< December 11	December 13 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon C. Rodegeb[edit]

No evidence of notability. WatchAndObserve (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search on "Brandon Rodegeb" (minus the quotes), and here are what I would consider are the best sources for this person. I'm not convinced that any of them are good enough to establish notability though. Most of them seem to be press releases.

WatchAndObserve (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --WatchAndObserve (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.. --WatchAndObserve (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This newspaper article: Rappers shine out of East Palo Alto. Oakland Tribune, May 9, 2006 by Todd R. Brown, STAFF WRITER is enough to demonstrate notability. It is not a press release. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per User:Eastmain's article (here). Thus notable "as the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 04:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic National Convention on Television[edit]

Articles that can have all of its information covered on separate articles dedicated to the National Conventions of the United States. Also nominating for precisely the same reasons:

Having these articles in existence is unnecessary as each National Convention article can precisely cover the same information. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is practically the definition of indiscriminate information, although that phrase's recent misuse makes me reluctant to invoke it here. Powers ^T 23:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unless it's undenyably redundant, It could be as summary of all those clauses and sections. don't wantonly remove information, there's a name for people like that.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better described as as unnecessarily redundant. I'm generally in support of comparative tables, but I don't see any purpose for comparing the news anchors for one network to those of another, or comparing those for one year to those of another. It's always worth reading the "And finally..." section of WP:NOT: "In general, 'that is a terrible idea' is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something, provided there is a good reason that the idea is terrible." The creator of the table evidently had second thoughts about whether this would be a worthwhile project, and wisely stopped with the 2008 entries. Mandsford (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Doesn't appear to have any point to it, just a list of who hosted the news coverage earlier this year, which is completely NN and irrelevant. I agree if anything notable happened with regards to TV coverage of these events, then that's better covered in the applicable article on the convention. There might be a half-decent article to be written on television coverage of the conventions in general over the years, but neither of these come close to that. 23skidoo (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "NN"?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Not Notable" or "Non-notable" Mandsford (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unencyclopedic; hardly verifiable; information can be easily placed on "[year] [party] National Convention" articles individually instead.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — While I disagree with Andrew that this fails WP:V, I don't see how the information here can be synthesized into an encyclopedic article or list that isn't just a collection of who broadcasted where. NW's Public Sock (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Marshall[edit]

Withdrawn by nominator - see biography turned up by Suntag below.
Request an Admin closes the discussion. Springnuts (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two issues here: first is the lack of notability of this man. Lots of people are involved with pioneering work; this is not especially notable. He might merit a passing reference in Gospel Hall Brethren. The second issue is the lack of sources. Yes he existed, and wrote a 23 page book - I guess an evangelistic tract - but there are no reliable sources offering significant coverage (which addresses 'the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive') of this person. There is no indication that he 'has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field' - which would give notability under WP:BIO - see Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography. -- Springnuts (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I made a sad hash of an attempt to add this to the following AfD: [[1]] but this article was not discussed at all there, and the nomination of this article was dealt with by a procedural keep. Springnuts (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Geesh, even Gospel Hall Brethren doesn't contain enough context for me to determine if that organization is notable, let alone one of it's "founders". What a mess. I agree there's no indication here of notability, but a lot depends on how important the Gospel Hall Brethren movement is, and how important he was to it. Powers ^T 23:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some of these books appear to mention the subject, but with Google only displaying snippets in most cases it's difficult to tell whether the coverage is substantial enough for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response - it's hard to say - [[2]] may be a source - it is hard to work the others out from the snippets we can see. If it needs a great deal of original research then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I would be delighted to withdraw the AfD if there are sources. I will flag it for rescue. Springnuts (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Essentially, delete per nom, as the initial rationale covers it. Google search can't find anything that leads me to determine he needs more than a paragraph in an article; not nearly enough is there for a full article. NW's Public Sock (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO concerns. Orderinchaos 16:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Apparently, "God's Way of Salvation" has sold millions of copies, which may account for the interest[3][4] in Alexander Marshall's life. Also, if Google's displayed snippets make it difficult to tell whether the coverage is substantial enough for notability, then that does not seem to be a basis to draw a delete conclusion. -- Suntag ☼ 14:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Suntag's search shows that a 159 page biography has been published about the subject - a definite proof of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good effort Suntag - ... even though "one source produced by ... those with a strong connection to [the subject is] unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large," and many of these - [5]- are refs to other people, or clearly passing refs. All that said, I would not have nominated an article with a plethora of passing refs and a published biography, and agree that it should stay. Springnuts (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24dash.com[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. The main sources that I can find are news stories from the site and news sites that say according to 24dash.com. Fails WP:WEB.Schuym1 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no proof of notability here. The article reads more like the trailing paragraph of a press release than an encyclopedia entry. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Powers ^T 23:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB as the article makes no assertion of notability. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to show evidence of notability per WP:WEB. — neuro^(talk) 09:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Passion of Henrik Ibsen[edit]

Seemingly non-notable play; the one secondary source can be edited by anyone and therefore isn't reliable, while the other is a primary source and can't support the article alone. A Google search turns up nothing better. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete I could not find any notable sources upon a quick searchMrathel (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any reviews in the British media, so it appears this one made no impact when it took to the stage. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to show any evidence that this is notable and so suitable for retention. Paste ^Talk 09:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trio (supergroup)[edit]

Okay, before anyone says this, yes, I'm fully aware of the chart singles and two albums. However, I should note that they never were called Trio at all. This source and this source say that the albums were by "Dolly Parton, Emmylou Harris and Linda Ronstadt", and Billboard credits the songs to Dolly, Emmylou and Linda, not to "Trio". The albums are also credited to all three singers on the RIAA database. If this isn't proof that "Trio" never existed, I don't know what is. All three singers' discographies already include all of the chart singles and albums, so nothing will be lost here except one inaccurate article. Also, I should note that the page's author has questioned the existence of the "Trio" moniker on the talk page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, misnomer, nothing that can't be covered on Trio (album) and Trio II. Powers ^T 00:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TPH is correct on this -- the three women were never billed as "Trio" and were never defined as a "supergroup." Ecoleetage (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move, don't delete. While clearly the group is not called Trio, I think it's useful to have the group's awards, discography, and singles on one page. Additionally, other than the name of the page and the group, I don't believe the article is otherwise inaccurate, so that is not grounds for deletion. I'd like to know what precedence there is in cases like this, of a collaborative, multiple album, significant musical effort. Does it get its own wiki page? Simon12 (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples of other similar groups, that have their own page: Dave_Matthews_and_Tim_Reynolds, Beck,_Bogert_&_Appice, Kikki,_Bettan_&_Lotta. I would note that these groups are arguably less notable than Parton, Harris and Ronstadt.

Comment The albums, awards, etc. are already on all three singers' individual pages. These were simply collaborative albums, not a true "supergroup". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not clear to me how whether the group was a "true supergroup" or not is relevant to this discussion. (WP:MUSIC makes no mention of supergroups). The group clearly meets WP:MUSIC, and therefore, in my opinion, deserves a page (with an accurate name, of course). A similar Afd was held for Automatic_Baby, and the result was Keep per WP:MUSIC. I see no difference between that discussion and this one. Simon12 (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that 10#H's point is that they weren't a group at all; they were three soloists who came together for a collaboration album, then did it again in commemoration of the first. That doesn't really make them a "group". Powers ^T 15:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I concur with the comments of the nominator and Ecoleetage. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: according to RIAA this article is incorrectly titled, and anyway is already covered in the individual singer discographies. JamesBurns (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ElePaper Action[edit]

This seems to be a minor game without any critical coverage. It fails to establish any sort of notability. TTN (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It "seems" unimportant to you and can you be a little more specific about notability.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't find any reviews for it on major video game sites, so it does not appear to be notable. That seems to be quite clear in the nomination. The lack of critical coverage equals it failing to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a nicely-written article, but there's absolutely no evidence here that any reliable sources have ever heard of the game, or considered it notable enough to review. None of the major game sites seems to have an entry for it. Powers ^T 00:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to R.O.D the TV, assuming this is an officially licensed title. Marasmusine (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete the game proves a bit NN, even though I agree the aticle is good.Mrathel (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While there's been a vigorous discussion of Google's usefulness, sources showing notability, online or otherwise, still haven't appeared. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Star Theatre Arts[edit]

New school, little or no evidence of WP:Notability via Google. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What does google know?--Ipatrol (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But this isn't an obscure topic like ancient Estonian gods. If a theater school has achieved note, you can bet it'll be mentioned online. Compare Stella Adler Studio of Acting#References and "Stella Adler Studio of Acting" (though this I am not in any way proposing this as a minimum standard). —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You'd be surprised. In my time on Wikipedia I've tried to cover several plays and even relatively new television series and I literally came up blank when it comes to Google. When plays and films stop showing often the online presence disappears. I wouldn't be surprised if a theatre school is only covered in dead tree sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see a lawyer looking at me. The essay states that google is not a reliable way to judge notability, it says or implies nothing about that certain topics would have a more reliable google search than others.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's says it isn't a guarantee it also acknowledges that it's useful. The key, as with many similar resources, is to be mindful of the limitations. And no, I'm not a lawyer, and you should read WP:CIVIL before accusing someone else of being one. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an advertisement. Notability is not confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More promotional than anything, fails WP:N too. — neuro^(talk) 09:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I made an honest effort to find any notable coverage of the children's theatre group. There's just nothing out there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too new to be notable. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No point in letting this drag on. Practically an A7 speedy, the team can never fulfil the criteria for inclusion. Black Kite 09:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kettering nomads fc[edit]

Amateur football team that has never competed in the top 10 levels of the English football league system or in a national cup competition, which is the rule of thumb normally applied by the WP:FOOTY project. No sources found either. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't have anything to add to the nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 00:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. — neuro^(talk) 09:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Amusing to see all these "per nom" comments here :) But there is nothing more to add really, besides a link to WP:ATHLETE. NW's Public Sock (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- .....except that WP:ATHLETE covers individual players, not clubs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "merge" opinions do not address the content problems identified in the discussion (unverifiable, OR etc.), which would not go away with a merge. Sandstein 20:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elephantus[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really enjoy this or something? I would think it would be clear by now that none of these things has any notability independent of the broader subject. Just merge them already, all these AfDs on the same subject are tiresome. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing to merge. The most that can be said is "This is a large, robotic *animal* with *some array of weapons*". That is absolutely useless, especially because there are hundreds of them. Deletion is the best way to handle these. TTN (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point about merging, but what about just redirecting these instead of having 5 days of pointless debate before that's what happens anyway? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I redirect fifty articles, there is a very good likelihood that anons will quickly revert them. Articles like these are also often slowly resurrected over time, so having an AfD to back any deletions or redirects is helpful. TTN (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to make to big a deal out of this, as we are basically on the same side here, but have you ever considered a group nom to sweep all these up at once, since they are all essentially the same? That would settle the matter a lot quicker and easier. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been one successful nomination of ten of these, but I have also had an unsuccessful group nomination with another series recently. I want to avoid that happening again, so I try to use large nominations sparsely. TTN (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find masses of single deletions more disruptive than one single one. A group nom, will back up redirect or merge outcomes just as well as single noms. Also, I'd like to point out that if there is a consensus to merge or redirect and someone undoes the resulting redirect against consensus, I personally would be happy to use protection to enforce it, so deleting an otherwise useful redirect isn't the only option. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Someone unfamiliar with Zoids may come around wanting to know more, so we could at least put a short piece on the Zoids page, unless this is an uncommon mecha in the series. Perhaps we should merge them all into a Zoids (mecha) page. Tealwisp (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge There is no sign of notability in the articleMrathel (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merge is unnecessary. Eusebeus (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge according to whatever is decided at the talk page of the article. That's the place for this discussion. Redirect and delete are edits. If one cannot get consent for the edit one wants, & thinks the opponents unreasonable, one does not instead try to delete the article, one pursues dispute resolution. To try to delete because one might just possibly not get consent, that is really an abuse of process. I could equally say, I think the article on X is non-neutral, and possibly I might not get consent to edit it the way I think appropriate, so let's delete it first, before I even try. (And in particular, this and the closely related articles for similar weapons are ones which almost nobody will defend as individual articles, and there should be no problem at all getting consensus for a suitable merge or possibly a redirect.) Nominating individually rather than in small groups, or vice versa, is not inherently an abuse, since indeed both can be equally objected to--TTN is certainly right about that point. What is wrong though is trying to force one';s own interpretation of what is appropriate content by mass deletion requests whether individually or in groups. All these instances where redirects would serve are improper nominations against Deletion policy, unless it can be shown why they would not serve. The only proper course here is to suggest redirecting or merging the articles. I think it'll work where its justified, and not where it isn't. . DGG (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fairly idiosyncratic and motivated view of AfD, David. Presenting articles for consideration at AfD invites wider participation regardless of the outcome and can hardly be considered an abuse of process, unless demonstrably a WP:POINT violation, which is hardly the case here, I think. In fact, I think TTN is doing solid work by building up a large body of AfD precedent for merge/redirect/deletions of this type of article. Eusebeus (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what I said above, I have to admit I'm impressed by his patience and determination to solve this piece by piece. A lot of folks would have given up in the face of such a stack of, well I guess we'll call it "Zoidcruft". Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article is over-reliant on an in universe perspective, so even if its content did not fail WP:V, it would still not be possible to write an encyclopedic ariticle, because the only information is plot summary. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Gavin. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 01:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TouchWave[edit]

Non notable company, the flagship product fails to produce any significant google hits. The only thing this company has seemed to have achieved was to be purchased by Ericsson which is not notable in itself ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 20:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect – Wouldn’t it make more sense to merge/redirect to Ericsson, as there is enough media coverage to verify this as shown here, [6] than delete? Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 21:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep this title red, it's best to move the page first (to target article talk space for example), so the history of any merged material can be retained. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL- what ever works best. But deletion should not be an option. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mgm--"than" ≠ "then." ;) 160.39.213.152 (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and thus these should not have been brought here. it would be excusable for the first few of these not to have realised it, but it is not any longer. I am too involved to act as an administrator, but I know what I would do if i saw something like this being done in another subject: I would close al related afds, and tell the participants to discuss the issue on the appropriate talk or project pages for as long as it took to reach consensus or compromise, or get to a resolution of the dispute. DGG (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that comment was meant for this AfD? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

right. too many tabs open at a time. ;) DGG (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's a review of their product in InfoWorld that predates the Ericsson takeover, and being purchased by Ericsson is notable if the purchase gets significant coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that for companies with an individual existence and notability, but that later get purchased by or merged into another company, we should keep the articles under the original name rather than try to combine them; Only in cases where there is a succession of names without major change in the organization, then a merge and redirect from the earlier names to the present one is appropriate. DGG (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I expanded the article to where it seems to meet Wikipedia article criteria. -- Suntag ☼ 18:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nn reptilian. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tank (tortoise)[edit]

This article about a pet tortoise who ran away from its home fails WP:NOT#NEWS. The news sources cited all are the same story. Coverage isn't nearly the in-depth analysis required for a story/animal to be notable. Themfromspace (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Schuym1 (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOT#NEWS, all sources are the same news story. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 23:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. — neuro^(talk) 09:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kimber Shiroma[edit]

not notable -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After searching the main Portland papers I came up with some trivial coverage in WW, and nothing else for The O or Tribune. Thus fails WP:BIO. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not even close to meeting the requirements of WP:BIO, WP:NOTE. - 68.183.104.7 (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. NAC by Jmundo endorsed. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Culinary Heritage of Switzerland[edit]

nn encyclopedia website. Wingfilee (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the references provided in the article demonstrate, this encyclopedia has received substantial coverage in reliable third party sources, thereby passing WP:N or its variants. For additional coverage, compare the press clippings in the media section of the website. Sandstein 20:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator, Wingfilee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. Sandstein 20:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 20:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominator has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. Non-admin closure.--Jmundo (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetuelle[edit]

nn website. Wingfilee (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator, Wingfilee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. No opinion on the AfD. Sandstein 20:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominator has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. Non-admin closure.--Jmundo (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Join the Impact[edit]

nn website. Launched November 7, 2008. Wingfilee (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even though it's new, there seem to be plenty of sources showing notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the references provided (and found in a Google News search) appear to establish notability. Note: The nominator, Wingfilee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. Sandstein 20:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snow delete, excluding the SPAs. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kwiboo having gone, this must go too. Black Kite 07:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Marshall (kwiboo)[edit]

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

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

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

Probable conflict of interest with main editor. Subject not notable per WP:BIO LinguistAtLarge 19:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This satisfies the criteria around Creative Professional, clearly the subject is involved with the business he is linked to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.199.5 (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC) — 78.129.199.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That may be true, but we need significant, published, secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject to prove his is notable. LinguistAtLarge 22:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Three of the four references don't cover the subject and the 4th is not independent. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm surprised that so much energy is spent on policing articles that are reasonable and support other sections of Wikipedia. The whole point of the Wikipedia and the internet is to provide information. It’s informative and relevant. Guys, you need to take a chill pill and deal with plagiarised and factually incorrect content on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.142.228.126 (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC) — 83.142.228.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, information needs to be encyclopedic, notable and verifiable. LinguistAtLarge 18:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there do not appear to be any reliable sources that could be used to verify information in the article or establish notability as defined by either the general guideline or the specific guideline for people. I would suggest merging any reliably sourced information into Kwiboo but I think it is likely that that article will be deleted following the current AfD discussion. Guest9999 (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No doubt both this article and the kwiboo one will be ones that are added to over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.182.126 (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC) — 82.31.182.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Paucity of secondary sources to establish notability.--Danaman5 (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reasonable secondary sources. Links to schools are not ok, neither is the link to company (and the company's article is likely to get deleted as well). --Tone 14:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this too. --fvw * 22:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just like the company, non-notable. Schuym1 (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. His employees aren't helping. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g11, blatant advertising, one of several by this author. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to get higher search engine ranking[edit]

This article appears to exist at least partly to promote a particular website. It may also be that this article is a how-to guide that it is not suitable for inclusion. Richard Cavell (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd have given it a db-spam. As it is, it's copyright violations of ezinearticles.com/?How-to-Increase-Your-Website-Rankings-and-Boost-Your-Website-Traffic&id=1708413 et al Peridon (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COI, WP:NOT#WEBHOST, WP:NOT#OR, WP:NOTHOWTO LinguistAtLarge 19:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete per snow. Absent SPAs with a possible COI, there's no evidence and scarcely an assertion of notability. StarM 03:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kwiboo[edit]

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

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

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

Delete Fails WP:CORP A ntv (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Give a better explanation, and remember Wikipedidia does not exist in a vacum.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable per WP:ORG, Probably also a conflict of interest-- this and the Paul Marshall (kwiboo) article are largely authored by User:Marshp3, who may be Paul Marshall himself. LinguistAtLarge 19:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure the author should be named, does this not break the anonymous nature of Wikipedia?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.142.228.126 (talk) — 83.142.228.126 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  - The authors of every article are named. See the little "history" tab at the top of every article? – iridescent 23:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've declined a speedy on this, but after digging around for sources, I can find no significant coverage in external sources other than a single not-really-relevant-unless-the-article-is-to-be-hugely-expanded article on their sponsorship of a minor-league football team. – iridescent 20:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sponsorship is a notable point, perhaps kwiboo has or will sponsor wikipedia?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.142.228.126 (talk)
  - Or perhaps not. Look around; do you see any advertising? No. – iridescent 23:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh well done you! Yes you are SO correct there isn't any sponsorship. But there is a HUGE "Donate Now >>" button at the top of the page.
      - We appreciate donations, not bribes, thank you.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 00:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The refences in the article check out. Interesting that they support DotNetKicks, a widely used, open-source tagging app. Also, the web2 name generator reference is an interesting one, especially as it's mentioned on blogs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulMiller2 (talk • contribs) — PaulMiller2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. It's certainly noteworthy, there's a story here, particularly around the name and the comments on external sources—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.199.5 (talk) — 78.129.199.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

the issue is not if it is noteworthy, but the lack of coverage in external sources, and the lack of WP:Verifiability. A ntv (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is, it is noteable without sources by the very nature of the story of the company history and the fact that Wikipedia is the only source on the internet ~~KEEP~~Already !voted (83.142.x.x). Black Kite 02:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - the fact is that external sources are needed. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a place where to write for the first time some stories. A ntv (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: kwiboo is a registered trademark so the article assists with the identification of the fact that it is already a trademark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.182.126 (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC) — 82.31.182.126 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete the links given in the article are as follows:

1) A deadlink to a subpage of the companies website. [7]

Link no longer dead

2) A link to a name creating tool from which the companies name is said to be derived. [8]

As for point 1, typos do happen see above (should be company's......)

3) A blog. [9]

4) Another blog. [10]

5) A page from the companies official website. [11]

!!

6) A link to a website that apparently uses the companies product. [12]

dotnetkicks does use kwiboo websnapshot, see the article thumbnails to the right of the screen, they are watermarked (bottom right corner)

7) The details of their trademark case. [13]

None of these show the level of reliable sourcing which is required to form the basis of a verifiable, neutral article, free of original research or establish notability under the general guideline or the specific guideline for companies. Guest9999 (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Clearly the same as User:78.129.199.5 above. Black Kite 01:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC) a known UK IT firm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.142.152 (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC) — 78.129.142.152 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per WP:CORP, as I believe someone already mentioned. --fvw * 23:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP, insofar as the company has not received significant coverage in secondary sources. This is Wikipedia, not Google.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 00:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of reliable sources to establish notability, per WP:CORP. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources, no established notability. Exxolon (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would need to see more mention in secondary sources in order to establish notability.--Danaman5 (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Needs reliable sources to establish that it is notable per WP:CORP. — neuro^(talk) 09:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They are a MS certified partner [14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phayman (talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC) — Phayman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
In the absence of evidence of sufficient coverage in reliable sources, and in the presence of suspicious accounts related to commercial interests, we must delete. Skomorokh 18:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ For the following confirmed reasons
- Microsoft Certified Partner, confirmed link to Microsoft website (pretty reliable)
- kwiboo provide the IT solution to the image capture of dotnetkicks.com (and others) see links to the site and thumbnails on the site for evidence and the referenced blog
- A confirmed registered trademark (fact)
- the dot-o-mater website does generate the company's name if the user is patient enough to keep clicking
- This article does not infringe upon the interests of others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.182.126 (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC) — 82.31.182.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Struck through vote. This same IP has voted twice in this AFD. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of these reasons are good enough to keep the article... --Tone 19:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above delete comments. The "keep" supporters, who are obviously connected to the subject, come across as more interested in getting the company name into Wikipedia than in establishing a serious reputation. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanispamcruftisement. Also, trout or minnow the employees and send them towards Wikipedia:Conflict of interest so they can understand why we're not buying the keep !votes. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dormatitus[edit]

"According to the tongue-in-cheek definitions offered by a popular off-campus residence in Lexington, KY, Dormatitus – also known as dormitis – is a medical condition that affects students living in dorm rooms." Violates WP:NEO, WP:NAD, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run it in the Kentucky Kernel. Mandsford (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean the Kentucky Colonel? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did run it by that Colonel, via a seance. He said that the article was "finger-lickin'-good-for-nothing". I told him that he could not !vote, however, because he died in 1980. However, he can vote in Chicago. Mandsford (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MADEUP or WP:NEO, either way, nn term. --Terrillja _talk 18:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, clearly made up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. No sources, probably made up, and if it weren't, it's a non-notable neologism. LinguistAtLarge 20:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Protologism, fails WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. — neuro^(talk) 09:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disk knight[edit]

Apparently non-notable "rogue" application. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources, no references, no notability. --GreyCat (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fame (Lady GaGa song)[edit]

Article isn't really notable. The only information we have regarding this to be a single is 1 site and a very low placing on a music chart. No evidence of a physical single date, music video. And nothing from the artist or label to support this article. Getluv (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced permastub on a very low charting song, no chance of expansion. The qualifier in the title also makes it an unlikely choice for a redirect. Not all charting songs are notable (case in point: this afd). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the song has charted at all, it is automatically notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe TenPoundHammer is correct, Eastmain. According to Wikipedia:Notability (music) "notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" (therefore charting doesn't determine notability). It doesn't seem that this article has the potential to expand out of stub-class. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The artists notability as well as the songs use in a popular television show and the likeliness that it will rise higher in the charts in the future suggests to me that it deserves it's own article. Tikkuy (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it hasn't risen though in over 3 weeks. it's dropped back out of the chart, many non-singles chart when they are used in ads or shows. But there is only 1 source, and even that is not irrefutable. There is not enough verifiable evidence to suggest that this will is single, or if it will be a single at all. Getluv (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This song is used on a TV show, has charted, is meant to be the next australian single. All the article needs is a few more references to back up the claims of the article.Raintheone (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What TV show uses this song? I wasn't able to find it myself, however, if the song is used on a TV show, then that is important information in determining the notability of this article. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it was used on a TV show, that is correct. But at the moment this is just an airplay single and nothing else. And it is not the next single. "Eh Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say)" has been reported by quite a few Australian websites, with a physical release date of January 31. if you think this article can be improved with extra references, please fix it. but as it stands, this article doesn't look like it will expand.Getluv (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The song was used on the Australian version of Make Me A Supermodel. Getluv, if you can provide a reliable source which states that Eh Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) is the next single, I would be very interested in seeing it. Otherwise, forgive us if we don't take it as fact. Tikkuy (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[15]] Getluv (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — into the larger article about the album. There seems like there will never be anything to expand this with. And it seems that besides that, it fails the GNG. NW's Public Sock (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Delete In Australia, there are ARIA guidelines which were changed late last year. Before this change, an individual song had to be released as an formal single to be eligible for the mainstream singles chart, hence why Chasing Cars by Snow Patrol went to #1 on digital but did not chart on the mainstream singles chart because of this rule. Now because of the change, singles such as "The Fame" can chart before their intended release (if any). In this case, it has already charted on the mainstream ARIA singles chart and is used as a theme for an Australian TV show (The Australian version of Make Me a Supermodel). It will more than likely keep rising on the Australian chart as well as being released as a formal single and chart in other countries in the short term, but since this conflicts with WP:CRYSTAL, I suggest a weak keep. --Lakeyboy (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? because another single has already been decided by the label and that has a release date, and it isn't The Fame. It's already dropped out of the chart anyway, and it doesn't look like rising anytime soon. And your last two sentences violate WP:CRYSTAL.Getluv (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your comment, I did abit of quick research and pulled up blog entry which states that "Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say)" will be the third single, which has also been added to the Lady GaGa discography page with no reference. I also didn't know about it dropping out of the top 100 because I am not willing to pay $220 a year for 50 extra songs in the singles chart list every week, so I look up semi-recent ones on the Pandora Archive. Because of these developments, I have changed my stance from Week Keep to Delete. --Lakeyboy (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

go to australian-charts.com.au, they have a pretty comprehensive list of charts outside the top 50 in the forum where people ask people in the business. Even going to Australian radio stations such as nova or 2dayfm, have details about singles etc. if u google around there is a lot of verifiable stuff that u don't need to pay for. Or even going to itunes, while not a source, its a good indication. The week The Fame charted at #73, it was in the top 60, but has since dropped out. Getluv (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable song, per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Çavela[edit]

Original research. May also fall under WP:MADEUP. Article was originally PROD'ed, but the PROD was removed by an anonymous editor, so here we are at AfD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The cited source is a Modern Greek-Dutch dictionary. I haven't tried looking in it, but I'm willing to bet it doesn't back up anything in this article. I'm even skeptical as to the claim that this language is written in the Greek alphabet, since the initial character is part of the normal French extension of the Latin alphabet, and I've never seen a Greek equivalent. No sources, no notability, no history, no contest. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Interesting, however unable to find any type of reference, other than Wikipedia. Therefore, original reasearch and lack of notability. Sorry. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I assumed the Ç was the Turkish one until I opened the article. If he/she is thinking of trying to get this one off the ground for real, she/he is in for a big disappointment. Not even potential notability here. Peridon (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Clearly a madeup language. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that it is a made-up language is not a reason to delete it. Esperanto is a made-up language too, after all. However, in this case there is not the slightest proof of notability. Heck, there isn't even any proof that the language exists at all. It's not a matter of the language being made up, whether in school or not, but of a lack of verifiable significance in the form of media coverage, a certain amount of users, etc.
To User:Çavela: I like the looks of your language and would certainly encourage you to continue working on it. However, you should understand that Wikipedia is not the right place to showcase your language. It has no chance of survival here. Instead, I'd suggest you make a website for it, or, if you prefer a wiki, to use the Conlang Wiki. Nobody will touch it there. Regards, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 20:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks interesting, and surely exists to the author, but unfortunately doesn't meet notability req's LinguistAtLarge 20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons listed above. And it seems safe to say that the only cited reference, published in 2004, does not contain information on a language invented in 2007-2008. - Aagtbdfoua (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IDON[edit]

Non-notable future album (no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources), fails WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. SummerPhD (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Why do fanboys/girls always do this? What's the big rush? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another future album that fails WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Future album that fails WP:CRYSTAL. — neuro^(talk) 09:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas the tank engine and autism[edit]

This article is a spinoff from Thomas_and_Friends#Popularity_with_autistic_audience, but the expansion relies entirely on unreliable sources (blogs, a non-peer-reviewed study published only be the organization that funded it, an anecdotal book written by a woman with no medical/etc background - only qualification is her role as mother of an autistic child). There appear to be no reliable sources available to augment the content. I don't think that this is a likely search term, so probably not good for a merge. Karanacs (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Karanacs (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, essay-like, unreliably sourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I honestly had never heard of this, and wouldn't think of "Thomas the Tank Engine" and "autism" being mentioned in the same sentence, but there is ample evidence from books [16] and news reports [17] and scholarly journals [18] to show that there are plenty of verifiable and reliable sources out there. Mandsford (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't that be merged to the existing section then? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are a lot of passing mentions of autism and Thomas the Tank Engine in the same book/article, but it is a very popular toy, and there don't appear to be any in-depth scientific articles that actually look at the connection between the two, rather than just using Thomas as an example. This is not my area of expertise, but that is the impression I got from perusing the google results. 16:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanacs (talk • contribs)

Delete This article is based on two thoroughly unscientific polls conducted by a support group. The first survey included an unimpressive 81 participants; the second survey was supported by the company that owns the Thomas franchise, and explicitly recruited participants interested in Thomas, irreparably skewing the results from the outset. The first survey was conducted in 2001; since 2001, the support group has been "the exclusive charity partner of Thomas and Friends", through which it has raised nearly a million dollars by selling co-branded merchandise. This is marketing, not scientific research. Maralia (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous comments. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that there probably isn't enough reliably-sourced material to contribute to an article on this subject. The section within the Thomas article should be sufficient. Both Google Books and Google Scholar show that Thomas is frequently mentioned in the literature on Autism. There probably is a special relationship, though this is becoming self-fulfilling through the promotion of Thomas by the NAS. As an example, Charlotte Moore wrote in the Guardian (prior to the two NAS studies), "In young autists an absorption in the works of the late, great Rev W Awdry is almost universal. George, my older autistic son,...". That, together with some of the material on the NAS website, would constitute reliable sources that there is anecdotal evidence of a relationship. In addition, the NAS material is reliable on the fact that they conducted two surveys and claim to have discovered certain things. It is also a reliable source on their opinions about the putative link. We know nothing much about the first study other than its small size. The second study was really badly conducted. I found the link to it on Archive.org (but sadly not the study questions). In April/May/June 2007, their homepage said

Take part in our Thomas & Friends online survey Calling all parents! Does your child have autism? Does he/she love Thomas & Friends? If the answer to these questions is 'yes!', please take part in The National Autistic Society's new Thomas & Friends survey!

At least they reported the results accurately on their August homepage

Parents give Thomas & Friends the thumbs up for children with autism A new survey commissioned by The National Autistic Society reveals that 99% of parents who took part ranked the Thomas & Friends character top of the toys, followed by Bob the Builder.

Sadly, the "who took part" bit is the problem. Therefore, there appears to be no serious scholarly documentation on autistic children preferring Thomas over similar stories/toys. Colin°^Talk 19:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jonathan321 (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are not reliable. Tenuous connection. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we shouldn't be writing articles around Voodoo polls, and there is very little there worthy of merging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maralia makes a fair assessment of the sources used in the article. If there really were a strong connection we would be seeing a huge outcry. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An outcry about what and against whom? Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like vaccines. The article may not have made it clear, but it bears pointing out that Thomas the Tank Engine is a television show. The article does not say that Thomas the Tank Engine causes autism, nor that there has been an outcry of any sort. However, I have heard complaints that the merchandise is over-priced and that the show can be irritating to watch. Mandsford (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what is backed up by non-blog sources ( I see a book and some organization's websites ) back to Thomas_and_Friends#Popularity_with_autistic_audience, and heavily condense, i.e. put one of these sources on every adjective. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The org website presents the voodoo poll, which doesn't make it any more reliable, or in conformance with WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my concern is the reifying of the connection by an article. The sources are not independent. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mansford, or merge as suggested. The content appears to be useful, notable, and verifiable by independent sources. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G12) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Smiles: Thailand[edit]

Subject is inherently unencyclopaedic and consists of original research. "Land of Smiles" is a well-known nickname for Thailand, especially in the tourism industry, but a concise description of the name in Tourism in Thailand and/or Culture of Thailand should be sufficient. There are discussions, e.g. [19] on the meanings of the smile in Thai culture, but unless reliable sources on the topic can be established I don't think it deserves an article. Paul_012 ^(talk) 15:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —Paul_012 ^(talk) 15:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree this piece definitely needs a rewrite. This is a far more appropriate recourse than outright deletion. Regarding notability and original research I was able to find reliable – 3rd party – verifiable sources at both Google News as shown here, [20] and Google Scholar as shown here, [21]. Hope this helps. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Definitely needs a rewrite, starting with the horrible title. This is an article about the perceptions and descriptions of facial expressions within Thai culture. The title, however, sounds like some cheesy tourist promo, like "New Mexico: Land of Enchantment!". After moving the article, source it for crying (or smiling) out loud! I imagine that there are sources for these various smiles, and that there have been cultural studies. The English language probably has fewer terms for various smiles, but we know the distinction between a "grin" and a "smirk", but mostly we go with "fake smile", "warm smile", "brave smile", etc. Mandsford (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mandsford. Jonathan321 (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic and unsourcable. The sources quoted above have no relation to the title of this article, which is a purely promotional phrase. DGG (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Article is well sourced by all means, notability is not in question. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Material[edit]

Non notable and Unencyclopedic. Written like a personal essay in a non-neutral manner. Primary sources are used for claims of notability and does not contain material suitable for an encyclopedia. NoVomit (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I’m sorry if this comes across as sarcastic, but are we talking about the same article? The one I linked to was well written – well sourced and well cited. Likewise, a Google News search shows these references [22]. In addition, Google Scholar returns these results [23]]. I am not sure what standard you are looking at to establish Notability but the one we use here at Wikipedia would definitely include this article. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 14:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - the article kicks off with three citations saying how important it is within the new age movement. Looks fairly notable to me. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is better sourced than 95% of the rest. I can only conclude either that the nominated article was a vandalized version, or that the only point to this nomination is hostility towards New Age claims. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Article has plenty of sources to establish notability. What materials are not suitable for an encyclopedia?... The new age movement? --Jmundo (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Hello NoVomit, I understand that you are a new user, and by the way welcome to the project called Wikipedia. However, I would like to point out that when you have a disagreement with regards to an article, those disagreements are better addressed at the talk page of that article. It is not an acceptable practice, actually called bad faith, to bring an article to AFD when one knows that the piece does meet all the eligibility requirements as outlined in notability. With that said, I would hope you would withdraw your nomination caulking this up to a learning experience with no hard feelings. If you would like to continue to exercise the community by continuing this AFD I would like to ask a administrator to close this discussion with a Speedy Keep – as notability has been firmly established. Thanks, ShoesssS ^Talk 17:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capriciouz[edit]

Article was tagged for speedy deletion, but doesn't really meet the criteria as it claims the person in question one a BBC Radio 1Xtra contest. Mgm|^(talk) 12:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete googlimg "bbc 1xtra capriciouz" got me 4 returns (the WP page, two press releases and a blog, so i don't see how he can feasibly say that. Googling just the name gives a rapid slide into media hosting sites. No professional reviews, no videos, no interviews. He has 8 listeners on Last.fm. Not notable, just another musician trying to make it. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem sufficiently notable yet. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I probably got a bit trigger happy with the SD tag. But I have googled considerably and very little came up. The article has been around since 2006, so I think its time to prune it per MP:MUSIC. Icemotoboy (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient notability, and despite the lack of policies cited or solid evidence of non notability, per Totnesmartin. — neuro^(talk) 09:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jau Gwei[edit]

Previously nominated for deletion. This unsourced article is incapable of improvement. The interesting expression is but an unauthoritative definition of the commonly used Cantonese expression to describe flight of street vendors from police. Its use is exclusively in Cantonese and is virtually unknown in the English language, unlike Gweilo. GSearch results in recursive references to WP mirrors and other blogs, none of which are acceptable references. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Jau Gwai is generally used term. The term apparently is a very commonly used in Cantonese and is present in couple of research works and books. However it needs an expert in Cantonese language and culture for possible usage in native languages to be evaluated. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hawker_(trade)#HK.2FChina. Juzhong (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 10:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as far as i'm aware, wikipedia isn't a chinese dictionary. as neither ni hao nor xie xie have articles, why should this? Jessi1989 (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment haha whoops. my above comment may make me look like a bit of an idiot but i stand by my original point. i don't think we can have articles about every commonly used cantonese phrase... Jessi1989 (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But since this phrase is part of the street hawker culture in Cantonese-speaking areas, as well as showing up in at least one English-language discussion of the topic, is there a good reason not to merge? Juzhong (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a Cantonese phrasebook. The fact that finding any English language use of it sparese indicates that it isn't a widely used phrase in English. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|^(talk) 11:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Juzhong, with the redirect that follows as well. After reading the article, I conclude that it isn't simply about a phrase. It's a way of life within the world of Hong Kong vendors. I don't think there's an equivalent, in American culture, of abandoning a sales stand, even temporarily; unlicensed vendors who have a motor vehicle are more likely to use that as their "stand". A redirect makes perfect sense, and what's here can be added to the other article, if it hasn't been done so already. Mandsford (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7 by Jennavecia, non-admin close. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crypt (metal band)[edit]

Non notable band, does not meet notability guide lines.

Also, delete it's template and albums/EPs/demos.

Also, it appears that the main contributor has NPOV issues as they appear to be a member of the band. – Jerry^teps 10:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the user has created various other non notable band articles which were speedy deleted. – Jerry^teps 10:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. No Google web or news hits on the band or any of their albums. Mr. Nedry certainly has a lot of time on his hands to create all these vanity articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This was a poor debate; many participants from either side did not bother to give a policy-based reason for their recommendation. Sandstein 20:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saffron Terror[edit]

Similar articles with title Hindu extremism and Hindu terrorism were previously deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu extremism and Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_39#Hindu_terrorism for more information. This new article is probably created by the same user who has been trying to push POV sentiments on WP. Also references point to only articles written by columnist. Fail WP:RS. -- GPPande talk! 18:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —GPPande talk! 18:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy Delete as attack page. Any allegation as serious as a Hindu majority terrorising minorities must be balanced and in context. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC) * Speedy Delete as attack page --Numyht (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per previous deletion discussions (I wouldn't agree with the classification as an 'attack page' though). --Soman (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hindu Extremism or Hindu Terrorism upon the reinstatement of whichever article. Silver seren^C 21:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "country of Gujarat" and "Hindu fascism" and "State-driven program is to continue the segregation of the Muslim population within Gujarat and to keep the Hindu Right alive."? Gujarat is one of the state of India. The page is an outright attack page; in a terrible condition. It is becoming more and more of WP:OR. --GPPande talk! 22:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um...reference? That's straight from the Frontline news reference...with rewording so i'm not plagiarizing. And what about all the other news articles? No matter if you dislike the subject, it's clearly notable. And i'm neutral here...I just saw this and noticed there were a bunch of google hits. Silver seren^C 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides...you're extremely biased against this, being a Hindu and all. You sure you're looking at this neutrally?Silver seren^C 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sorry, it's a state, not a country. I'm an idiot, I fixed it. Silver seren^C 22:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not a Hindu, and I'm sticking to my speedy delete. An attack page is one that does nothing but disparage or threaten a person or entity. All you have done is changed the focus of your attacks from Hindus in general to the Indian government. That's still an attack page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How? O_o It's totally notable. I got a whole bunch of news hits on google. How else should I make the article neutral? Silver seren^C 22:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And isn't this article non-neutral then if you're going to say that? Silver seren^C 22:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't the issue, it's your poorly-sourced attacks against the Indian government. If you want to make the article, I suggest getting rid of sentences such as "The state, while denying the claims, appears to sponsor a group that acts as a death squad in order to preserve the 'Hindu Right'," and replacing it with properly-cited sentences clearly stating who made what allegations, and balancing it with anything said in defence of the Indian government (which there will be). I had a quick look at the Christian terrorism article and that appears to be properly citing its allegations. A list of hits you got on Google, no matter how reputable the news sources, isn't enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i'm sorry then. It appear I have a problem with neutrality. Could you help? Silver seren^C 22:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There - neutral. You can't say that's biased now. Silver seren^C 23:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep After the efforts made in the past to portray all Hindus as terrorists, I have a lot of concerns this article could easily turn into a WP:COATRACK later (supposedly about one thing, but used to make attacks against someone else). However, what an article might be used for in the future isn't grounds for deletion. Only provision I would add is that someone needs to watch this article very closely. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only about future but also in present form the article is extremely speculative and written with POV. Sentences like a columnist of The Economic Times suggested that the fact that mostly Muslims were targeted should be investigated. and appear to be attempts to make India's Muslim population oppressed and segregated. are examples. Surely it is and will be used as an attack page in future. Also, Sushma Swaraj is top leader of Bhartiya Janata Party - a right wing Hindu political party. Her statements were politically motivated towards Indian National Congress - India's center wing party. Also they were made in background of 2008 Ahmedabad bombings which were carried by terrorist organization Indian Mujahideen. I do not see any relevance of it on this article. Note:- I would not wish to make comments on the personal attacks made on me above and I am keeping this discussion only to the article. --GPPande talk! 09:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...dude...seriously? Silver seren^C 16:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider insinuating someone is biased because of their religion as a personal attack (and, if not, it certainly came across as one). You should consider yourself lucky an admin hasn't acted on this, because some of them aren't very lenient on statements such as that. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize profusely if my words were taken to be harmful, for I certainly didn't mean them in that manner. I merely meant that a vote by an editor that has a certain affinity with an article (be it good or bad) can certainly not be said to have a neutral viewpoint on the subject. Certainly it can be seen that any article that shows a religion in a bad light (even neutrally so) will be taken unfavorably by those of that religion. I have seen many a religious article on AFD that brought down swarms of opposition just on the basis of the subject matter. To truly vote on an article for deletion in a neutral and non-biased way, voting contributers must be as unaffiliated as possible to the article. It is the only way to reach an accurate concensus. Silver seren^C 19:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Chris Neville-Smith --Numyht (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ as POV pushing & crystal gazing; nn-neologism as well. --Gurubrahma (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing it to Delete after mulling over this for over a day - nn-neologism - the external links in the article use it as a figure of speech and do not have much to do with the content in the article. --Gurubrahma (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I may not agree to POV pushing (perhaps crystal gazing to some small extent, but the sources are from past events), I suppose I would have to agree with neologism, considering that the events are only a month or two old. I won't be changing my vote, but it's not like I doubt the vote will sway from an administrator's vote. I do, however, believe this article will be useful in the future (probably by the time summer rolls around), so i'm going to be keeping it in my sandbox and work on it until the time comes that it would be right to re-submit it. There's no problem with that, right? Silver seren^C 03:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If Hindu extremism is ever recreated, then redirect this page to the extremism page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious, but what is the distinction between Hindu extremism and Islamic Extremism or Sikh extremism? Silver seren^C 19:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the articles Christian Terrorism, Islamic Terrorism and Sikh extremism well sourced - interestingly, in all these articles, we have at least one example of the accused or convicted people tracing their actions to their desire to avenge an insult to their religion or bring about a kingdom of their religion. If an article on Hindu extremism is to persist on WP, it should similarly be well sourced. --Gurubrahma (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|^(talk) 10:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Hindu extremism and keep. That article should be expanded beyond the term "saffron terror." The previous deletes were on the basis that "Hindu extremism" was a hateful neologism sourced only in blogs and nonreliable sources. A Google News search [24] shows many reliable and independent sources with substantial discussion of the subject. Newspapers See [25] , [26] . [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [31], [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] and others. The present title, although mentioned in some of the sources, clearly is not the best or least point of view. It sounds like a movie title or the name of a TV wrestler. Edison (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to creation of a rewritten and better sourced version at Hindu extremism. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this just mean redirect? Silver seren^C 14:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. The sources in this article use the term, but doesn't explain where the term comes from. --Jmundo (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jmundo, Gurubrahma, and Mike Rosoft. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:N. Rename to ~~Hindu extremism~~ Hindu terrorism leaving redirect. The "neologism" argument is weird, unless that means "avoid topics that have only recently been in the news". [39] Juzhong (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify, you can delete everything that I didn't just add. Juzhong (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! We need to "avoid topics that have only recently been in the news" and reported widely by media for mass publicity. No official government report yet published on this matter and so is completely speculative. Also, this discussion is about deleting/keeping article "Saffron Terror". For Hindu terrorism/extremism please open a deletion review. Redirecting to previously deleted articles will be violations of both discussions. --GP Pande 08:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any policy demands government reports on a topic before it can have an article. There are reliable sources discussing the topic of "Saffron Terror" which is a synonym for "Hindu terrorism". I don't believe the rationales for deleting Hindu terrorism and Hindu extremism apply to this article (any more) so a deletion review should not be necessary, although I will try it if this is deleted. Juzhong (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and rename, per above. And improve, where there are POV or RS issues. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, Hindu Terrorism doesn't exist - Correctus (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither does Santa Claus. Juzhong (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting a bit bold here - but SS, I really think you need to read WP:AGF before putting up such a comment. Respect others. Present counter arguments that are valid within laid WP policies. Comment on content and do not comment on contributors. Your comment is really a violation of WP:NPA. More, you have done this second time in this AfD. --GP Pande 15:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sorry. I do assume good faith, but a comment that something doesn't exist without any support seems quite off-center...especially when this topic isn't about Hindu Extremism. I've removed what I said. Silver seren^C 15:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I say that "this editor's comment appears biased", does that work? Silver seren^C 15:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still Comment on content and do not comment on contributors. Discuss about the content of article titled Saffron Terror and nothing else. Please! --GP Pande 15:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, this still comes down to a vote (unless an administrator takes a different side), considering we are trying to reach a consensus. A vote without any logical basis behind it (along with a, seemingly, random comment) shouldn't be considered a part of that consensus. I believe we have already laid down all of the content and both sides to this within this AFD and now it is up to other editors to agree or disagree with each side. Silver seren^C 15:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading: 'Hindu terrorism' debate grips India BBC News Juzhong (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused. The discussion here is for title "Saffron terror" and not Hindu terrorism/extremism. --GP Pande 10:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It was in the aftermath of the 29 September bomb blast in the predominantly Muslim town of Malegaon in the western state of Maharashtra that the term "Hindu terrorism" or "saffron terrorism" came to be used widely. " Juzhong (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Now you agree the term is newsy. --GP Pande 15:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we actually going to say that Saffron Terror and Hindu Extremism (or terrorism) are synonymous? A lot fo editors appear to be bringing this up and it is an entirely different angle from what we were expecting. Should that be considered? Silver seren^C 15:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all these terms came out in media after 2006 Malegaon blasts. Different news sources use different terms. Making out article for each one of them is not good. The main bombing article already contains up-to-date information. --GP Pande 16:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the BBC quote about indicates they should be regarded as synonyms. Will Hindu terrorists obtain WMDs? isn't just about the Malegaon blasts. There are other Pakistani newspapers discussing what they call "Hindu terrorism" in other contexts. Juzhong (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In above example, the article and its very title mentioned above are nothing but pure "Speculations". Those are opinions expressed by certain segment of society and reported by newspapers. Surely WP, is not the right place to write about future speculations. --GP Pande 18:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, check the segment under which this URL from the nation.pk goes. It is "Opinions". Newspaper itself puts it. So it is just an opinion of a columnist. Not a proof by which the newspaper would stand by if we have to question them. --GP Pande 18:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS says "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text". So as long as the statements are reported as opinion they can be used. Juzhong (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! However it does not hold if the title of the article page itself comes from an opinion. --Gurubrahma (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to make a mascot look alive by stuffing things into it is not the reason behind that statement. I would not go into further explaining the WP policies here. The source clearly fails WP:RS and above argument an example of fallacy – Non sequitur to be specific. --GP Pande 19:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience "clearly" is what wikipedians say when they are too stupid to realize they are wrong. Juzhong (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, "stupid" is a low blow. Does anyone here have any statements backed by reliable sources? - If not, please take your personal disagreements to your respective talk pages. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping right in without reading the discussion is another unattractive trait among wikipedians. Juzhong (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please, don't. You are not helping at this point by making remarks like that. Try and keep this civil with direct facts and not arguing. If they say that opinion pieces don't count, then find other sources that do count and present those. Arguing the validity of an opinion will just go in circles. Silver seren^C 00:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to present facts and reasoning, but someone simply declares themself right and me wrong. Ok fine, fuck it, there is no point trying to talk you. You win, congratulations. Juzhong (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I am on your side, but that kind of language doesn't get anyone anywhere. Neutrality is what needs to be respected here and the creation of a calm discourse.Silver seren^C 00:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To get this entirely back on track, this article is from nearly two years and directly mentions Hindu terrorism (since we're going on a synonymous track here), and relates it to Sikh and Islamic terrorism. I believe the need for recreating a deletion review is necessary, so I am no longer going to argue the point of Saffron Terror. If no one else sets it up before me, i'll make a deletion review for Hindu terrorism/extremism this weekend when I have more time.Silver seren^C 00:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you change your vote to Delete for Saffron Terror now. I think we have reached a conclusion for this particular topic atleast. Lets not confuse the deciding admin more. --GP Pande 08:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to redirect, considering that I still believe the information is notable, but doesn't deserve its own article.Silver seren^C 22:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stub, and weak keep. Clearly, this article suffers from a persistent POV that goes beyond the language used in the article to the suppositions that underlie the choice of terms and links. In a lot of ways, the easiest thing to do would be to delete it and start over, and I actually would not have a problem with that. However, the term itself is commented on widely, but not defined with any precision that I can see. This makes it a poor choice for a stand alone article, as it will attract any number of articles that have as there common denominator a terrorist action by someone identified as Hindu. This fuzzy use of the term will invite the use of the types of coatracking references and links that we've seen. Responsible treatment of the subject is possible of course, but it essentially would be recreating Hindu extremism and if it weren't for the AfD I would favor moving it there. As it is, we all know that without vigilance, this article will again devolve into a coatrack. What I'd really like to see is for this to be userfied by someone who knows what they're doing, and can give this a reasonably encyclopediac treatment before returning it to mainspace. Any takers?. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the discussions we've gone through on here, I still believe the information is notable, but would much better go under Hindu Extremism as a sub-topic because of the vagueness of the term "Saffron Terror". I'm going to get a temporary review set up this weekend so I can see the problems with the old Hindu Extremism article, fix them, and then set up a deletion review to get it reinstated. That would probably be the best method for now. If more information and definitive references on "Saffron Terror" appear in the future, it can be split into its own article.Silver seren^C 18:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jack and Jill School. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elan Delfin[edit]

Non-notable martial arts instructor, fails biographies and athlete notability guides. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Mengullo Nate 14 81 10:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate 14 81 10:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Nate 14 81 10:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect as nn; passing mentions in some articles, not even mentioned in most of them--these are irrelevant references. Redirects are cheap so concur with below. JJL (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to Jack and Jill School. Jjskarate (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Some evidence of notability, but not enough for stand alone article at this point without better references. Redirect to article where some of this information can be included seems reasonable.ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Money (radio show)[edit]

No references support the notability of this local radio program. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 09:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local radio shows generally don't have enough notability. I notice the article doesn't even bother to mention the show's broadcaster. 23skidoo (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like most local radio shows, fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable brokered programming; that is they paid money to get on the radio, thus neutrality on this program is virtually impossible to find (the stations by the way are KWRD-FM and KSKY). Nate • (chatter) 23:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of what to merge into what can continue on the various talk pages. Perhaps this article can be turned into a disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scenic route[edit]

Possible WP:DICTDEF failure (although I'm inclined to let something on this topic exist, there still is the fact that it is basically a DICTDEF). Request comment and deletion/transwiki if it is. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although I usually hear the term used as a metaphor or as a convenient juxtaposition of the two words, the concept of scenic routes is surely notable and worth including. We have the same concept in Australia. See, for example, the Great Ocean Road. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tourist highway. --NE2 13:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep expandable. The term is quite specific, and is not the same as the term mentioned just above. . DGG (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the same - a "specially labeled road...that travels through a scenic or culturally significant area". Most U.S. states have statewide programs to designate these, for instance State Scenic Highway System (California). The other type - a "scenic" banner plate above the number - is just a special case, where what would normally be an alternate route is marked as such. --NE2 05:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redir to Tourist highway. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tend to think this is one of thoes terms that is slightly different for every country. In Canada we tend to call them Scenic Drive's [40] (even though that term has a different WikiMeaning, Scenic Drive). Is there a associated Project that could unify all the related terms ? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For me, scenic drive means just that, a drive thought a scenic area. This could be a formal or informal designation. But it generally will be over more then one road like 49-Mile Scenic Drive. I think that route, especially when it is officially designated, is usually a single road. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to put in my two pence worth from a British perspective, I'm with Richard in that this term is usually used here in a metaphorical way to describe a circuitous, indirect route, such as may be used by an unscrupulous taxi driver, rather than being literally concerned with the scenary, although that is obviously the original meaning. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & merge Tourist highway into Scenic route, which is the widely used term in Canada and the US. A tourist highway is a scenic route, so I gather: but not all scenic routes are highways. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree. One example: Alaska Marine Highway is a National Scenic Byway, but isn't even a road! --Triadian (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge "tourist highway" into "scenic road". As the original creator of the page, I just made the page to refer to the auxiliary U.S. highway, but realized that there were "scenic routes" in other countries as well. Upon request of deletion, I just decided to go ahead and honor that request by redirecting to the auxiliary route page that I've been working on lately (which was reverted because I didn't realize this discussion was actually taking place), but it seems like we are discussing whether a future article should exist with the name "scenic route". In this case, and with further research, I have determined that an article entitled "scenic route" should be created as a compilation of the terms "tourist highway", "scenic route", "scenic byway", "scenic waterway", and other similar terms used in various countries. This way, we will all have an understanding of the meaning of the term and can locate the type that we are referring to. This is what has been done with the article "Bypass". "Tourist highway" isn't sourced and (quickly) I can't find many sources that call the roads that. Thus, I think "scenic route" is the better term for the title. I think this is a good compromise for everyone. Agree? --Triadian (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Tourist highway into Scenic route. Someone had redirected this to Auxiliary route which it clearly is not. As others have pointed out, there are several related terms that probably need to be combined into this article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see that there are also two main categories, Category:Tourist highways and Category:Scenic drives. And regional categories like Category:Scenic travelways in Canada that are a sub-category of both. If we're left with a merged article as Scenic route or Scenic drive, we should make sure we use that term for the main category, too, no? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: That would be correct! I didn't realize there were that many categories on the subject. --Triadian (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Gwen Gale. Non admin closure. PC78 (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of Ramsay street[edit]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a hoax or at least unverifiable. A show like Neighbours, that is targeted at teenagers, would not have a character called 'Bejay', and would never be able to recruit Mariah Carey as a permanent star. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You might have uncovered something there, Carey's character probably won't stay for long ;)
Delete Couldn't verify any of it and even if I could, it is not yet shooting anyway, violating a basic guideline on when to start an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G12) by DragonflySixtyseven. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMAX DMR Credits[edit]

Seems to be an example of WP:LISTCRUFT. I can't think of any situation in which this would be helpful; it is better to work on a film-by-film basis, with those people involved in say "the day the earth stood still" given credit on that page rather than a generalised list that lists everyone who ever worked on DMR technology. Ironholds (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator notability established. (non-admin closure). Shoessss (talk)

Acharya Narendra Bhooshan[edit]

~~Bio of a non-notable religious leader. Thanks.~~ Ism schism (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's subject is a scholar, not a religious leader. And since he's won numerous awards I can't see how he wouldn't be notable. The issue with this person is verifiability rather than notability, but Google indicates that it can be resolved. I've asked the original author to drop by and share their sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Admin Nominator changed vote to Speedy keep. When I did a search for Acharya Narendra Bhooshan, I must of mispelled the name. Clearly, Acharya Narendra Bhooshan is very notable. A Google News search shows there are numerous reliable sources to verify this notability. My apologies. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources uncovered during the debate proved notability. I must say, the techinque he "pioneered" sounds a lot like this guy. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Mongrain[edit]

WP:NN musician. Fails WP:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles numbers 2-10 without question. The only possible criteria is #1, but I couldn't find any mentions in the articles on the artost 's web page that except Works comprising merely trivial coverage mostly describing one upcoming appearance or another (promotional placements in papers etc). G-hits also shows tons of listings but they also seem to be very trivial, usually placements announcing some appearance, several blogs. Lack of Notability has been discussed on Talk:Erik_Mongrain since 2006 and not yet mitigated. Despite assertion by author, fails all WP:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Toddst1 (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree. No matter if you think the sources are trivial (which is opinionated), the fact that there are legitimate sources and actual representations are enough, I believe, to give notability. Silver seren^C 21:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This editor's opinion seems incongruent with WP:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles which specifies that coverage must be non-trivial. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really need to refresh myself on my Wiki rules...wait, what about all of the news pages that are linked to on his press page. Are you saying all of them are trivial? (I can't translate it, which is why i'm asking) Silver seren^C 23:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if those or trivial or not. Those links go to his site and reliable sources need to be independent of the subject. Schuym1 (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the Boston Herald is not independent? Since when? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial coverage. Toddst1 (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article does not meet many criteria, I feel it meets # 1 fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PEiP (talk • contribs) 03:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple press coverings make him meet the first criterion. The fact he mentions to them on his own website doesn't make them not independent, because they're verifiable with the actual publications. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple trivial coverage fails criteria #1. Have you read it? Toddst1 (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Herald article is entirely about him. The German Heavy Metal Heaven Magazine, again non-trivial. It appears we have different opinions on what trivial coverage is. To me, trivial is a passing mention in an article largely about something else. That clearly doesn't apply to him.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is very promotional and needs a good trim, but there is enough substantial media coverage to demonstrate notability.ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – He had some more press coverage during a recent tour of Britain. I added two more newspaper articles just now. I believe there is enough for WP:MUSIC criterion #1. The coverage is sufficiently in-depth. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple international non-trivial sources to meet notability guidelines. Feature article about the subject in a major newspaper in Spain, feature article from a newspaper in Scotland and another one from Canada.--Jmundo (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist Alliance[edit]

Defunct and Non notable political group with no record of candidature or campaign material. No evidence of activity since article creation. This group are defunct as per this proof from the United Kingdom Electoral Commission http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/63167/Renamed-or-Deregistered-Parties.pdf. doktorb _words^deeds 21:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being defunct is irrelevant. Notability does not expire. The party was once registered with the Electoral Commission. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - registration with Electoral Commission establishes notability. Ground Zero | t 00:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They have never been in an election or campaigned for anything, as far as I can tell, which suggests they are NOT notable doktorb _words^deeds 18:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless more coverage is located. I agree that notability does not expire but in this case it does not seem like notability ever existed in the first place. I don't think the mere fact of registering with the Electoral Commission makes them notable. I looked around a bit but could not find any newscoverage of them and, as mentioned by the nom, they never fielded any election candidates. If someone finds more examples of significant coverage, I'd certainly reconsider but for the moment does not seem to pass WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Anyone with £150 to spare can register as a party with the Electoral Commission,[41] so registration in itself is certainly not a claim to notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added a number of references and generally rewritten the article to improve quality and establish notability. It was in a bit of a state before but now I hope that it establishes notability for a group who tried, albeit briefly, to unite the various factions of the Britiah far right before becoming yet another faction themselves. As such I'm voting keep. Keresaspa (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per improvements by Keresaspa. There are some decent sources and the article is worth including.ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Merge somewhere. I can't tell where from this discussion, and I don't know this area enough to accomplish the merge myself. If not done with dispatch I'm certain the article will be renominated, and quite possibly deleted. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zenebas Empire[edit]

This fictional locations does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per my comment on Guylos Empire and the other nominated Zoids locations. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect as usual. If there's a reason against it, it has not been given, so to bring apparently mergable or redirectable articles here is an abuse of process. DGG (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Some of the information should be included in parent article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 04:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3D Solar[edit]

Prod'd once by myself on the grounds of WP:N and WP:V; sources have improved a bit since then, but also underwent Speedy G11/A7. Since I believe the 2005 IST Prize is some indication of importance I've brought it here for discussion instead. Marasmusine (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this is not a candidate for speedy deletion due to the claims of notability made in the article, the company does not pass WP:N or WP:CORP. There is a single independent source in the article, and that is the only one I can find. 3D Solar search returns mostly a new type of solar panel, not related to the company. Searching for 3D Solar + the owner's name returns wikipedia and wikipedia mirror hits, the 3D solar web page and a number of press releases. No indication of notability, but that doesn't mean in the next few years the company won't make a name for themselves. Patents simply do not confer notability on their own, as they are essentially a primary source. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability:

The IST prize was presented by: Dr Heinz Fisher, Federal president of the Republic of Austria Mrs Viviane Reding member of the European Comission Mr Hubert Gorbach, vice Chancellor of the Republic of Austria and Minister of Innovation and Technology Prof Herbert Mang, president of the Austrian Academy of Science

3D Solar presentation went infront of the Jury of the 18 European Academy of Sciences at the Charlemagne Building in Brussels which houses offices of the European Commission.

The European IST Prize is organized by the European Council of Applied Sciences, Technologies and Engineering (Euro-CASE). It is the most distinguished award for innovative products that represent the best of European innovation in information and communication technologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.0.64.15 (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another source:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/3d-04f.html "Additionally, on May 14, 2004, a 3Dsolar prototype was presented to the French Minister of Research, Mr. Francois d'Aubert and former Minister of Finance, Mr. Arthuis, both of whom were very impressed with the product." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.0.64.15 (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally we need coverage that isn't a press release. Marasmusine (talk) 10:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage by Peter Cohen, MacCentral http://www.macworld.com/article/39714/2004/10/3dsolar.html (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's still information fed by the company. Marasmusine (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists always feed articles with information from different sources, it's a normal process, but this article is not a press release, it's not written by anyone who works for or with the company (3D Solar) or its software. This article is third party, neutral coverage and it is signed by the author, Peter Cohen, who is a well known and respected journalist still working for Macworld (PCExpert)

To reiterate, Peter Cohen or MacCentral and 3D Solar are independent and not affiliated in any way. This is a neutral, non biased source of information.

Wiki notability guidelines (source): "*Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.0.64.15 (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's reiterating a company announcement, as stated in his first sentence. There's no substantial commentry. At the time of writing, he hadn't even seen the product. If he went to the Innovact conference and wrote about it after he seeing it, that might be more interesting. Marasmusine (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3D Solar it's also TronMe and the media player (interactive music) The coverage from Lucas Artigas (Brothersoft) can't be done without trying the product. http://www.brothersoft.com/blog/2008/10/23/express-your-artistic-aspirations-with-an-innovative-interactive-media-player/

3D Solar claim more than 20.000 users so far for the beta version since mid September —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.0.64.15 (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 10:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This [42] tells me that we can't accept BrotherSoft as a WP:Reliable source. Marasmusine (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brothersoft is the second download site after download.com, this page[43] is just a teaser, Brothersoft pay independent journalist to do an editorial review if they think the soft meet the editorial criteria of novelty, quality etc...

Brothersoft has more than 150.000 software in store and around 10 editorial review per week and usually very short ones not like Tronme.

"BroherSoft.com is not only a website for downloading software. We also evaluate the all the developer submitted software based on our established evaluation criteria. We also give all the software developers an honest opinion. The reason we provide the software developer with our honest opinion is so that the developer may provide more appealing and function products in the future. "*[44] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.0.64.15 (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donwload.com can do an editorial review if the publisher pay for it 900$ so i'm not sure it would be objective, Brothersoft.com pay for the review so they are independant from the publisher and so objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.0.64.15 (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting PR maybe we should update the Tronme paragraph ? http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/081209/20081209005553.html?.v=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.0.64.15 (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the notability threshold per guidelines. No substantial independent news coverage.ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meet the notability threshold per guidelines. WP:N The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. 18 academies of science have reviewed the technology and presented the ICT prize since the quality of the source can't have a higher grade for such technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliverscat (talk • contribs) 12:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the prize is not notable, and it is hard to infer notability in the absence of reliable secondary sources. I agree with ChildofMidnight that notability has not been established for the company; the content of the article seems to be focused on its products, but coverage of the company is thin to say the least.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 04:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lives and Deaths of the Poets[edit]

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I googled it and only found a myspace page on it. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it is still in production and can be followed through at | imdb; | mooviees.com; | Nation Master (not sure how reputable that is though); PLUS you can look up it's stars Bruce Allen Dawson, Patrick Michael Strange, Steve Leventhal, Michelle Trout, Edward Robert Bach, etc. and see that they are real actors and have included their work on this film in their resumes and their web sites, there are even stills from the film out there on | Larry Carter's imdb page and | Edward Robert Bach's web site. Anyway I think there's more than enough info out there to prove that this is a legitimate film, plus look at the character list - this film has got to be good to parody all those incredible people (most seeming to have mysterious deaths...hmmmmm) Anyway, looks like an awesome and very unique film and SHOULD NOT BE DELETED from wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echobase46 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — - without prejudice for recreation. A google search gives me very few hits besides some IMDB and other unreliable pages. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does it pass WP:CRYSTAL? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete'. No objection to recreating it later, but at the moment the only sources appear to be IMDb which is not considered a reliable source under current Wikipedia standards and Myspace, ditto. If someone is able to find "reliable media" sources (newspaper or magazine coverage, preferably) and adds them to the article, please drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be happy to revisit my "vote". 23skidoo (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and bring back when there is more out there. It does not seem to be WP:CRYSTAL, but as of today does not meet WP:NFF. No doubt this will change within the next few weeks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not confirmed. The article can be brought back when or if the film is completed and released. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OM Association, Inc.[edit]

Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral- I actually think the info should be moved to the Destination Imagination page Juthani1 ^tcs 20:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or "why I created it". Verifiable and Unoriginal [see footnotes and/or query challenges in Google]; Notable [near 200,000 kids plus parents and organizers in just 1998-1999 alone]; and for WP:NPOV, that's why I created it. The key to understanding the need for this entry is Odyssey of the Mind's entry's seventh word, "OM", and the unsubstantiated parenthetical remark that follows it, and the sentence here that reads, "Odyssey of the Mind and OM Association, Inc. agreed to both abandon the use of the initials "OM" in a legal settlement." I do hope to find a more suitable reference to the particular agreement than the Fresno article. There are two very similar kids team creative problem solving organizations. Why? Because of a second bitter power struggle in 1999 (the first in 1985? did not lead to divorce: one party was "bought off") over control of the organization by one of the founding members. Because neither organization is particularly interested having any reference to the other in their own wiki entries, there is sniping (there's probably an official wiki word for folks that remove referenced factual content for ideological reasons) at any attempt to provide a hint of the relationship. In the program year 1998-1999 mentioned in this OM Association, Inc. entry, there were tens of thousands of kids that worked on EnvirOMental challenge, and a like number of kids that worked on the other five challenges mentioned in this article (for program size analysis, see http://users.wcvt.com/perkins/DIProgram.htm, by the State Director of the Vermont Odyssey of the Mind organization). Without this OM Association, Inc. entry, the collective "history" disappears from wikipedia for the school year 1999-2000. bokabu (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC) P.S. I tried moving the information to the DI page, but see this entry in the Talk:Destination ImagiNation page:[reply]
- I recommended we claim all 25 years of challenges, and started a table (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Destination_ImagiNation&oldid=227144855). 204.16.16.126 recommended against it -- a polite way of saying they quietly deleted the table. Can we talk about it? I coached an EnvirOMental Challenge team, and it's odd that year in particular is nowhere to be found. Bokabu (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. No independent refs to support any notability. One ref that looked ok was an obit for George Washington. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect – to Destination ImagiNation For the life of me, I cannot understand why this article is at an AFD. Both articles explain the merge of the two organizations. Both are referenced regarding the merge of the two organizations. So let us Merge the pertained information into Destination ImagiNation and redirect OM Association, Inc.. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 18:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Worth including, but not as stand alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also recommend deletion or correction of the facts. This article aims to make fact that OM Association is the original creator and intellectual force behind Odyssey of the Mind. It further tries to describe that the "OLD" odyssey of the mind program is supporting Destination Imagination. This article would be valid if it mentions the history of OM Association, including that Sam Micklus the founder of Olympics of the Mind was part of Creative Competitions. At the end of the day, the Micklus family is the soul of Odyssey of the Mind, and has been since 1977. I recommend you either delete this article or post heavy revisions giving factual credit where credit is due. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.136.70 (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with your thoughts with regards to the formation and history, that they should be part of the article. Care to give a hand in researching and writing, which include supportable - verifiable references, that supports this aspect? Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 04:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Djay (software)[edit]

Non-notable commercial software, unreferenced, no assertion of notability, written like an advertisement. Original article was started by a user now banned indefinitely for sockpuppeting. GreyCat (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- advertisement. Reyk _YO! 01:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete Advertisement. If this article is to be kept someone who has used the software should rewrite it. T-H
Delete as notability is not established. Boston (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – article has been largely rewritten to include references and be less of an advertisement TripleF (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — given rewrite by TripleF, I'm more inclined to keep this article. I still doubt it's notability, but at least it's shown to be sourced by some magazines' reviews. --GreyCat (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - again, notability is probably still a problem, but at least it's sourced from secondary, independent sources. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly, as aforementioned lacking notability, but has been re-written and appears to be notable in the least. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 11:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FileReplacement[edit]

This is an obscure implementation detail of UseModWiki. The article tries to dress it up as some general mechanism, but that's clearly not the case. While the contents is probably verifiable by checking the source of UseModWiki, I don't think it passes WP:N. Pcap ping 09:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is indeed not a common feature of wiki software. While (highly!) limited versions exist in some other software (see MediaWiki:Monobook.js, for example), it's not known by this name outside UseMod and certainly doesn't have the scope that this article would imply. The fact that Meatball's entry categorizes it as "CategoryUncommonWikiTechnology" should also be a hint that this is far from common practice. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think that wikipedia is the place for this. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have discounted the opinion of Rootbeerjunky (as a WP:SPA as well as the unsigned "KEEP" comment. What remains is deep doubt that there is real notability buried beneath these Royal Orders of Whatever. Sandstein 20:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Lindgren[edit]

Clearly a fine person, but unconvinced about notability, especially with what appears to be somewhat vague sourcing. Black Kite 01:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, like I wrote on the discussion page of that entry is that I will fix that as some of the links seem to be broken. He is on the list of the World Academy of Art and Science fellows and Google shows more then enough reliable sources. As said, I did not have the time yet to edit this. Being all new to Wikipedia I find it a bit weird to just mark it for deletion when cleanup etc. is still in progress?--Prinkipas (talk) 07:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as per nom. The same editor pushed Carl E. Lindgren to the list of notable members of Order of Saint Mauriceas (I found him on 28th page of the list (322 pages long) of recipients). The article came out in december 2006, the sources are still in the fog. Please clarify the notability. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment take the sentences I wrote as comment, not as a vote for deletion. But, please organize the references in a such a manner that there will be no such debate in the future. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am against the way this is going, it is in contradiction with the Wikipedia:Deletion policy as the article is tagged and currently being worked on to improve its quality. This is a valid alternative for deletion and the discussion page and history show that its work in progres. For the love of those that actually have a live besides surfing the net constantly, it would only be fair to allow proper editing. What is the use of the wiki concept otherwise?--Prinkipas (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC) — Prinkipas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Not at all my area, so correct me if I'm wrong, but Fellowship of the Royal Asiatic Society and World Academy of Art and Science [45] seems sufficient to meet WP:PROF. The sourcing isn't great and I can't find a list of fellows of the RAS on their website, but the World Academy of Art and Science listing gives him as "Fellow, RSA, RAS, CollT, RSPH; member, RHS" and this is confirmed by the American Military University faculty bio.[46] Espresso Addict (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF. Citation impact seems to be minimal, and primarily related to obscure patents (if these are not false positives). WorldCat returns a few books by C. E. Lindgren, including books on aura theories that would probably fall under WP:FRINGE. These may be false positives, but even if they are not they fall short of indicating notability. The most widely held book is in only 36 libraries worldwide. The memberships do not seem to be in societies that would qualify under WP:PROF criterion #3. For notability to be asserted under this criterion, the level of prestige of the societies must be comparable to, for example, the United States National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society.--Eric Yurken (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although its not my area I did some small fixes in the references and the person seems notable enough. The memberships and types of memberships are from real organizations. Perhaps the focus of the entry should be on what he did (does) in total instead of just focusing on the academic part. It does need some cleaning though.. --Rootbeerjunky (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC) — Rootbeerjunky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak Keep No one of the indications for notability present here is by itself sufficient. For example, agreed that the individual societies listed do not, any one, of them, by itself show notability. The overall pattern does. I agree with Rootbearjunky that he should not be considered as primarily or solely an academic. DGG (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Guy Stair Sainty is royal genealogy and heraldry just like Carl Lindgren.
Comment. With all due respect, there are many orders, societies etc. that are nothing but a way of creating a vanity record. They have names that make them sound notable; I can come up with some fictitious examples: Philadelphia Society of Franklin Dragons (a little silly), Imperial Order of the Phoenix of Killimanjaro (reminds me of Harry Potter somehow), High Order of the Most Eminent Crown Prince of Konu (named after the fictitious former Prince of Konu, an ancient city that no longer exists) etc. etc. etc. Usually these orders or societies are maintained by private individuals or organizations, and are not endorsed by any legitimate government. Some even charge a fee to grant membership. You often find their description on a .com web site, like the one for The Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam, http://www.dragonofannam.com.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange reasoning It is nice to see fictitious examples, but after Googling and Yahooing the net for 15 mins I learned a lot about these orders see: Orders. I do not see any [Self-Styled Chivalric Orders] on this person and the orders he has. On the contrary, the [Order of Saint Michael] is according to Wikipedia is the oldest Portuguese orders of knighthood. As for that Dragon order, I took some names that were on the memberslist and Googled them and they seem to be real people with real merits, degrees etc. So although its not really my thing (and from what I understand its not yours either) it seems notable enough just as DGG says. Thank God these orders are not endorsed by governments as some of them are religious orders. And since when is a government endorsement holy? Each state has different laws on the recognition of organizations and in the States we don't fancy orders. Maybe the credit crisis can bring change to that (just being sarcastic without the purpose to offend anyone :-p ) And since when is a .com website bad?--Rootbeerjunky (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The modus operandi of many of these so-called orders and societies is to include notable members, often without their consent, only removing them if explicitly asked. They simply communicate to notable individuals (e.g., Nobel laureates) that they were included as members (often by email). Most of these notable individuals never bother to get their names removed. These organizations (orders or societies) then start advertising that they have among their members this Nobel laureate, that former country president etc. New members who are not so notable are invited and asked for a membership fee, of course, to support the noble goals of the order or society. The enticement is based on a flawed syllogism like this: (a) Nobel laureate N is a member of order O; (b) Nobel laureate N is notable; then (c) all members of order O are notable. (Including the sucker that is being asked to pay a few bucks for the membership.) Of course I am not saying that all orders and societies are like this; but many are. The ones that are legitimate often are sponsored by very well known and high profile organizations, non-governmental or government-sponsored, and new members are admitted only after they go though a rigorous and very selective process.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sure there are many spurious academic societies. The Royal Asiatic Society, Royal Historical Society and Society of Antiquaries of Scotland are not, as far as I'm aware, among them. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There seems to be a mix of phony and legitimate orders\societies listed in the article. I think you are right about these societies Espresso Addict, but I could not find evidence that Prof. Lindgren is a fellow (or equivalent) in any of them. Whoever created the Carl Lindgren article included very unreliable sources for certain claims. Take for example the entry under references listed as: CJB. 23 November 2007. If you follow the link you get to this web site. This claim of notability is actually an anonymous posting by a user called CJB, who talks about Lindren. There is a link at the end of the posting. To what seems to be an article by Stanford’s World Association of International Studies, with some odd statements that make very little sense.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, I was assuming good faith. I've just checked the Royal Historical Society fellows listing, and he doesn't seem to be included;[47] It's possible there's some legitimate explanation (eg recent retirement). I couldn't find a list of Royal Asiatic Society or Society of Antiquaries of Scotland fellows at the society websites. The World Academy of Art and Science is one I don't know, but appears legitimate; its fellows listing[48] states his other fellowships as "Fellow, Royal Asiatic Society, Society of Antiquaries, College of Teachers, Royal Society of Health". Espresso Addict (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not sure about good faith here. I did a search on Wikipedia articles for “Carl Edwin Lindgren” - a total of 25 articles. I could not go through all of them, but Lindgren’s name seems to have been included in most of them by Royalhistorian. This is a user who left a message in my talk page identifying himself as Prof. Lindgren.--Eric Yurken (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A related phenomenon, with a more commercial goal, is the proliferation of private and for-profit organizations with official-sounding names. This one I find rather deceitful. Take, for example, the American Public University System, which is actually a private and for-profit online learning education organization. In their name they are public, but the reality is that they are private and for-profit. The American Military University, where Prof. Lindgren appears to teach, redirects to this American Public University System.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read the wiki entry on those universities and the websites of both those universities. There is nothing deceitful there as its written in simple and plain English even I can understand, so what is your point? Private universities are commercial and deceitful?? Based on what facts please? --Rootbeerjunky (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I object is to deceitful names; they are red flags, even if the organizations are legitimate and set up in good faith. Of course there is nothing wrong with private universities. In fact, many of the most prestigious universities in the US are private – e.g., Princeton and Harvard. As for the connection between these issues and the article being considered for deletion, the bottom line is that there are just too many of these red flags in the article. The same is true for other sources linked to the article. For example, on Lindgren’s web page it is stated that he is “the author of over 150 journal articles”. How can someone be the author of so many articles (I assume written in English), and a Google Search return no trace of them? What the Google Search revels are a few patents that are most likely false positives.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here is a list of publications.John Z (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks, John Z. The same site has a detailed CV, including a list of society fellow/memberships.[49] Espresso Addict (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The patents you found, Eric, are from different person (Someone from Sweden), but the creator of the article Special:contributions/Deepcove123 (one entry only) and the User:Royalhistorian are the same person and from my user talk page and from yours, Eric, is the same parson, Carl Lindgren, we have debate here, I think I can conclude that from text I read and timestamps of certain edits. So, my opinion about self promotion, hm, I won't write about that. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alas self-promotion is one thing and trying to get people who are limited in specific fields to understand what societies, academies, orders and achievements are important and which are fake usually takes a specialist to explain this. This was my intent. It was NOT my intent to self promote myself, rather I wrote to two members of this discussion in hopes that due to their lack of academic terminology, their knowledge of the scientific purpose of chivalric orders and how one is selected (the real ones) to prevent such individuals through misunderstanding of the fields being discussed to NOT come across as uneducated or un-informed in these areas. I know that they are well meaning and well educated scholars and editors. Various areas can be tricky and misleading. Also I have never used Deepcove123 but do use royalhistorian. Royalhistorian (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks MaNeMeBasat, I noticed that. Rootbeerjunky’s account seems to have been created on Dec 13, the day after the article was nominated for deletion, apparently with a clear goal. Prinkipas’s account was created to respond to DGG’s comment on the article’s talk page, also possibly as a WP:SPA. Never mind, if Carl Lindgren was verifiably notable I would recommend keep. Right now, unfortunately I cannot. I do not like to look like a bad guy, but Wikipedia is not a joke.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Amusing Its not really nice talking about someone in third person as if he wasnt there.... So because I joined Wikipedia and after trying to contribute I am now being accused of what? Damn, you guys know how to run this show really good. If you dont want new editors on Wikipedia just put a notice up. People wont bother anymore you know.--Rootbeerjunky (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - μαλακιες Seems there is mud fight going on and most of these people already know each other. How amusing.--Prinkipas (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'Comment'. WP is not a place for this kind of words(μαλακιες), I think. And your conclusion about knowing each other is wrong. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What I'm seeing is a lot of puffed-up titles with little backing or significance, employment at something one step up from a diploma mill, and no sign of real academic notability (or for that matter real-world notability as measured by major media attention). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Do not want my name on Wikipedia

I am sorry that the above thread has turned into name calling. It saddens me that when one has nothing else to say they throw libel stones about a university. When an editor of an 'encyclopaedia' does NOT know the difference between an accredited university and a degree mill, I just do not want my name associated with his editing. REMOVE my name. I also wish to thank the one's who proposed me. You should not have. I mean it, "You should not have (smile).

From a historical viewpoint, here is how it stacks up. One thousand years from now when Asia is ruler of the world which will be more important to world affairs!!! ?

1. The name of the first and ONLY Occidental in history to be chancellor of an Imperial Order of a Oriental country or

2. The basketball player who made 10 baskets while on dope he stole from his grandmother and fed to his grandson while carrying a weapon which he confessed to his pedophyle priest (smile).

Dr. Eppstein, I believe, you are at best misinformed and at worst libel about American Military University. Just because your remarks are on the Internet, does not mean that you can over-step your bounds. I am certain students from AMU (all 32,000) would like to express their opinions to the AMU and to your school's administration about AMU being a degree mill, I know I will.

1. "American Military University (AMU) has been admitted into the National Association of Institutions for Military Education Services (NAIMES), an organization that advocates for the military student, partners with the military education community and promotes “best practices” for conducting military education programs. AMU is a member institution of American Public University System (APUS), an online university system that serves more than 30,000 adult learners in 50 states and more than 100 countries."

2. "American Military University is a member institution of American Public University System, which includes American Public University. AMU’s relevant curriculum, affordability and flexibility help working adults pursue degrees that will help them advance in a variety of career fields, including business, information technology, education and management. AMU also provides specialized education in homeland security, national security and emergency and disaster management. A university book grant provides textbooks at no cost for eligible undergraduate students. American Public University System is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Public Education, Inc. (NASDAQ:APEI)."

3. American Military University is accredited by DETC - "The Distance Education and Training Council is a non-profit [501 c 6] educational association located in Washington, D.C.

"The Council was founded in 1926 to promote sound educational standards and ethical business practices within the correspondence field. The independent nine-member Accrediting Commission of the DETC was established in 1955; shortly thereafter it gained the approval of the U.S. Department of Education as the "nationally recognized accrediting agency" under terms of Public Law. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) also recognizes the Accrediting Commission."

4. AMU most importantly has regional accreditation by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) of the North Central Association. I believe your school has the same type of regional accreditation. Is your school, UC Irvine, in Orange County, California, a degree mill???? Of course not. AMU has all of the qualifications of Harvard, U. California or any other r.c. university.

5. Also please note that 50 percent of the students are FBI, CIA, MI (not missing in action - smile) and high ranking military. I wonder if your California school could have said this in 8 years of their first years of operation.

This is a little history lesson for a computer prof. -

David, did you know that in the very beginning, no one in America had a doctorate " least of all Harvard's president Increase Mather, who, as a Dissenter was ineligible for a Doctorate from ANY English university as all were controlled by the Church. Still Harvard was eager to get into the Doctorate business, so their entire faculty (that is to say, Mr. Leverett and Mr. Brattie) got together and unanimously agreed to award an honorary Doctorate to Mr. Mather, whereupon Mather was able to confer Doctorates unto his faculty, who subsequently were able to doctor their students."

Oh, the first school of DISTANCE EDUCATION was Yale!! It seems that a Mr. Daniel Turner from England wanted into the Royal Society of Physicians and Surgeons. Alas he was not a Church of England nor did he have an M.D. He merely had the lower Bachelors of Medicine (given to most English doctors - the M.D. in England, even today, is a higher advanced medical degree). He thought and thought. He then gathered 50 medical books together and sent them off to Yale who appreciated it so much, they made him an M.D. in absenia (no he never visited America). Yes, he did continue to practice medicine as an M.D. and did get into the two ROYAL SOCIETIES. I hope you on second thought retract your remarks about American Military University.

I wish everyone the best and no hard feelings.

Dr. Carl Edwin Lindgren Royalhistorian (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even in relatively marginal cases like this, I think our decisions are clearer if we do not take account of the views of the subject. A challenge is often viewed as an insult--as it is here--and an understandable response is to be prefer that there be no article at all rather than people question one's importance. Understandable, but destructive of NPOV. We don't include article on the basis of the intrinsic merit of the subject, but their suitability for the purposes of an encyclopedia. (In fairness, I mention that I've had a considerable friendly off-line discussion with CEL about this and some related articles).DGG (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not concerned about the remarks of anyone who posted on this thread. In fact, I found most of them beneficial and even tried to address some of the issues directly with the authors. I am what I am. I have achieved far more than some people on Wikipedia and far far less than others. An Internet encyclopaedia entry is based on the total overall accumulation of achievements, honours, knighthoods, publications, academic training and teaching and when possible a specific aspect that makes that one individual different or unique from all other people. It is not how much glitter or fame vanity they have. If it is, then Wikipedia is merely a vanity press rag. Wikipedia should be far more. However, I do take severe issue with Prof. David Eppstein, who seems to be a fine individual, as his remarks were not constructive, mean spirited and incorrect as they pertained to a regionally accredited university whose students, faculty and administration could be harmed from an economic and academic viewpoint. Please try to be honest in our evaluation.

Royalhistorian (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- This is a grossly out-of-proportion reaction to my remark. But I stand by what I said: while I'm sure your institution provides a valuable service for our overseas servicepeople, one simply cannot compare a for-profit distance learning center to a top-tier research university, or even to a second-tier one such as mine. A full professor position at Harvard, say, conveys a presumption of notability even before we look at the specific achievements of the professor. A position at AMU does not. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is this something comon with professors and doctors on Wikipedoa, I checked your page on Wikipedia and your article was nominated for deletion several times and people are still not sure about it from what I read. It even appears you edited your own entry? Just observing... Anyway, so Harvard is more prestigious then the AMU. I don't think many would disagree, but calling it a "one step up from a diploma mill" is pretty arrogant as the institute is accredited and several US goverment websites seem to apreciate their standard. Can I conclude that you don't care much about accreditation then? Interesting debate, are private universities worse or not? Is long distance learning less of quality then normal learning? In my opinion a student that manages to serve his country in active duty and that manages to finish a college degree at a accredited institute deserves a big applause. Please raise your hands here how many of you did this? It is a dream of many even non Americans. So now a professor wants to teach at that particular university and he gets mocked online for being innovative..... Perhaps in 10 years from now this will be the standard...online education. The only thing notable in all of this debate is the innuendo and mud throwing. Perhaps a PhD on human relations or councelling can join in to fix this mess. --Prinkipas (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly does not pass WP:PROF. As for WP:BIO, I think it fails there as well: google news search (here) turns up some hits for "Carl Lindgren" with the word university added, but most results do not appear to relate to the one discussed here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--reply to Nomoskedasticity--

If that is the case, then David Eppstein wikipedia pages also fails there as well: google news search turns up ONLY 7 hits with the word university [50]

Also, Guy Stair Sainty is a royal genealogy and heraldry in the similar class as a author like Carl Lindgren and his wikipedia pages also fails there as well: google news search turns up ONLY 32 hits.

Should both of these articles be considered for deletion as well for WP:PROF and WP:BIO?

"What about this other article that I'm not convinced should be here either" is such a classic example of an argument to avoid in deletion discussions that we have a whole separate essay devoted to that single topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--reply to David Eppstein--

There is no agruement. I am not one of your students, ok for you to dictate who I can talk to and accuse me of arguing with "Nomoskedasticity".

I read his statement above and I made a reply to his statement. I did not come here to argue but only to state some facts and asked him for his opinion based on his prior statement.

I did not use "CAPTIAL" letters to infer I was yelling at him either.

Argument in this context means a chain of reasoning. It has little to do with the colloquial meaning of the word involving a heated disagreement. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that his nomination to his order that may make him notable was supposedly made by an Emperor who died 60 years before this guy was born makes the likelihood of it happening low and of being a hoax greater. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misread. If you mean Dong Khanh, he founded Order of the Dragon of Annam back in 1886. There is no claim it was he who inducted Lindgren into it. if you mean Bao Long, he was ruler from 1997 to 2007.

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes and stereotyping[edit]

Is there a "Wikipedia is not a book"? —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete-- G12. This seems close enough to this to look like a copyright violation. Mandsford (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia is not a place for one's own origianl research, webpage, or project (term paper or, in this case, a book). Wikipedia is supposed to be a place where people write articles in their own words and improve upon their skills. The more I read Chapter 5 of Stereotypes and Stereotyping by C. Neil Macrae, Charles Stangor, Miles Hewstone (Guilford Press, 1996) ISBN 1572300531, 9781572300538, the more nauseated I get. Mandsford (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete nonsense/essay/almost certain copyvio. JJL (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. This is the most blatant case of plagiarism I've seen on WP. "Copyvio" is too nice a word, really. Oh, yes, delete of course, and perhaps the Hammer can send over some of his otters to bite this person. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to concerns on violations of copyright.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G12) — Blatant copyright infringement as noted above. MuZemike (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted as copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 04:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venus Zine[edit]

Non-notable magazine. There is COI involved as well; one of the main contributors is an IP who is a single-purpose account adding mentions of this magazine in dozens of articles, and the creator of the article (User:Amywestervelt, who just so who just so happens to have the same name as the magazine's editor)in it's original incarnation had the article saying "You know how some women's magazines can be a little man-hating? Chicago-based Venus Zine [1] is like their more evolved sister. If both were actual women, Venus Zine would be smart, cool, independent, and oh yeah, a strong woman." CyberGhostface (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Note and the spamming of links to the zine throughout a bunch of music articles (which I ended up cleaning up) didn't help influence me towards a keep. --Blowdart | ^talk 00:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I think what we need here is other magazines that mention this one to establish notability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Mgm below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a notable magazine, sure it is no Rolling Stones, but it meets Wikipedia notability. It has had many notable musicians on it's covers and in the magazine, also other notability here. I mean geeze if we get rid of this saying it is not notable, then over half of the Wikipedia articles should go, ridiculous.--Sugarcubez (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sugarcubez. http://www.venuszine.com/about_us shows several high profile magazines wrote about this magazine. There's the technicality that we have to confirm it by actually digging up those other magazines, but that's clearly possible, so this zine is notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to see the context of the articles (I.E. how important Venuz Zine was to the article and how much of it is a passing reference; the NY Times mention, for example, is just a sentence long) and the articles themselves. If the magazine was truly notable, the editor wouldn't have to be the one to create a self-promoting article, and they wouldn't have to anonymously spam dozens of articles with mentions of the magazine.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Adequate reliable sources found during the course of the debate. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Gilliam[edit]

Non-notable. There is one reliable source on the page, the New York Times, which mentions Gilliam in one sentence. All the others are either selfpub or not reliable. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability has not been established. Conflict of Interest is also apparent.Boston (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability has not been shown per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to keep: Notability has now been shown. Schuym1 (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as per nom. Ray (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep per results by Eric Yurken. I had dismissed the Gnews hits as trivial, especially since many of them were not of this Leah Gilliam, but had not thought to look in Google Books. Ray (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to suggest that the subject is notable per BIO. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as article does not establish notability per WP:BIO. Being mentioned in The New York Times in one sentence doesn't qualify. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 10:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I admit it does need a rewrite. However, I believe Ms. Giliam has received enough coverage from verifiable – creditable – 3rd party sources to meet our inclusion guidelines as established by creative professionals per the references shown here, [51]. I’ll add some to the article and start editing the piece. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 15:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoessss, I'll be interested in seeing your results. I did a fairly thorough examination of those results before nominating and could find precious little to qualify as "significant coverage", per WP:N. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a major problem, I hope :-). But than again, I am not the best writer, Welcome any and all help if you are interested? ShoesssS ^Talk 00:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Got the same results as ShoesssS on Google News. See also the results of this search on Google Books.--Eric Yurken (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it appears more reliable sources have been found and establish the notability. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 09:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Shoessss. — neuro^(talk) 09:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Being the voice actor for a major character in a notable anime series establishes notability. However, the article lacks context for those unfamiliar with the subject so I understand why it was nominated. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Newstone[edit]

Non-Notable voice actor. \ / (⁂) 08:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- PeterSymonds (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I think that she's done enough to be worthy of inclusion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A voice actor is only as notable as the characters they voice. Since she voiced a Dragonball Z villain, I'd like some more clarification from the nominator as to why they consider this person not notable - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this article because not only did the article not assert the notability of the subject, I couldn't find any interviews with her, notable mentions outside of a few anime websites. (not saying they aren't there, I just haven't been able to find them.) I really do not know who Freeza is and his/her/its role in the show, if it is a main character than I would have no issues keeping it. \ / (⁂) 21:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frieza is the main character villain for one of the longer seasons of DBZ. An incredibly important role for the series.Silver seren^C 15:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although a single episode of DBZ seems long to me ;) \ / (⁂ | ※) 22:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The punching sounds get repetitive after a while. You sorta wish there was more plotline, truthfully. Frieza was in over 300 episodes...I kinda wanted him to die about halfway through. But not to get off-topic... Silver seren^C 23:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The number of roles within important anime shows and a few very important roles at that seem to prove notability. Rather high-profile within the anime sector. Silver seren^C 15:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep One important role, the rest are tertiary characters at best. Edward321 (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. They do appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC criterion 5. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beardfish (band)[edit]

On first appearance, the article looks like it wouldn't survive speedy deletion were it tagged. However, I'd rather not tag something that could potentially satisfy notability guidelines. Mike Portnoy of Dream Theater has mentioned them on their site, calling them "[his] favourite "new" band with an "old" sound." That in mind, they could potentially satisfy criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC That said, they don't appear to have attained much success and don't appear to be hugely notable. Opening for discussion. Master&Expert (Talk) 11:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- PeterSymonds (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 for reviews on 2 of their albums [52], [53]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that Allmusic tries to review all albums they cover, so such reviews don't really help establish notability. Also, no matter how well-reviewed the album is, it still leaves info on the actual band unverified. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: have not met notability requirements, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - they are signed by InsideOut Music, which seems to be a fairly large label, according to their roster. Thus, they pass Wikipedia:MUSIC#C5. Óðinn (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Internet Relay Chat flood. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crapflooding[edit]

Dicdef, unreferenced. No hope of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with spam. Crapflooding is recognized as a precursor to spam, and - as far as I can tell - remains a relevant term. Graymornings (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that this article could turn into something. However, I'd like to see it sourced. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O RLY? I don't see any sources anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does it pass WP:NEO? WP:N? It might be better merged with spam, or an article on web lingo. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Internet Relay Chat flood where this term all ready is listed. Nothing really to merge, and on its own it is basically a dicdef, and lacks notability for a stand alone article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Xymmax unless the article can be sourced and expanded to avoid WP:NEO and WP:DICDEF --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 04:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snappa[edit]

To quote The Unsinkable Molly Brown, belly up to the bar, boys. Or should we? This drinking game doesn't appear very notable. Do we pour it out? Ecoleetage (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's pour it out as per request. Cheers! De728631 (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources showing notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NGtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Liger[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Exists almost entirely of real world information and nominator made no reasonable effort to verify the information as required by WP:AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Jay32183 (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same argument as before. Saying something is "too trivial" is IDONTLIKEIT. DGG (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obvious bad faith nom. Jtrainor (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No bad faith present. Reasons to keep are ad hominem attacks against the nom. MuZemike (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nomination is in total good faith: the nominator does want the article deleted, and says why he thinks so. To say his reasons are inadequate is not an accusation of bad faith. DGG (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it's obvious the nom didn't read the article, the assumption is bad faith. Jtrainor (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MGM and especially DGG. 'Too trivial' isn't a good reason for deletion, and essentially amounts to IDONTLIKEIT. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination makes total sense. The article has zero references, so it can't possibly establish notability. Notability isn't automatic, it needs to be shown. Merely being "one of over 200 species of biomechanical lifeforms depicted by TOMY's Zoids model, toy, and media franchise" doesn't make it de facto worth an independent article (are there notability guidelines for toys? If there are, I severely doubt they say "every toy automatically deserves its own article"). This is similar to the deletion discussions of the hundreds of Pokemon articles: if you stripped out the in-depth plot summary and trimmed the toy details down to some decent prose, you'd have maybe one paragraph of real-world content, and it would still be unreferenced. I would have recommended merger into List of Zoids, but the list seems to consist of nothing but names without any accompanying details, and anyway when there are no references there can be nothing to merge. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, according to Wikipedia policy, lack of references is NOT reason for deletion. The article is subject to deletion only if no references exist to establish notability. Notability should be established in the article by references and citations, but if it is not established but can be established, the article shouldn't be deleted. Nominators and those commenting on AFD's are required to verify for themselves whether notability can be established beforedeciding to delete or not. If the article MUST have references establishing notability in the article or it should be deleted, then none of the guidelines would say to search for evidence of notability before nomination/before !voting to delete. The guidelines do in fact say to search for evidence of notability, and if any can be found, either cite the sources yourself, or place an appropriate cleanup tag on the article. The point of AFD is not to delete any article that doesn't have sufficient references. That is what cleanup tags are for. It should only be used to delete articles that have no notability established or able to be established. I am not voting one way or another on this article, but the lack of references are NOT valid criteria for deletion. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the deletion policy suggests searching for sources before an AFD and it is wrong to do so. WP:V, a core policy that defines Wikipedia, says it is the responsibility of those wishing to add, restore, or retain material to find sources, WP:PROVEIT. We should be able to delete unsourced material without discussion. Jay32183 (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only sources found establish that it existed but not notable. It is no more notable than any other of the 5 billion toys out there. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try some more realistic numbers. There might be 5 million, not billion, different toys ever produced; these products are from a major franchise, and it would seem reasonable that they are among the top 1% of such toys. that's 50,000. We can well have 50,000 articles on toys, not being a paper encyclopedia--the most notable 1% of any thing is arguably notable. But we do not have to say that. At the very least, these toys collectively are probably notable, and if so, we would at the least redirect to an article on them. not delete. That's a perversion of orderly process. so would be redirecting or merging without discussion, of course. I note the nominator seems to be doing that as well for the last week of so, in very large numbers. DGG (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 04:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geruder[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has substantial amounts of real world information ignored by the nominator who also didn't check for sources as per WP:AFD.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Jay32183 (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of RWC--a long and appropriate discussion of the various releases. That's the sort of product ion & distribution information appropriate to these articles. The sources do need to be added, but it is inappropriate to delete unless they can be shown to be unsourcable--otherwise the thing to do is source. There's almost no plot information here, and to give facts about the specific devices is not trivial. As for "There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article,", it amounts to BECAUSE I SAID SO AND YOU DONT HAVE TO UNDERSTAND. What is an "assertion for future improvement"? Can you give an example? DGG (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of verifiability. All the real-world context is no good if it is original research. MuZemike (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being verifiable and being verified are two different things. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete border copy violation from [54]. That was the only source found. No independent, non-encyclopedia (mirror) sources found. Fails WP:N Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be just copying material from a website whose material is not copyrighted. I see no claims to it, so there serves no purpose tagging it as a potential copyvio. MuZemike (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied as vandalism. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xiam[edit]

Possible hoax. A search for sources on Google and Google Books returns very few results. The person who founded this unit, James Wexiam, doesn't appear to exist. The sole reference of this article is a citation to a book titled The Encyclopedia of Electricity by Quincy, P., but the book doesn't appear to exist either. Cunard (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (found similar non-results when I looked for refs). WP:AGF prevents me from using the obvious typo in the ref to support hoaxy nature of it, but it sure doesn't help his cause. DMacks (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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