. Does that make sense? (Perhaps better said: If these songs are notable, and there's that many, wouldn't the singer be notable?) Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{02:47, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Week Keep does seem to have independent coverage like [40] - any albums or songs that don't meet WP:MUSIC should be redirected to singer's article though - and I wish I could say delete for apparently also having albums titled Now is the Winter of Our Discotheque -Hunting dog (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and hold on at least long enough for me to get home and try to find references! Princess Superstar is reasonably notable; certainly not in the same league as many of the WP:MUSIC-failing individuals who've been listed here today. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK: Sources - Metro interview; Top 10 listing for Perfect (Exceeder) collaboration with Mason (WP:MUSIC criterion 2). AlexTiefling (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, shouldn't the song articles be merged into the article about the artist? Individually they may not be enough to justify separate articles, but they constitute a notable body of work. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep she would appear to meet the notability criteria (although I'm not sure the same can be said for all her songs/albums and they therefore should be merges or redirects per the relevant policies/guidelines. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep. A quick glance shows songs hitting #3 and #11 in the UK Singles Chart, certainly enough to meet WP:MUSIC. Personally I remember Bad Babysitter being in annoyingly heavy rotation on music video channels. Some of the song articles could well be merged though. the wub "?!" 11:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NLP_Modeling. Nandesuka (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy (NLP)[edit]

This appears to be an in-universe description of how neuro-linguistic programming uses one word, with no actual support for the term as a separate concept outside of the NLP walled garden. Many people seem to believe that NLP is a pseudoscience, and I believe that by giving credence to the idea that NLP has some special insight into the concept of "strategy" which is distinct from that described at strategy we are giving undue weight to a fringe view, in contravention of policy. Notability is also a key factor here, as the topic itself at a glance doesn't appear notable, and there is no reliable independent sourcing present, so verifiability is also a concern here. rootology (T) 02:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we have break-out articles on a topic, all it says is that there's too much stuff to keep it in one article. Lots of fields have specialized terminology that differs from the common usage of a term. I'm also not sure this is a very valid deletion reason. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, and it could well be kept if consensus supports that... Independent notability, verifiability, and reliable sourcing are also always an overriding concern as well, and it appears (from some looking) to be a concern here. There is none of any of it in the article--no sources at all, in fact.. I left that off the original nomination by mistake and update it. Guy's nomination of the Rapport (NLP) article from the NLP section is so far also being considered under similar reasoning, as well. rootology (T) 02:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict) On this one, unlike the rapport one, I think there's probably a valid basis for keeping. "In universe" isn't by itself, necessarily a problem ("factor" is completely in-universe for math and "convention (bridge)" for bridge), the important thing to check is whether it's solely in-universe, and whether it's a topic that's been taken note of, beyond a narrow niche. I'd want to check sources and see what coverage it has. The other grounds for deletion seem to be a bit weak ("many people seem to believe..." and "beliefs about the topic validity" taken as an inclusion criterion). What needs checking is whether it meets notability/verifiability criteria and the like, much more to the point, and whether sufficient authoritative sources exist to write a good quality description covering all significant views, if so. As per Morven's point, this article probably stands or falls based upon sources or their lack. It is indeed completely unsourced, and AFD is being correctly used to see if that's a fatal flaw or fixable. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can add some independent sources to show the notability, let me know--if you can track down several independent ones also drop me a note on my talk here or Commons (I look at that one more day to day, plus it dings me with email) in case I miss this AFD changing on my watchlist. rootology (T) 06:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Could you translate the first sentence into standard English please, FT2. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On 'many people believe', let's say NLP fits all the classic definitions of pseudoscience. Personalisation, degenerating research program, 'cuckoo' appropriation of other perfectly valid scientific, psychological or philosophical concepts (e.g. the 'as if' notion), lack of testable or falsifiable hypotheses. On the latter, see the unintelligible Principles of NLP. Peter Damian (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While we are at it, why isn't Principles of NLP up for deletion. This contains far more bollox than anything else we have considered so far. It is rambling and incoherent and even contains the sentence 'there are no principles of NLP'. Peter Damian (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was mainly an essay, barely edited since its creation in 2006, duplicating the main article. Now merged back in. Sticky Parkin 14:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Can't make much sense of what is is supposed to be about. It opens with the unintelligible sentence 'In Neuro-linguistic programming, a strategy is a mental sequence used to achieve a goal.'. The rest of the article is a banal description of the mental processes involved in, saying, admiring a dress. Peter Damian (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fringe theory, unreferenced article that is virtually unreadable on a fringe theory. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The questionable claims in the article are totally unsupported by reputable sources. Poltair (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not that I'm against having an article on NLP... it's that there are so many. The depth of coverage is taking an article and turning it into a how-to. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I know a bit about NLP but this is an attempt to make a normal word mean other than it normally means, and legitimize another meaning, plus it's not often noted. If we want to discuss NLP-ers use of the word 'strategy', we can do so in the NLP article in about a sentence. Sticky Parkin 13:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I find the delete arguments compelling. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's interesting: within the article lead you could replace the phrase "Neuro-linguistic programming" with "Role-playing games"... Hiding T 16:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless sufficient sources are added to verify the accuracy of the basic info given in the article and to demonstrate notability of the topic. At the moment it is very difficult to understand what the article is about and, although the article is 2 years old, there are still no sources cited in it. For now what is written in the article essentially qualifies as WP:OR. The topic is sufficiently technical and specialized that some amount of specific knowledge of the subject matter is necessary to fill in the gaps here and add some sources; this is not a case where a random editor unfamiliar with the subject can just do a google search, find a few relevant references and add them. After reading the text a couple of times I still could not make heads or tails out of it. I should say, however, that I am not persuaded by the "undue weight" arguments of the nominator. Yes, this seems to be an article about some sort of a fringe theory but the undue weight issue would only come in if the article was about a larger topic. In articles about fringe theories/movements themselves the udue weight argument does not really play. The key question is if the topic if notable. I suspect that it might be (certainly there is plenty of coverage of NLP, whatever that is, by reliable sources, as a basic GoogleScholar search shows[41]) but given the technical nature of the subject, it is up to the article creator and the keep proponents to provide verifiable evidence of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Google sadly does not indicate reliable sources at all. The first hit is 'Frogs into Princes' which is the classic NLP self-improvement book (clue: the title itself). The rest are manuals written by NLP promoters. Do be careful of using Google scholar for this kind of thing. The mere fact a book appears there, does not imply it was written by 'a scholar'. Best Peter Damian (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I agree with your point but the mere fact that a book/article is written by a promoter of a particular theory does not yet make it fail as a WP:RS. I would look at where the thing is published. If it is a reputable scholarly journal, I would still count this as a reliable source. In some cases I would also count a book published by a highly regarded academic publisher as a reliable source (at least for verifiability purposes) even if the author advocates a fringe or a minority view. In the case of the googlesearch in question I see a few articles in scholarly journals and some law-enforcement sources (e.g. FBI[42]) that appear legit, e.g.[43][44][45][46][47][48] (not all mention NLP in the abstracts but GoogleScholar gives them as hits with partial quotes). So I am fairly sure that NLP itself as a topic is notable. The business with "strategies" is another matter and there I would would to see more direct evidence both in terms of satisfying WP:V and WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect Most of the content in Strategy (NLP) has already been merged with Representational systems. Strategy (NLP) could be deleted or redirected there. ----Action potential ^{t c} 21:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Un-sourced stub about a non-notable sub-topic that can easily be included in one of the various larger pages within the NLP-realm of articles. The concept may be worth an explanation within those other pages, but it does not meet the requirements for a separate page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Synergy 12:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Slim Shady Show[edit]

This cartoon series lacks of notability and should be deleted per WP:Notability, which states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The fact that Eminem plays a major role in this cartoon doesn't make it notable, as notability is not inherited. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 02:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its an alternate media offering with sufficient notability at rotten tomatoes, and numerous google hits Annette46 (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable web production, widely released to DVD, and directly involving a notable singer. I'm not sure about listing Fox as a network on the infobox as this was produced for the web, but that's a content issue. Needs quite a bit of clean-up. 23skidoo (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep actually, Eminem starring in his own show makes it a prima facie official release, and should be looked upon like a live DVD or an album Sceptre ^(talk) 23:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More than a few things in news results that indicate notability, contrary to the statements otherwise by the nominator. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. -- Longhair\^talk 20:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intrepid Travel[edit]

Non notable travel agent Dontdoit (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was a tricky one, because I Googled it and I saw that the article has references. But I still don't think it has enough to meet notability, either. Lady Galaxy 02:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not entirely happy with the way this has been written, but the two long-ish articles in The Age are a good indicator of notability. Also added an Arthur Frommer column on the company from the San Francisco Chronicle, and there are further articles from reliable sources (~~i.e.~~ e.g. this Observer story). Gr1st (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination is a joke. The company has an annual turnover of $130 million, operates in 96 countries, and has won seven national or international tourism awards. Oh, but it's not notable. Right ... WWGB (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known, sufficient secondary sources exist, clearly notable in my view. Murtoa (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not only is the article referenced somewhat but there are quite an array of news articles about the company. Fails to be non-notable by a long shot - Peripitus (Talk) 11:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article sufficiently demonstrates notability. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a quasi-advertisement for just-one-more small business. Intrepid Travel is outside the mainstream, and therefore potentially notable. Some parts of the article look like an extract from a Prospectus, or the Annual Report to shareholders, but these can be cleaned up. The article is capable of being made scrupulously objective while still highlighting the genuine notability of the company as specified at WP:COMPANY Dolphin51 (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article needs cleanup, but as shown above, it clearly meets WP:CORP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linthicum family in Maryland[edit]

PROD has been bypassed due to the potential for this nomination to be controversial. This article is a piece of genealogical research; however much I am supportive of genealogy, I would class this as original research on the part of someone not necessarily the editor who created the page. I will note that some of the content exists at Crofton, Maryland#Existing landmarks. One way to treat this article is as an instance of WP:BLP1E, which would cover Thomas Linthicum, but not the family as a whole; because BLP1E does not properly apply (as it might for "Dupont family in Delaware" or "Kennedy family in politics" to draw two from a hat), I argue for deletion of the article. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Huh.. if kept, it needs serious cleanup. So far it's unreferenced and doesn't meet notability. Lady Galaxy 02:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and not notabaleAnnette46 (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Ali[edit]

Web cartoonist with a single weekly strip. Fails the notability criteria for biographies in general and for creative professionals in particular. Not the subject of published secondary source material, no major awards, no evidence to date of a unique or enduring contribution to his field, not widely cited by peers or the developer of a body of work with substantial industry or community recogntiion. Euryalus (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot notable enough for encyclopediaAnnette46 (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:Bio. Wikieditor06 (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep.. Sandstein 16:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the Harry Potter stories[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter stories (2nd nomination)

Delete - A timeline of the popular book series. Sources are only primary and from unreliable fan pages, breaking WP:V and WP:RS. Some of the content is unsourced or original research (WP:OR) This belongs on a fan site, not Wikipedia (WP:NOTWEBHOST). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dates in Harry Potter (second nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dates in Harry Potter. Dalejenkins | 12:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article passed its previous AFD following a WP:DRV decision in favor of reversing the previous deletion (when it was called Dates in Harry Potter. I don't see anything that has changed to warrant a change. As the closing admin stated, sourceability is the key, and if there aren't already there will be additional sources created on this topic. I agree that WP:NOR needs to be maintained, but I do not agree that using primary sources suddenly equals OR, otherwise we may as well delete 99.99% of all film, TV and book articles on Wikipedia. 23skidoo (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that original sources equals OR. And new sources are unlikely to be written on the Potter timeline as the book series is over and the film series is set in the 2000s, whereas the book series was in the 1990s. Dalejenkins | 12:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as the book vs film timeframe, perhaps a line can be added to specify this is for the books. As for "unlikely to be written" this is presumptive. Rowlings just did a high-profile lawsuit related to her plans to write just such a work, there are numerous third-party studies of Potter in publication, and this is one of the biggest selling series of books in the history of literature. People are still writing chronologies related to Tolkien's works, so there is nothing to say additional sources related to Potter won't also be written. Indeed there is nothing to say that Rowlings will never write another Potter book; indeed she is about to publish a spin-off work (Beedle the Bard) and has stated that she has not ruled out an 8th book down the line. But that's beside the point: the point is there are plenty of sources listed, and there are sources that may be yet to come. The article needs to be clear that it's related to the book, not film chronology (and films don't state they take place in the 2000s or the 1990s anyway), but that's a content issue. 23skidoo (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is full of holes. The references there are mostly primary, and those that aren't are from fan sites. This sort of article belongs on a fan page. This is pure WP:CRUFT. And "sources that may be yet to come" violates WP:CRYSTAL. Also, a 2005 track by The Ordinary Boys is used in the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix film, hence set in the 2000s. Dalejenkins | 13:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well put-together, but pure fancruft. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I also favor deletion on this article, fancruft is not a valid deletion reason. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while Harry Potter is notable, the Timeline/ Chronology of Harry Potter is not notable. Furthermore the article lacks independent sources and is mostly WP:OR --T-rex 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliably sourced article which is necessary for a full understanding of the events of the text (from an outsider-study point of view)

The article is meticulously sourced, and all dates given can be verified from the original text (e.g. the statement in HPCS about 1492 being 500 years ago, the statement in HPPS about the day on which July 31st fell) or the author's public statements (in interviews and the like). I fail to see how giving a date of the event in a fictional universe, and citing the original text or interviews given by the author of that text, is any different from using the date of an event in history (say the Battle of Hastings) and citing a non-fiction work as the source.

Primary sources are considered reliable (and therefore sufficient for reference requirements) to uncontroversial facts about themselves. For example a university's website is a reliable source for the statement that the university 'has X thousand students'. Surely, for the assertion that a particular event in the Harry Potter fictional universe is set in a particular year, the actual text itself or the word of its author is sufficient? How could any third-party source provide more concrete evidence of this than the text and the author do?

Plenty of other articles (e.g. Lord of the Rings) discuss the in-universe times at which important events in the book take place - an understanding of chronology is essential for studying any book of this nature in which events occur over an extended period of time (including significant 'backstory' which is necessary to fully understand the text - as with LoTR in fact). The only difference I can see in this article is that the books are set (albeit vaguely) in real years (1991 - 1997) rather than fictional ones. Cynical (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between this and the LOTR articles is that there isn't a large body of scholarship studying the Harry Potter series' setting in detail, nor was the series conceived as a fictional history, with great emphasis on continuity of setting and detail. Instead, where continuity exists it is continuity of motivation and events, not continuity of setting and timeline. Even the basic years aren't based on any source, but instead on adding and subtracting years based on known events (two years before three years after ten years before adds up to...) when the author herself says she got the math wrong several times.
This article makes original claims, based on intepretation of a work of fiction instead of any reliable sources. Conflating "notable" with "important" doesn't solve the core problem that there are no sources for the conclusions, making this one big ol' original research POV-push that this is the timeline that the series falls into and bugger the inconsistencies. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per cynical.Nrswanson (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think I need to repeat the full discussion above. For notable fictions of an degree of complication, timeline articles are notable. The interweaving of past events in the various vols. of the series fully justify the virtues of an article like this. DGG (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole article is trying to argue when the events of the story took place, in violation of WP:SYNTH. The only factual real-world statement is "The dates are inconsistant, and JKR has admitted she's poor in math." You don't need an article for that. Leave this for a fan wikia. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fairly hard core original research, plus this is yet another redundant arrangement of plot summary arranged in an in-universe way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Primary sources are obviously the best in this case. Ad hominem arguments about fans are irrelevant and do not justify deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, independent third party sources are always best. If this article can not find any it should be deleted --T-rex 14:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that statement. If you talk with wikiprojects related to the arts and literature they will tell you that primay sources are often essetial sources used within articles. Particularly on newer or more obscure works where there is limmited critical commentary and/or detailed information available about the work in other sources. I myself write articles on Baroque operas, many of which haven't been performed in 300 years, and use the scores to get invaluable information on things like the names of characters, etc. that might not be covered in an article discussing the opera's impact on musical history. Third party sources are essential for proving notability but I don't think they are essential for every detail on an article's page. If that were the case than many articles on the arts would remain stubs.Nrswanson (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is trying to say that primary sources are all-out BAD per-se, they're absolutely invaluable. However, you NEED secondary sources to back them up. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a plot summary of the Harry Potter books with some dates added on. 58K is far from a "concise" plot summary, and thus violates WP:NOT#PLOT. --Phirazo (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. I'm not overenamoured of Harry Potter fandom, but, I can quite imagine this is the sort of information at least some people would come to Wikipedia to try and find... so I think this article is encyclopaedic.--S Marshall (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kelso21 (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why?--Phirazo (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's simply plot repetition from all the books. Looks like fancruft at best. It should be on a Harry Potter wiki, not here. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is merely a lengthy collection of fancrap plot summary rearranged into a timeline. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has little to no reliable sources, is an exceptionally long plot summary, and is mostly original research. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 23skidoo and DGG. It's an article based on the Harry Potter books so the books themselves are quite reliable and even those have been written about in other books also based on ...the original books. The only issue I see here is editors having to work through any disagreements and writing the entire article to avoid in universe concerns. Banjeboi 00:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and verifiability as well as the fiction policy extremely badly - even if the books themselves are notable, it doesn't mean this timeline is. It doesn't really matter if the article supports all its clear original research with a couple dozen cites of the books themselves and over thirty cites from just one of the many fansites used to source the article (that fansite, by the way, seems to be the basis for this article as it has a lot of content dedicated to hammering out a timeline like this one), because despite the considerable work obviously put into sourcing this article, the author was unable to find even a single relevant secondary source. It seems like a lot of people aren't well-versed on policy in this AfD, because you can source a series' content from itself all you want, but it's nothing more than fansite-level cruft until you can find secondary sources, otherwise you could put articles about anything fictional on Wikipedia without fear of it being deleted. Just because the books are notable and a few subjects from them are notable, by the way, doesn't mean a low-interest plot summary anyway. Also lacks significant real-world coverage, but at this point that's just another nail in the coffin. I suggest that people read WP:FICT as it covers pretty much all my arguements. Gelmax (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Wikipedia:Notability (books) covers this - "The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country". Banjeboi 23:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article isn't about a book. WP:BK doesn't apply. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article does seem to be about the books - "the series of Harry Potter novels". Banjeboi 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - These are the articles about the books. This article is about a timeline of events in a fictional universe. The applicable notability subpage would be WP:FICT, as Gelmax notes in his !vote. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then Wikipedia:FICT#Creating_fictional_element_lists would seem to cover it. Banjeboi 03:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see how that clause applies. As it notes, it's generally used for groups of characters and episodes, subtopics which taken on a whole may be notable in the context of the larger work, but would be cumbersome to cram into the main article. It's not used to justify separate articles for topics that otherwise don't meet inclusion criteria. I'm still not seeing any reliable secondary sources which discuss contradictions in the Harry Potter timeline to a substantial degree. Further, this article is plot summary (simply rearranged) which is already covered elsewhere, and the Basis and Contradiction sections read like OR synthesis. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I see this as something that would fit in the main article were it not for size concerns. Banjeboi 19:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The plot of the series is already covered in the book and movie articles in a format both more faithful to the original works and more consistent with WP:PLOT. The concept of this article still shows no notability and is largely OR. There is very little, if any, encyclopedic content in the article that is worthy of inclusion on any page. I do not think your statement is compatible with the policies of Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We'll have to agree to disagree then. Banjeboi 21:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RMHED (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete purely original research. This is an compilation of facts and original analysis regarding books and movies. An article like this should really only exist if there have been published timelines from reliable sources. --Leivick (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I supposed you could call it "cruft" but it's well-written and extremely notable cruft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs)

Sorry, real-world notability is not inherited and it is not established by your just saying it is so. The non-third-party, non-truly secondary sources currently in the article (and as far as I can see, those are the best available) are insufficient to support that statement either. user:Everyme 13:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable and well-sourced. You might not like it, but Wikipedia does Fandom. Sourcing in-universe dates from the canon os just as good sourcing as taking baseball scores from the relevant league's yearbooks. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing in-universe dates by drawing debatable conclusions based on personal analysis of the fictional works is not good sourcing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The timeline of a book/film series as popular and well-known as the Harry Potter series is almost always going to be notable. This is no exception. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is this different from saying "The timeline of a book/film series [...] is almost never going to be notable, no exceptions"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left out a couple of adjectives that I had meant to include in my reasoning. They've been included now. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then where are the reliable sources that saw fit to comment on this subject? Notable isn't the same as important or popular. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually suggesting that the Harry Potter series is popular but not notable? You don't think that there exist reliable sources covering some of the plot points, do you? Also, I'm not sure that you understand what WP:ILIKEIT means. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm suggesting that not every aspect of the series is notable. You've conflated this particular aspect of the series with the whole series. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you're trying to make a distinction between the notability of the series and the notability of the chronology, but my point is that there are enough reliable sources discussing certain aspects of the subject that make the subject notable. And, by the way, in a quick google search I was able to turn up this. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where are those reliable sources? This mentions no dates and does not place flashbacks or mentioned-in-passing historical events in any sort of order; it only summarizes the books, chapter by chapter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is going nowhere...agree to disagree, I guess. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's going nowhere because you're making sweeping general statements in response to a single, specific question. Unless and until there are reliable sources that saw fit to comment on this subject, it's just not notable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's going nowhere because your constant hounding of me is growing tiresome. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article lacks of the independent sources necessary for WP:Verifiability. Almost all references are from the books or fan sites. Most importantly, it also lacks of notability, as there seem to be little, if any, coverage of the topic by reliable sources (the topic being the contradictions in the chronology of Harry Potter, not Harry Potter itself). Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 02:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fairly blatant violation of WP:SYNTH. It's also poorly sourced and of dubious notability. Reyk _YO! 05:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG, and per author Rowling's and copyright owner Warner's creations of and acknowledgements of the timeline. Events in the books are not "dateless", and it is not O.R. to deduce that the 500th anniversary of a 1492 event would fall in 1992. Other dates are from documents created by Rowling and from interviews by her. This satisfies WP:V, and it is material closely related to a highly notable book series which would make the main articles on the books excessivly long if incorporated there. Edison (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:→KEEP – Not a "plot summary" by an means. If anything, it is a continuity-keeper of all the different plots. Already been kept in AfD once. Perhaps a policy on Timelines would be a good idea as well. Until then, there is MORE than enough reference material, as oft noted above, and it serves a particularly useful purpose. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{15:49, 15 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

This user has been blocked for sock-puppeting. Dalejenkins | 10:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A continuity-keeper of all the different plots...in other words, a plot summary. Twisting the words doesn't change that. And there's plenty of references, true, but quality is more important than quantity. All that's referenced is primary sources and fansites (which, of course, aren't reliable sources). If you look at the original research policy, it clearly says "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors", which this isn't, because there aren't any secondary sources describing the chronology of Harry Potter events. Just Rowling's vast expanse of primary-source writings in the Harry Potter universe, and fansites that are technically secondary sources but aren't reliable ones. And no, there isn't any need for a special category for timelines, because there's plenty of timelines that would survive under the existing rules. I know the Lord of the Rings universe has enough reliable secondary sources to support a timeline article, I think the Star Trek universe does, Star Wars might (don't think so, though), Pokemon should, it's just that Harry Potter doesn't. What it all comes down to is that it isn't really Wikipedia's job to reconcile the various plot threads of the Potter universe, and saying that policy should be rewritten to accomodate it isn't a convincing point in an AfD. Gelmax (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a difference between OR and simple addition and subtraction, and this falls well in the realm of the latter. Besides that, there is the obvious fact that it is a collection of extremely notable elements from a notable series. Combined with the author's own acknowledgement of the timelines, I don't see how this doesn't pass verifiability by any standard. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the method used to produce the original research is straightforward, easy, and nearly impossible to screw up doesn't make it correct or reliable, especially when your only source is "any time Rowling wrote the word 'year'". Just because a date's alluded to in the canon doesn't mean it can't be retconned by a later work or isn't contradictory or just flat out wrong. Maybe someone tells Harry that something's going to happen on such and such a date and then it ends up happening earlier but it's not explicitly mentioned in the book. Bam, the canon isn't explicitly wrong but the OR is. Heck, I even found an example of this in the Harry Potter universe after less than two minutes of browsing through the fansite "sources". This is why OR is not reliable. Gelmax (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OR lies in the construction of an entire topic. Were there third-party sources to establish so much as the mere existence of that timeline as a real-world fact, I'd consider keeping this. But as it is, the very topic of this article is the product of some Wikipedia editors' work. Not good. user:Everyme 13:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hopelessly in-universe and OR. user:Everyme 01:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources such as Waco Tribune-Herald and The Harry Potter Companion (containing a 52-page chapter on the timeline of events). It is stretching far beyond the intent of the original research policy to suggest we can't ever synthesize information from multiple sources; synthesis is only becomes original research if editors are trying to advance a position. As long as we present information in a neutral way based on the information we can derive from sources (including information derived from sources and simple arithmetical computations, which any editor can reliably verify and confirm), we do not run afoul of the prohibition on original research. Where sources agree about where events belong in the Harry Potter timeline, they can unequivocally be put in their proper place in this article. Where they don't, NPOV can be applied and the events can be listed separately from the main chronology, indicating where the different sources place them, or footnotes can indicate where sources conflict with the timeline. There are enough reliable sources to improve this article without necessitating original research, and so it should not be deleted. It is also looking into a crystal ball to suggest that articles would be original research because later "official" sources may conflict with the current sources available. For example, 2012 Summer Olympics won't become "original research" if war breaks out and the Olympics are cancelled; the article would simply need to be updated as new sources become available. DHowell (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to High School Musical 3: Senior Year (soundtrack). Keeper ǀ 76 21:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now or Never (High School Musical song)[edit]

Unreleased single with no assertion of notability Sceptre ^(talk) 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC) The song is the first single off the soundtrack which is why it was premiered in the first place and it should not be deleted Hsm7 ^(talk) 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to High_School_Musical_3:_Senior_Year. Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to High School Musical 3: Senior Year per above. Dalejenkins | 17:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. PhilKnight (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to High School Musical 3: Senior Year (soundtrack). Keeper ǀ 76 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Want It All (High School Musical song)[edit]

No assertion of notability or release as a single. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to High_School_Musical_3:_Senior_Year. Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to High_School_Musical_3:_Senior_Year. Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS.
Kww (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to High School Musical 3: Senior Year per above comments. Dalejenkins | 17:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. This discussion requires the attention of an expert in the subject; as most of the opinions here came with a built-in disclaimer. If somebody can locate an authoritative reference on this subject or an expert who can shed some light on the matter, then it would be wise to relist this at that time. As it was, however, there was no consensus for deletion, and the deletion policy advises we lean toward keep in such situations. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Altino[edit]

I suspect this article may either be a hoax or a product of original research. I am fairly knowledgeable in this field of study and I have never heard of the term altino before. Likewise, I have searched several vocal pedagogy texts and books on countertenors and have found no reference to the term. Nrswanson (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a term for countertenor used in Italy called a tenor altino (but never just altino) but the usage and definition are not synonymous with the description in this article. Otherwise I would suggest a merge. As it is deletion is best.Nrswanson (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs investigation The article is 3 years old, started by an editor with history of productive edits. Annette46 (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Be that as it may, the article has no sources. No responses have been made to tags or to questions about authenticity on the article's talk page. The article edit history is also incredibly short and the article is virtually uncategorized even if it is three years old.Nrswanson (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with countertenors, that should get a wider knowledgeable audience Annette46 (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the information was referenced I could see doing that but I think it is ill advised to merge possibly false information.Nrswanson (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be controversy on the countertenors article over tenor altinos vis=a=vis hautecontres. This URL supports that altino is one of the 5 main classes of counter tenor.Annette46 (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's a copy paste from an old version of the wikipedia countertenor article. lol Not exactly a reliable source. Better editors with actual references have worked long and hard on the article sense. Nrswanson (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an opera expert, but after reviewing your considerable edit history of single purpose edits on the subject of opera /music, its better we involve the larger community on this to guard against possible POV pushing. Annette46 (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. I think we all know what a WP:SPA is. It's not used for a specialist editor like Nrswanson who has edited and written many different articles relating to voice, opera and music. This particular article is a technical one - hence we need to involve editors with appropriate knowledge (and access to reference books). Technical knowledge has nothing to do with (quote) "possible POV pushing" (unquote). --Klein zach 09:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is rather an unfair comment. Rather than distract the conversation here I will respond on your talk page.Nrswanson (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was not personal. By googling I find quite a few references to tenor altino such as Google Book:The Wordsworth Book of Opera,1995. Why not move the article to tenor altino with a link to/from counter tenor ? Annette46 (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not really a good idea. Peter Giles in his book The Countertenor, says that the term tenor altino is the italian word for countertenor. It's not really a subtype of countertenor but just the italian word for countertenor. That's why this article is a little odd because it's trying the turn tenor altino into a sub voice type of countertenor (which is not an italian word or term by the way). If references can be found to show that the term tenor altino is different than countertenor than I would support creating a new article. A lot of the difficulty with voice type pages is that there are several different terms in different languages used. Sometimes the terms are directly synonymous and sometimes they are not. It can get complicated. I think the best thing to do is find an editor with good sources. I posted a note at the opera project and hopefully some more knowledgable people will come and join the conversation and/or add references.Nrswanson (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nrswanson. I've had a look in the Oxford Dictionary of Opera and can't find this term. If Annette46 can find a solid reference I'd be happy to reconsider but the mixture of unbacked information about singing, speaking and low testosterone levels hardly inspires any confidence in this information. --Klein zach 09:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest either way, except to see that possibly true but controversial material is not deleted. I quite understand [[User:Nrswanson]'s point. But, I also see that the article Altino is trying to convey that altino is the 'true' countertenor, which is also a controversy on countertenors. Personally I am at this time inclined to believe that altino => tenor altino => counter tenor, and there are no other forms of countertenor (like hautecontres). I am surprised though that Ralph Appelman's Vocal Pedagogy has nothing (google books searchable) on either countertenors or altinos. Annette46 (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is surprising. I pulled up my copy in my personal library. He doesn't spend much time on the subject. Some notable tid bits here and there but there isn't a whole chapter dedicated to the subject and not a mention of altino that I can find.Nrswanson (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a passage from the 'Tenor' article in Grove by Jander, Steane and Forbes: "A highly specialized type of tenor is the tenor altino (or contraltino) which extends into the treble region without breaking into falsetto." --Klein zach 10:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... that complicates things because now we have it defined as a sub-type of tenor (much like the French haute-contre and Italian tenore di grazia) but with wording that could easily equate it with some definitions of countertenors by other authors. Regardless, this is still "tenor altino" and not just "altino".Nrswanson (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Term is not known in reference works. As it stands, without any reliable sources or references, the article look more like 'original research' and thus falls by WP:OR. (In addition, the reference to Klinefelter's syndrome, of which the WP article tells us only 10 cases have ever been recorded, and which is in no way substantiated, gives me that hoaxy feeling). As to merging - what genuine info does the article have to merge?Smerus (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about the third meaning given in it:Altino which has been there since December 2006; that definition seems to support this article. Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that as well, but it's only a red link so it hardly amounts to anything. --Klein zach 13:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate Having read this 1998 web article on Countertenors I am not convinced that the term altino can be dismissed as unnotable. And the term has an identity / usage separate and distinct from countertenor. The case of Russel Oberlin as an altino is controversial on many websites and specialist groups. But I am not an expert. Annette46 (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The website you refer to says Oberlin is a tenor altino. We've acknowledged that this is an authentic term, see my quote from Grove above. You might argue that 'altino' is an abbreviation of 'tenor altino' that wouldn't justify a separate article, only a redirect at best. --Klein zach 13:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but the website does define "tenor / altino" and freely uses these terms interchangeably - separately or in conjunction. Is it possible that the Peter Giles book(s) is responsible for altering the pedagogy of these various terms / voices for countertenor, and seeing Giles to be the main ref for countertenor? Based on this website, the article is not ruled out as a hoax or original research, but the contents of the article certainly need rigorous scrutiny for reliable sources. "tenor altino" being an authentic term, this article can be redirected to "tenor altino" which is now increasingly looking as being nuanced differently from "countertenor". Annette46 (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found some more on the tenor altino in the Giles book, it basically supports what's in Grove and expands it a bit. I think the point he was trying to make by saying the term is basically the term for countertenor is because the term "tenor altino" is often placed as a sub-division of tenor within the Italian vocal classification, a practice not done in other classification systems. I don't think there was any attmept by Giles to redefine the term. His work is considered one of the best studies done on the subject of the countertenor by those in the music history field. Again, trying to equate terms across different cattegoral systems in different countries is not always easy. That aside, the information in this article, however, is definitey not accurate and seems to be a POV push by the original author to give the term tenor altino more weight over other terms that developed outside of Italy. There is also a lot of dubious scientific explanations in this article. I think we can and should discuss the term more thoroughly at the countertenor and/or tenor articles but a merger here is not warranted sense this article has multiple factual errors, is a POV push, and is poorly written. I would not even suggest a redirect at this point sense a consensus among editors at the countertenor and tenor articles will have to make a decision as to which page the article should redirect to. On the outside chance that the page is kept, the title should be changed to its proprer name, "tenor altino".Nrswanson (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nrswanson. That's a good summary. This is art not science. There will be differences in interpretation. The problem here is not to define tenor altino (Italian) in terms of countertenor (English), but to decide if this 'Altino' article has reliable information that should be in the encyclopedia. --Klein zach 00:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Somewhat I agree with Nrswanson that the article be renamed as tenor altino and all unreliable contents be expunged. I disagree with Kleinzach that "this is art not science"; the standard reference book on Science of Vocal Pedagogy by D Ralph Appelman (avail. google books) while exploring subdivisions such as "alto tenors" , "mezzo sopranos" etc has nothing on "countertenors" reinforcing my suspicion that perhaps "countertenor" itself is a hoax /OR - being a recent genteelism for variants of "falsettist" or neo-"castriati" Annette46 (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annette46 forgive me but that last comment made me laugh out loud. Particularly sense the word countertenor is actually hundreds of years older than the word falsettist which is a term than came in vogue during the 20th century. The term countertenor was derived from the 15th century term contratenor which was one of the part names in four part polyphonic writing. It is an English term and the earliest examples of usage in writing date back to the mid 17th Century. By the time of Henry Purcell (who frequently used the term countertenor on his manuscripts/scores which still exist) the word was in wide use within England. Also. the reason why Appelman uses the term "science" is because he was one of the earliest vocal pedagogists to apply modern scientific knowledge and research regarding human anatomy to the study of singing by using laryngealscope technology and other modern advances that help us better understand the physiological process behind singing. Vocal classification systems pre-date that science and Appelman himself points out that there is an art to singing that goes beyond the science. Also, here is a link to an amazon music search for countertenor for further verifiability. [49]Nrswanson (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last comment is what an average reader would glean from countertenor on the lines of "a countertenor is the male equivalent of a mezzo soprano, singing parts previously written for falsettists and castriati. The term enjoying a modern revival after being popularised by Peter Giles' book - Giles being a "countertenor" himself and thereby not sufficiently RS to the extent that without Giles as a prop/source the countertenor article collapses under the weight of its own contradictions". However, all this has nothing to do with altino Annette46 (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see where you got confused. And I have a problem with the assertion of that statement in the article since falsettist is a 20th century term. Looks like some re-writing needs to be done. It is true, however, that the countertenor had a resurgence in popularity in castrati roles. I have only contributed nominally to the countertenor article, so most of that page is the work of other editors. If you read the first section of the article the "countertenor in history" it does explain when the term came into usage, although it could be made more plain and expanded. The lead should really be re-written as well to be more clear on that fact. But again we are off topic.Nrswanson (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zenra[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The previous debate was based on a WP:NOT argument stating its apparent dictionary definition nature. Some held a keep - wait and see what we'll find position. The only credible-sounding source that we found was a WaiWai column article from the Mainichi Daily News. However, this column was cancelled (Mainichi Daily News#WaiWai_controversy_and_cancellation) due to its questionable quality and other issues. Yet again, we face a lack of credible source for the notability argument. I request a deletion for the same argument: "zenra" is merely Japanese for total nudity. The term in Japanese Wikipedia merely redirects to the nudity article over there. As it stands, it is a foreign word dictionary definition that falls under WP:NOT. Tokek (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources for verification do not seem to have been forthcoming, so per the previous outcome, Delete (or possibly follow jawiki precident and redirect to nudity). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was ample opportunity provided to validate this article last time and it did not happen, and does not appear it is going to happen. Wikipedia does not work on a deadline, but on that same token we can't keep non-verifiable articles around indefinitely. Sorry. JBsupreme (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by the nom. Kevin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for a Secure Driver's License[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Coalition for a Secure Driver's License

None of the references given have more than passing, trivial mentions, therefore failing WP:CORP. Kevin (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I don't approve of this organization's politics, they are notable. The version nominated for the AfD was created by an SPA and was indeed very unbalanced in terms of NPOV. I tried to clean it up to get rid of the POV slant and I have added some references. GoggleNews gives 81 hits for them[50]. Much of the coverage is indeed not detailed (although nontrivial), but some of it is detailed and specifically about this organization and its activities. E.g. these references related to their controversial 2005 billboard campaign are in that category:[51][52][53]. They are still in the news, e.g. see this July 30, 2008[54]. The organization passes WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I feel a little lazy for not doing a better search myself. I'll withdraw, based on your fixup. Kevin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Although a very common misconception, the subject-specific supplemental notability guidelines are an adjunct to WP:N, and do not trump or contradict WP:N. These supplemental guidelines were established by consensus to keep articles that may not meet the vague criteria of WP:N. They allow obviously-notable subject articles to be kept even if there was little or no coverage in independent sources. But by no means do they override the notability that is otherwise established by WP:N; in this case the respondents demonstrated sufficient coverage in independent sources, WP:MUSIC notwithstanding. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addicted (Ace Young song)[edit]

Song didn't chart, seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added six references, including a review of the single in Billboard. I would say it's enough to pass WP:N notability. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Basic notability shown with references. -MrFizyx (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Yanez[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Aside from a few hits on Google from anime forums, some user posted videos, and the same copy & pasted bio info, I can't find anything on this girl. I also can't find any reliable sources (aside from her official site) that can be added to the article to expand it or even verify the (very little) info I've left in. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, kind of sad attempt at self-promotion, with no reliable sources to back up anything. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, this article has been a thorn in my side since it was created... - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demo (Demi Lovato album)[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Not-referenced, clearly fails WP:MUSIC. macy (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge into Demi Lovato discography per WP:MUSIC#Albums; "articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article"~~ Delete, I can't find anything at all to confirm even the track listing, not even off her own website. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not confirmed or proven to be true. Unless cited by a source it should be deleted. 70.143.98.251 (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to me, this is a fairly clear case of an independent album lacking the reliable sources and third-party coverage to meet the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Jamie^☆S93 21:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Stephens[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Podkapova (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A 3 year old article with no reliable sources and with notability issues. Artene50 (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The usual story. An article that is harming no one about an admittedly minor celebrity survives for several years until someone with nothing better to do decides it is so offensive it must be wiped away. So anyone who looks up "Adele Stephens" will find nothing in Wikipedia, rather than the short, inoffensive article that we used to have. Do you people have nothing better to do? Grace Note (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article needs cleanup and better referencing but, I'm reasonably sure she has been covered in 3rd party sources on this side of the pond (though whether things like the Daily Star, Daily Sport, Sun, etc count as reliable I'm not 100% sure). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An example of why we need to verify claims with reliable sources. One porn site claims she looks like she came out of the pages of a Ralph Lauren ad. Somehow that becomes she modeled for Ralph Lauren and then every other Adele biography on the internet (all unreliable of course) starts repeating that claim. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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