The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Total Project Control (TPC)[edit]

Total Project Control (TPC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This feels as it stands very much like a spammy article placed here to publicise Devaux and his book. The term "Total Project Control" is one that gives many Ghits, but just how many are relevant to the article? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost none, and it's pretty obvious that TotalProjectControl(TPC) (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account. However, Google Web is not the only place to look for sources for articles, especially for articles that alreday cite books as sources. Have you looked at the books? At least one of them is not by Devaux, according to the citation. Have you looked for other books?

  This is a far better rationale than your rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expected project profit (EPP), by the way. You should replace the rationale at the latter with something such as the above. But you should still check the sources of articles that cite them. That's what readers are told to do, and we editors should be doing no less. Uncle G (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, in fact, I think it could justify a speedy as G11., promotional only spam. .DGG (talk) 05:45, 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. Stifle (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Scott Peck and Shannon Peck[edit]

Dr.Scott Peck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Shannon Peck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)

No evidence of notability, no references. Appears to be a promotional article for Dr. and Ms. Peck who according to their website "are co-founders of TheLoveCenter, a non-profit educational organization dedicated to Raising Universal Love Awareness & Awakening a World of Love Masters." andy (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Shannon Peck andy (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was giving article creator a chance to establish notability based on this 1 --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm undecided; hard to assess notability because of overlap withM. Scott Peck. The article does make some assertion of notability by listing this Peck's publications. JamesMLane t c 05:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Would redirect this to M. Scott Peck if this is deleted. I wondered whether the articles might be about the same person when I first read this. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I assumed they were different people because the articles and various ghits seem to be about different people. Also one of them is dead. But I'm not so sure now. andy (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:41, 18 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; nomination was not completed. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Brengle[edit]

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

bdodo1992 (talk) 23:45, 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 delete (spam). Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expected project profit (EPP)[edit]

Expected project profit (EPP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a dicdef, thus not WP material. Delete and transwiki to Wiktionary. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiktionary doesn't want an encyclopaedia article that tells people about Expected Project Profit, including, for example, what factors will cause variance in it. Wiktoinary articles are about words and idioms, not about concepts. Please read our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy again, and when its true meaning has been absorbed, supplement it by reading Wiktionary's Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia policy. Uncle G (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as promotional only--possibly a G11 speedy deletion as improvable spam. DGG (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. This seems to be an attempt at re-inserting the deleted article Total Project Control (TPC) for promotional purposes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:22, 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 clear consensus.--Jersey Devil (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kitziggle[edit]

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

No references support the notability of this to be released book. No ghits. Possibly a hoax. Speedy declined. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No article exists for the author, and I couldn't find any coverage on the book. Even if it isn't a hoax, it fails WP:BK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtyq2 (talk • contribs)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the speedy decliner. Jclemens (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per talkpage, no google evidence that either the book author or the book exists/will exist. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An IP with conflicts of interest just admitted that the book author "has just begun his career". – sgeureka ^t•c 00:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable.  Xihr  01:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• SPEEDY DELETE as disruptive vandalism. I've lost track how many hoaxes we've hosted here on Wikipedia now, its way past the 100 mark.  :-( JBsupreme (talk) 08:50, 19 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 (non-admin closure), as consensus determined the subject meets the requirements of WP:PROF. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawson Wulsin[edit]

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

Non-notable under WP:BIO or WP:PROF guidelines Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Full professor at reputable university;[1] Google Scholar[2] finds a couple of reviews on which he is first author with 227 & 162 citations, 7 other papers with over 20 citations. His popular book,[3] while not a best-seller, appears to have been reviewed in several sources (see publisher[4]/author sites) and has led to some media appearances eg [5][6]. Appears adequate to meet my interpretation of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: there are 9 criteria in the guideline page, and I don't see how the article meets any of them.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline" is usually interpreted in terms of citations, as these show how the academic community has built on the body of work. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1; referred to above by Espresso Addict. His book - Treating the aching heart: A guide to depression, stress, and heart disease – is held by 648 libraries worldwide. He is also widely cited.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I really dislike WP:AUTO/WP:COI cases (as this one appears to be: the article was created by User:Wulsinstu), but the subject does appear to satisfy criterion 1 of WP:PROF based on the data in Espresso Addict's post. Nsk92 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Espresso Addict. The first point alone is enough for notability. The fact his book is widely kept in libraries and the fact his work is widely cited just clinches it. It means that his scientific peers believe his work is valid and worth continuiing upon. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficient for notability, though a fuller article with information on the citations of his major scientific work would show it better. DGG (talk) 22:19, 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. Stifle (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imo.im[edit]

Imo.im (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:RS, seems to be non-notable and fails WP:WEB. No indication of notability, no relevant news hits. PROD declined by author. — neuro^(talk) 23:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - addressed WP:WEB and non-notable and WP:RS. Entry referenced by several existing wiki entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorrrrr (talk • contribs) 23:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your work on this, but I don't think you have (and, as I said below, I don't think you can). In particular, I wouldn't call any of the sources in the article reliable; the two strongest references are [7] and [8], both blogs and, best I can tell, not with the reputation asked for by WP:RS (very few blogs have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy).
    The one (!) link from another wikipedia article can't transfer notability either.
    It might very well become notable down the line. The current alpha version isn't though, in my opinion. --Amalthea 05:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable, per nom. andy (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:WEB at this point, is in no way a website "of historical significance". --Amalthea 19:32, 19 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. Stifle (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis Pattern[edit]

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

This fictional topic does not establish notability independent of Transformers: Cybertron 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, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Simply trivial cruft from what I can see. Relevant information (if there is any) should be in the Cybertron article. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a appropriate small part of this content along with the other minor weaponry and devices and plot elements. None of the arguments in the nomination are reasons for deletion instead of merging. Agreed, this was not the way to write encyclopedia articles, but some of the content is nonetheless mergable. That point seems to be ignored in this batch of nominations. DGG (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly no notability for an independent, encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus (talk) 19:34, 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. Stifle (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Lock[edit]

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

This fictional device does not establish notability independent of Transformers: Cybertron 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, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.  Xihr  01:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivial cruft at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge along with the other minor weaponry and devices and plot elements. None of the arguments in the nomination are reasons for deletion instead of merging. DGG (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Transformers:_Cybertron#Plot which already covers this plot device in enough detail. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 19:34, 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 and create new redirect to Dinobots as vald search term. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Energo sword[edit]

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Transformers 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, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.  Xihr  01:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge along with the other minor weaponry and devices and plot elements. None of the arguments in the nomination are reasons for deletion instead of merging. DGG (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dinobots and merge whatever can be verified. The main article doesn't even mention their weapons. None of the reasons provided explain why it can't be merged or redirected. There is no WP:DEADLINE that requires immediate referencing for fictional elements. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnotable; no grounds for an independent, encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Eusebeus. No sources, no article. Stifle (talk) 23:26, 20 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. Stifle (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wash'n'Roll[edit]

Wash'n'Roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional topic does not establish notability independent of Transformers 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, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Single minor plot line which does not require a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mgm. Eusebeus (talk) 19:35, 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 Transformers:_Armada. Stifle (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hydra-Cannon[edit]

Hydra-Cannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Transformers: Armada 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, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Transformers:_Armada which already includes all the neccesary detail in the context of the series. There's no need for a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect as above. Eusebeus (talk) 19:36, 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. Stifle (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megas (character)[edit]

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Megas XLR 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, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- because this character has no notability beyond the TV series it appears in, any article on it will contain nothing but plot summary and miscellaneous trivia. There is no sourced content to salvage, and other articles about the TV series already contain all the trivia and plot summaries they need, so a merge is not appropriate. The title is not a likely search term, so redirecting it would be pointless. Reyk _YO! 23:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I spun this article out from Megas XLR about 2 and a half years ago for space reasons (frankly I had forgotten about it). It's not going to improve enough to meet the inclusion criteria and the content is crufty detail anyway. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge along with the other minor weaponry and devices and plot elements. None of the arguments in the nomination are reasons for deletion instead of merging. DGG (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that's not quite true. Original research and unsourced statements, at the very least, should be deleted on sight rather than tucked away inside another article. Reyk _YO! 07:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no speedy deletion criterion for fictional elements that would require WP:DEADLINE fix. Making a Wikipedia:Subarticle for the main character of a show is perfectly acceptable. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No sub-article is acceptable unsourced. In the guideline you mentioned there's the "No need for haste" and "Breaking out an unwanted section". There's also the Avoiding unnecessary splits section in WP:SS. Jay32183 (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no independent notability established; no grounds for an encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus (talk) 19:37, 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 Speedy deleted as a... test page, let's call it, created by a now-blocked youthful editor. barneca (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Alex (Sonic the hedgehog)[edit]

Little Alex (Sonic the hedgehog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Not clear if this is supposed to be about "little" Alex Kidd, who already has an article. Content seems to be made-up, although the language is challenging. I did consider redirecting but article editors appear to be very protective of it. Has no notability separately to Alex Kidd (assuming I am correct about this) and if it isn't Alex Kidd seems to be insufficiently notable for WP. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on me for asking others to clean up after me, but I don't close AfD's and can never remember all the steps, and someone who does could fix this quicker than I can read the instructions. I'm going to speedy this; I'd hate to call it vandalism, as it appears I'd hurt a young editor's feelings, so I'll probably call it CSD#IAR, WP:MADEUP. Could someone do the necessaries? --barneca (talk) 00:25, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exosquad planets[edit]

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

This is a trivial grouping of minor elements from Exosquad that does not establish independent notability 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, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- non-notable and original research.  Xihr  01:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep proper and appropriate combination article for minor plot elements. DGG (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It would be too large to include in the main Exosquad article (so it's a valid spin-off Subarticle and it helps prevent fragmentation by creation of multiple short articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT as in-universe cruft. Eusebeus (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Standard spinoff article to keep main article from growing too large. Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. It is not an appropriate combination article because the items are not collectively notable. It is also not an appropriate subarticle, per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, as well as Wikipedia:Subarticle#No need for haste, Wikipedia:Subarticle#Breaking out trivial or controversial sections, and Wikipedia:Subarticle#Breaking out an unwanted section. When content isn't properly sourced it should be removed, not given its own article. Jay32183 (talk) 03:31, 18 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. Stifle (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aryana farshad[edit]

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

not notable; fails WP:BIO, WP:NOTE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. Has not participated in a significant number of productions and has not won any significant awards. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although the amount of work done is very limited, there is one article that indicates some notability. The article is 2 years old and there appears to be no significant development following that. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - 166.191.146.170 (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong KEEP. I have just cleaned up and sourced the article per MOS. The filmmaker is not only an award winner, but she has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, thus meeting the requirements of WP:N. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Extremely weak keep. Michael Q greatly improved the sourcing, and I think it clears the bar for notability, but just by a hair. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Not weak any more. Keep. Well sourced now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Despite the amount of work done by MichaelQSchmidt, there are certain concerns, viz. why don't the award sites ([9], [10]) do not list the awards given; should we consider an award from a nascent film festival with limited focus and coverage notable enough for inclusion; the person seems to have notability among a select community, but should that be considered as sufficient for inclusion into an encyclopedia. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 04:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The subject has been shown to be notable in Iranian cinema. While that may not be quite as much as being notable in Bollywood or Hollywood, it would certainly be equivalent to being notable in French or British cinema. Nobody would claim that either of those is such a "select community" as not to provide notability for wikipedia purposes. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought LeaveSleaves concern to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard where the discussion can be seen HERE. I have also posted it over at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response The Iranian, April 15 2004 speaks highly toward Aryana Farshad and her award-winning films. So does Iran Heritage Foundation, Iranian Hotline, The Persian Mirror, Arab Film, LACMA, Trinity Western University, Film Society HF, 7rooz, Stanford's Persian Student Association, Spirituality & Practice, Mazalien, Asia Society, The Hartley Foundation, ParsTimes, Iranian Psychological Association of America, and many more. I cannot speak toward the Telly or Davey websites not being properly updated, but with all the mention elsewhere toward these two awards, I am content to accept on good faith that the awards were indeed given. As it is, I was able to confirm the screening at the Noor Film Festival and her award there. I will now add these sources as well. With respects, there is really a heck of a lot out there in reliable sources to seal her notability even without the awards. Or do we exclude her because of her culture and ethnicity? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I do not have time at the moment to check out the new refs, but I must add that if you look at my edit record, you'd figure out that your allegations of cultural bias, racial discrimination or even racism couldn't be farther from the truth. Next time, try doing your homework and dig up some solid evidence before making such allegations. Thanks. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ???? There was absolutely no allegation made toward you, as your work across Wikipedia has been impeccable. The article you nominated was then unsourced and full of POV. You did what any good editor would do. I cleaned it up, removed the POV, and sourced the hell out of it... However when another editor then writes "the person seems to have notability among a select community, but should that be considered as sufficient for inclusion into an encyclopedia?", I cringe. The editor at once grants notability but then thows it into question as it seems to be "among a select community". Since the subject was born in Iran and has made a tremendous impact being a female of accomplishment (difficult in that culture), one can immediately see that the "select community" being referred to is the Iranian/Persian community... as shown by most of the references found. THAT is the alleged cultural bias of which I speak... a bias which is no way supported by guideline and an argument which has no place at an AfD. Even the posing of the question itself sends a chill up my spine. Simple fact is Notability is notability and "notability among a select community" should have nothing to do with that determination, no matter how neutral the question. So my apologies to you, and my raised eyebrows at the author of that loaded question. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Re: Schmidt's post to my user talk; I see that you've put a lot of work into the article, but Farshad still does not satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. She was audience choice at a non-notable film festival, and received a non-notable award that's given to thousands of people every year for commercials and non-broadcast video. She hasn't made significant or unique contributions, and she doesn't have a cult following. All she has is coverage by Iranian media and indiscriminate sources on the subject, and even according to IMDB she hasn't done much work. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 13:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• NoteI think WP:Creative is the operative policy since it deals specifically with filmmakers. SERSeanCrane (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In agreement with SERSeanCrane, she passes under WP:Creative, and not WP:Entertainer. She's an acclaimed documentary filmmaker and not a dancer or singer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Just to clarify, (From WP:Creative):

[Regarding] Scientists, academics, ...filmmakers, ...and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. Fail

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Fail

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Weak Pass

The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. Fail

Comment: I am still concerned with the reliability of some of the sources provided. There are a lot of them, though, which is re-assuring. Some things to consider: college/university associations and papers are generally considered poor sources. Also, in the list of sources proffered by MichaelQSchmidt, there is a library entry at Trinity Western University showing that the filmmaker's work is in their collection. Why this matters, I don't know; there are numerous theses/dissertations available at college libraries, but we wouldn't want an article on every phd candidate out there, would we? Also, iranian.com's editorial policy is suspect and I find it hard to consider it reliable: check it out. [[11]] SERSeanCrane (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am gratified that you grant this person passes WP:CREATIVE Any concerns with which sources are weak can be addressed in article improvement after a possible keep. Yes/ No? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Coverage by Iranian media counts for just as much as coverage in any other media for notability purposes. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well sourced and notable according to reliable sources in article. csloat (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject has been shown to have more than enough coverage in reliable sources to pass the general notability guideline, whether or not the awards and nominations confer notability in themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I am inclined to agree with the comments above about the article having been improved. The subject probably meets the notability requirements now. Oh...and thanks for the clarification about the allegations of racism. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I aplogize for any errroneous impressions, and much appreciate you as the nom granting that I have met your concerns inre notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean you are withdrawing the nomination? csloat (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems has has, as he wrote "The subject probably meets the notability requirements now". However, there are still three delete !votes that have not modified thier opinions in light of new sources. Heck... I just found out and added that Prince Charles has funded her latest film... and geting the attention of an English Royal pushes her notability outside the "Iranian Community" just a bit. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he wants to withdraw the nom, I don't think it matters if there are delete votes -- all he needs to do is make a note at the top of the page that the nom is withdrawn and when it is closed it will be closed that way. At least, that's what happened when I withdrew a nom a while back. csloat (talk) 22:59, 20 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 merge to The Five Star Stories. Stifle (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima (FSS)[edit]

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

This fictional species does not establish notability independent of The Five Star Stories 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, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge along with the other minor species. None of the arguments in the nomination are reasons for deletion instead of merging. DGG (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The Five Star Stories 208.245.87.2 (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per DGG. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 00:39, 19 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 merge to The Five Star Stories. Stifle (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mortar Headd[edit]

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of The Five Star Stories 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, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge along with the other minor weaponry and devices and plot elements. None of the arguments in the nomination are reasons for deletion instead of merging. DGG (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The Five Star Stories 208.245.87.2 (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The Five Star Stories. Some of it needs to be covered in the main article (the amount that needs to be merged should be the topic of talk page discussion) and it would result in a useful redirect that is unlikely to be needed by other topics.
• Delete per WP:NOT: completely in-universe, excessively detailed fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 00:42, 19 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 Procedural close. WP:MFD.is the place to nominate this, not here. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 22:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wannabe rockstar/Parka (band)[edit]

User:Wannabe rockstar/Parka (band) (edit | [[Talk:User:Wannabe rockstar/Parka (band)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article on a minor band, unsourced, fails WP:BAND. An admin moved the article to userspace so the author could work on it, but it has languished unchanged since April 2008. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:38, 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 keep. John254 00:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Bridgeland[edit]

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

Non-notable under WP:BIO. Likely to be a case of WP:COI as the top 3 contributors have only edited this article or other articles strictly related to the person. Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and close. A simple news search clearly indicates the person's notability. There are also sufficient references in the article itself to prove the notability. Concerns about COI and/or POV are not to be taken to AfD. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Washington Post and the US President thought this person was notable. If they think so you'll have to come with some extraordinary to the contrary. COI is not a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Flies way over the notability bar. There seems to be an idea amongst some editors that deletion is the solution to every problem. It is not. Where a subject is notable, and there is at least some information in an article worth salvaging, the answer to COI editing is for other editors to review the article for any content that doesn't present a neutral point of view, and edit accordingly, not to delete the whole article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 18 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 and redirect. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 00:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairly Oddparents (pilot)[edit]

The Fairly Oddparents (pilot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Absolutely no secondary sources. Previous "keep" votes from last afd all hinged on the fact that it was a pilot of a very notable cartoon, but I don't see any individual notability for this pilot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While Pilots are often retained as having an implied notability, reliable secondary sources do need to exist for substantiation and the usual restrictions per WP:N apply. Eusebeus (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fairly Oddparents. There's potentially mergeable material in here (provided sources are added) that are missing from the main article. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep As it shows the decidedly different personalities of some of the characters and their relationships from the later series, it is notable in itself. Do I wish the editors had more sources? Yep. Is that sufficient for a deletion or merge? No. Does it stand on its own as a short? Likely yes. Collect (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or very weak redirect Just as non-notable (WP:N) as it was nine months ago, and the closing admin warned that "merges and redirections are likely to follow" if the article doesn't get improved. Google News/Books/Scholar only seems to offer general information about the show, but nothing significant for the pilot. The one current production sentence was paraphrased and merged into the main article (no GFDL issues), where future pilot bits can be mentioned as well if someone should find any. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I support giving grace to pilot episodes, as they are significantly more likely to have secondary sources granting notability. The previous AfD ended with a not-delete result for the aforementioned reason. However, the sources were not provided, now several months later. Therefore, this grace should no longer be extended to this article. The only content perhaps worth retaining would be the bit about the origin of the episode. But I don't see any particular need to retain the history and redirect: someone else can summarize the information in the main article if it's deemed necessary, and so the GFDL is satisfied. I do not anticipate anybody will actually enter The Fairly Oddparents (pilot) in the search bar, so I see no need to retain a redirect. seresin ( ¡? )  06:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect into Fairly Oddparents. Some information is different between the two articles. There doesn't seem to be a reason for this particular pilot to have its own article. However, the information is of value on a sourced subject found elsewhere on Wikipedia. SMSpivey (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only 3% of the article has managed to be referenced in the last 10 months (nor the 9 months since the last AfD), and it has no evidence of having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject to satisfy the notability guideline. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep As per User:Seresin. The last AfD was keep. Not suprisingly, no editor voting to delete has bothered to add any references themselves. travb (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The lack of improvement since the last AFD is telling. Stifle (talk) 23:35, 20 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 Redirected to St. Thomas, Ontario#Education by me. Non-admin close. Reyk _YO! 23:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homdale ps[edit]

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

NN school would normally be redirected to the school district, but this is a misspelling. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 21:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to St. Thomas, Ontario#Education where it is mentioned. Redirects cause less server load than deletions and since someone, presumably connected to the school, misspelt the name, it is obviously a plausible search term. Frankly, rather than causing work for several editors, I would have just boldly redirected the page.TerriersFan (talk) 22:35, 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 keep. This is a prime example of WP:SNOW. Yes, I noticed the non-admin-closure by Ecoleetage (talk · contribs) has been reverted but I do not think that running this AfD through the process is likely to create any other than more keep-!votes. I understand and echo the concerns raised by Collectonian (talk · contribs) but deleting this article will not solve the problem that the sources, which were demonstrated here to exist, are not in the article. Instead everyone participating here should take the time and just add those sources to improve the article and avoid further arguments, as I assume that Collectonian does not want the article deleted out of spite or personal preference. That said, I decided to be bold and close this discussion under WP:SK and WP:SNOW so that we can all concentrate on improving the articles rather than wasting any more time on a discussion where the result is clear even to the nominator. Regards SoWhy 12:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engadget[edit]

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

Unnotable website. Fails WP:WEB and little more than an advertisement for the site. Failed endorsed prod; prod removed by admin under reason of "not promotional, & the Apple stock price story was a major event & there should be multple sources for it." Only so called sources for anything are Engadget itself, which is a blog. Nothing to back claim that it has "won several awards" nor that it meets any WP:N nor WP:WEB. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Engadget has an Alexa traffic rank of 1,445, higher than its rival Gizmodo. This makes Engadget the most popular gadgets blog in the world. It's also been directly involved in enough events and controversies to warrant an article. Pretzels^Talk! 21:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexa ranks are NOT a criteria of notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Second that. Dubidub (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Pretzels on all points.  LinguistAtLarge  21:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of xyr points have any basis in our policies and guidelines, note. So your rationale, as also the rationales of Neurolysis and Dubidub, have no weight at all, in fact. Cite sources to show that this web site, like any other subject here, has been independently documented in depth by identifiable people with reputations for fact checknig and accuracy. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not an in-depth report on Engadget, but it puts Engadget alongside Business Week, USA Today, PC World and CBS News as peers. Could it help reference the article?

      This is the second annual event that ShowStoppers will produce in Berlin at IFA, continuing press activities that began with IFA 2008. During 2008, ShowStoppers co-produced US press panels at the IFA International Press Preview in Majorca. Press panels in Berlin featured journalists and bloggers from Business Week, USA Today, Crunchgear, PC World, CBS News, eWeek, engadget, technologizer, Into Tomorrow and Robert Scoble.

       LinguistAtLarge  04:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here are some more possible sources: Site of the week: Engadget (PC Magazine), Engadget's Ryan Block and Peter Rojas To Team On New Startup (Not about Engadget directly), When blogs get scoops: Engadget and CNET, Engadget Gets Facelift, Gives Gifts, Engadget seeks to regain trust after Apple blunder.  LinguistAtLarge  05:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's one more source: Netbytes: Rapid-fire gadget blogs "More than 100,000 people are in Las Vegas for this week's Consumer Electronics Show, which is the highlight of the year for gadget freaks. But many more people who can't make it will be following the press conferences online at Engadget. Editor-in-chief Ryan Block usually blogs the main events live, with plenty of pictures. It's a hugely popular site. Last year, after it briefly carried an incorrect story about delays to Apple products based on an internal email, Apple's share price dropped by 3%. Not many publications have that sort of power." Now, the sources just have to be added to the article.  LinguistAtLarge  05:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Also agree with Pretzels. — neuro^(talk) 21:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but not solely per above. A simple search in gNews shows that Engadget is frequently referenced by many mainstream print and web media outlets, including coverage of the blog itself (see [12]). Notability is easily established. MuZemike (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost all the Google News hits are links for this site, not about this site. By that argument, my blog is notable too. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. In my example above for instance, if the blog writers are subject-matter experts (in this case search engine optimization), then their may be considered reliable per WP:SPS (provided, of course, they are writing expert-related pieces and not some immature drabbling). MuZemike (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think sources are needed to show that they are, since Google News regularly pulls up very non-WP:RS blogs and forum postings along with real news sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've missed Collectonian's point entirely (although it's good to see that at least one editor is putting in the effort to make a proper case, for which I thank you). The point is that the web pages that xe is seeing don't document the web site. They refer to it. As such, they aren't sources for an encyclopaedia article, because they contain no reliably documented facts about the subject. It is evidence of actual sources that is required here. Citing just two independent sources that document this web site in depth — its history, ownership, purpose, and so forth — would do. The article currently has none, the nominator has clearly made an effort to look for some on Google News and come up with none, and no-one here opining keep has cited a single one. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Huh? This is clearly a very notable website. Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An opinion of speedy keep requires the most supporting evidence, not the least as you have given here. It has to show that the nominator is acting in bad faith, for starters. A bare assertion that something should be speedily kept is actually the opposite of that. A nominator who has looked at the independent of the sources, and looked at what can (or cannot) be found by Google News, is clearly acting in good faith, and puttnig the project policies and guidelines into practice. I recommend that you follow the nominator's good example. Put policy into practice and make an argument that actually holds water with respect to Wikipedia:Deletion policy: cite multiple in-depth independent reliable sources to show that a properly sourced neutral article can be written and maintained. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No where in WP:SK does it say that the nominator has to be acting in bad faith. When the nomination has a snowball's chance in hell, that's grounds for Speedy Keep. And I'm amazed how frequently editors push WP:RS with total disregard for WP:UCS. I don't even read Engadget and I know it's a very notable website. I dread the day when Wikipedia gets so uptight that someone's gonna want "1 + 1 = 2" cited by a verifiable, reliable, independent source. And that's not an "if", that's a "when". --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:WEB. Certainly on point 3, possibly on 1. (Since I'd be suprised if they haven't won some sort of major award at some point). Bfigura ^(talk) 23:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-admin closure by Ecoleetage reverted by me, on the grounds that 2 hours of AFD discussion is not enough, especially since there are outstanding unanswered requests for sources in the discussion (to which I've added some more), and that there is no grounds for speedy keep given that the nomination is clearly a good faith one. Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]
• Strong and speedy keep The reversion of the NAC was inappropriate. No one accused this of being a bad faith nomination, so the assertion questioning the value of the nomination is silly. Anyone who reads the article will see this site is owned by Time Warner, one of the world's most important and influential media giants -- this is not some middle school student's blog, but a significant web source by a significant company. Problems with references can be fixed in editing -- that is not the purpose of AfD. The site's influence within its sector has already been affirmed by the previous Keep !votes in this section, and attempts at speedy deletion and prodding were already swatted away. This article is on a one-way trip to preservation -- whether it is closed in two hours or two weeks, notability is affirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the AfD opened at 21:04 on 16 December and was closed as a non-admin closure at 02:52 on 17 December. How did that become two hours? Ecoleetage (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Speedy keep is not limited to bad faith (its numbered criteria are introduced with "include", not "are limited to") and explicitly references WP:SNOW, which is obviously applicable. There is a consensus. The fact that it's been reached in hours not days indicates the strength of that consensus. Bongomatic 03:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Agree with all of the above. Johnfos (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This easily passes WP:RS and WP:N. It has ample coverage in multiple third party sources. This should have been closed already. Undead Warrior (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• For the record, Uncle G is correct about what is required for a "speedy keep". As for the call for third-party reliable sources, here goes:

  Sources that discuss the subject in at least some depth include:

  • an article in Forbes
  • an article in Wired
  • an article in Macworld
  • (not online) Collins, John. "Blog of the week www.engadget.com", Irish Times, 2007-05-25, p. 7.
  • No byline. "Internet site of the week", Bangkok Post, 2005-08-31.
  • Copeland, Michael V. (2007-11-12). "The blogs of war", Fortune, 156 (10): 22. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Paul but Uncle G is 100% wrong because he stated the NAC was inappropriate "on the grounds that 2 hours of AFD discussion is not enough" -- either Uncle G needs a new wristwatch or he is using WP:IAR in regard to the basics of telling time! LOL. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Extreme KEEP as the now proffered sources show the article meets all requirements of WP:N and the website surpasses the requirements of WP:WEB. With the greatest respects to Collectonion, whose works I admire, this article is a keeper. Again, and with respects, I recommend an early closure to this AfD as WP:Snow. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, not a single one of those proffered sources are in the article itself, and somehow I suspect that when it gets its snow closure, they will still not be there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:14, 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 Redirected NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOLED[edit]

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

Subject already covered in Organic light-emitting diode I do not believe the subject merits a separate article Dubidub (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is Articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is along the hall. Uncle G (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not necessary to merge the two articles since the SOLED article does not add to what is already covered in the OLED article. Dubidub (talk) 21:22, 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. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Red Rose[edit]

A Red Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nothing notable about it TheXenocide (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as crystalballery. MuZemike (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in total agreement with the nom. No assertion of notability. No sources. Complete prognostication. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete minor film yet to be made, no notable participants even. Note - the Swedish Wikipedia does not have an article on this. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:00, 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. Stifle (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Purdy[edit]

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

Non notable actor. Article apparently fails WP:BIO and WP:N. No additional verified career information since 'notable' role in 2001 short film (as per IMDb EL). Snowy 1973 (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non notable who fails WP:BIO etc. I can't see the previously deleted version but I doubt there is much stopping this as removed as a repost. Nuttah (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 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. Stifle (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution (Moth song)[edit]

Revolution (Moth song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I See Sound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-charting songs, no sources outside YouTube. Nothing to merge/redirect, really, as it's all unsourced, and the qualifier makes the Revolution song an unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability whatsoever, and I can't find any reliable sources which either talk about the song itself or any charting evidence either. Raven1977 (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 10:52, 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 keep. John254 00:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger Than My Imagination[edit]

Bigger Than My Imagination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Battle Cry: Worship from the Frontlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)

Just a track listing, and unlikely to be anything more. No assertion of notability beyond "it exists"; no independent coverage. -- Mark Chovain 20:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added a second album - same story.-- Mark Chovain 20:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand Albums are by notable artists, and while that doesn't inherently make them notable, there do seem to be a couple sources for these, at least. Start with the reviews in the infoboxen, those should be good ways to expand. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep An officially released album from a notable artist is enough to have its own article. Rtyq2 (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#Albums, there were 2 reviews from reliable sources pre nomination.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 10:50, 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 Speedy close No reason to delete given. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bermudadreieck[edit]

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

See disk page of article DaSch (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an actual reason to delete this? Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Close Close and take it to pages that needs translation and the Cleanup part The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"short stub, less information, orphan, misstranslation from de.wp" --DaSch (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there is nobody who would take care of this article and I do not want to. --DaSch (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those is a reason to delete the article, if it's a place that really exists. If the place doesn't exist at all, that would be a reason to delete; if the article can't be improved, that might be a reason to redirect it somewhere else; if the information is inaccurate that's a reason to list it for cleanup. But Wikipedia doesn't delete things just because they're stubs. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snoop Dogg Presents Christmas In Tha Dogg House[edit]

Snoop Dogg Presents Christmas In Tha Dogg House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL violation that has been copied from someone's blog. If this page is deleted, Snoop dogg presents christmas in tha dogghouse' should follow per CSD G8 (R1). It was a page of basically the same content that I redirected to this one. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 19:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 (and the associated redirect unless a substantial revision occurs) or convert to a redirect with possibilites.Synchronism (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as copyvio found by CorenSearchBot.  LinguistAtLarge  19:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• G12 per CorenBot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable release, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as copyvio.  Xihr  01:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The above comments don't apply to the current articlek, since the album is no longer crystal or copyvio,
• Keep: The album has been released (WP:CRYSTAL no longer applies) and I've tidied the article and added a reliable source. --JD554 (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete oh god we can't keep this. JBsupreme (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bearing in my that this is not a vote, what are your reasons for not wanting this kept? What Wikipedia policies/guidelines does it not meet? --JD554 (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not copyvio or crystal and the release has already been covered by exclaim!, Ananova, MTV, Seattle Times, Newsroom America etc. etc. It'll probably pick up some reviews once the hacks come back from turkey-eating. 86.44.26.72 (talk) 19:35, 20 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. Stifle (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?[edit]

The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is a paragraph-length mention in US News and World Report, and a brief TV interview, really enough to support this article? *** Crotalus *** 19:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: I feel that it easily meets WP:N. US News and World Report is one of the leading news weeklies in the US, and an article mention from that, combined with a mention on Fox News should be more than enough with regards to sources. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a mention on Fox News"? Being unaware of WP:BK doesn't make for a convincing argument. --dab (𒁳) 12:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to Tony Blankley pending substantiation of WP:BK. --dab (𒁳) 12:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is nothing in policy that has set a minimum number of sources. The two cited are more than enough to verify the book exists and that it is notable enough to garner attention from national media. What more do you want? 23skidoo (talk) 13:12, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Labor day celebrations[edit]

Labor day celebrations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list of festivals that happen to occur on Labor Day. hbent (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a great resource for people trying to find Labor Day events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.175.83 (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Actually has potential, and is all of a week old. By the way, it is common for festivals to be held quite specifically on Labor Day. Give it six months anyway. Collect (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it is a directory of links of festivals. The non festival information is a bad cut and paste out of teh Labor Day article. The only potential I see is for it to grow into a large link farm -- Whpq (talk) 12:09, 19 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 - article has been significantly improved whilst it is at AFD - nice work. (Early close) Nancy ^talk 10:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Louisa Martindale[edit]

Dr Louisa Martindale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a MD who also received the CBE for her medical work (and also Fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians & the Royal Society of Medicine) and with three published books, is certainly notable. ( The article is excessively detailed, concentrating upon the relatively unimportant details of her personal life, and not her professional accomplishments, but that can and will be fixed by editing. Though one of the sources seem to be family bio, there are at least 2 other good secondary sources. I am not sure of the rationale behind this nomination. I moved it per MOOS to Louisa Matindale. DGG (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG, although I would note a possible COI in that one of those secondary sources was apparently written by the original author of the article, User:Val Brown. JulesH (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--that COI is there, sure, but it is minor, IMO, and does not take away from the subject's notability. I took DGG's cue and edited some. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Per DGG. — neuro^(talk) 22:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Clearly I am in the minority on this one. What I read in this article is basically: "She was born, she worked, she wrote some books." It may be notable that a woman was awarded the CBE, but this is not even mentioned in the article other than as a set of letters after her name. If there is notability here, the article needs a COMPLETE rewrite to prove it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, minority, maybe. I'll grant you that it was not a well-written article, and not footnoted, but CBE, and books, and female surgeon, that makes googling her real easy, and it did not take me long to dig up a considerable number of books. But it's heavily rewritten now, and the references are there to prove her notability, I believe. I'm glad your AfD brought this article to my attention; I'm going to read her autobiography. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep — While there is a clear conflict of interest, as long as no questionable behavior is occurring as a result, it's OK. The book he wrote would qualify as a reliable source; however, there needs to be more out there. MuZemike (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• MuZemike, what book? it's her book, and she wrote a half a dozen. As for COI, sure, her biographer got this started, but there's plenty out there (just go look for yourself). Now, questionable behavior, I don't know...Martindale was a lesbian...were you thinking hanky-panky kind of questionable? Drmies (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I was referring to the book written by Brown (who is also editing this article). I also doubt there is any hanky-panky going on regarding someone who has been dead for over 40 years. MuZemike (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per DGG and others above. Well-sourced, sufficient coverage to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Wojtczak (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple sources unrelated to the subject and the CBE give it notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No issue about notability as shown above. This is pretty clear-cut. Collect (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per the research I did when writing Eleanor Davies-Colley, female surgeons were very rare at that time, and this article is therefore important in the history of British surgery. She has an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and I expect many other references will exist which are not available online. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this is kept, then it ought to be renamed to lose the academic title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's already been moved. The reason for the odd title is that this Louisa Martindale's mother, of the same name, is also notable, but the article on her (if there ever was one) seems to have been deleted somewhere along the line. If anyone can find the other deleted article, it should probably be reinstated as she also has an ODNB entry. I fear I don't have time to work on this now. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Val Brown also created an article at Mrs Louisa Martindale which was speedy deleted; I assumed it was a previous version of this one, but that may be the article you're looking for. JulesH (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, JulesH. I've recreated the article at Louisa Martindale (feminist) and tidied it up a bit. I'll notify the creator. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:34, 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. Stifle (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Cooper[edit]

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

I have doubts about this person's notability, WP:Notability (people), and think that it may be promotional, particularly since (a) the article indirectly purports to have been written by the person who is its topic (because the metadata provided with the image of the movie poster says so) and (b) her crowning achievement appears to have been her appearance in the film "Hidden", which by the article's acknowledgment was small and, indeed, while the co-star Harri Kettumäki is listed in IMDB, this film isn't. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete possible hoax, and unverifiable at any rate; I have been unable to verify that the TV drama "Hidden" was nominated for the award identified in the article. See google search of Royal Television Society's web site here. Nominations are listed on the pages for each year of awards, but I can find no trace of this show. Also no results relevant to it in first three pages of UK-specific google search for the title and words "TV drama". Also don't seem to be able to find anything in a search for "hidden drama tampere finland" (without quotes), using the location of shooting given by the personal web site. As of this message, her personal web site shows a counter suggesting it has only been viewed 80 times, so was quite possibly set up very recently. JulesH (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a Hoax. Couldn't find anything to verify it or Hidden and the imdb link on the personal website just goes to to the main page. —Sandahl 20:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• G3 Blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy as this isn't obvious enough of a hoax. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Re-Write There seems to be the info out there from a basic google search, but this needs an extensive re-write and some external sources cited. [User:TorstenGuise|TorstenGuise]] (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you provide some specific information? Thus far my experience is that there isn't any pertinent information to be found via Google. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails significant coverage criteria. She is just not discussed enough by independent sources. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Even if it is not a Hoax, the subject seems to be a NN actress, who has appeared in a film, which (despite nomination for an award) has no article. At best it is an advert. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 20 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 Bold redirect by me. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Without Wings (live version)[edit]

Flying Without Wings (live version) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Merely a live version of Flying Without Wings, not notable and can be mentioned on the main Flying Without Wings article Pyrrhus16 (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Be bold and redirect it. Lugnuts (talk) 19:03, 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 redirect to So You Think You Can Dance (Season 4) finalists. Nothing changes since previous AFD, so I'm closing this as a redirect as per common practice, anything worth mentioning like the injury can be merged. Mgm|^(talk) 13:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica King[edit]

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

Nothing has changed since the previous nomination. Nothing in this article couldn't suffice in So You Think You Can Dance (Season 4) finalists; the only notability the article suggests is that, unlike other contestants, she was injured. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 16:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:BLP1E. Nothing this person has done is notable outside of the show, so by Wikipedia policy and convention, she deserves nothing more than a mention on the related show's page. Delete is clear in this case. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Losing contestants on reality shows are not generally notable & there's nothing else here. DGG (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and everyone else. Hasn't done anything notable outside of the show. SKS2K6 (talk) 06:03, 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. Stifle (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything but Mine[edit]

Everything but Mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, uncharted: fails WP:NSONGS. —Kww(talk) 17:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to album, fails WP:SONGS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect as above. Not independently notable per WP:SONG. Eusebeus (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable release, as per WP:SONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 00:04, 18 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. Stifle (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seregon O'Dassey[edit]

Seregon O'Dassey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Actress without major roles or press buzz. Gsearch not showing notability; gnews gives just two passing mentions. IMDb lists only bit parts (the "lead role" in Ghostwatcher 2 was listed 10th in the actor listing for the film at IMDb.) Autobiography issues don't help. Prod contested by subject of article. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per WPBIO. --fvw* 16:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnotable living subject, and badly written (the latter can be fixed, but it raises concerns about who wrote it (could she have wrote it herself?)We know she wrote this herself). ~-F.S-~(Talk,Contribs,Online?) 16:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's claiming on the article talk page that she's letting others use her wikipedia account. I've added a note saying this isn't a good idea, but I'm not seeing the relevant policy page to point her to. Anyone remember where it's at?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:BIO as far as I can see. COI as well. — neuro^(talk) 17:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ENTERTAINER.—Sandahl 20:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problems in letting my publicist do her job; it's what I pay her to do. However if it is against the rules I will have her write something from her own account. I understand I'm not Jennifer Aniston or the like, but please remember at one time in her life she was fighting for credibility too. If one does a bit of research they will find that there is more to me than 4 or 5 credits on one little movie website. In addition, I have 2 (possibly 3-funds pending) films shooting this spring, and for some reason I can't get False Face listed on imdb. However, I believe after 13 years and many published magazines, I've earned a little bit of notoriety. And NO, it doesn't matter what anyone says, I did NOT write the article myself. I will inform those who want to write an article from now on to not copy what is on my website. I apologize for that. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeregonODassey (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have your publicist read WP:COI before writing anything on Wikipedia.

Any chance you can provide some online links to some of the published magazines about you?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Online links to some of the published magazine articles about her are as follows: http://www.topix.com/content/trb/2008/07/false-face-star-seregon-odassey-hopes-her-indie-horror-flick-goes-far http://www.screamqueen.com/04-06.shtml http://maverickmag.com/Seregon_ODassey_from_New_York_New_York__633603285777893856_model.htm http://bluedressmovie.com/2008/10/seregon-odassey/ http://www.ozami.net/forums/showthread.php?p=126766 http://store.vampirella.com/vamcommag6li1.html

Credits to her name in previous movies:

http://www.reelzchannel.com/person/122514/seregon-odassey http://www.netflix.com/RoleDisplay/Seregon_O_Dassey/30035361 http://www.dvdempire.com/exec/v4_list_cast.asp?userid=-1&cast_id=317082&site_id=4&site_media_id=0 http://www.moviesunlimited.com/musite/findresults_actor.asp?search=Seregon+O%27Dassey http://videoeta.com/movie/75874 http://hollywood.premiere.com/video/movies/Ghostwatcher_2/#34156 http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/moviepit/search/g

The above indicated websites prove that Seregon is a credited actress-well enough that should you search her name- these sites identify and sell distributed movies that she has been credited on. These websites could not have been written by her nor her publicist. Their information is presented based on the credit listings of the particular film. Therefore, she has been credited by the FILMMAKERS accordingly. If a filmmaker specifies a credit to her, how can Wikipedia determine these were 'bit parts?' Obviously the filmmakers titled her differently than Wikipedia believes. There are many articles that prove she has press buzz. She has been in many highly public magazines to include Stuff, Playboy, and Maxim- in which she was within the top 100 women in 2004 and 2005. Also she has interviewed with Angry Princess, 411, Dark Walls, Expulsion, and Backstage Magazine, to name a few, all internationally published magazines are available on backorder only and not available online. Her television roles include the History Channel, One Life to Live, Law and Order and Sex in the City (and that's not even the complete list!). I know she did not write the article, and know that she deserves the credit as indicated by the sites I mentioned as well as the article related to her. Seregon and I have known each other for two years now. We are both actresses who work very hard to get the credits and recognition that we have. Seregon has been a wonderful person to me and other associates that we have in common. I have requested for her to consider a role in a project I am working on for next year. She has agreed and we are working on obtaining the necessary rights to proceed and release it on the Writer's Guild. I feel that these are plenty reasons for this debate to be discontinued and the article to remain. I am not sure what Wikipedia considers 'major roles' considering everyone has to start somewhere, but am clearly disturbed that whomever the mediators are, appear to make their decision based on interpretation of select websites and further slandered her name by insinuating she wrote the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyj624 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional information for your review: http://www.screamqueen.com/04-06.shtml

Add: Horror actress Seregon O'Dassey. Ghostwatcher 2; False Face; Teeth of Beasts (post production); False Face 2 (pre-production); Vampyre (pre-production, http://medicineshowcinema.squarespace.com/); Vampirella Magazine August 2004 "Luna Chick" pages 35 and 50; Playboy "Employee of the Month" April 2006, page 18; Fangoria Magazine page 23.

http://store.vampirella.com/vamcommag6li1.html

http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/ghostwatcher2.php

http://pipl.com/directory/tags/Horror%2520Movies%2520Bloody%2520Disgusting.com

http://www.aeolia.net/playboy/pb-o.htm

http://www.ajwcelebrityservices.com/Female_Celebrity_Roster.html

http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0374201/maindetails

http://www.topix.com/content/trb/2008/07/false-face-star-seregon-odassey-hopes-her-indie-horror-flick-goes-far —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyj624 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am the enchanting wizard of rhythm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wochende (talk • contribs) 15:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... Theserialcomma (talk) 03:36, 20 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. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article since then in the light of additional references. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vals[edit]

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

Doesn't fulfil WP:MUSIC criteria. --fvw* 16:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: article fails to establish notability, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• There are at least two articles about this band in The Belfast Telegraph, one of which was already cited, and another I added to the article just now. Keep, since the band meets WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, plus there's a bit of conflict of interest to boot.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:54, 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 Speedy keep - article has been improved, nom has withdrawn Nancy ^talk 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every Young Man's Battle[edit]

Every Young Man's Battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability. No real claim to notability either, but references to the "success" of its predecessor and the fact there was a "spin-off" makes me inclined to think it may have been successful and therefore notability may be demonstrable. Dweller (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Should be marked as unreferenced not AfD. gnews "Every Young Man's Battle".  LinguistAtLarge  16:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Changed speedy keep to keep, because it was pointed out that I was misusing speedy keep.  LinguistAtLarge  16:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Reviews by the Rolling Stone – Atlanta Journal – and Boston Globe, to name a few and shown here [13], does tend to give credence to Notability. Also ranked at #69, for its genre at Amazon.com, which is impressive. I’ll cite the Rolling Stone’s article in the piece and see what happens. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added two more references as well.  LinguistAtLarge  16:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator requests speedy close. Article now well verified. A good result, thanks all. --Dweller (talk) 16:55, 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 redirect to Four square. Anyone wishing to merge can find the content in the page history. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two square[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Some game made up by some kid in some school somewhere. About as notable as I am. Delete. role^player 15:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Smerge and Redirct to Four square as a derivative of that game. --Pmedema (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Four square and Redirect to Four square. I have heard of the game before, and it is a somewhat popular alternative to four square if I am not mistaken. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 19:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Two square is also missing citations, and those will be needed. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 19:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I played this a lot in 4th grade with my friends. Jonathan321 (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—This is not a valid keep rationale. Someone somewhere had to play this game for them to think of creating the article, but this does not necessarily mean that it meets the inclusion criteria at all. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 00:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a variant of four square, so it lives on the Four square regional page now.--Sean Effel (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as the consensus has both determined the notability of the subject and provided reliable sources verifying this notability. The article will benefit from editing and the addition of this new information. Regarding COI, User:Paul Boutin has been inactive on Wikipedia for over two years. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Boutin (journalist)[edit]

Paul Boutin (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable writer; unsourced claims with "footnotes" to entire books; COI editing by one or more accounts believed to be the subject. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Failed PROD removed by admin with note: "sufficiently notable journalist==exact sources would help." Procedural nom - reasons listed are those from original prod. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If he meets notability standards per WP:BIO, there is no need to meet the secondary criteria in WP:CREATIVE. In my opinion he is notable per WP:BIO basic criteria. See: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]  LinguistAtLarge  15:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In-depth interview on NPR as shown here [19]. Looked to as expert as shown here [20]. I believe he meets our guidelines for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Regarding COI are we reading the same guidelines? First, it does not say anywhere it is prohibited. As long as the piece it is written in a NPOV position, no problem. Second, COI is not a valid reason for deletion of an article. However, if I have misread the guideline I apologize and would ask that you point me to the area I overlooked. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Linguist and Shoessss. Not much more to say, I agree with them. — neuro^(talk) 17:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficient sources. Collectonian actually proposed this for speedy as A7; Orange Mike changed it to a prod, which I removed, because i thought it would pass here. DGG (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Provided the refs in here are copied to the article (either as ref or in further reading). Also "unsourced claims with "footnotes" to entire books" is a contrast in terms. Something that is unsourced cannot have footnotes to a book, the mere fact of pointing to a book, means it's supposed to be a source. The idea that they didn't mention a page number is hardly a reason for deletion and can be fixed by editing. Heck, we could even ask Cory Doctorow for the exact page number if we have to. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:43, 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 keep. John254 00:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bangpakok Wittayakom School[edit]

Bangpakok Wittayakom School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This place is not notable to be added in encyclopedia the page should be deleted BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 15:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. Most schools are inherently notable. Wikipedia:IHN, Wikipedia:Notability (Buildings, structures, and landmarks), Wikipedia:Notability (Schools).  LinguistAtLarge  15:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. We consider all secondary schools to be notable. This one will have greater difficulties in sourcing than any others, but that is just cultural bias. DGG (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (Schools) has not been accepted as a guideline, and a brief search of education-related news sources only returns results mentioning the school as part of yearly admission statistics reports. (This year 1,503 students applied for admission in the Mathayom 1 level, the twenty-second-highest among governmental schools.) I don't think of the school as being very well-known, but it is a large school nonetheless, with over 3,000 students. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 18:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am adding a major competition win from here. This is a major school with over 3,000 students that is over-subscribed and that educates to age 18. It is not surprising that a Thai school is not well represented on the internet in English. However, we must avoid systemic bias and this is a case where we should await the finding local sources. TerriersFan (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TerriersFan. Winning a national state-organized competition makes the school notable and it is likely more sources can be found in Thai. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Secondary schools are inherently notable and other editors have shown this is more notable than average. Edward321 (talk) 01:09, 19 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Banpresto original characters[edit]

Supporting Banpresto original characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An unreferenced list with characters from Super Robot Wars. The main article is already deleted and all the other elements of "Banpresto Originals" that were nominated, were all deleted. According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Robot Wars F Originals is may be also a speedy delete candidate under G8. Magioladitis (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An informative combination article of the sort that should be strongly encouraged. If similar articles were deleted, then fortunately we don't go by precedent, and we can recreate those also. WEDIDITIBEFORE is not an aguement. We've done many wrong things before. Can be sourced from the primary work. No other reason given for deletion.DGG (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — this is nothing but original research and a textbook example of the C-word. MuZemike (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's trivial cruft at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Original research can be cut out. The combination: character, nickname, voice actor is easily verifiable and encyclopedic. The same should have been applied to the other combo list. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to remind you that this is a video game we are talking about but I am also not sure which one! How do we know that this characters "are thew original characters were created by Banpresto"? Any reference for that? Also if you read the list you'll see that these characters are mainly NPCs! -- Magioladitis (talk)

• Delete: What we've done before is relevant as our actual practice, which is documented in guidelines such as WP:NOT and WP:N. And our common practice suggests a consensus that articles like this do not belong, because they lack reliable third-party sources, and because they're written entirely from an in-universe perspective beyond what is required for a concise summary of the game's plot. Even on a gut level, a bunch of supporting or minor characters is probably not notable. If we didn't have a notability guideline, it's articles like these that would inspire one. Randomran (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Randomran. No reliable sources = no article. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 21 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. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creat profile[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:BIO for athletes. --fvw* 13:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looks like a test page, from the title. But yes, the content does not relate to a notable individual. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Seems to be related to Zlatko Kartal who is as far as I can tell is a non-notable amateur athlete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raitchison (talk • contribs) 16:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Test page, and even if not, the subject is non notable. — neuro^(talk) 17:26, 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. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctorate in Economics, Management and Organization (DEMO)[edit]

Doctorate in Economics, Management and Organization (DEMO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A cooperation between universities for doctorates is not inherently notable, and I don't see anything that says this one is. --fvw* 12:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any evidence of third-party sources writing about this program, other than trivial mentions. Furthermore, external links in article make it look like an advert; if it weren't an advert, why would we care about the campuses of the universities involved? Delete unless some references can be found. JulesH (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable and of no discernable encyclopedic value. One of literally millions of educational courses available worldwide. andy (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per andy. Information can be preserved by incorporating it in the respective university articles and more general degree program articles, but a stand-alone article is unjustified. --Zlerman (talk) 14:43, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go Faster Stripe[edit]

Go Faster Stripe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, self-promotional. Doesn't meet WP:CORP. No sources. Graymornings_(talk) 12:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "sources" are required to make you and "community" happy? if you remove a page like this surely you would have to remove all film companies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riker666 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry forgot to sign, this is my first ever page creation, I should add that I have nothing to do with Go Faster just bought most of their Richard Herring DVDs Riker666 (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability is asserted or demonstrated. Searching also yields no independent, third-party, reliable sources. This fails WP:CORP and WP:N. There are several notable people associated with the corporation (according to the article) but I am not aware of any Wikipedia guidelines that indicate this confers notability on the company. There is nothing to indicate this article meets the inclusion criteria, so it should be deleted. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. Please keep entries like this, they are noteworthy and I leart more about them from reading the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.44.55 (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Go Faster Stripe are a notable organisation worthy of an entry within Wikipedia. They provide an excellent record of the works of some of the UK's most notable comics, whose works might otherwise be lost. I consider my DVD collection to have been significantly enhanced by Go Faster Stripes commitment to less commercial comedians, whose work is highly respected amongst their colleagues but less well known and less appealing to the general public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillHE (talk • contribs) 19:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment to visitors who may have heard about this discussion via a forum or mailing list. This is not a vote. Comments like the above two are unhelpful. If you would like to save the article, please find references to the company in reliable sources (online newspapers, etc.) The JPS^{talk to me} 19:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There would seem to be no mentions of this company in the mainstream media, therefore I can only conclude that it fails to meet both WP:CORP and WP:N. --bigissue (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a young article, and there are references. The influential British comedy website Chortle has dedicated an article to them. [21] Ghits for '"Go Faster Stripe"' + comedy is pretty impressive. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletel. All I found was that one Chortle page (besides ads)--and I dug through a dozen pages of search hits for "Go Faster Stripe." So, no references, only reference. That means that the "sources" required by this "community" are not up to snuff--regardless of the disdain expressed by some for this "community." Drmies (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. "- from WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riker666 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "Salford set for Sinha" only mentions the company in passing; "Go Faster Stripe are very good indeed" is a blog (maybe a good one, but it's still a blog); "Go Faster Stripe" is an entirely local (Cardiff) blog; this leaves two Chortle articles. That's not much. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anons shot themselves in the foot, really, by the comments you quote. Normally that would be ammunition for me. Yes, blogs aren't acceptable. Still, two Chortle articles. Give it a chance... The JPS^{talk to me} 21:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I don't even mind that so much. I'm a teacher, I hear that sort of stuff all the time... If there were anything besides those two, there might be a better case for me, esp. since the two articles are really not substantially different. Can you dig anything else up? I was unable to. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What reference from websites would you expect to be on this page other than the list of comedians that have products on there, for example I had a look at the Music For Nations page, an independent record company that do not exist anymore and went under before the web really kicked off, there is just a roster which is what I would expect to find surely this page is the same, and independent filmmaker with a list of its products? Riker666 (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more references that have been printed in reliable sources the better, especially where GFS is the primary subject. The two Chortle articles are good (even if they are similar, there are two of them). As for other articles you find, we have a guideline: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for above info, who now decides whether this page goes or stays does one person do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riker666 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A neutral administrator (who has not been involved in the discussion or the page) will look at this discussion and make the decision. The future looks bleak... keep looking for sources! The JPS^{talk to me} 21:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many references do I need to find? I've just added 2 more that I think are from reliable sources (NOT BBC, Groggy Squirrel) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riker666 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Refs certainly improve the article but it would be better still if they were focused on the subject rather than the acts. GFS get nothing more than a passing mention in many of the ones that have been added, so they do not really add value. Quality not quantity is what is required. The tone of the article could do with addressing – needs to be more encyclopaedic. What kind of compromise would artists need to make otherwise and why? Sounds like PR speak to me. History section reads like a blog. --bigissue (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but it does need some serious editing!--Kid Robbo (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have cleaned up the lead section and formatted the refs, removing a couple that added no value and one dead link. However, I still have serious doubts as to the notability of the company as media coverage is generally incidental, i.e. articles about acts mentioning they have a DVD produced by GFS. Go Faster Stripe has not been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources", therefore fails WP:CORP. --bigissue (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — article now looks like establishes notability via multiple independent sources. MuZemike (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent a not insignificant amount of time trying to improve the article and the simple fact is, this is a non-notable company. They have produced less than 15 DVDs, none of which are available through any major (or minor) retailers. In addition, I believe that the sources are insufficient for WP:CORP. Therefore the article should be deleted. --bigissue (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. Just a minor correction: it seems four DVDs are available through amazon.co.uk [22] The JPS^{talk to me} 09:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have been clear – I meant highstreet, walk in, pick it up off the shelves retailers. bigissue (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As they are primarily an internet mail order company you are not likely to pick them up the high street, by that definition items from artsits that are internet only should be removed from the wiki if I cant buy them in HMV?86.20.188.219 (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as improved. Stifle (talk) 00:37, 21 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 (non-admin closure) per WP:SNOW. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Lintsen[edit]

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

Non-notable Dutch professor. No significant publications outside minor scholarly works. No sources. Graymornings_(talk) 11:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, probably speedy. --fvw* 11:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Full professor at Eindhoven University of Technology, a major school--I think the major engineering School in its country. Three published book, a number of articles. An authority in his field, meeting WP:PROF. A scholar is notable precisely because he publishes scholarly works. Furthermore, he is a member of his countries national academy; I am not sure we give the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNWA) the same standing as the Royal Society--if we do, it's an automatic pass; even if not, it's a very major factor in notability. So is being founder of a national level professional organization, and the award from the government. DGG (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, mostly per DGG. Article meets WP:PROF with the professor publishing many academic articles and papers. MuZemike (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject demonstrably meets WP:PROF and WP:N in general. — neuro^(talk) 22:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep By the authority vested in me by a computer and internet connection, and in the interest of countering anti-Dutch bias, and under WP:PROF #3, I declare that membership in the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences should give an automatic pass, just like fellowship in the Royal Society. With only 200 members under 65, 110 in the sciences, it is if anything more selective.John Z (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a Dutchman, my appreciation to John Z. I agree with him about the Academy membership and with DGG about Eindhoven University being one of the two leading technological universities in The Netherlands (the other one being Delft University). The article needs some cleanup and some more references (especially for the "Companion in the Order of Orange-Nassau", I have no clue what a "companion" is in this connection, although the order is well known). I think I have seen a large review of one of his technological history of The Nethrlands book series in a major Dutch newspaper, but have no time to search for it right now. Still, should be easy to find more references online (I added 2 to the article), after all, the guy's in a technological field!
• Keep. Agree with John Z regarding membership in the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences being enough to meet WP:PROF criterion #3.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As noted above, membership Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences may already be sufficient to pass criterion 3 of WP:PROF, but even if not, there is enough here to satisfy criterion 1 of WP:PROF (for which the academy membership is a significant contributing factor). Nsk92 (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Now that the refs are there and the article's more encyclopedic, I can see why this subject is indeed notable. I say keep it. By the way, John Z, I'm not sure there's any "anti-Dutch bias" on Wikipedia. I definitely don't have any - I've personally loved many a Dutchman. ;-) Graymornings_(talk) 02:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I was only 99% serious. Maybe a little less. :-).John Z (talk) 04:50, 19 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. Stifle (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aisake Ó hAilpín[edit]

Aisake Ó hAilpín (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to have failed WP:Athlete at the time of article creation and certainly does now as subject did not compete at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. Having now been de-listed from the Carlton Football club even though he was elevated to the senior list,he has not played a senior game. --VS ^talk 10:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. A good example of why crystal-ballery when creating articles on sportspersons is a poor idea, particularly in the light of the rash of articles about not-yet notable Australian rules footballers picked up in the 2008 AFL Draft. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: satisfies primary notability criteria by being the subject of an hour-long documentary about him & his brother aired on a major TV station. Don't know enough about Gaelic sports to say if achievements there were notable. The-Pope (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Concerning his wider notability, his inclusion in the family documentary confirms his relationship with his notable footballing brothers, but I don't think sufficiently elevates his own claims. Murtoa (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable for being the subject of a documentary that has aired on TV. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Without sounding cute, it was his family that was the subject of the documentary, not Aisake. His status in the documentary was as as a brother of notable sporting identities, who was an AFL wannabe in his own right. His own AFL career has subsequently not come to fruition. Does that make him notable? Murtoa (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, perhaps "a subject of..." would have been a better choice of words. From the brief bits of watched on Youtube, Aisake is covered reasonably in-depth, and I wouldn't say that the attention he got was trivial. It should also be noted that the documentary in question won an IFTA award, before anyone plays the "non-notable documentary" card. There is also ample secondary coverage of this person. It is my opinion that this one just falls over the line. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:10, 19 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. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Benjamin[edit]

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

Failed WP:Athlete before at the time of creation and certainly does now as subject did not compete at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. Having now been de-listed from the Carlton Football club his two seasons with the club were interrupted by injuries and he did not play a senior game. --VS ^talk 10:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fairly obvious decision Aspirex (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --VS ^talk 23:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Again, yet another example of an article on an Australian rules footballer created before any notability is established per WP:ATHLETE. WP:ATHLETE is a very low bar and this subject fails to meet even it. The creators of these articles on AFL draft picks would be better placed to wait until WP:ATHLETE is met rather than attempting to foretell the future. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly non-notable. Agree wholeheartedly with Mattinbgn's sentiments. An example of the legacy of promoting a whole raft of draft might-be's, supposedly for reasons of "convenience". These articles should be noted for next year's debate. Murtoa (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete But as I interpret WP:ATHLETE to be primarily criteria for inclusion, not for deletion, it is the lack of WP:RS references to prove notability outside of the 'played in a professional league' criteria that fails this article. The-Pope (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, another AFL hopeful who came agonisingly close, but in the end did not end up making it. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:20, 18 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. Stifle (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]