< December 17 December 19 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single + desperate[edit]

Single + desperate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Can't find anything on Google or in the news, the latter using the lead actor's name, no assertion of notability, fails WP:NF. — neuro(talk) 23:54, 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 redirect to Godzilla vs. Megalon. MBisanz talk 01:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megalon[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Godzilla vs. Megalon 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) 23:53, 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Petruş[edit]

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

Article about non-notable footballer who has not yet played in a fully professional league; fails WP:ATHLETE Jogurney (talk) 23:03, 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 delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J4jumpy[edit]

J4jumpy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I originally speedied it as advertising back when it had no refs besides its own site. That was removed, so I prodded it as advertising. That was also removed, so here it is...as advertising. Graymornings(talk) 22:39, 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 G12 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Story of Toys R Us and Build A Bear Workshop[edit]

The Story of Toys R Us and Build A Bear Workshop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has previously been deleted by prod but recreated. This is a made up story that is an "idea for a TV special".[1] Completely non-notable. Somno (talk) 22:35, 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. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sickology 101: The Study of Being Sick[edit]

Sickology 101: The Study of Being Sick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced blurb about an upcoming album. "Not much has been confirmed on the album, but a few names have been dropped as possible features". Right. Crystal time.    SIS  22:33, 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 keep per combination of inclement weather and withdrawn nomination. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Browser Sync[edit]

Google Browser Sync (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a discontinued Firefox extension that makes no claim of notability and is unsourced. (prod was removed)--Jmundo (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It makes no difference that the extension was discontinued - Per WP:NOTE, notability is not temporary.
  2. The article is unsourced, but myriad WP:RS are available for the topic.
  3. The lack of an assertion of notability, given the availability of sources that are so plainly tied to the topic, is grounds for a cleanup request, not deletion.
MrZaiustalk 02:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The majority of the sources are blogs and "how to install" instructions. Blogs and discussion boards are not WP:reliable. --Jmundo (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the article is in pretty good shape. Icewedge (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources you provides are blogs. If we have to resort to blogs to establish "notability," then there probably isn't any.--Jmundo (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are articles hosted on reputable websites written by staff writers, they are reliable sources, whether or not they are denoted as 'blogs' is irrelevant. While this is not a BLP, WP:BLP says that "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs" and that these are reliable sources as long as "the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control", qualifications which all of the articles I cited meet. Icewedge (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, blogs are not a reliable sources. A blog or "interactive column" is "usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary". From WP:RELY: "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact". --Jmundo (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that staff writers from major technology news sources are reliable. They are going to be reliable whether or not the boss man has told the journalist to write a traditional news article or assigned the writer to create a 'blog' to exploit the power of web 2.0. Also, what are book reviews if not opinion and yet we allow them in articles all the time. Icewedge (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are acceptable sources in some cases. See WP:SELFPUB: the requirement is that the blog is written by an expert in the subject who has been published in a reliable source. Which the blog in question was. Note that the 2nd and 3rd articles are _not_ blogs.
Besides, all we need to cite from these articles is their author's opinion: the fact that authors for these notable publications felt that this was important software makes it notable. The relevant facts can be sourced from google's pages. JulesH (talk) 20:54, 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.

Intestinal bleeding[edit]

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G12. Sherool (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

housekeeping John Collier (talk) 21:24, 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. MBisanz talk 01:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Productivity game[edit]

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

unremarkable article John Collier (talk) 21:20, 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 keep.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 in music[edit]

2009 in music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

If ever there was an article that breaks WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V in so many ways, this is it. A scan of the refs - particularly ones for releases with no exact date - shows blog entries (unreliable sources) and entries such as "album being worked on, hopefully released soon". One ref I saw is even dated 2007 suggesting a release by the end of that year. WP:NOT#NEWS also applies. Ros0709 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have no idea how to properly make Wikipedia talk page edits, so perhaps someone can correct my formatting if this is all wrong, but I disagree with the above. It certainly seems that some of the entries on this article are unverifiable, wrong, etc. and should be deleted. To say the entire article should disappear, though? That's a bit much. I've actually been using the "200[x] in Music" page to plan music purchases for about two years now, and haven't had a single problem with innaccurate information (In fact...if this page disappears, I will become an ex-user of Wikipedia, as this is the only thing I come for.) Obviously, there is some ability for us to reasonably list future releases of music. CDs don't just appear out of nowhere...their release dates are planned, promoted, and scheduled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.240.152.5 (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, virtually none of the refs checked so far stands up to scrutiny. Ros0709 (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons given in the nomination. Ros0709 (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep it's here in two weeks - why bother deleting? Just strip out the rumours and fancruft and keep what's left as a stub. It'll be a stub for a fortnight OH NOES ZOMG !!!11!!! etc. what's the fuss? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep; I totally agree that deleting it now would be silly. And it would turn a few users away from this site to boot. 96.246.232.202 (talk) 03:49, 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy (band)[edit]

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

The article claims that the group was popular during the 1990s but does not provide any reliable citations to support that, aside from a link to their MySpace webpage. It is difficult to search for "Sandy" using google, and I suspect that it may be an order of magnitude more difficult based on their origins even though they are now based out of Los Angeles, California. As the article stands it fails WP:MUSIC and I cannot find any evidence anywhere that it ever will pass. Delete. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:43, 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. MBisanz talk 01:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like... The Beatles[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. The only source is the band's own website. SilkTork *YES! 20:35, 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 keep. Per WP:SNOW - nominator presented the only "delete" rationale. (non-admin closure) SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No More Dead Dogs[edit]

AfDs for this article:
No More Dead Dogs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article doesn't state notability of subject. Call me Bubba (talk) 20:36, 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. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pennsylvania street gangs[edit]

List of Pennsylvania street gangs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unreferenced, barely any context, are these groups notable? are they unique to Pennsylvania? do we have some reliable sources to show these are "mixed-race" street gangs? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:22, 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 Delete per A7 by Deb. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin ellingwood[edit]

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

Despite the subject's obvious talent, there's nothing - no Google hits, at any rate - to suggest that this is anything other than just another non-notable vanity autobiography. It does claim (unverifiable) notability, though, so it's not speediable.  Sandstein  20:17, 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. MBisanz talk 01:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsourced nonsense, unfortunately probably not speediable.  Sandstein  20:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-Conism does exist. Ex-Conism is as much alive as you and me. People with a stigma arising from criminal involvement are discriminated against and this is not an issue well addressed in social welfare literature. All of you sound like the Pharisees in Jesus' time or the critics that said the Wright brothers would never fly and again those who put Galileo to death. You are armchair critics with nothing to add to the world but obstacles.
The concept and principles of ex-conism are present in feminism and racism and if you would but open your heart and minds, you'd see what I am trying to accomplish. Feminism and racism had its founder too. Where better to advance knowledge than in an encyclopedia? Why limit information that is obviously needed and valuable? Why do people always erect barriers to things they do not understand?
All movements and philosophies have their founders, from psychology, existentialism, anthropology and you get the point. Today you have a man who lives among you who has founded a modern social justice discourse and you rebel and react like petty tyrants. You strike me as elitists, the very people this dialog aims to eliminate and eradicate and challenge. You think you can control media and information but you can not. Freedom of speech and of the press is the cornerstone of the US constitution. We ought to encourage bold new thinkers, and not try to kill them.
When you are finished limiting your selves to childish rules and guidelines and rise above your immature and unreasonable biases, perhaps then you will have achieved a modicum of humility to enable you to grant this creative thinker his right to create a better world for all people. The world belongs to all.
Have you listened to your selves lately? Damn laughable I tell you, damn laughable. Your babble is nonsense. I advance a social discourse based on personal experience, much like the feminists have. Experience is the most valued thing in life, so remarked Henry Ford. You can take your Oxford and Yale degrees and you know where to place them. They mean nothing if they do not improve our social condition. You wield your position as editors on this site like a band of petty tyrants. All great ideas have had to smash conventional boundaries aand you will be the heads I smash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sendakite (talk • contribs) 22:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The encyclopedia is not an appropriate place to propagate this idea. If it has merit, it should be pursued in the traditional paths of social science publication, after which it will become legitimate material for an encyclopedia. HeureusementIci (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Richard 'Ritchy' Dubé[edit]

Please see neologism and memetics - Try to keep and open mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sendakite (talk • contribs) 13:21, 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 Speedy delete. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bête blanche[edit]

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

Unsourced, non-notable neologism. Hqb (talk) 19:47, 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. MBisanz talk 01:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sovena[edit]

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

This article was a copyvio/advertisement. It has already been speedily deleted three times as advertising. This time, other editors removed the advertising, but left it in a state where it gives no context. Perhaps there will be a legitimate article some day, so don't salt, but delete? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a miracle the article never claimed that, or found any of those references. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 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.  Sandstein  20:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walet lapping[edit]

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

WP is not for something made up one day ukexpat (talk) 19:28, 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. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood wars[edit]

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

Delete nothing demonstrating the notability of this game. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 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. While rough consensus is for deletion, there is also a great lack of verification of the facts alleged in the article. His work as a businessman alone is not sufficient for inclusion and there is no verification of his skills as an author. Deletion is without prejudice to re-creation when and if sources are brought forward. JodyB talk 14:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Wallace Mcdonald[edit]

George Wallace Mcdonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Author shows no inclination to respond to the need to establish notability. I'm willing to be patient, but if we don't soon see citations to independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, we ought to flush the article, right? Dicklyon (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, the 156 jobs, that is actually in that article I referenced. Funny how the original author never considered adding anything that might could be called a reference--the ZCard website had nothing that was the least bit informative. And I wasn't going to say anything about that card itself. Or about Shoprite! Drmies (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Z-Card web site contains enough information to show notability of Z-Card (i.e. it has references to magazines discussing the product). This is a useful start. JulesH (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where? It has this, and it's impossible to tell where that's from (besides 'Schoenmaker page 16'), and there's this from the Guardian: a half-sentence which proves that the product exists and that someone bought it. What else is there on the site that I missed? Drmies (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I looked at it again, and I'm sorry I deleted that--you'll have to admit, though, that it was easy to miss the relevant information in that half-sentence, given that none of the information in the article was organized or formatted according to WP standards (I mean italics, Wiki links, etc.) and that the whole thing appeared to be one big run-on sentence. But thanks for cleaning up and restoring. Note also that I did not vote to delete the article, and have added a reference.
But note also this: the original entry did not list Katie Wood as a co-author, and there was (is) no actual evidence that his book was 'featured' (nor have I been able to find any). So really, this 'featured,' I am inclined to take that with a grain of salt: the article just does not look authoritative, and I have little reason to believe the author(s) at their word. This article still needs independent coverage. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 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 redirect to Anal Cunt discography. MBisanz talk 01:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Stuff, Part Two[edit]

Old Stuff, Part Two (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article consists almost entirely of track listings and includes no citations from reliable sources. This is not a notable subject. Neelix (talk) 18:40, 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 deletion (G3). -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Martinez Beaver Monster[edit]

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

Article is a hoax. The reference to the Contra Costa Times is non-existent and the web reference appears to have been set up to support the Wikipedia article. Additionally, nothing shows up in Google. ttonyb1 (talk) 18:34, 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. MBisanz talk 01:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Rakos[edit]

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

An IP tried to nominate this for afd but didn't do it right (just a red link transclusion). No substantial sources found in a search, no notability asserted per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:58, 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.  Sandstein  14:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Akira[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Explanation – I hadn't read the pornographic actor criteria, but have now. I agree: (a) no major awards won or nominated for, (b) hasn't made a ground breaking contribution, and (c) hasn't featured much in mainstream media. When I added the profile, I thought that inclusion in the adult film databases and IMDB was enough, however according the these criteria it isn't. P3L3 (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:49, 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 G11 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick King[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nick King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Spam. Article was nominated for speedy under G11 but the nomination was removed by an anonymous editor who has continued to update the page. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this Nick King seems to be completely unrelated to the subject of WP:Articles for deletion/Nick King. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:51, 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 Withdrawn Yeah, whatever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Businesses and organizations in Second Life[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Businesses and organizations in Second Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No real notability, indiscriminate list. Uncategorized to boot. Kept in March with promises to trim and source. Sourced, maybe, trimmed, no. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your second point- I'm not seeing how its unmaintainable. It seems like as long as the stuff in there is sourced correctly (and the first part of the article is re-written, holy cow is that badly done), it seems to me at least, that it can be done. As for your first question... probably because everybody who would want to do it is too busy living their second lives to be worried about first life things like wikipedia ;). As a serious response, all i can really say is just because it *hasn't* been done, doesn't mean it *can't* be done.Umbralcorax (talk) 18:50, 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. MBisanz talk 01:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dooble[edit]

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

Non-notable piece of software (notablility not asserted, and I can't find any good mention of it by Googling), only recently released as beta and not a single source other than its own webpage. Contested PROD with reasoning of "This is linked from the List_of_Web_Browsers page and should not be deleted. All alternative web browsers are notable and at minimum a link should be provided to the software's home page.", two arguments that correspond to circular reasoning at best (walled-garden at worst) and an assertion that is totally at odds with WP:N standards. DMacks (talk) 17:09, 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 delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 17:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Waffles[edit]

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

The subject's correct name is Michael Wallis. Article redirects from the existing Michael Wallis article. -- Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:41, 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 Redirected to Prank call#Legality. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWATing[edit]

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

Slang term, used to refer to a certain type of crime. Nothing but a dicdef, and only two of the three sources could be regarded as a reliable assertion of usage (and a very weak one at that, since they used quotation marks), the other one being a blog. Surely there is an existing, more complete article to which this one can be redirected to, but none comes to mind.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:06, 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. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Made It[edit]

We Made It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional location does not establish notability independent of Known Space 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) 17:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 14:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this seems like a merge argument--why did you say "delete"? DGG (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because all that need be said about it in Known Space is already said about it in Known Space. I wouldn't carry any information from this article to that one.—Kww(talk) 19:12, 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 merge.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxine "Max" Gibson[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Maxine "Max" Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of Batman Beyond 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) 22:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 14:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My assumption is that the nominator simply has a way to describe articles that should be deleted that he/she can utilize when nominating articles at AfD. It conveys several rationales for deletion. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:54, 22 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 List of Zoids. MBisanz talk 01:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whitz Wolf[edit]

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 05:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 14:27, 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 merge to Norm Smith. MBisanz talk 01:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of Norm Smith[edit]

Curse of Norm Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another curse that fails WP:NOR, and like all these other curse of x I nominated, can't find much on google that it's a real "curse" Delete Secret account 21:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 05:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 14:27, 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 merge to Nuwaubianism. MBisanz talk 02:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuwaubic[edit]

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

There is no actual discussion of the Nuwaubic language, only cultural posturing. The article is not noteworthy, it cites only a single source, albeit multiple times. It actually contains no information about this supposed language. The body of the article has no purpose. I think it should just be deleted. It serves no purpose on Wikipedia. Pstanton 03:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 14:24, 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. This is about the notability of the person, not about the notability of rictameter.  Sandstein  14:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason D. Wilkins[edit]

Jason D. Wilkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable poet. Self-promotional. Only references are self-published. Graymornings(talk) 13:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are SCADS of hits on term rictameter. Clearly this form has caught on, if only among amateur poets. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:19, 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 G7 by Discospinster, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediawiki Extensions list[edit]

Mediawiki Extensions list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

What does "waste of space" fall under? Seriously, doesn't (and never will) constitute article material, and is far too detailed to be included within the MediaWiki article. Ironholds (talk) 13:31, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 02:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Maravilla (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable internet-only release. Fails WP:MUSIC. SummerPhD (talk) 13:19, 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hot Pawn[edit]

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

No evidence of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. MBisanz talk 13:03, 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 speedily deleted (G12, copyvio) by Dweller. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Homme[edit]

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

dubious notability Nubile Servant (talk) 12:55, 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. MBisanz talk 02:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChuniTana[edit]

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

Notability claimed but not asserted. No reliable sources. Google results don't assert either - Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources are self-published and there is nothing else I can find to support any of the claims made. --Rodhullandemu 13:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The site chunitana.tk clarifies "Copyright© Tony Berndtsson = All Rights Reserved" and that he is the author of the website, where he claims the same information as I posted on the chunitana-wikipedia page as true. It may be self-published by him but isn't he the one true source for information about himself and his work? Please clarify. The claims made are verified by the author himself, Tony Berndtsson, why not contact him through email and ask him about the page? Because the only reason I see for the page to be deleted is if the author himself did not write those claims, but why not clarify it by contacting him?

We do not regard self-published sources as reliable enough to establish notability. As for contacting him (???) it is up to an editor seeking to add information to provide a reliable source for it. --Rodhullandemu 13:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did my other wikipedia page stay up? Fiction Factory One of the sources to that page is http://www.inthe00s.com/archive/inthe80s/bbs9/webBBS_9509.shtml which is written by one of the band members. What matter does it make if the source is self-published; why is someone else's words more reliable? I did not write that ChuniTana invented the light bulb, I only wrote what he wrote about himself on his website. What he wrote there may not be true, I'm with ya there, but what difference does it make? What is the danger in him saying that he writes poetry.

His claims are subjective (that he is well-known in his hometown) and harmless (that he writes poetry and does music). The information is not reliable in the way that we cannot know if it is the "real" Tony Berndtsson who hosts the site, but what matter does that make? There are more than one Tony Berndtsson and most people don't exist on wikipedia to begin with. The exeption here is that this is an entertainer, be he real or not. The information that wikipedia states is truth and shall always be truth, I ackknowledge that, but there is no harm done if there is a proof that the wikipedia-page of ChuniTana is not the truth, because it is about a harmless and subjective matter. Please, consider not deleting it. :(—Preceding unsigned comment added by Animeranmatony (talk • contribs) 14:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please read about notability. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read Wikipedia's verifiability policy, you will read that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. MuZemike (talk) 17:26, 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. MBisanz talk 02:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mao Ivanoff[edit]

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

Nominating article as possible hoax. I can find no information whatsoever to confirm that this person was Che Guevara's grandfather, or that he was a well known composer. — Twinzor Say hi! 12:02, 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 delete per CSD G12 by Kusma; non-admin closure. PC78 (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Roth[edit]

Michael J. Roth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - obvious copyvio from this site. An editor removed the speedy delete tag with no explanation. Otto4711 (talk) 11:09, 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. MBisanz talk 02:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Wingrove[edit]

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

This is a clear a WP:BLP1E. A 18-year-old person who shot a video with a panda sneezing. Magioladitis (talk) 10:21, 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 deleted under CSD#G7. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 13:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Ariel Wilson[edit]

Ann Ariel Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dubious notability and suspected autobio. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:18, 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 merge to Stratocaster. MBisanz talk 02:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Knopfler Stratocaster[edit]

Mark Knopfler Stratocaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Musical instrument with no notability ascribed. Dancarney (talk) 10:13, 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. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

23 Deluxe[edit]

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

Orphaned article. I have notability concerns about this band, which has a Myspace page. The band supposedly had a #2 hit on the BBC dance chart sometime in September, but the reference is no longer current. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:20, 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. MBisanz talk 02:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state ghost towns[edit]

List of U.S. state ghost towns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not so much a "list" as one state's "State ghost towns." A list that will only ever contain one item (unless there's any indication that other states will name future "state ghost towns") should not be its own article. Oren0 (talk) 08:03, 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 (default keep); a reasonable period of time should be allowed for improvement and then it can be reevaluated and if necessary, renominated. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kontras[edit]

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

Little, if any, secondary source material on the subject. Not sure if he was really the first "video blogger" but is that sufficient to meet WP:BIO? Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, the link contains screenshots of articles from more reputable (i.e. less personal) sources. I'm in the process of looking up direct links to those articles. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 08:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To your point, screenshots are not WP:RS, and are suspect by their very use. --OliverTwisted 08:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I'll concede to you that screenshots are not reliable sources (a point I hinted at in my above comment), having been a long-time reader of The Journey, I can assure you that the screenshots are not "suspect by their very use". Here are links to some of the articles he references (and others): [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. All of these links make reference to one or both claims: that he is the first video blogger and/or that he was the host of Living Room Live on CBS's The Early Show, though I gather you are not doubting the latter claim? And I can assure you that he was not in any way involved in the production of these articles (except, possibly, the ones from CBS). —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 08:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assertions in blogs are not reliable. The link which leads to a citation list on Wikipedia video blogging, [[10]], leads to The Wayback Machine, and a page that has been deleted. The claim of The Journey being the first video blog in the 2 sources that do make it, do not agree, as one claims "The Journey" started in 2000, and the last claims it was started in 2004 [11]. None of the sources, including the CBS link to Adam Kontras hosting a local talent show lend any more notability. Also, when you write I can assure you he was in no way responsible... how is that you can make such assurances, especially when the sources don't agree? Just curious. --OliverTwisted 09:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is The Wayback Machine not reliable? This clearly shows the entry was around in 2001, so it's not too much of a stretch to consider the date of January 2, 2000, on it as correct, especially when the home page is proven to have existed as early as June 2000. All signs point to 2000, except that obviously-mistaken AskTonyBrown article. And Living Room Live is far from a "local talent show". The Early Show is broadcast nationwide every weekday morning, and the contestants on Living Room Live were also from across the United States. And I can make such assurances based on the fact that I've been in personal contact with Adam and can tell his is sincere. Plus, I have been reading The Journey since at least 2004—and all of those entries were already there when I began reading. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 09:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As this is an AfD discussion, rather than debate; this will be my last contribution. I don't wish to antagonize you, but we clearly have a difference of opinion regarding what is reliable. I don't dispute the fact that Adam Kontras is a singular talent (or his personal honesty, by the way) and I don't even dispute the fact that, if the article were completely reworked, you might be able to establish notability solely based upon hosting an affiliate CBS show. The issue at hand is using Wikipedia to perpetuate a grandiose claim which, even at a stretch, could not be supported with reliable sources. Let's allow other editors to now weigh in and evaluate the outcome, to avoid any dipping into WP:NPOV territory. --OliverTwisted 09:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC) (this proved not to be my final contribution, sorry.)--OliverTwisted 15:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Besides, I never meant for the article to be left as it is. I was merely submitting a first draft for myself and others to expand upon. However, I suppose you and Mr. Vernon like to patrol the new pages, because you both jumped on me (or rather, the article) within minutes of its submission. I really do feel like the article should be given a chance before it is deleted. After all, I did make the effort to source all of the statements, even if my primary source was his personal blog. We'll see if I'm all alone in this opinion. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 10:13, 18 Decem--OliverTwisted 15:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)ber 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So make up my mind: What's more reliable, primary sources or secondary sources? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 09:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If sources contradict each other, then they're very much, by definition almost, unreliable. Being 'independent' doesn't overcome that rather large hurdle, I'm afraid. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam. As I stated above, I'm not disputing your notability in that regard, and have just basically said run with it, if you have the sources. I'd like some further time to resolve the First Video Blog claim, because this may set a benchmark of sorts... and there is argument for both sides. Adrian Miles has live screen shots, at the time called vogs instead of vlogs. They are well documented in 2000. From what I could get to load on Wayback, June 2000 seems to be the most recent footage of The Journey, which has survived. There is some discussion on this topic that will need to go on, irrespective of the article about you. If your bio article is approved, the decision, whatever it ends up being, can then simply be added. Surely this is a win-win for everybody? --OliverTwisted 16:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: Adam, I don't believe the comments were meant to disparage CBS as a source. The article listed does not support the 1st video blog assertion. It is an article about your appearance on the morning show, as well as a brief biopic. In order to be able to contribute more positively to this discussion, you might want to be armed with information from: WP:COI. Also, just as a personal note... my goal is not to take away recognition of your hard work. If you are truly the 1st video blogger, you have my admiration and appreciation. I just want to make sure that it is supported by sources, and group consensus. If you prove notability, I will be your strongest supporter. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 23:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Truce: I totally understand and I realize that the bio right now is woefully under-constructed. I had nothing to do with it, and when I have the time will edit it with better sources and give a broader picture of my stamp on things. My greatest concern is proving the start of the video blog... which consquently is ridiculously difficult at the end of one year and beginning of the next because there are so many design elements that have to change - so I just can't attack this at the moment. But since someone got the ball rolling I will take the time to fully document everything and make a stronger case very soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.75.220 (talk) 18:34, 22 December, 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Second consecutive Unambiguous keep; renomination of a unanimous keep within a month on grounds that notability must be renewed by the subject of the article on a continuous basis is to be discouraged. This article gets a free pass for at least 6 months. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalya Rudakova[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Natalya Rudakova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails to meet WP:ENTERTAINER, actress, after this single movie, appears to have dropped into obscurity, there have been weeks when this article could have been improved, so editors are either lazy, too busy, or this actress has not done anything besides this single film. If she had, I bet there would have been notations made about her next movie. — Dædαlus Contribs 07:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides all that, just one more note to people reading this nomination: We here at wikipedia do not keep what-ifs. We do not keep articles here with the hope that they will become notable. When the subject of the article does become notable, then it can be included. Not before.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:52, 22 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When in Hollywood, Visit Universal Studios. Ask for Babs[edit]

When in Hollywood, Visit Universal Studios. Ask for Babs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

a fictional advertising slogan that appears in a number of Landis movies. Some cool trivia but that's about it when it comes to notability Wolfer68 (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, nobody would type in the entire title, but I can see where someone might do a search for "ask for Babs", or click on a link from another article. As they say, redirects are cheap. Mandsford (talk) 23:47, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian hip hop artists[edit]

List of Iranian hip hop artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Ugh, this is just a long list of completely and utterly non-notable musicians. JBsupreme (talk) 06:22, 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 Keep. And note that it is unreasonable to require editors who are improving an article while it is at AFD to also go fix problems in an external website and threaten the immediate deletion of the article while the external website processes the request to correct their data. TO refer to good faith research bu an editor to ensure that the data they add to an article is accurate as OR is silly. As User:MichaelQSchmidt pointed out, when considering the sources, this article meets the criteria of WP:PEOPLE. I think that effort deserves a WP:Hey. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ewing[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO, no major roles. --fvw*

Although the links has been corrected, the references continue to point to two different people. Bill and also William. As a result I still support my earlier comments for this article. ttonyb1 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fixed the double-ref problem. Will look further into notability. Can note that he was co-writer for the award-winning film End of the Spear. There might be more to be found. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still see the reference to the film Christmas Child. (William Ewing) ttonyb1 (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thought you were referring to the one ref in two places. However, I have also just corrected the filmology. Nice catch. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Major problem with this article as the author seems to have mixed and matched his Bills a few different ways. I have left him a note on his talk page asking just to which Bill he is referring in the article. Until that is cleared up, it will be impossible to properly source the article or determine notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay I finished with the major expansion and sourcing. This man does indeed have significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject and so seems now to pass WP:PEOPLE... perhaps not so much as an actor in his early career, but definitely as an acclaimed fimmaker in his current career. There's more to do, but I feel notability has been established. Finally. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern is that we now have multiple IMDB entries supporting this article. ttonyb1 (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well (chuckle) we don't, as we only have one article about one person. The problem is IMDB's but can be easily corrected at their end. As I wrote the author about this same concern, I will submit have submitted (12-19-2008) a sourced update/correction to IMDB to have the AKA of William added to Bill (I), and have the entries for Bill (II) and Bill (IV) merged to Bill (I). The multiple entries happend with production companies not adding informations to the proper individual... accurate as they may be in fact. It is more important at the moment to make sure the article properly reflects all the works of this one individual, and once my submission to IMDB is checked and implemented, I will personally make sure the Wiki article is updated to reflect this. Fair enough? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:16, 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. MBisanz talk 02:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parakeet (faraquet 7")[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Parakeet (faraquet 7") (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Whole thing over (faraquet 7") (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Split with Akarso (Faraquet EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sub-stubs on 7" singles. No assertation of notability besides being by Faraquet whose own notability is in question. Qualifiers in titles make for unlikely redirect terms. One of these is also a split EP with a red link band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:45, 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 keep. John254 01:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dressed to Kill (book)[edit]

Dressed to Kill (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An entire article devoted to what appears to be criticism of an theory not widely documented or accepted, additionally, the book does not seem to have much objective coverage to be notable enough for inclusion. I'll also note the article is currently unbalanced and if sledged for balance, only a stub would remain. A stub with the above fringe and notability problems withstanding. Please consider deletion based on the above rationale. Thank you for your time, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C> 11:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and four million Americans have been abducted by aliens—G716 <T·C> 14:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and Wikipedia has an article on Alien abduction. I agree it's pseudo-science, but that on its own doesn't seem to disqualify it for inclusion in Wikipedia.Mattnad (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that may not happen, but in the meantime, please consider contributing. Regards. Mattnad (talk) 12:08, 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 speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tinker's Christmas Radio Drama[edit]

Tinker's Christmas Radio Drama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sure which WP:* this falls under, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't fulfil the criteria therein. --fvw* 04:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article should be deleted. After cleaning it up, wikifying, and citing some sources it should be pretty good, although it does seem to be an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectricRush (talk • contribs)
That's the problem. There don't seem to be any sources. Also please sign your posts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved here from daily log. — neuro(talk) 15:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lovesick (Rihanna song)[edit]

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

"Lovesick is going to be first official single from Rihanna's next upcoming studio album". The "upcoming album" was deleted over a dozen times, with four AfDs I'm aware of. This song has even less verifiable information.
Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:NOTE. Amalthea 03:34, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If (Bananarama song)[edit]

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

Fails notability per WP:SONG. Promo release in France only, even this promo release was extremely limited. Paul75 (talk) 03:16, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swjiz Sjet[edit]

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

WP:NOTADVERTISING and not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (books) -- Rick Block (talk) 02:48, 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 as a hoax. bibliomaniac15 04:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian copperfish[edit]

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

Hoax, per Wikipedia:RDS#Brazilian_copperfish and the anons who edited it earlier today. --fvw* 02:32, 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Grade Level Chess Championships[edit]

Ohio Grade Level Chess Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:ORG. There must be thousands of these, all wonderful, but all exactly the same. --fvw* 01:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does if they meet WP:N. Not sure this one does (see weak keep below), but "OTHERTHINGSEXIST and will flood us" not a policy-based reason for deletion... Hobit (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - Oops, I didn't notice that there were individual championships as well. This raises notability, but not enough. I've removed the words above on "teams", but my comments on individual events (which were already there) still point to a "delete" from me. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Replying to Hobit) I understand, but I'm trying to work out how to evaluate this one in the absence of a clear guideline. Does WP:ORG really cover sports/games competitions? I'd like to see a more specific guideline. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say in the face of an unclear guideline, WP:N is what we use. I think this case is borderline given the sources found to date, but I strongly suspect more local news sources exist. Hobit (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATHLETE was presumably formulated to give a guide so that AfDs of sports people were handled consistently; and I was hoping for something similar for sports competitions. While the winners are clearly non-notable per WP:ATHLETE (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Clayton (chess player)), I can see that the competition itself is bordering on notable. I've changed my assessment (above) to weak delete. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are thousands of other potential events, not just 50. I'll leave you to work out why. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring specifically to state-wide scholastic chess championships in the United States. I wasn't trying to make a rude comment, which it appears you have conceived it as. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, I'll put it down to a misunderstanding. In any case, there are similar comparable competitions worldwide, even if they're not called scholastic. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(This was posted on the article's talk page by the article's creator and I am reposting it here.)ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

My own view is that it doesn't meet the inclusion guidelines. I would say Delete ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:59, 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 speedy delete G11. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shore Total Office - Office Cubicles & Furniture[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Shore Total Office - Office Cubicles & Furniture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

per WP:CORP --fvw* 01:47, 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 close This is one of the strangest... Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fiskartorpet[edit]

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

Now, dont say i gonna g-6 delete it, Ok? Lack of notability, i think. Its my article, i dont want it deleted but i understand it maybe needs to be deleted anyway. The Rolling Camel (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're nominating your own article? That's ... interesting. I think as it stands it's a delete, but if you have some local newspaper articles about the area you could add as references it'd be ok. --fvw* 01:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, the nominator and the author is the same! The author taked it here because he was afraid it didnt pass the notability guidelines. The Rolling Camel (talk) 22:46, 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 Speedily deleted as G11. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trailhead Church[edit]

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

Probably very close to an A7, but because churches, like schools create discussion, I've brought it here. Simply put, Trailhead launched in September of 2008 and there's no evidence of notability just confirmation of existence. StarM 01:34, 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. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Clayton (chess player)[edit]

Ryan Clayton (chess player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure if this falls under A7, though it likely does, so I'll propose this for deletion under the fact that it fails the general inclusion guideline.

Author's comments are here. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:26, 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 Withdrawn per sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to read Donald Duck[edit]

How to read Donald Duck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research no secondary sources save for one review. A search for the English and Spanish titles turned up very little information. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:19, 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. StarM 05:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Rocket to the Moon[edit]

A Rocket to the Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Your Best Idea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Summer 07 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greetings from... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Only releases are three EPs, no actual album, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:14, 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 Withdrawn per WP:HEY. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burger School for Students with Autism[edit]

Burger School for Students with Autism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Absolutely no sources found. 100 hits on Google, nothing useful in Google News. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:07, 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 Keep. As the author of the article articulated well here, the subject of the article has been established to be notable, in that numerous independent sources are available to demonstrate that it has been covered adequately to satisfy WP:N. That the list will require effort to maintain is both true, and as pointed out here, not likely to be a huge burden, as the data has not changed in several years according to the references. That the list is too narrow is simply not valid, in that lists are required to have strictly defined inclusion criteria (WP:LIST). That the list will not grow is probably valid, but there is no criteria for deletion that requires lists to be unfinished. In fact, in this debate, the same people seemed to try to require the article to be both more complete and yet want it deleted becuase it might not grow. Some editors here do not trust some of the data in the article and feel that there are factual errors; this is the very nature of a wiki, and should be assumed for every article in the project. Should the article be renamed? Probably... but that is a job for the talk page of the article, not AFD, to address. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-listened-to radio programs[edit]

List of most-listened-to radio programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Overly narrow list, may never grow beyond this. What qualifies as "most listened-to" anyway? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless minutiae. Why is the list just for 2005? If the list could be expanded into something a bit more worthwhile, it would be a justified article. Paul75 (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to answer my and Paul75's question. Thank you. (Radio programs and the census have a slightly different level of importance, in the grand scheme of things; this is not a very good comparison.) Drmies (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think its an excellent comparison. When you say something isn't important, you aren't speaking for the world, just yourself. It is the ultimate in subjectiveness. We have two million articles and only maybe 5,000 or 10,000 were important enough for me to read. Importance is not a criteria for Wikipedia, just notability and verifiability. It meets both criteria. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you say it hasn't changed since 2005? (Do you have evidence? There's nothing in the article that makes that claim.) On TV, Olberman's show is now giving O'Reilly a run for his money. And besides, why would this list NOT change if, as you say yourself, the list of top movies or richest people changes? That makes no sense to me, that the popularity of radio shows would NOT change. And so the data you present is outdated, or the title is incorrect--especially given The Feds' comment below. (BTW, do you accept NPR's numbers on the ratings of their own shows as independent authority?) Drmies (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your asking the wrong person, when you ask me why the ranking doesn't change from year to year, it just doesn't change much. I guess it would be called a "mature market". The top program has been number one since the records were kept in 1991. Not believing the references is another issue, but I doubt all the references could be wrong. Maybe that is a good reason for keeping the article, since it appears to have educated you about something you did not know. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked you no such question. I asked you how you can say that. And I find it funny that you can make such strong claims here when you can't make them in the article. Then again, seeing how you continually misrepresent my arguments and my questions, I shouldn't be surprised. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Independence is used to determine notability, not accuracy. The NPR web site telling me they are important enough to be included in Wikipedia is not enough, but information from their site can be used as facts in an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information, sure--but I would not accept NPR's numbers on their popularity anymore than I would accept Fox's numbers on their own shows. It's hardly independent. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point to a specific Wikipedia policy on the requirement to not use facts from a company's own website, or say an autobiography as a source for Wikipedia. If you have contradictory information, by all means, add it and change the order. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are deliberatly obfuscating. First of all, I never said that I had contradicting evidence. That is not my point. Second, it's plain old common sense that one does not automatically believe what a radio station claims about its listenership (or what any company or government says about its solvency or approval ratings--do I have to argue this point?). Do you need a policy to tell you that? A little browsing around in the WP:notability section would quickly lead you to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and it's obvious that that applies here, I hope; to Wikipedia:Verifiability, which applies here because one of the NPR references claims that "according to recent reports is the third most listened radio show in the country" without giving a source; and finally Wikipedia:Independent sources. So, common sense and Wikipedia policy, here in perfect agreement.
  • I apologize if that's too much reading. You asked for specific policies, I gave them to you. I've done enough work for you already. Yes, the last is an personal essay, and so what? it's meaningless? It's on the WP site, isn't it? I don't see your haphazard way of writing and sourcing and titling endorsed anywhere. Perhaps you can point me to a policy where it says that title and article don't have to have anything to do with each other, or a policy that states that it's perfectly fine to accept anything someone says, especially if they say it about themselves; you know, a possible WP:Dependent sources. Oh, how about a policy that says "most listened to in the US" means "most listened to in the world." I don't understand your stubbornness. Why not just rename the article? Why not make a table including all these years and the numbers you have for them? Why not have a disclaimer for the one or two numbers that have not been independently established? Why would you continue to purposely misunderstand your fellow WP editors? Why can't you seem to understand basic concepts like verifiability, consistency, independence? They seem to be essential to writing an encyclopedic article. "Paranoid about sources"? This is an encyclopedia, not a chat room. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is just not useful to say I am violating a law, then hand me a law book and ask me to find some law I am violating. Cite a page in a law book or a case number. Both Notability and Verifiability have numbered rules just for this purpose. As to the essay, I have a user page in Wikipedia, that doesn't mean I am notable and encyclopedic, just because it is in Wikipedia. All your arguments have nothing to do with deleting the article but concern things best discussed on the talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now, before you go and say that I should go and replace or edit this or that, let me state again--that is not my point. I'm not saying that NPR is lying about their numbers, or that they're wrong, or whatever. Besides, your proposal that I go and change the order has to be facetious, since you claim that the sources reveal that nothing, nothing has changed in three or four years. Oh, one last thing--the article says "weekly listeners in 2008," right? How can sources in 2005 and even 2002 reveal anything about 2008? At some point you have to own up to a basic confusion here: the title claims timelessness though the article does not; the article claims 2008 though some of the sources are old; the title claims geographic neutrality whereas the article specifies US listenership. Seriously.
But I've said enough. Some of the nay-sayers in this AfD have raised similar points; some of the yea-sayers have too (and some seem not to have noticed these problems). If I can't explain matters of neutrality or objectivity or contradiction to you via an appeal to Wikipedia policy or to anything else, then I have little more to say except for good luck. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has your argument now become that I have too many sources? That showing data from 1991, 2005 and 2008 is too much data, and just the most recent 2008 data needs to be shown? Or that the top shows from the 1950s are not included like Jack Benny. It still isn't clear to me what you are arguing for or against. I need something concrete. Or is your argument that the article needs to be deleted because you don't like the title. Or, are you asking for some sort of matrix that shows each show as a line, and the ranking of that show for every year from 1991-2008, like an Excel spreadsheet? Again, if you have contradictory sources that say the ranking is different, add the sources and change the ranking. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • It seems that you do not understand what I am saying, or do not want to understand. Olberman's show is a TV show; it's an example. Specifically, it's an example of how the list (at least in its present form) makes little sense. If 'nothing has changed' in three years, shouldn't the article reflect that? Why does one have to plow through the references to find out that the data have not changed since 2005, and therefore the title is rational? Deletion is in the details, in some ways--the article and its references do not prove that this is a notable or doable topic. As others (above and below this exchange) have commented, the information in the article is dated and US-centric, whereas the title is general. And such a general title makes no sense: how does the best-listened to program stack up against its counterpart in China, or Russia?
As the article shows, radio show popularity, unlike TV shows, don't change from week to week, and changes very little from year to year. The number one show hasn't changed since at least 1991. It is still number one in 2008. Peek at the references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But I think I've said enough, or really, that I've said the same thing often enough. You have not addressed some serious issues I and other editors have with the article, and many of those problems come from the title. I haven't voted yet, since I was hoping for a rationale and an idea as to the article's purpose and scope, and I haven't seen it--I've only seen problems. Delete. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not liking the title is a matter for the discussion page and is not a reason for deletion. Deletion has to be based on notability and verifiability. Remember this isn't a vote. It is notable because the topic is brought up in Talkers magazine, and the New York Times, and at National Public Radio. The multiple sources used make the information verifiable. The data comes from Talkers and Arbitron, and is quoted in the New York Times, and at National Public Radio. Arguments for deletion based on the best title, and whether data from China and Russia should be used are red herrings. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, they make some of the information verifiable. I never said it didn't. It's just that the article/list is poorly written and conceived, and esp. the poor conception is what bothers me. Others are bothered by the purposelessness of it. And China and Russia, that's no red herring, but then, you really don't seem to realize that there is more than one country in the world, and that other countries have radio stations too. You wrote the article, you should have come up with a reasonable title. Oh, one more time, data about National Public Radio comes from National Public Radio? That's about as objective as your voting 'keep' on your own article. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now you have stated something more concrete. You are saying the article "is poorly written". Is it the grammar or the spelling that is bothering you? All can be fixed if you point out the errors. And I apologize for any errors like that. As for "concept", in Wikipedia we call that "Notability". The concept has to be notable, I can't write about things that other people have not yet taken notice of. But that is covered by the ample references in the article. The New York Times, several books, and Talkers magazine all discuss the concept that one radio show has to be more listened to than another. The earliest reference used comes from 1971. And though the 1930's and 1940's people like Jack Benny and Fred Allen claimed to have the "top radio show". Doesn't that show that the concept is notable? Other reference works recognize the concept, even if they use a synonym. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, I am confused, what does the Olberman's show on TV have to do with the article? Can you explain it a little better. If you don't like the title, please feel free to change it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was making the point that things change over the course of three years; the article and the title suggest they don't. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every Wikipedia article changes when new information comes along, if you have info that contradicts, or is newer, please post it and change the ranking. If what you say was policy, we couldn't have information on any living people. When they die their status changes, and even when they live, they stubbornly continue to do things that upset the stasis of their biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, you don't seem to be able to understand what I'm saying. I thought I said it plainly enough. Your title, your list, your sources do not a coherent whole make. "If what you say was policy..."? What did I say? Wait--don't answer that. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand your argument, the rankings will someday change so this article will not be valid in the future. My argument is that every articles changes as new information is generated. People die, people do new notable things and their biographies have to be rewritten to reflect the changes. Rankings of metrics for every country have to be changed every year. On the contrary, the top show in the list hasn't changed in 17 years. How is this article different? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you don't understand my argument. That's OK. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, I don't ... you have some fuzzy dislike for the article that you can't express well enough for me to make any changes to please you. I guess it boils down to "I don't like it", and there is nothing I can do to help with that.
  • Maybe your not worried about the future, is it the past that is bothering you? That the list isn't showing historical top programs like the Jack Benny Show? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What show are you talking about? Is that reference supposed to be an insult? Drmies (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You find Jack Benny insulting? Since you can't express well what you dislike about the article, I am pointing out the weaknesses I see in the article, hoping you will have a eureka moment, and say "yes, that is it", that is what I was trying to express. Your dislike for the article is fuzzy, and other than not liking the references to NPR being a top show, I can't change what you can't express in concrete terms. Maybe that show rubs you the wrong way. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can express that very well, thank you very much--it's just that you can't read very well, neither my comments nor WP policy. (BTW, look at the first sentence of your response: you might study quotation marks. It's that fuzziness that makes your arguments inherently weak.) I dislike fuzzy articles. I dislike articles that are called "most-listened-to radioshows" when they only mention shows in one little part of the world, and only take one tiny segment of the history of radio. You should have called it "List of most-listened to radio shows in the US between 2005 and 2008," and that points out pretty quickly how pointless this is. I don't care about radio in China, I care about your article having a correct title. I don't care for Jack Benny (dude, I have no idea who that is--well before my time, probably), but I want data in WP to be accurate. That I only listen to NPR (yes, you misread that also in one of your earlier comments--how could you infer that I don't like NPR?) does not mean that I should believe their reports on their own ratings: only a fool would not take that without a grain of salt. But what I really don't care for, and what I really dislike, is this petty "oh which section of which article says that I cannot..."--go read the policy and see how it applies to your article. You might learn something. Seriously. It's good stuff. I hope that's not too much to ask--you can spend countless hours fine-tuning an article that's flawed from the moment you drew up the title, or you can spend some time thinking about things like space, time, objectivity. Some time reading, and then perhaps some time in a freshman writing class. See you later. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you change the title? Or why didn't you make it reflect the content of the article in the first place? Drmies (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I doubt people would get to the article by knowing the name of the article, but I based on the TV version. I think most people will come based on links in the top program articles. I think, like me, people will be reading that so and so is in the top, and wonder who the others in the ranking are. I added a few redirects to help someone looking directly. If you can think of any more redirects, please add them. We can always change the title later. I have data from the 1950s of who had the top show from a few books, but I will hold off to after the AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My original concept was to list shows from other markets, such as the BBC in the UK even if the aggregate number is lower than the US, and be closer to the TV version of the article. That data is harder to find. I have never objected to a name change for the article, but I still want to add more programs in other countries. The BBC in mandarin must have wide listenership. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it, then. Sounds like hard work, but not unfeasible. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:46, 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HARBEC Plastics[edit]

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

Contested prod, and OTRS pending. This page is about a company whose notability is unclear. It was previously deleted as a copyright violation, hence the ((OTRS pending)) tag. The deleted version has been restored because of this tag, but the problem is that the site it was copied from is a primary source about the company: it is the company's own website. The article is entirely promotional in tone, and the subject's notability is not established, but speedy G11 has been declined solely on the basis of the ((OTRS pending)) tag, which has been inserted by the page's creator. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if the OTRS request is for an as yet unrevealed third-party source that does establish notability.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:49, 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler Campell[edit]

Adolf Hitler Campell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy got declined but I fail to see what's notable about a toddler with a ridiculous name. (It's Campbell, by the way. Not Campell.) Unfortunate name, yes. Daddy ought to get his head read, sure. But WP:N? No.    SIS  00:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that I agree that it wouldn't qualify for a speedy; as nonsensical as Dad might be, the article itself isn't nonsense, hoax or copyvio. Mandsford (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ShopRite incident is, nonetheless, not an assertion of significance for this person. A mention in "national news" is not necessarily an indication of "why its subject is important or significant" per CSD A7. Deor (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This person's name was the cause of multiple national news stories. That's an assertion of importance. It is a really weak one but it is there. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:47, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facility (telecommunications)[edit]

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

Article is nothing but a DICTDEF and has no promise of evolving beyond that point. Briefly attempted rescue but realized it would prove fruitless. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 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. I suppose it could have been relisted again but with no dissent, I'm calling this a 9 day PROD StarM 05:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deliverance: Part Two[edit]

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

This article provides no reception information, no production information, and no citations from reliable sources. Almost the entire article consists of plot summary. This is not a notable subject. Neelix (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 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 keep. John254 01:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Staub[edit]

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

Non-notable: zero gBook hits, one gNews hit (no content), and 193 gHits. Co-host of a radio program - does not qualify as Notable. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been mentioned to me that I might be relying on gHits too much, so I'll add that the gNews hit I found literally says "Jonny Staub will break plates at Koutouki Taverna South." in the Edmonton Sun. It's something about a Christmas Charity Auction, and that's the only mention. No clue if it's the same Staub.

--- Indeed that is the same Jonny. There are also many other mentions of him on the web (google his name and it pops up over several pages) and also conforms to other radio/television/media profiles featured on Wikipedia. I don't see the issue here SatyrTN, although your page does say that 3 times you've been "nominated" for being homophobic. Is that why you're trying to delete this profile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightscamerafiction (talk • contribs) 02:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The gHits include many blogs, some self-pub items, and copies of the article. Seems he also has an IMDB page for playing himself in one TV episode. Oh - and the 193 number is wrong - there are only 71 hits. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cadastre and Real Estate Publicity in Romania[edit]

Cadastre and Real Estate Publicity in Romania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems like a general definition of cadastre, rather than a Romania specific article. — Twinzor Say hi! 00:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you're referring to my nomination, I didn't mean to be prejudiced, but rather what I meant was that there is already an article about cadastre, so this article is not needed unless the definition in Romania somehow differs from the general one, which the article doesn't show as it is. — Twinzor Say hi! 15:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use without prejudice in the US legal sense, did not mean to confuse or imply some kind of bias. Only meant to suggest that if this is deleted, we should nevertheless welcome a general article about land law in Romania, and if that article grows in size and detail, we may even have an article about Romanian cadastral law. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, my apologies then. I completely agree with you. Thanks for explaining! — Twinzor Say hi! 16:50, 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.
More