< June 9	June 11 >

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Realm of the Dead[edit]

Delete nn videogame; no indication of its importance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no staff reviews or news articles in both gamespot and ign, only generic entries.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you tried looking up magazine issues from around that time? It's usually hard for a commercial game release to get through without getting reviewed by *someone*. DocumentN (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have access to American or European gaming magazines. The game was released on 2006, so I think that it should have more presence in the net. I may have downgraded my Delete to Weak had the game been released in the 90's as the majority of the sources for older games are still in magazines rather than online.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very small article providing little information to the reader, and there aren't many reliable sources to back even this little bit up. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 01:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a budget game which is why nobody is falling over themselves to review it, it's very unlikely that there are sources in magazines and there's none emerging from google. Permastub which doesn't establish notability. Someone another 02:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of PlayStation 2 games as one of only 2 sources for the article in question. Not all games are notable and this one definitely isn't notable enough for its own article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zef (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of PlayStation 2 games per Jasynnash2. There's no notability asserted in entry and can't find anything myself to assert notability--Cailil ^talk 00:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There is no consensus to keep this in any format, whether standalone or merged. If someone wants to make redirects, feel free. I don't know the subject well enough to know if they are plausible search terms. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Data Resource[edit]

Appears to be a relatively obscure neologism. I couldn't find any sources that used this term in this way, and none are included in the articles.

Also included in this nomination:

Structured Data Resource
Unstructured Data Resource BradV 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is a muddled waffle of neologisms with little context. --neon white talk 00:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Data Reference Model, since the information would only have any semblance of sense within that context. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No opinion on merger, but it seems obvious that some kind of context is needed to make this read like anything other than utterly vacuous and abstract tautology. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to Data Reference Model. I don't like merging unsourced material particularly when it is so unclear. Smile a While (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can find this term being used in published literature in 1993. Take a look at books.google and scholar.google for use of this term in both published books and in journal articles. --Oldak Quill 14:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this as barely a WP:DICTDEF, and not sourced at that. No hits in Google News / News Archive to establish notability, which isn't asserted in the article anyway. Frank | talk 17:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Firstly, there is a reasonably clear emerging view that this is notable. Secondly, while there is indeed a housing program by this name, as far as I can construe from Swedish translators and the DE Wikipedia, this is more than just a housing estate: it's actually a borough of the tenth largest city in Sweden. WilliamH (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hageby[edit]

Delete basically a housing estate, not notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my sweedish isn't that good, but best I can tell this is just an apartment complex --T-rex 03:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This appears to be a real and distinct district [1] that even has it's own shopping center (called the "Hageby Centrum") and there seems to be plenty of reliable sources either about this area or references to it.[2]--Oakshade (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as the Google News hits found by Oakshade there are plenty of book references also found by Google. I wish people would do simple searches like these before wasting eberyone's valuable editing time by nominating clearly notable articles for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAJOLE[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Is this article really notable enough for an article? I believe that more information (which I have been unable to find) is need to establish the notability required. Kivar2 (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted, recreate as soft redirect to wikt:cajole. No stance on actual deletion. -- saberwyn 05:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article doesn't assert notability and the article hasn't been improved since the last AfD which seemed to be the the bulk of the keep arguments. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see why this topic doesn't deserve an article. A language that has been the topic of published literature http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/3069/ --Oldak Quill 14:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability. The published literature is the paper itself. If it were notable, it would be referenced elsewhere. I can be convinced by cites that show this, but I can't find any myself at Google, Google News, or online university library search. Frank | talk 18:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus was clear. In addition, the page is wholly unsourced and, despite the extended time, no evidence has been adduced that this record (hey that dates me!) meets WP:MUSIC. I would add that global ghits butters no parsnips; it is the quality of available sources that count. I see no reason not to set up a redirect, which I have. TerriersFan (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bedroom Boom[edit]

Not notable Chzz ► 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep With 66,000 ghits, I'd say this is more than one of the countless unnotable hip-hop songs out there. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, article fails WP:MUSIC & WP:RS. Redirect back to U.S.A. (United State of Atlanta). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article doesn't assert notability and has no reliable 3rd party sourcing for verfiability. Also Wiki is not an advertisement for "Such as YouTube, Myspace, Google video and various others". Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources; fails notability under WP:MUSIC, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esateys[edit]

No reliable sources suggesting notability. A self-published book via Authorhouse and being a talk show host on the 'World Puja Network' doesn't seem enough. Doug Weller (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing to back up the description as "international speaker", so scratch that. The book is self-published, so scratch that. That leaves the subject as an internet radio host on what I dare say is a non-notable website. Without audience figures or some other assertion of notability, she's YAP – yet another podcaster.9Nak (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability when searching through Google, and Google news. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sources could be found after a reasonable search. All refs are to her press releases, book sales, or promotional websites (her own and her partners'). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beautiful Losers[edit]

Fails to assert notability per WP:MUSIC, Google doesn't find much that could be used to assert notability. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 22:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the reliable sources test, and therefore WP:MUSIC as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references --T-rex 23:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH. Fail RS and doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete The first paragraphy of the article is a Copyright Violation from this site: [3] Artene50 (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had checked the talk page or the deletion log, you'd have known that we have permission to use the content from that other website. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If deleted, a redirect to Beautiful Losers should be kept. 23skidoo (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are you saying Rjd0060--that Wikipedia article's can be copied and pasted word for word from web sites which promote them? That is not really acceptable. It might be deemed WP:SPAM. Artene50 (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that your speedy delete as a copyvio argument is null, as we have permission to use the copyrighted text. If I were to vote on this AfD, I would say Delete, also. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-m t 06:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even Kern[edit]

Singer/songwriter/producer with single album. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shark Meat Records. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:MUSIC. The only footnoted reference leads to this promotion site Artene50 (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per acknowledgement of notability by nominator and absence of any other delete preferences. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Custom Integrated Circuit Conference[edit]

I consider this a bit of a test case - it's a yearly conference, but it's a scientific conference that's not likely to get much press attention. Only source is an external link to the conference. Lots of hits on google, but it's because of all the conference publications, doesn't seem to be extensive coverage from secondary sources. Wired (magazine) coverage of the conference would be adequate, but top hit after the conference page proper is wikipedia. Should it be deleted? I think so. I also would consider adding the conferences I found at Very-large-scale_integration#Conferences. They're stubby, sourceless and circular for the most part. WLU (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also considering bundling the other pages but I'm not sure as I've never bundled - any suggestions from regulars would be welcome! WLU (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. All these conferences have many secondary sources. For one example, the main newspaper in the field is EE Times. A quick search on google (' "custom integrated circuits conference" site:eetimes.com' ) shows 42 references in this newspaper alone, including many conference overviews such as Custom Circuits . Design Automation Conference is the main conference for a five billion dollar industry. It has 1700 hits in EE Times articles alone. Similarly ICCAD ICCAD previews technical program, ISPD Future of chip design revealed at ISPD, etc. Note that these are overview articles, with named editors, and not copies of other descriptions. LouScheffer (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, were those references in the article, I wouldn't have AFD-ed it. That's actually enough for me to assert notability, though this may repeat if they're not included. WLU (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Jenner[edit]

Deleted prod. Was: Does not appear in any way notable. Related to some notable people? yes, notable? no. NrDg 22:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original proder. Notability is not hereditary. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited. Article does not assert individual notability for the subject. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, notability is not carried in genes (unless your surname is Hilton). —97198 talk 13:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pinkadelica 03:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Not delete. The consensus here is to not delete this, but it is also split as to whether to leave it standalone or merge it somewhere else, likely Common room. The article is improved from the previously deleted version, and improved since this AFD was opened including sources. A merge discussion should happen though, I'll leave that to the talkpage of the article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student lounge[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Was just deleted a few minutes ago. I'm not sure if this is a re-creation or not, but it's mostly a dicdef either way. Since I'm not sure it's a re-creation, I'm taking it to AfD instead of G4ing it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ given the first AfD was closed as speedy delete "without prejudice against future recreation", then its right we discuss this again. However this remains pure original research as it lack any verifiable sources. It also isn't clear, as TPH pointed out, how this is or could be anything more than a dictionary definition. Gwernol 22:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well obviously it is a recreattion, but it is not a recreation of the original article, its a recreation of the same topic but written as an encyclopedia article instead of as a dictionary definition. i can find some sources if necessary.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources to the article, the concept is unique architecturally speaking and is an important part of the college experience, furthermore it gets 2.4 million ghits! so i say keep or at the very least merge with student union.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are for a design competition, not for the contents of the article, which are still original research and as Carlossuarez46 says below, they don't rise above a dictionary definition. Gwernol 23:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Given the sources added by User:Coanda-1910, I agree that this should now, just about, be kept. I've removed the worst of the original research from the article and tidied up the headers. It still needs more sources, especially on the impact of lounges - those that Coanda provided are good indication of the type of material that should be added to the article. Gwernol 10:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still basically a fluffed-up DICDEF. Does every room with a potential dedicated purpose get an article even if all it says is the obvious about the place? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment, no reason for this room to be treated any differently.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we do have an article for Classroom --T-rex 23:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It also appears to be a mainly American-centric idea since I don't know of any such rooms in UK students' unions. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Common room, which is effectively the same thing as a student lounge. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 10:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they do exist in the UK, we have one at Oxford Brookes for instance. I just don't see the point in having an article on it. Do we have one for student bar? No. -- role^player 23:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out own comment, no opinion at present. -- role^player 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: In which case, they aren't that popular perhaps in the UK. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Pretty sure a G4 would have been ok. If it gets rejected then go to afd. --neon white talk 01:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- it's really, really hard to elaborate in any meaningful sense on a concept like this, as the name itself contains almost everything you need to know. An environment characterized primarily by location and by cheap high-impact furniture and vending machines does not warrant much more than a dicdef. Haikupoet (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a student lounge is a lounge for students. It isn't notable beyond that. Otherwise breakroom needs its own article as it is a lounge for employees. not to mention Employee Lounge, etc. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was just deleted and has gotten no better with recreation, DICDEF. L0b0t (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I would almost G4 this but the author went to some trouble to try and make it substantially different - besides, the version I deleted was a one-liner. In spite of the effort, it's still just a dicdef with no real sourcing, and it's hard to see it going beyond that. Shereth 17:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Common room, I don't see how the current article is a dictionary definition, it seem to largely deal with what the term describes not the term itself. Guest9999 (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment, who cares if they are not popular in the United Kingdom? Lots of things are popular in the states and not in the UK and vice versa but that doesn't mean it isn't notable for people from the U.S. or on wikipedia. This is clearly not a dictionary definition, look up DICDEF why don't you?
"Dictionary definitions. Although articles should begin with a definition and description of a subject, they should provide other types of information about that subject as well. Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness. Articles about the cultural or mathematical significance of individual numbers are also acceptable." How does this article fall under the DICDEF rules? The article is clearly not nothing more than a description and definition. It also has potential to grow, perhaps you would all consider giving it some time to do so and then revisit this issue?Myheartinchile (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTtake a look at Category:Room stubs, there are nearly a hundred similar articles on all sorts of rooms and much short and completely unsourced however they are notable, think about it, they don't have "student lounges" in the UK so a British exchange student can look it up and find out, and what better place than wikipedia? The subject is clearly notable, it just needs better sourcing, but why not improve it, instead of delete it? Please also consider Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance Myheartinchile (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment cmon, we even have an article about a Coffee table book!!!1Myheartinchile (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I've tried to spruce up the article somewhat, and would like to think it's improved enough to change some minds. I'd appreciate it if those who already voted took a second look. From what I've seen, it's not exactly an easy area to research but it has the potential to expand quite a bit, especially if someone at a university wants to pull up some of the sources I couldn't find the text of but looked promising on google scholar and JSTOR.Coanda-1910 (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote - keep or merge. I don't see a problem either way as the article stands now. If it grows a fair amount more, it might need to stand on it's own to not overshadow common room, but that's not a problem now. Coanda-1910 (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per info about student lounges being linked to academic success, added sourcing.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 13:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I appreciate the attempt to 'fix' the article but the sources still don't really cut it. Shereth 20:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, one study that was not directly linked to the subject doesnt really equal notability. The article still doesn't assert why the subject is notable. --neon white talk 16:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable because they are at almost every college and university in the United States! thats why.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a criteria for notability according to policy. --neon white talk 23:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Roleplayer said earlier, every university has a student bar, but we don't have an article for that.... ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a student bar is not as common as you'd think in the US, but that's neither here nor there. Basically, I reiterate my earlier vote -- source it all you like, but there is no earthly need for an article on such a trivial subject. It'd be like having an article on dorm rooms when we already have one on dormitories. Haikupoet (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haikupoet, Wikipedia's notability criteria are based on the availability of sources for a good reason. By relying on independent, published sources to decide what is notable, we avoid imposing our own judgments on articles. The foundation of an encyclopedia is that it summarizes and reports information that other sources have deemed worth writing about. This avoids us being plagued by endless arguments about whose opinion of what is trivial should be followed. Since this article now has such sources, we should not interject our personal standards on this matter and follow the notability criteria - this subject is notable per the sources and we should have an article about it. Best, Gwernol 12:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwernol, you might want to read the sources first. Most are connected to the subject of the article tangentially at best. They are sociological studies that were conducted in a student lounge, not writings ABOUT student lounges. There is also a design competition that was won by a design for a student lounge but again the source is not about student lounges at all. There is just no need for this article. I would urge all here to check out Wikipedia:N#General_notability_guideline which tells us that (contra Gwernols opinion) "substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion." and notability standards for buildings and structures which says "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. Sources are nice, but I can easily come up with sources saying 2*2=4. That doesn't mean an article on multiples of two is warranted. By hammering on WP:V, all you're doing is missing the forest for the trees. And not even all of them, just one of them. Haikupoet (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - much improved per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Common room of which this is a special case. Smile a While (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Common room. No reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to common room with a redir. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No longer just a dictionary definition and no longer any original research thus addressing the reasons for the nomination. Davewild (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-m t 04:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kviar[edit]

Not notable? I can only see one news reference, not at major sources, and brief. Company does not seem significant enough for notability. Chzz ► 22:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article does list sources, even though it is very peacock-ish. I would suggest keeping the article, but with a nice ((cleanup)) tag at the top. TN‑X-Man 03:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't appear notable enough for inclusion. The only purpose this article seems to serve is as an advertisement and Wikipedia is not an advertisement. Qaddosh|_contribs^talk 22:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is just on the wrong side of borderline, and the advertising-like approach pushes it over the edge. 9Nak (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Sure, it's verifiable, but I'm not sure exactly what the company is notable for, based on reading the text. —C.Fred (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (user advocating "keep" on my talkpage). A user has left this message on my talkpage regarding this deletion discussion. I have no opinion personally on the article or its merits (I merely relisted it for a stronger consensus earlier). The message, linked from my talkpage in it's entirety:
"on possible deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kviar

this is my 1 cent contribution to the possible deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kviar

problem is the company is brazilian, and therefore not known by the administrators (understandably)

however, some of the sources cited (FOLHA DE SÂO PAULO for example) are VERY known newspapers in Brazil

that means that the company DOES have notability

I´d suggest just editing maybe some parts like "At the end of 2007 the company opened its first physical store and started a franchise system", which is kinda pointless

well, there you go: hope it was useful :) Galonga (talk • contribs) 18:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk McEwen[edit]

This article fails WP:BIO. There are three claims made. One is that he's a radio personality. There is no reliable third party source that even confirms that fact so far. The second is that he had a bit part in a movie. That's not enough, else we'd be swimming in articles of those with bit parts, walk ons, and who acted as extras. The final claim is that he was nominated with others for a magazine's award. It's such an obscure award that the only Google results are literally versions of this article. In addition, the link to one year's award nominees does not even list him by name. Each independent claim, I submit, is not enough for notability. I would further say that the sum of all three claims doesn't get beyond the WP:BIO guideline, particularly given the dearth of reliable third party sources on display. Erechtheus (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The link at the bottom provides THE primary source for radio station dj awards. His KMS show is clearly there. The two other links show him on 105.7 and the imdb entry has his work at 98 Rock; IMDB is used often as third party sourcing on wikipedia. It easily passes the notability test; I made sure it did before making the entry. WillC (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just being a radio host and having an IMDb page doesn't make you notable. What has he done that meets WP:BIO? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the claims made are enough to meet WP:BIO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over based on the current version. Clearly but barely meets notability requirements with several nominations for minor industry awards and more importantly a credited but non-speaking part in a wide-release movie. Current article is so poorly written that it's easier to start over. I expect that if I looked, I could find 3rd-party news articles about him in his area newspapers. Alternatively, keep on condition someone steps up to the plate and radically improves it before this AfD ends then you can disgregard my delete opinion. Userfication recommended if someone needs more than a few days to improve it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was told the third party IMDB link does not work but it does. The awrds link does list his show (the KMS show) very clearly. The WP:BIO notability says they have to be award-worthy. I added another third party link talking about their ballyhooed switching from 98 Rock to 105.7. Lastly, I don't understand why Kirk is nominated for deletion yet Mark Ondayko, R. Edward Lopez, Josh Spiegel, Mickey and Amelia.....all local personalities Kirk has worked with, have had wiki entries for months yet KIrk does not make it and he has had more exposure and is more verified and notably than the rest of them put together. WillC (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: WillC's comment above: WillC, are you recommending deletion of those articles? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A double standard is being applied. Keep them all or delete them all. I believe all should stay. They pass notability rules. WillC (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at the other articles closely, but I agree, this passes notability, but it utterly fails quality. It's so bad that deleting without prejudice now and starting over at some future editor's convenience or rewriting now are better than keeping what's here. Unless you or some other editor steps up to the plate soon, my vote is to delete no the grounds that it's WP:WORSETHANNOTHING. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please suggest what would make it better? WillC (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put a template up on the article talk page. I don't have enough information to complete it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devvo & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Firth (3rd nomination) — Scientizzle 16:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Pickup[edit]

Article lacks any semblance of notability for this person, with the only "references" being links to a website that he contributes to. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Same can be said for his fictional persona Devvo, so I'm nominating it here as well. Shereth 21:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Devvo was featured on E4 (channel)[4], so he has made it off of the web. Pburka (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both lack notability. David Firth may be just about notable but his workd and individual characters are not. --neon white talk 01:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles don't meet the WP:NOTABILITY requirements - there are no reliable 3rd party sources to verify the article or to establish notability--Cailil ^talk 00:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, or redirect somewhere, in the absence of independent secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smart crystals[edit]

Possible copyright violation -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, you'd expect hits on google scholar if this was of any note. --neon white talk 01:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bad (and unrecognized) collective noun for certain crystal types. 9Nak (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) - Peripitus (Talk) 03:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's Got Talent (Series 1)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Britain's Got Talent (Series 1)

Prod removed without explanation so nominating it for deletion. Pages largely re-cover material available already at Britain's Got Talent. Mallocks (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: There is a similar page at Britain's Got Talent (Series 2), and as of this message I have now added the afd notice to that page as well, following the relisting of this debate. Mallocks (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnessacary topic, as with above reasons. The whole article copies the Britain's Got Talent page. Of course if the topic was expanded to include more in-depth detail and removed from the Britain's Got Talent page, then I might change my mind. Thenthornthing (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article has a lot of potential, but it is just not needed in its current state. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are two series, and we need articles for both. You might want to consider reducing what's in the main article and leaving the rest of the detail for the series articles. Everyking (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect I dont think there is enough in the main article to justify a fork. --neon white talk 01:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no Infomation on series 1 in the main article. But try to add more infomation about the acts. I argee with Starczamora there is seperate series/ season with other shows e.g American Idol, America's Got Talent, and The X Factor so it needs one with Britain's Got Talent. --1020J (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as to clean up the Britain's Got Talent page as its getting a bit cluttered with all of the information from both series on there. I agree it needs a lot of work but that can be sorted in time. Tresiden (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It needs a seperate page for each series because the main article is getting quite cluttered with all of the information from both series. So all about series 1 on the main article should be deleted .This article also has more infomation than the main article and no vandalism.--78.144.142.219 (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)— 78.144.142.219 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I agree with 78.144.142.219— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.233.224.114 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 12 June 2008— 84.233.224.114 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Keep. It has more infomation that the main article that is getting quite full. Also what is in the main article about series 1 should be delected. Also I agree with 1020J.--84.13.102.135 (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)— 84.13.102.135 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep. It Is Much Better Than The Main Article Because It Has More Info On The Acts ----001012A (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)001012A[reply]
Delete (or merge) & Redirect as needless fork. Eusebeus (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It has tones more infomation than the main arlicle that is getting to full I can't find any reason why it should be deleted. I argee with 78.144.142.219. --78.148.249.9 (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Although there have only been two seasons of Britain's Got Talent so far, it's probably best to get into the habit of having the series info on separate pages. In the future, the main article will get clogged with more series info, so it's probably best to get it out of the way now. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 16:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is exactly why you fork. It would make little sense to keep the content for each season in the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There should be separate articles of every series/ season of a TV show, especially among competition shows. See the separate season articles of American Idol. Starczamora (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems like pretty much standard operating procedure to have separate articles for each season of a major reality television show. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ➪HiDrNick! 12:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Meat Records[edit]

Unremarkable "digital" record label, with a stable of questionably notable artists. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Even Kern and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly Bea. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. A bit of a red link farm don't ya think. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CORP - it does seem their artists have won a few awards. Shimmerplanet were inducted into the Songwriters Hall Of Fame and won both Independent Music Awards and TIMMY Awards. Grace Garland won TIMMY Awards and has quite a big film and TV background. I think there is some merit here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctionsgalore (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Above user Correctionsgalore (talk · contribs) appears to be a Shark Meat Records SPA. See contributions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the Songwriter's Hall of Fame has no entry for either Shimmerplanet or Soren Anders listed on their site. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a link to the a mention about the Songwriters Hall Of Fame [[5]] Correctionsgalore (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is an image of the certificate awarded to Shimmerplanet from the Songwriters Hall Of Fame Correctionsgalore (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on real hits showing notability (barely). But WP:COI still applies - article should be monitored for COI editing. Frank | talk 19:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable label for non-notable performers. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an apparently indiscriminate list. If anyone wants the content for use in another article, just let me know and I'll be happy to userfy it. --jonny-m t 06:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Google Street View locations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

With all the new Street View locations Google has released today, it became clear that nearly everywhere in the United States would be covered by Street View in a few months, therefore making this list totally useless. Also, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --FlagFreak ^TALK 21:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There has already been a thorough discussion of this at a previous AfD (no consensus). However, I feel this article should be deleted. The relevant info is listed at Google Street View. This article should be a section within that article. TN‑X-Man 21:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I now support merging

Delete This will eventually become "list of every city in the United States". And it looks like Google wants to cover the entire world too. Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google has not seen fit to give my area a good satellite map, but they have Street View activated for rural intersections with a single farmhouse otherwise surrounded by cornfields. This is no longer a list with even the slightest encyclopedic purpose. --Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or rename to List of locations --T-rex 23:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm satisfied with Google Street View#Evolution and in the long run could even see trimming that list down when Google changes the Street View tag line to "billions and billions served..." Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep but simplify~~ Merge to Google Street View to preserve archive: Rather than making this an entire directory, limit this list to incorporated cities, county seats, national and state parks, and other locations with some type of importance.Sebwite (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Incorporated cities in Minnesota means that the list will include 22 "cities" around Minneapolis and Saint Paul, of which the suburban population count rivals major midwestern cities. And see Bay Area. .:DavuMaya:. 09:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note:If the decision is to delete, the article should simply be merged into Google Street View so if need be, it can be pulled back out. Besides, this would allow people to view the archive in the event that one wishes to see the evolution. Sebwite (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - It's a ridiculous list with no guidelines by which to limit anything by. The differences of definitions of cities between states makes any task to list locations simply irrelevant to WP. I would rather simply say which States contain SV streets. I do not support merge. .:DavuMaya:. 09:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but simplify. List relating to a notable innovation on the Internet which, in turn, has received considerable media coverage both pro and con. I agree it's a little too detailed and should be restricted to major incorporated places. It may be necessary to revisit this, however, if an when Google Streetview becomes ubiquitous and such a list becomes unmanageable. But at the moment that hasn't happened yet. 23skidoo (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please define a "major" incorporated place. For example San Francisco may be the most well known city, but the Bay Area population far exceeds that and no one in Oakland is going to let you tell them they are part of San Francisco SV. If Consensus reaches we simplify then I suggest we use metropolitan areas or metropolitan statistical areas as the definition of simplicity than any one city or place. .:DavuMaya:. 17:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think a good form of simplification would be to have one listing for each region covered by an icon (or not covered by one, since there are many areas now not clearly marked by an icon). For example, in Kentucky, Louisville, which has an icon, would be one area, and Lexington, which has no icon, would be another. But we would not go crazy here listing every little suburb. Still, this list is valuable for now in that it prevents the main GSV article from being unmanageable. Also, when this article is no longer needed, the appropriate action would be to merge or rename it, not to delete it, since it has an archive. Deletion is the course of action to take only when an article is not suitable for Wikipedia to begin with. Notability is not temporary. Once notable, always notable. Sebwite (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is how the article was when it was first created. Its basically in the same format as it now and you can make the same case to delete it.--Coasttocoast (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was only the first version. From this, the article was worked on to be a more manageable format. There is still plenty of more room for working on it. Sebwite (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's going to be nearly impossible to list every single Street View location. And, above all, it is unencyclopedic. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --FlagFreak ^TALK 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: I am presently working on trimming down the list. The types of places I am including are:
- Cities that are labeled in print that is the same size as the main city
- Cities that are in isolated areas covered in blue
- National and some state parks
- Note that not all areas have their own icons now. Though all these places are supposedly associated with a particular icon, it is not always clear which one, so it is best with certain places (such as Bakersfield) to label these as "no icon." Also, some places could like Omaha-Lincoln or Carson City-Reno theoretically could have their own icons, so these places could also be labeled "no icon."

What are we going to do when Google gets most of the United States on Street View? Are we going to rename this List of American locations? That's just plain crazy. If this article is kept, why not start List of hi-res Google Earth locations? --FlagFreak ^TALK 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Delete this, and include a very small list on Google Street View. If you want to list every single location, feel free to do so on your own website/blog. --FlagFreak ^TALK 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I can see the "plight" of this "eventually" becoming obsolete because most of the U.S. is covered, I give you this section of the map with Google Map coverage on it: NorthEast U.S. Google Street View. Granted, population wise, with N.Y., Philly, Chicago, Boston, etc. street viewed, that a good portion is covered. If you are looking geographically though, just eye-balling it, I would guesstimate that at most 15% of the map is streetviewed. And there are many major mid-sized (and bigger) cities still not streetviewed. Yes, once every city over 50,000 in the U.S. is streetviewed, this is an obsolete list. At this point though, that list would in my guess be under 20% of those cities in the U.S. would be there. As others have pointed out though, if we don't want "lists" on Wikipedia, then, so be it. Just making a point about some of the arguments here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dletter (talk • contribs) 15:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Currently, streetview only covers the US, but pretty soon as we all hear, it'll be in other places in the world, thereby necessitating more information to be written as to what places have it and what places not. Deleting this article would not make it go away permanently - it would only kill the archive, which would be a tremendous shame. Inevitably, someone would recreate a page like this, either under this name or something else. Anyone who feels it is not needed should at the very least have the consideration to merge it. Sebwite (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Consideration means to give something careful thought. Why should we even include this in an encyclopedia? The most that would be reasonable is a map of the current Street View locations (which I can provide), but listing every single city covered is pretty useless. You could say in the Google logo article that "the letters in Google's logo are coloured in the following order: G, blue; o, red; second o, yellow...etc.", or you just include a picture of the logo so the user could see for herself/himself. --FlagFreak ^TALK 02:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just one question, Sebwite: Why do you want to list them in the first place? --FlagFreak ^TALK 02:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about making a flat-out list. This is about describing the history and evolution of this service, which has excited many. Contrary to what you may think, I do not support a list of 100% of the locations on Wikipedia, but rather one that is limited to relatively large or otherwise significant or distinct cities or areas. While defining exactly what could fit such a requirement is not easy, it is pretty clear that we would want to list Omaha or Knoxville, which do not have their own icons, but are recognized as big cities with identities separate from other nearby cities. But I do not see much of a need to list places like Newton, MA or Skokie, IL, which are very much like suburbs of the main cities.

At the present, I am leaning toward the best thing to be to merge this article back into GSV. This way, the archive would be preserved. Meanwhile, I am working on converting the list on this page into a simplified chart, which I am planning on doing on my userspace until it is complete.

Meanwhile, it is only a matter of time before SV is introduced in other countries. When this happens, it would probably be a good idea to split the section of the GSV article called "Areas included" into a separate article. That could be titled "Google Street View areas in the United States" or something similar. This section (which I am still working on updating), is not a list, but rather a description of how the service has grown over time. As SV is growing, this is the type of information that will not grow useless, but would tell of the service's development.Sebwite (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am agreeing with whoever cited WP NOT DIRECTORY. This is exactly the kind of list that policy was intended to target. GSV list is like "List of McDonalds restaurant locations", "List of corporations using Microsoft Vista", "List of cities with skyscrapers." GSV is a service intended for the public, for the nation, and nowhere does Google state it is simply hitting a few specific spots and then calling it quits. The list by virtue will become obsolete and even at this time will not seem very relevant. I interpret you are advocating the list will give us some kind of historical picture of how the service came into being. Let me suggest a compromise to that, you want to write a History section for GSV detailing how it came into being. Sure GSV had a few significant steps when it tested new imaging technologies at different cities or encountered some unique situations. But after that, SVing places is what the service is intended to do, and so you cannot state for WP:Crystal ball certainty that this list is somehow notable to that effect. Your text may be, the list is not. .:DavuMaya:. 21:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I am presently working on in my own userspace is a simple chart that I am planning eventually to add to the main GSV article. It'll not be a directory, but rather give a picture of coverage areas. Meanwhile, I am advocating merging this article. In the future, when locations in other countries are included, so the GSV article does not become USA-centric, it'll become necessary to split that article, so another subarticle will have to be created describing the USA locations (but it'll be different from this one, which should be merged, and will have a different title). The reasons why I advocate merging as opposed to straight-out deleting are that articles do not stop being notable, and it is important to preserve this archive to show editors in the future the proper route to take. Sebwite (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to preserve the content in your own namespace OR propose an additional namespace off of the main GSV article such as Google Street View/drafts .:DavuMaya:. 01:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Re-charter - I’m doing a second pitch to delete this article as the entire list is original research from primary sources. It seems people notice blue lines and some point deem coverage of an area or city is “sufficient” to merit addition to the GVS list article. The article's references at this moment are a blog entry that part of Canada is visible from a GVS taken in Detroit and a news article about a GVS competitor. The body of the article has zero references/citations. The current process and resulting article/list smacks of WP:OR. Rather than deleting the article it could be updated to use http://maps.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=68384 as the source and nothing more as that seems to qualify as a reliable secondary source. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated List of Google Street View locations#Summary Table so that it matches Google's reference document on which cities/areas they cover with GVS though reorganized the list by state. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recharter was my idea, too. I am working on a chart similar to yours on my userspace that is a little more detailed, but for the most part, has a single line for each of the 50 states. It'll only list those places that have icons, isolated areas of blue, or other areas of importance that are separate from the icon. For the most part, I am not using Google to determine what places I feel are worthy of belonging in that chart, but rather the Rand McNally Road Atlas. When the chart is complete, I am planning on placing in the the Google Street View article under the "areas included" section. But when SV is introduced into other countries, I am planning on moving that section into a new article called "Google Street View in the United States," so the main article is not USA-centric. In the mean time, I am hoping, this discussion will lead to a decision to merge or a non-concensus so the archive can be preserved and we can all decide what to do next. Sebwite (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so why don't we make an article called Google Earth in the United States? Because it's crazy. Also, we thank you for all the work you've done on this list, and it's a great effort, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If you would like, put it on your userspace before it's too late and then we'll decide what to do with it. Okay? ;-) --FlagFreak ^TALK 20:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not delete the entire page/article as that would then be used as justification for never being able to recreate this list. I would like to see the body of the article deleted as it seems there's no defined criteria for what gets included and that's what's triggering nearly all of the Delete comments in this AfD discussion. The summary table at the top of the article is based on two defined, and verifiable, criteria for what that table includes. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 20:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Marc Kupper about not deleting the entire page. I also have the issue about losing the archive, as I have mentioned before. But I do agree that having a list, straight down the page, of hundreds of cities and towns, won't go as it just keeps growing. What this is really all about is that it is time for a change. Google Street View is changing rapidly, hence the need for Wikipedia info on the topic to change constantly to keep up with it.

On the Google Street View page, I have inserted a new chart I made in the past day that has a simple, state-by-state list of cities covered. The list is not based on Google Maps, which is highly detailed and can lead to an overwhelming list, but rather on the USA page of the Rand McNally Road Atlas. In more than 90% of cases, it lists SVed locations that are shown on this map of the RMRA. I made a few exceptions, based on common sense. For example, I added in Modesto and Stockton, which are really cities of their own, and left out three places near Chicago shown that map that are more like suburbs.

I am also planning as my next step to reinstate a state-by-state set of paragraphs on the areas included into the GSV article that the nom here has removed twice in the past few days. I plan to leave a discussion of the GSV talk page about it. While I will put it back there for now, a solution may be to place it on a separate page. I have not created a page on "GSV in the USA" for now because it seems silly when the United States is still the only country, but this may be a step in that direction. Sebwite (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cash Money Records. Per GFDL, I am not deleting any history. Also not merging content. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cash Money Records artists[edit]

Unsourced list of non-notable artists "currently and/or formerly signed to " a non-notable recording label. Damiens.rf 21:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pointless listcruft, merge any bluelinks into label's own page. If the artists aren't notable (...enough to have WP pages of their own), they shouldn't be listed in a page such as this (doesn't aid readers or help WP organization). If there are only a handful (as it seems) that are notable, it's overkill to have a separate page just to list them. DMacks (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that it is WP:USELESS. Who are we to decide what is valuable content or not, and that should not be the reasoning for a deletion, Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that it is useless because it is WP:Listcruft and that I specifically was talking to its existence as a stand-alone article (note where say to merge content) because it makes WP navigation difficult. DMacks (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge' into article Cash Money Records, and redirect link. The article has a list of artists in it already. There's really no need to split it out, unless there were 100s of notable artists, past & present. Lugnuts (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the list was sourced, I could see merging it. But it isn't sourced at all, and nobody should merge unsourced content. I recommend redirecting without merging or deleting, but could understand deleting. GRBerry 19:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --jonny-m t 06:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grace A. Dow Memorial Library[edit]

Non notable library, with no sources whatsoever, no assertion of notability, no reliable sources, only one external link, only two edits since 2006, excluding this AfD, no substantive edits in a while, no room for growith, original research issues, only things that are at all interesting are that its old, founded in 1899 and that it happens to have TV stations (cable access) within the compound, although those claims are not backed up with any verifiable reliable sources. I say delete it. Myheartinchile (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the interesting things noted by the nominator are probably enough to prove notability. I added a reference. I even saw a reference to the library's auditorium in a New York Times article at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05EFD71039F932A05750C0A965948260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all , although I didn't add that as a reference. --Eastmain (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of verifiable information[6] can be found about this > 100 year old public library. Surely it's an important institution in the community. Pburka (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is sourced and asserts notability, contrary to the nom's comments. This is another example of why its important that users do at least minimal research before nominating articles for deletion. Just because you don't currently see sources placed in the article, that doesn't mean they don't exist. --Oakshade (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found and added above. It's history brings it beyond a run-of-the-mill local library and the RS coverage meets WP:ORG _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:N and WP:ORG. The NYT story is about this town and briefly mentions a news conference which was held in the library, and isn't about the library itself. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Valley Public Library is a relevant previous AfD. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article of a library was deleted in the past means this library article must be deleted? Curious WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. There are more secondary sources on this library than the NYT article you mentioned. --Oakshade (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and more here as well. The existence of event listings doesn't invalidate every other piece of RS coverage. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the page requires work but sources are available to meet WP:N and the page contains. encyclopaedic content. TerriersFan (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small city public libraries are not generally notable, and there is nothing here to shown that this one is. The NYT article being asserted as a source is the very model of incidental mention, just as Nick observes above. the other references are equally weak--just events held at the library. Libraries host non-=notable community events, usually several a week. Being a community meeting place is not notable, even if the internet provides links from local sources. American Libraries includes every head librarian appointment that gets sent to it--they're just directory listings. And the institution that happens to have employed a bank robber does not therefore become notable. I would very strongly oppose extending the practice with high schools to other local institutions--high schools area special case, because of the likely alumni and awards for any one that is long established. This does not happen to libraries (or fire departments, and so on. All very important in their area, but of no encyclopedic interest. No number of local community listings can make this notable unless something notable happens. If this is what 2RSs=N is interpreted as meaning, its time we got rid of it. But it doesnt--tit requires significant discussion of the subject, andthat is nto present in any of the sources. DGG (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get the "2RSs=N" notion from? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are two books on the library - both published by the library (written by staff ? - can't tell). All other mentions I can find are incidental or directory listings. Simply seems to be insufficient written by independant reliable sources to write a neutral point of view article. Needs someone local with access to printed records to see if the other sources that Google books reports are more than peripheral mentions - Peripitus (Talk) 03:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has secondary source coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grace A. Dow[edit]

Not notable, although there are referenced sources, her accomplishments including giving a marble stone to a church and land for a hospital and bing the president and member of various charities is not notable, especially since none of those charities have articles of their own. Perhaps being a board member at the state level of daughters of the American revolution is her most notable achievement, but it doesn't pass the muster of the WP:N and WP:BIO guidelines. so delete it. and add a sentence or two at her husbands article. Myheartinchile (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with her husband's article. Pburka (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

based on what policy?Myheartinchile (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment subject has a library, foundation and college named after her as well as being married and mother to notable people. If it's decided that they shouldn't have an article, the information could almost certainly be merged somewhere. Guest9999 (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't really have a library named after her, she has a library which she paid for named after her, it was basically hers, it wasn't a honor bestowed upon her for the purposes of finding someone of note to name it after. She has a college named after her? What? Which one? I think i missed that part, whats your source on that? Lot's of people have foundations named after them, it has to be a notable foundation for it to matter. Her children are notable? Who are they and why? I wholeheartedly agree with a merge to her husband's article.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of the article tells me her son was architect Alden B. Dow, the college I mentioned is this. Guest9999 (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article contains plenty of sources. It is the existence of such sources which is the basis of the notability guidelines, not their content. Unless any evidence is presented that these sources don't exist or don't provide significant coverage we should assume good faith on the part of the article's author and keep this. The idea of merging this with her husband's article sounds like it comes from the era when married women weren't allowed to open bank accounts without their husbands' permission. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sources yes, reliable sources establishing notability NO, she is only verifiable, no news articles, just the library stuff. She does not have multiple no trivial coverage in several publications, and that makes her fail WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:BIO Myheartinchile (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The widow of the founder of Dow Chemical. At that level, associated family members with substantial activities of their own,who continue charitable activities after the death of their spouses, are likely to be notable. If the implications of this are somewhat sexist, its do to the nature of early 20th society.DGG (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Firth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This has been nominated for deletion in the past with mixed results, the last time being about two years ago. I can't help but notice how all the material to support this article is based on primary sources and it is my belief that this fails WP:BIO guidelines. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE, fails WP:BIO easily, is not WP:N too, not enough WP:RS either and is also at odds with WP:LIST and WP:TRIVIA.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, his being the creator of a semi-notable internet meme notwithstanding. At best this should be a redirect to Salad Fingers (although I'm not entirely convinced that is inclusion worthy either). There are no sources here to indicate notability. Shereth 21:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Salad Fingers per WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MCB (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Bea[edit]

Singer/songwriter/actor. Sole IMDB credit is for single episode of Law & Order:SVU. Speedily deleted previously as both Molly Bea and Molly bea. Apparent COI (record company is "Shark Meat Records", article author is User:Sharkmeatrecords). Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE fails WP:BIO and WP:RS but, merge to the record company label.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shark Meat Records. A merge may not be possible. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the admin declining speedy. Non-notable artist, I would need to be shown this subject meets WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC before reconsidering. NOTE: speedy was declined as the article does assert notability. Tan | 39 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A3, probably coulda picked A1 too. No prejudice against potential future recreation. Shereth 21:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student lounge[edit]

Delete contested prod; WP:DICDEF and the definition in the article equally applies to 1000s of locales: cafes, restaurants, bowling alleys, sidewalks, and shopping malls all serve the same purpose... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Nk.sheridan Talk 21:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STQ-3 (band)[edit]

No real assertion of notability and since I can't find their album anywhere on major online music stores, I'm assuming it's self-produced. I suppose it could be speedied but I'm just giving the creator a chance to find non-trivial coverage. Also nominating the related Programming Mechanical Judgments: The STQ-3 Movie (short movie) which is equally (if not more) obscure. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as non-notable vanity articles. --neon white talk 01:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, when you can't find them on Amazon.com or some other online music store I think it's a pretty safe bet N hasn't been achieved yet. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 04:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable sources to verify information thus the content is likely to be original research and may not abide by WP:NPOV. The band fails WP:MUSIC and as such, is eligible for deletion. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Pilotguy contact tower 19:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia LIMA Top 50 Charts[edit]

There are no reliable sources on the site! it should be deletedOlliyeah (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found. Non-notable. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP let's wait and see if there are sources, because if it can be verified it is clearly notable.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was written in Feb 2007. There are no sources. I looked and could not find any. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, article referencing improved during AfD, but still of borderline notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dafoh[edit]

Non-notable organization. Speedy was declined, however, this article contains large amounts of WP:OR and is unsourced. TN‑X-Man 20:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. They have received some minor press mentions, but they aren't really looking notable to me. If it is kept, it is going to need some cleanup. J Milburn (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
leaning towards keep. I added some refs but the article needs work. Given it is 1.5 hours old lets see how it improves during the AFD. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No problem. I've corrected a couple of the internal links and fixed the external links so they display the URL instead of a number. TN‑X-Man 21:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a bad article, but this isn't "clean up," it's deletion. They're notable, even China can't ignore them. --Blechnic (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted, along with the band's main page. Nakon 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reach Every Dolla[edit]

Non-notable, unreleased, album. Fails WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero hits on Google. Possible hoax. Otherwise, entirely non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete just like the band's article. --Damiens.rf 21:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately there is no speedy category for albums, otherwise I would have so nominated it. – ukexpat (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CRYSTAL as unreleased album, unsourced. TN‑X-Man 21:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F.2.D. Myspace

They have some tracks on limewire, but none on myspace. I understand ya think they a hoax, but they are unsigned and still gonna go major. They are also working with "The Mixtape Massacre". The website isn't started, but they are on unoffical mixtapes. HA NOT A HOAX! NICE TRY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MixtapeMassacre (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace is not a reliable source. 22:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable. -- role^player 22:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable band and album/single/etc. Fails WP:MUSIC many ways. DMacks (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not for a speedy, they assert notability. Probably not a hoax, but not notable as per WP:MUSIC - or at least, not as near as I can tell,. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Hnsampat (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama presidential campaign, VP selection process[edit]

This information would be better suited in prose in the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 page, rather than its own. So therefore, I suggest a merge. — scetoaux (T|C) 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, but still suggest a rewrite into prose. — scetoaux (T|C) 04:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a large list of information which would make the main article too unwieldy. Plus, let me cite precedent. John Kerry presidential campaign VP selection process.--Shikata Ganai (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a precedent for this, but I think this article needs to be closely monitored. For example, there are several people on this list without references to support their consideration as a nominee. Speculation needs to be kept to a minimum for this to be legit. TN‑X-Man 21:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia isn't a news aggregator, and without a public statement by the campaign that's all this will be. Be patient. WillOakland (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. There is no need for this article at this point and there likely will not be until at least the end of June, perhaps not even until the DNC convention. Haikupoet (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This subject will have to be discussed one way or another, and I think it will make the main Obama presidential campaign article too large.--Shikata Ganai (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- I won't cry if this is deleted, but it does seem to me to be a topic of encyclopedic interest, as well as being a notable subject. The fact that its (aside from a few entries here and there) sourced also works in the favor. Part of the reason I'm only going weak keep though is that its in list form. If it could be worked on to write it in more paragraph form (if that makes any sense), then my vote would turn to a strong keep. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main article on the campaign. I don't really see this as viable for a separate article, but certainly as part of the main campaign article. 23skidoo (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as separate article. The article Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 in which the merge to was suggested is too long and has a tag indicating that too. Merging another article into that would only do more harm. Sebwite (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close - The article deserves to be kept, but more than that, AfD is not for merge discussions. --Hnsampat (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki any eligible images, delete the list. Since this gallery is, to put it simply, huge, I'm going to take the unusual step of userfying it to my own userspace at User:jonny-mt/Gallery of current first-level administrative country subdivisions maps. This should serve the dual purpose of weeding out any non-free images (thanks to the helpful bots who delink any non-free images outside of the main article namespace) and allowing time to confirm whether or not any of these images are not on Commons. I'm fine with working on this myself, but any help would naturally be most appreciated. --jonny-m t 06:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of current first-level administrative country subdivisions maps[edit]

Wikipedia is not an image gallery. If anyone wants to transwiki this to Commons, they can do so in the five days of this AfD. Sandstein 20:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trans and Delete per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. A good resource but it doesnt belong here. --neon white talk 01:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are all of these images in fact Commons images? I haven't checked all of them. If all are Commons or Commons-eligible, then delete this once it is transwikied. If some images are not Commons eligible for whatever reason, then keep it, as the only way to preserve a useful index. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of these images are in Wikipedia imagespace, not Commons. However, they are also used in the articles about each country's subdivions. This page seems to be a graphical version of Table_of_administrative_country_subdivisions_by_country and Category:Lists_of_country_subdivisions. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a suitable article, but don't delete. Transwiki, or move to project space, break it into smaller pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am a casual user of Wikipedia who does not understand esoteric verbs such as 'to transwiki', nor undocumented assertions by putative insiders, such as 'Wikipedia is not an image gallery.' I am making this first attempt at a response because this page has been a godsend to me. Your articles on individual countries are notoriously uneven in their inclusion of basic geographic information, whereas this page has saved me many hours of research. I would not like to lose it. Kenneth Hilton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.22.104.18 (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not an article --T-rex 23:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a useful visual guide to administrative divisions which a table does not properly illustrate. Every image has an accompanying article which has more information - it would be impractical to try and summarise them here - just like the coat of arms and flags galleries. --Roke 01:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, nonnotable unpublished fanbook. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mark tom and travis story[edit]

Non-notable unpublished book. Fails both WP:BK and WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 20:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Gamble[edit]

Non-notable software developer/blogger. There is a lack of reliable sources to support the assertions made in the article. Mattinbgn\^talk 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a disputed PROD. Some reasoning is supllied on the talk page. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably could have been speedied as a non-notable website founder. As it stands, article is unsourced, fansite material. TN‑X-Man 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability requirements are not met, also concur with Tnxman's view.--VS ^talk 22:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree... sources were added. As this is a blogger no academic sources have been quoted; instead other independent sites have been quoted, all of which give the blogger and his efforts decent reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pondelion (talk • contribs) 01:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were the subject's own website mentioned in the article. None of the sources added are either independent of the subject or have any sort of fact checking, both of which are required per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Try again. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources in this article are either secondary or from the subject's own website. He lacks WP:N as of June 2008--no independent major references. Artene50 (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to meet the notability criteria for biographies at this time; no secondary sources to vouch for the notability of this person. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No reliables. Five Years 13:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Soxred 93 04:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Peña[edit]

A wrestling promoter of dubious notability. The one cited source does not give the impression of being particularly reliable or providing substantial coverage, and Google provides results about unrelated people. Sandstein 19:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per WP:ATHLETE if a person competed in a fully professional league they are notable. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Did he ever compete? there's a difference between a competitor and a promoter. DGG (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know if he ever competed but he was the promoter of Mexico's second largest promotion. He is notable, this article needs tidying. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:ATHLETE presumes that competitors in a professional league are notable, not their promoters, even if whatever it is he promotes is indeed a fully professional league. Sandstein 05:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A-Dust (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. Sandstein 05:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject has not competed as a professional wrestler so WP:ATHLETE, cited above, does not apply. A single mention in the wrestling alamanac is not sufficient to meet WP:BIO. TerriersFan (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some clearly unreliable sources I saw said that he was a competitor in the 1970s. I don't know this genre well enough to identify reliable sources, but I can tell that forums are unreliable sources... So I offer this data point, but no opinion. GRBerry 19:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pastor Tom Hobbes[edit]

Unreferenced bio. I can't seem to verify any of this through searches of external resources. Supporting details like "Desmond Ngubani" and "African People's Church of the Progeny of Noah" also appear not to be found anywhere on the web but in Wikipedia articles. Possible hoax? (See author's deleted contributions here for recent problematic edits.) The Anome (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks WP:V. Pburka (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fortune (magazine). History will remain intact, not merging content. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

America's Most Admired Companies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/America's Most Admired Companies

Delete - does not appear to pass notability guidelines as it does not appear to be the subject of multiple reliable sources. Seems to be a vanity thing for companies so most of the Ghits are press releases; other sources mention it in passing. The lists themselves may need to be removed regardless as copyvios. Otto4711 (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Is a "publication" of Fortune magazine, possibly notable. ukexpat (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of reliable sources that this particular list/publication is independently notable, the notability of Fortune doesn't pass to this article. There is a section on the lists that Fortune publishes at Fortune (magazine) so perhaps an expanded mention of this list there would be appropriate. Not sure under GFDL if that means that this article would need to be redirected to preserve the history or not. I would tend to think not since we wouldn't really be merging anything for this article to the magazine article. Otto4711 (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete is a Fortune publication, yes, but at the same time it's mostly cited for vanity and not talked about (unlike the 500) Sceptre ^(talk) 14:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Theory of criticality[edit]

A very extensive philosophical essay inherently unencyclopedic. Completely original research. Prod removed by author. BradV 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, clear WP:OWN issues evinced by the email addy at the top. Townlake (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gatoclass (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR essay. The comment on the talk page is priceless however. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Spell4yr (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems more like something personal essay than an article. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pn, Completely OR ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - pure OR --T-rex 23:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick Google search produced [7], [8], and [9] describing a "Theory of criticality", I am not sure if this is the same theory described in those (reliable?) documents. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 01:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They all look unrelated to me. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Time to break out the snowplow. JuJube (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to be the same theory of criticality found online by NanohaA'sYuri. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Wheeler[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable biography. David is an editor in good standing and has been with the project for years; in addition, he's contributed some essays and tools which Wikipedians are prone to come into contact with. As a user page the content is fine. As an article, however, it's demonstrative of WP's systemic biases towards free software and Wikipedia personalities, as were these not factors the notable sources (primarily an essay well known in the Linux community seven years ago) would not be enough to warrant a biography. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:N, self published sources don't provide any evidence of notability. Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 15:10, 4 June 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 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the odd thing is that he would seem to pass WP:PROF but not WP:NOTE, which suggests there is some inconsistency in the respective policies. ~~If he isn't an academic, I would lean toward delete, as I don't think he's done enough to qualify under WP:NOTE.~~ Gatoclass (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Striking the latter comment as I didn't look at his homepage and it may be there is enough there to establish notability per DGG. I just don't have time to check ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems there's a lot more to be said than is in the article, see the home page http://www.dwheeler.com/dwheeler.html for additional books an, publications, and references to news stories about him. DGG (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG; Good point, Gatoclass. Our definition of academic may be too restrictive, or susceptible of overrestrictive interpretation. People like James Lovelock or Julian Barbour are respected in the academic world just as if they were professors somewhere, but don't happen to have academic jobs, experts in many industries might qualify if their work appears in academic journals. Reaching back into the 19th century gives multitudes of famous examples - Darwin of course. The Grassmanns and Karl Weierstrass were high-school, gymnasium teachers, as was this century's Kurt Heegner. Perhaps it should say academic/professor/scholar/expert, or say that if someone satisfies any of the six criteria we give they are considered academics.John Z (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's easy to err in responding to a percieved bias toward Free Software and Wikipedians with a bias against them. Wheeler's work is notable although this article doesn't cover it well. Rather than delete, I think a rewrite is appropriate. Bruce Perens (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is "might be notable" a reason to have an article now? Forgive my cynicism, but while I feel like he might be notable, I'm not seeing any independent sources that say so...but I can be convinced. Any assertions of notability - step to the front please. Frank | talk 02:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party reliable sources provide significant coverage. Extra sources from subjects webpage cited by DGG seem to be using him as an expert, not about him. gnfnrf (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mostly based on his publication of two books and the fact that his essay on the economics of open-source software has been cited in 84 scholarly publications. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Gone, no release, no assertion of notability. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F.2.D.[edit]

Non-notable unreleased band. A lot of crystal-balling. First single schedulled for 2009. Stay tunned. Damiens.rf 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing in the article that makes the band pass WP:MUSIC, and I can't find anything via Google that would pass WP:MUSIC. Article can be recreated in the future if the group becomes notable. Bláthnaid 19:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 19:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I completely agree with the rationales provided by the nom and Blathnaid. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unremarkable band, so tagged ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where the gravity is born[edit]

Original research, barely comprehensible fringe physics. Note that most of the "content" cites only a book by multiply-banned sockpuppeteer W. Guglinski. Bm gub (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The formatting also smacks of Guglinski, as does the rather poor English. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an article. Also, if he's a sockpuppet of said user, the creator needs to be indef blocked. JuJube (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spell4yr (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be original research. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and verging on WP:CB ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very obvious OR --T-rex 02:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wrong title. Origins of gravity are discussed in gravitation and Alternatives_to_general_relativity; this theory does not proclaim to be a theory entitled "where the gravity is born" so it would need to be moved appropriately - to something like "Quantum Ring Theory, Aether Theory, and Repulsive Gravity". Oh - and deleted: WP:OR, WP:PN, and possibly WP:HOAX seem relevant. Coanda-1910 (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Porter Barry[edit]

This person is not significant, the references are not reliable, and the content belongs in Fox News Channel controversies if anywhere. Bytebear (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Generally unreferenced - only references are a Youtube video and a link on Arianna Huffington's page - and last I checked, Ms. Huffington is mostly big on her editorial pieces. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Appears to have no notability outside of the incident. EJF (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A single recent news incident does not make Porter Barry notable and I didn't find much on the life and times of Porter Barry to justify a Wikipedia article. If the confrontation were notable, the information should be in an article The 2008 confrontation of Bill Moyers or something of that nature. -- Bebestbe (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WPBLP1E. Keep if evidence of his being involved in other public shenanigans is presented. Gamaliel (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources added in this edit are a start, but not yet enough to sustain an article. I suggest adding him to the Factor article, and a new article on Barry can be created if enough information on him is discovered. Gamaliel (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. MrMurph101 (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E. This could be mentioned in The O'Reilly Factor article if need be or another relevant article. MrMurph101 (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The O'Reilly Factor is one of the famous evening news shows in US with over 2 million viewers and Porter Barry is one of the producers of the show. In other words, Shouldnt a producer of a show watched by over 2 million Americans deserve a page in Wikipedia? Well, I agree that the article lacks info and in this regard everyone is welcome to contribute to make it a complete article.Docku (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources have been updated to include both Fox News and MSNBC. Per the valid suggestion of User:Gamaliel, "evidence of (Barry's) being involved in other public shenanigans" has been included. 128.227.1.133 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Half of the references you added as evidence didn't even mention Barry. The others only referenced him as related to the show as staff (one was the IMDB entry for Fox News). Bytebear (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Bytebear. There are two references added by the anonymous user which has info where Barry interviewing Syracuse University professor and the abortion doctor. I would suggest you not remove those citations until a decision about this issue is made. Thanks.Docku (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A calculated media ambush of a mid-tier pundit is barely real news, let alone encyclopedic. Merge any referenced material to The O'Reilly Factor, the only place this has significance. --Dhartung | Talk 22:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the Wikipedia "biography" on Porter Barry would seem to qualify as "a calculated media ambush of a mid-tier pundit." The keep position seems to be "Let's use the media Wikipedia to get revenge on this guy Barry by listing 'evidence of (Barry's) being involved in other public shenanigans'." Great. Wikipedia's POV material on O'Reilly is in the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly article, so the material may fit there, if anywhere. -- Bebestbe (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That qualifies to be called an attack. Would the delete then mean helping Porter Barry?? I agree though that the material could fit in Criticism of Bill O'Reilly as well.Docku (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yout last edit added the following statement: "Barry is known for his confrontational interviews." Is he? Is there a single third party reference to Barry being known for confrontational interviews? Is he "known" for anything? Bytebear (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have changed the wording as suggested.Docku (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the wording. It's the lack of a third party reference. You have to find someone reliable who has said that Barry is known as an interviewer, controversial or not. Has anyone written anything about this man specifically at all? Bytebear (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let it be on record. The article has references including FOX news website, MSNBC website and youtube video which are sufficient enough (in my opinion) to prove that he works with Bill O Reilly, he has interviewed Bill Moyers, Nancy Cantor and George Tiller. These are the references

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_2IZT4VgDY -Youtube video of the interview with Bill Moyers,

http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/09/1126562.aspx -MSNBC,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355898,00.html -Porter Barry interviews chancellor of Syracuse University,http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281861,00.html -Porter Barry interviews abortion doctor. Also for the record, three of the references were added by someone else.

If you guys think this is not sufficient for a wikipedia article, pls go ahead and delete it. I am out of here.Docku (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is still not enough info for a stand-alone bio. As Gamaliel pointed out, this can go in the O'Reilly Factor article and if enough material can be produced a bio could be spun out. Also, while not policy or even a guideline at the moment, wikipedia shouldn't create original biographies which may be a form of original research. In other words, this individual shouldn't have a bio until one has already been published. MrMurph101 (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Single purpose article meant only to disparage Porter. Someone would have to show that this incident is somehow more notable than similar type incidents done in the media industry. Think Michael Moore who does this kind of stuff frequently, yet it isn't the focal point of his article. Arzel (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoes (Widget toolkit)[edit]

non-notable software - fails WP:N, also no RS ukexpat (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could conceivably become notable if widely enough used, but it ain't now. 9Nak (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WegianWarrior (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Give Me That[edit]

Keep, AfD withdrawn. (Non-admin closure.)

Contested redirect of non-notable song, per WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs to be referenced but it made it on the music charts[10][11][12]

Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is notable for being Webbies first single.--Yankees10 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Being the Webbies first single does not make it notable. Charting does. I'll update the article. Thanks, Gtstricky. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A few people did suggest a redirect but I'm unsure if such an awkward title would be a viable search term. If anyone thinks this would be useful, they are welcome to create a redirect. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisbon Treaty - Irish Ratification[edit]

This article should be deleted on the grounds that is it wholly inappropriate. The creator of this article stated that: There is confusion in Ireland over whether this will be good for the country or otherwise, and an excess of information from many extreme points of view is adding to this. This article has been created in order to invite an impartial combination of sources into a brief summary to help the general public. This is the job of the Irish Referendum Commission not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is there to provide factual articles on the Lisbon Treaty / Referendum / Ratification not help the general public make up their minds on which way to vote. Wikipedia is not a blog or a forum for discussion. Finally, the points in the article about the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty are not unique to Ireland and will affect the whole of the EU if the treaty is ratified. Snappy56 (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy56 (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; Ireland's referendum is well covered in the Treaty of Lisbon article. ww2censor (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article is an essay on the pros and cons of the treaty, and is not an encyclopedic article in the conventional sense. It is better suited to a blog or similar, and is decidedly suspect in terms of the following Wikipedia principles: Soapbox-esque, Reads like a blog, Reads like a manual, guide or "how to" advice, Does not represent a global perspective, etc. Guliolopez (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed, it's also almost exclusively edited by anons who have made almost no other contributions, not grounds for deletion but a little bit suspicious, I wonder would wikiscanner reveal anything?! Snappy56 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland which covers it correctly. This seems to be a fork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtstricky (talk • contribs) 17:53, 10 June 2008
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 19:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator. This article falls under WP:NOTGUIDE. Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland covers Ireland's referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in an encyclopedic manner. Also, the article will be redundant after Thursday. Bláthnaid 19:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, clearly. —Nightstallion 22:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or rewrite article to fit a more encyclopaedic style. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any non redundant content and redirect links to this article to Twenty-eighth Amendment of the constitution of Ireland as per above. I think the suggestion this is an inappropriate topic for wiki is nonsense ~ we are here to inform! - but there is already an article. Sandpiper (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, utterly inappropriate for Wikipedia. And Redirect to Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland as per Gtstricky, which indeed does cover the ratification properly. -- Blorg (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it is rewriten as a factual encyclopaedic article, which I think it could be. It is a significant political event after all.PiTalk - Contribs 16:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008 already pretty much covers that. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, yeah delete then. PiTalk - Contribs 18:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I had a look at the article earlier in the week to see if it was salvagable, with a view to turning it into an article entitled Positions regarding the Twenty-eighth Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland, or entries on Wikiquote. Unfortunately on closer examination, the vast majority of the pro citations were from http://www.labour.ie/lisbonreformtreaty/whyyes/, and the vast majority of the con citations were from http://www.no2lisbon.ie/en/topic/5: the piece was effectively a Labour vs. Sinn Féin polemic. The work involved in obtaining quotations from other sources, pro, con and neutral, was beyond me in the time available: the piece was a bit of an October Surprise. If anybody else wants to devote the time to sourcing the quotations of notable entities concerning this matter then there may be a case for keeping it, but given the referendum is now over there seems little point. The article is unsatisfactory in its present condition per the observations above and there already exists another article on the same subject. If User:Sandpiper wishes to seek and obtain a wide variety of pro, con and neutral sources concerning the referendum then he is perfectly free to do so and place them on the article now entitled Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008. As for the article entitled Lisbon Treaty - Irish Ratification: delete it. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I think that given that the vote failed, an article is entirely appropriate. It needs to be re-written to be neutral, but it's entirely encyclopedic and notable. GreenJoe 20:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Delete and redirect to Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008. GreenJoe 01:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008 already pretty much covers that. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Treaty of Lisbon is already too long; merge and redirect to Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008 as this is more or less a duplicate of that with more information. Stifle (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Delete, Wikipedia is not for arguments for and against the treaty, violates WP:SOAPBOX among others. Stifle (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It happens that the issue of for and against arguments is quite important, particularly to those wishing to resurrect the treaty of Lisbon, which is now a big issue for the EU. wp:soapbox specifically states that a balanced description of a contentious issue is appropriate. I would go so far as to say it was very important that the article on the proposed irish constitutional amendment should include a properly sourced explanation of what were considered the important issues. Anything usefull here should be carried across. Sandpiper (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's stopping you doing just that, User:Sandpiper? Admittedly, it would be hard work plowing thru the thousands of news articles written on the subject and containing quotes from everyone from the former UN Secretary General[13] to the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association [14]. But it's doable and if you think it's worth doing, go do it.

As pointed out above ad nauseam, the article is unsalvageable in its present state - it would be quicker to write a new one and wikinormative (I invented a word!) to place the additions in Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008 , not Lisbon Treaty - Irish Ratification - and should therefore be deleted. However, the ramifications of the ToL rejection (European peoples - "Yay, beat on the 'crats!"; European governments - ranging from sneaking admiration (UK, Czech Republic, Netherlands, possibly Denmark) to utter, utter contempt (France, Germany, Italy, possibly Poland); the EU institution itself - various, ranging from beating head against wall to rocking back and forth whilst hugging itself; the international community - wetting itself with laughter; Croatia - baffled and hurt as its entry to the EU is now delayed/endangered) will rattle on for months and will have implications for many other articles (European Parliament election, 2009 for a start).

I have therefore taken the precaution of copying Lisbon Treaty - Irish Ratification into my sandbox. Should it become necessary to source info, it may aid as a quick look up.

(Note to self: RTÉ news timelined its news entries, starting from http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0401/eulisbon.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0613/eulisbon.html, also see http://www.ireland.com/focus/thelisbontreaty/). You may now delete Lisbon Treaty - Irish Ratification safely. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World civil war (concept)[edit]

Notability is not confirmed for this article Ecoleetage (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...anyone want to chime in? (Five days after the article was listed and no takers...is it my breath?) :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:26, 10 June 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 17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A fascinating theory, but a google search turns up little that's relevant. Looks more like an essay. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto the Tiger. I did the same search and didn't come up with much; the term doesn't exactly seem to be in common use. And the sources in the article aren't really sources, they're links to other Wikipedia articles. Townlake (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dennisthe2. Spell4yr (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete with the WP:HEY criteria being that someone would have to verify and then properly cite the Oswald Spengler and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. references. Also please note the disambig page World civil war, whose existence is questionable already (only one bluelink, to this page; the other thing it "disambiguates" against is not a bluelink), would need to be deleted as well if this AfD results in delete. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: After reading SWik78's comments below, I think I should clarify that by "verify"ing the sources in question, I also meant verifying that the article is accurately echoing these views, rather than synthesizing new concepts from their work. If SWik is correct, the WP:HEY criteria I suggested are unsatisfiable. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides the fact that the claims are not verified through reliable sources, the concepts presented by the different "historians" in the article are not universally the same, meaning that under the same moniker of "World civil war", they describe substantially different concepts. Basically, the article is mostly the author's own synthesis of previously published material in order to present a common bond which is not immediately apparent and the connection that does exist between the different concepts is very loose, bordering on tangential. As such, the author's synthesis of this material is a violation of WP:OR. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow keep this isn't going to get deleted. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 12:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kitanoda Station[edit]

Completing unfinished nom for 70.56.168.6 Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant independent coverage. The author contested the prod saying that other train stations exist. I do not see the notability of this one. There is the presence of an interwiki link but again no references are provided failing the primary criterion of notability. 70.56.168.6 (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: 70.56.168.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Keep. Railway stations, like towns and members of parliament, are inherently notable. --Eastmain (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Inherent notability has not been established as consensus. 70.56.168.6 (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd sooner gouge my eyes out with a grapefruit spoon than read through these innumerable town/railroad station/city street pothole articles, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason for an Afd. In fact, I happily tolerate the existence of articles like these because they are informative, useful, and yes-- encyclopedic. And even if we step out of the real world and use Wiki-think: it seems there is a policy or guideline that says towns and railroad stations and the like are inherently notable. Now, if we could only get the Wiki-community to admit that film-acting, for instance, is an inherently "notable" profession, a huge amount of conflict, ill-will and wasted time could be avoided at the project. But we'll see Grand Central Station at AfD before that happens... Dekkappai (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misjudge my motives. The article is not encyclopedic but a directory, something Wikipedia is not. To stay on focus with this afd saying WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. Please point me to policy that says train stations are inherently notable. 70.56.168.6 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, then I say, "Assuming I am assuming bad faith is in itself bad faith..." I'm sick of these time-wasting Wiki-games. What is wrong with you people? It's an article on a verifiable, real subject. It's not a hoax. It's informative. Why the hell delete it? Dekkappai (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You state: "WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason for an Afd.". That's a pretty explicit reference to this afd and me. If you still doubt why I suggest deleting it please read my nomination statement. 70.56.168.6 (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Eastmain, verifiable train stops on major train lines are notable. There are some that aren't because they d on't exist, but this one is a station on a major line in a major city. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's verifiable but there is no significant coverage of the train station. The article is just a directory style listing. I fail to see how this is notable. 70.56.168.6 (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep only because other stations on the line are included as well, and removing one individual station will not accomplish much. AFD the entire set of articles, and I might be apt to vote delete. Spell4yr (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just because an article isn't fleshed out at this stage doesn't mean it should be deleted. Expansion is preferable. The Japanese article looks to be considerably longer than this one; perhaps some content can be translated and added to this. matt91486 (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the various arguments already given. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly legitimate topic for an article Fg2 (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion, Railway stations are inherently notable as are covered by WP:RS such as government planning documents, etc. Yep, I know there isn't a policy that states this! Nk.sheridan Talk 21:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only are train stations generally notable (especially major urban ones like this), just by virtue of being a publicly funded rail station, by law, extensive government documents of proposals, budgets and administration exist. I'm also troubled that this was prodded for deletion in less than two hours of the article's creation [15] and that the the supposedly "new user" had the fortitude and knowledge to make the prod on their 3rd ever edit.[16] Might this be a sock? --Oakshade (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is not really relevant as regards this discussion unless the suspected sock puppet has commented at this AfD discussion. If there is a issue with a suspected sock puppet it should be taken to WP:Suspected sock puppets. Cheers, Nk.sheridan Talk 00:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wasted time AfD, because, yes, train stations, major ones on major lines, even without significant coverage (although I don't read Japanese) have long been established as notable by the Wikipedia community. There's no policy, but this is what has been going on, train stations belong. There are not many things you can buy maps and postcards of in almost every nationality of tourist city, but railroad stations are one thing. They have an assumed notability among human beings of all cultural backgrounds. I don't see a snowball's chance in hell of getting this deleted. --Blechnic (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Railway stations are the kind of topics which paper encyclopedias traditionally cover, for example my paper encyclopedia has entries on Haugastøl and Hallingskeid which are smaller and less significant than this one. The current article is poor, but it does have some information about its location relative to other stations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a clear consensus that Mitch Malloy is notable; the article is not a copyright violation, but rather was copied by several websites which mirror Wikipedia content. John254 02:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Malloy[edit]

Non notable, was not an official recognized member of the band according to the official band or label website, never participated in an official recording, the article is poorly sourced; one source listed is an online fan site interview with the person in question Eatabullet (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~ref added. He was in the band.~~ (linked to WP page) He also had some top 20 hits on his own [17]. The article seems to be a copy viol right now but it can be saved if someone will spend some time on it. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think I got a good ref in there now. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link to answers.com because the only mention of him is in their copy of our Van Halen article. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I keep getting Rick Rolled. Every article on the Van Halen relationship is a WP mirror. Anyway... I can not find any sources that backup the Van Halen claim. He is notable on his own but the article should be rewritten with info on him and his career and the Van Halen info deleted. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove the copyvio. He's charted in the Billboard Hot 100, and he has a decent length AMG bio and he's recorded for RCA -- wait, this is the same Malloy, right? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TenPoundHammer. 2 charted songs and 2 albums with RCA passes WP:MUSIC. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since he's a notable individual and the VHND has reported extensively on him and it's a "trustable" fansite, if such a thing exists. And he has a myspace, so an official web presence proving he is a 'real' man. Someone removed the content about him I wrote on the VH page. I'm too busy, but someone put it back! (The Elfoid (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep per all the above ukexpat (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Nakon 22:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragon Quest VIII characters[edit]

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the character and plot sections of Dragon Quest VIII; it is therefore duplicative and should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Kariteh (talk) 17:18, June 10, 2008 (UTC)

Delete These characters only appeared in one episode, and the article fails WP:N and WP:VGSCOPE. Might be transwikied to a Dragon Quest wikia if such wikia exists. Kariteh (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Completely non-notable. Doubtful sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dragon Quest VIII is a notable game and this list is an extension of that notable article. The characters are referenced in the game itself and in the guides that came out for the game. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dragon Quest VIII is a notable game, but notability is not inherited. This list of characters should establish its own notability per WP:N and WP:VGSCOPE, but it currently doesn't and hasn't shown any sign of possible improvement for two years. Per WP:V, establishing notability is done through the usage of independent sources, not the game itself or guides published by the game's company (primary sources). Kariteh (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't confuse WP:SPINOUT with WP:ITSA. This in an extension of the article due to size limits. It's not a category of a certain subject per se. --Pinkkeith (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not confusing the two. The WikiProject Video games has more specific guidelines than the general ones. As I said above, the article fails WP:VGSCOPE: "A smaller article should only be split from a larger topic if the new article would itself be notable.", "A concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting. Information beyond that is unnecessary and should be removed." Information such as in-universe biography and game-guide details like "Yangus is the party's physical tank, with the highest HP, defence, and physical attack strength" are excessive and should not be present. If these details are cut from the article, it becomes short enough (and duplicative) to not warrant a page separated from the main game article; it would thus need to establish its own notability if it were to remain separate. Since it doesn't and cannot, I believe it should be deleted/redirected. Kariteh (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim of notability. not a how-to but bordering on being a game guide --T-rex 23:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but requires major cleanup, possibility moving the main characters section from the main DQ8 page to here (replacing the content presently), and making sure to treat the characters out-of-universe and avoiding plot repetition as much as possible. A list of characters from a game (without notability) is a reasonable supporting article to avoid main article SIZE problems, but it needs to avoid excessive rambling and plot reiteration as this one presently does, as well as issues with overuse of images. --MASEM 14:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, verifiable, encyclopedic, and notable list). Even if it is duplicatd elsewhere, then we can merge and redirect without deletion in the worst case scenario. Sufficient editor efforts and reader interest as well. Consistent per our First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia or almanac on characters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first pillar of Wikipedia is a very generic statement; it and WP:LIST do not trump specific guidelines such as WP:VGSCOPE. Verifiability does not trump notability either. Kariteh (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The articles are consistent with our policies, however, which trump the guidelines. The article actually passes WP:VGSCOPE because lists of characters are necessary and notable. There is no consensus that such articles do not meet our guidelines and more people (those creating and editing these articles plus those arguing to keep in the AfDs) actually agree that such articles are suitable for Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article is not consistent with the policies as it fails to establish notability. Separate lists of characters are not "necessary" when the encyclopedic information can fit in the main game article. Kariteh (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article is consistent with the policies as it sucessfully establishes notability. Even if the information could fit in the main game article, the article is still a legitimate search term and would be merged and redirected without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You know, you haven't actually quoted any policy on this page. If you're thinking about Wikipedia:Five pillars, this is a general summary that appears not to be pertinent here because there are more specific guidelines that apply: WP:VGSCOPE and WP:N. The article has consistently remained unreferenced since its creation two years ago. One could argue that the game is an implicit source, but it's not a secondary source independent from the subject. The article needs secondary sources that treat the subject extensively, and your Google search below shows only tangential mentioning of the word "characters" in pages dealing with Dragon Quest VIII; it's not enough. Kariteh (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually I have. The article falls within our scope of video game coverage and meets our notability guidelines. If you are concerned about referencing, Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Don't just stop at Google; look at magazines that cover the characters as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up with a chainsaw and merge to Dragon Quest VIII. Generally, if you find a bad character list article that isn't hopeless gibberish or "Background characters #1-37", that's going to be your best bet. Both articles are in pretty dire condition anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Generally, this sort of article is the compromise way to go to avoid the clutter of individual articles. when I see them I think there's a chance that people are trying to edit and organize the material in a reasonable manner. DGG (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another compromise way to avoid the clutter of individual articles is to cover them in a single article on the game when independent, reliable sources covering more-specific aspects of that game do not exist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
in practice, such extensive merges either give cumbersome articles, or end up in deleting content. But the question of whether to merge this is for the article talk page, not here--therefore it probably wouldnt have been brought here to afd at all, unless the intent was in fact to remove the content. DGG (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They end up deleting excessive plot summary. This is necessary and valuable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Not notable because there are no reliable independent sources that offer significant coverage of these characters. Spinouts still need to assert notability, as per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and the first plank of the video game guidelines on inappropriate content. "Let's compromise" can't work because there's no such thing as half-way notability. Either this is notable or it isn't. Searches reveal that it's not. If someone believes otherwise, they should produce that evidence. Randomran (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. searches shows that they can be verified. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you read that link past the title? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then surely you read this:
        Avoid creating new articles on non-notable topics. A notable topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A smaller article should only be split from a larger topic if the new article would itself be notable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The article is a notable topic, however. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        (1) I never said this article was cruft. This isn't the first time you insisted I said something that I didn't, and I'm asking you politely to stop misrepresenting my position and read the actual guideline I'm citing. (2) If you're going to say that this is a notable topic, you're gonna have to show how this complies with guidelines. The lack of sources is strong evidence that this isn't notable. Do you have evidence otherwise? Randomran (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This edit does have the word "cruft" in it. I and others have already offered strong reasons as to why this article is notable above. Sicnerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Stop misrepresenting my position and read the first plank of the video game guidelines on inappropriate content. Randomran (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which is nothing more than Wikipedia:Cruftcruft. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You're not allowed to ignore a guideline simply because you don't like it, let alone use an opinion essay against it. The guideline states: "Avoid creating new articles on non-notable topics. A notable topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A smaller article should only be split from a larger topic if the new article would itself be notable." And if you don't like that guideline, then you should read the general notability guideline and the guideline against unnecessary splits which form the basis for this guideline. Simply calling a bunch of guideline concerns "cruftcruft" is neither productive nor civil. It ignores the actual substance of these guidelines and prevents a real understanding from being established. Randomran (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, especially when it lacks actual community support. Calling articles created and edited in good faith "gamecruft" is neither productive nor civil and prevents a real understanding from being established. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "A notable topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
        So...where's the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Look at published reviews that mention the characters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There are none that meet the notability guideline. (quote: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.) If you have evidence otherwise, it would be far more productive than simply dismissing guidelines you don't like as "cruftcruft". Randomran (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The consensus lacking guidelines allow for exceptions as does Wikipedia in general. Deleting this article does not benefit our proeject. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The general notability guideline does have consensus, and proposals to get rid of it have been rejected. You haven't demonstrated why this particular article should be exempted when so many other non-notable articles have been deleted for failure to comply with the guidelines. And citing a statement from someone that "I don't listen to guidelines written by deletionists" can only be taken as agreement. An unwillingness to comply with guidelines as central as notability is disruptive and toxic to the wikipedia community. If you don't like the existing consensus, then develop a new consensus to change it. Randomran (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It lacks community support beyond just that one quote. This like so many other notable articles that should not have been deleted complies with what opinion of the community of editors who created, worked on, and defended here. Unwillingess to help improve the article in question and cling to a narrow and limited interpretation of a suggested guideline is disruptive and toxic to the wikipedia community. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Enforcing guidelines is not toxic or disruptive. Saying that you are against a guideline is not interpretation: it's plain disruptive. Randomran (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "Enforcing" a limited interpretation as a guideline without helping to improve the article in question and dismissing those you disagree with by attacking them rather than their arguments is disruptive. Trying to improve the article in question is productive. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Offer an alternative interpretation of the notability guideline that doesn't involve dismissing it. Otherwise, please save everyone a lot of time in the future by simply saying "articles that don't comply with the GNG should be allowed to exist" and we'll leave it at that. Randomran (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You would save us time by helping to improve the articles in question, especially ones like this that actually are referenced and that actually do contain assertions of notability and out of universe content. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I spend plenty of time improving wikipedia. The problem with this article is that the references do not assert notability. IMDB is considered trivial coverage, as seen in Wikipedia:Notability (films). The other two references offer trivial mentions of character names. I appreciate your effort, but I myself looked for references and could not find more than trivial coverage of these characters. Randomran (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There are more than just three references and I am still in the process of adding more. The other references describe particular aspects of the characters and not their notability, i.e. uniqueness compared to other RPGs and the fact that they are depicted by a major artist. And again, I was able to do that in but minutes, i.e. just getting the ball rolling here. Plus, not all video game characters are made into toys: [18], [19], [20], etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Toys are primary sources, and not independent of the subject (e.g.: they are licenced and authorized by the game's creator/publisher/owner). But if you can find those other independent, secondary sources that offer significant coverage for these characters, I will graciously change my vote. No one on wikipedia is infallible. Randomran (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Toys establish notability as of the milllions of video game characters only some have actually been made into action figures. Toys also mean that video game guidelines cannot solely be used to cover this article as the subject of the article are not only video game characters, but toy characters as well. Sources that discuss the toys just as those that reference the characters as they appear in the game are numerous and significant enough to justify inclusion on Wikipedia. The article is still a work in progress, but it is coming along quite well now and we must consider Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state and Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Toys are still primary, non-independent sources, and the GNG still applies. I haven't seen much out there on the way of toys, but there is a little bit of momentum on this article. As an aside, have you seen the proposed guideline WP:POSTPONE? I think it's a good idea in principle, if we can find a way to iron out a consensus on the details. Randomran (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, the characters are covered in reliable primary sources (a published strategy guide of the game) and reliable secondary sources (reviews that specifically discuss the characters and toys in detail) and so they meet any reasonable person's notability guidelines. I'll check out the postpone link momentarily. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep merchandising is a good indicator of notability. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not according to the general notability guideline. Please don't just make guidelines up. Randomran (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a valid subarticle for comprehensive coverage beyond what is appropriate in the main article. As long as there are references demonstrating significant external attention given to some of these characters, I see no problem. Everyking (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 50 KB of plot summary and game guide material. Even ignoring notability, this does not belong on Wikipedia. --Phirazo 18:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As well as out of universe comments on who did the art, who voices the characters, and the fact that the characters were made into toys, which is why this article belongs on Wikipedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Toys can't assert notability because they are primary sources, and they're not independent of the subject: they are authorized by the subject's creators. IMDB does not assert notability either. Whether or not there is useful information in this article is irrelevant. Useful but non-compliant articles are deleted all the time. Randomran (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cast and crew credits and merchandising belong in the main article. A paragraph about action figures does not justify 50 KB of plot summary. --Phirazo 04:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Though Le Grand Roi has done some modifications to decruft the article and standardize it, there is still no assertion of notability, or any proof that the article has potential to grow from what it is. This information should be in the main article, and does not warrant its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for acknowledging my efforts, but just as a note, because you nominated the article, I'm not sure if the delete here looks like a double "I know it's not a" vote? Also, the notability is that these are some of only a handful of video game characters that have also been made into toys. Plus, if you think the information can exist elsewhere, then even in a worst case scenario we would merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please strike your vote. You don't get to have your opinion counted twice. Everyking (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed :) If the toys are an assertion of notability, then it would be better to bulk up the main article than stretch it into this one as well. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Excessively in-universe; plot, game stat discussion, original research. The tiny amount of out-of-universe context (The action figure; the voice actors) can be included in the main article instead. Marasmusine (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case then you're saying we would merge and redirect without deletion per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lists of game characters from a single game should only be split in notability can be established. Otherwise, all relevant characters should be able to fit under the main article. In this case, if you actually remove the extensive plot from any of the main characters, you are left the few sentences that would fit within a decent "Characters" section. TTN (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability has been established in this case, which is why this particular list is acceptable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Toys are primary sources, let alone non-independent sources and can't establish notability. Neither can IMDB. Randomran (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is why the article cites indepdent sources that comment on the toys and that sestablish notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Neither of which are reliable. One of them isn't even a review, but a simple image/press release advertising how to buy the figurine. Randomran (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Both of which are sufficiently reliable by any reasonable standard. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Um, no... --T-rex 23:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of real word significance regarding these characters. Article is virtually all original research unless my eye's mistake me, and if it's not it's unsourced. The burden of evidence lies with the editors wishing to retain the information, if this is not to be deleted it should be sourced. Seven days have passed since this debate began and the article is not sourced, it is safe to assume it will never be. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are you? Kariteh (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Judge, TTN and Marasmusin have nailed the relevant issues here. Eusebeus (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure game guide material with no evidence nor even assertion of real-world notability, see consensus from e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft characters (2nd nomination). --Stormie (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can't be a game guide when it also covers toys that exist in the real world, plus other character AfDs have closed as keep or no consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Article has been revised during the discussion. Please note nominated version versus current version and that such revisions are still ongoing. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the reviews I'm looking at offer critical coverage on the characters (indeed, the grand majority dismiss the plot as simply bad in about two sentences and move on), and as it stands, it's undue weight on a part of the series that can be adequately described in the main article. Asserts no notability to meet the provisions at WP:AVOIDSPLIT and violates WP:GAMECRUFT as it currently is. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews of the toys offer critical coverage of the characters. Also, please note Wikipedia:Cruftcruft. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, reviews of the toy offer reviews of the toy, not the character, and only one character at that. Also, take your anti-cruft essays elsewhere. Trying to argue against the term "cruft" when WP:GAMECRUFT is a guideline is a red herring and simply irrelevant. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reviews of toys offer out of universe context of characters made into toys. I could see someone making a reasonable case to merge and redirect that information into another article, but I can't see deletion as justifiable here, especially when the consensus of other AfDs was to merge the characters into the list. So, we have many more times the editors who argued then to keep or merge than claim they want it deleted here coupled with those who have created and worked on the now redirected articles and this list, plus the thousands of hits they get a month. Thus, it would not be "right" for a five day AfD to somehow legitimately trump what these editors and readers want, especially when the article is undergoing a significant revision. I still haven't gone through my back issues of game magazines at my parents' house yet, so it's not unreasonable that in the coming days or weeks I won't be able to improve it even further. It'd be one thing if I was only arguing here, but I obviously am also putting forth the effort to improve the article in question as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic even in its current version. HiDrNick! 12:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Article has been revised to encyclopedic standards during the discussion. Please note nominated version versus current version and that such revisions are still ongoing. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable because there are no reliable independent sources that offer significant coverage of these characters. Spinouts still need to assert notability, as per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and the first plank of the video game guidelines on inappropriate content. "Let's compromise" can't work because there's no such thing as half-way notability. Either this is notable or it isn't. Efforts to assert notability have come up short. In some cases, the article uses unreliable sources such as IMDB or a promotional press release with an online toy catalog. In other cases, the article relies on a needle in a haystack mention of one or two character names that does not meet the WP:GNG definition of "significant coverage". Randomran (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though they do have coverage in reliable secondary sources and the article is undergoing a significant revision? What about postponing while the revising process continues (I haven't exhausted all likely source search places yet)? They are notable because only so many of the millions of video game characters have also been made into toys. Thus, gameWPITSCRUFT is not sufficient here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not that I would be so presumptuous as to tell you to stop doing something you're clearly enjoying, but I think your efforts would be better spent by referencing Dragon Quest VIII with independent secondary sources. From what I've seen about how this subject is covered, there's no notability for the characters themselves. I have a hard time believing otherwise without some real evidence. Randomran (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Transwiki, Nakon 22:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Valkyrie Profile characters[edit]

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of the plot and character sections of the Valkyrie Profile video games. It is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Kariteh (talk) 17:18, June 10, 2008 (UTC)

Delete Article fails WP:N and WP:VGSCOPE. Might be transwikied to a Valkyrie Profile wikia if such wikia exists. Kariteh (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete --SkyWalker (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as most of it seems to be a plot summary(?). BTW, the wiki can be found here. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 01:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability shown, and appears to be just game guide content. Transwiki to a relevant Wiki if possible. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up with chainsaw and merge to appropriate game articles. I wouldn't be heartbroken if this were deleted, because it's probably 10% or less useful content by volume, but this could be merged to the articles on the two VP games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and Delete: Not notable because there are no reliable independent sources that offer significant coverage of these characters, as per WP:GNG. Randomran (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will transwiki this over to StrategyWiki:Valkyrie Profile over the weekend (don't have the tools for a complete export with me). Please don't delete it before then. -- Prod (Talk) 06:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can restore it for you if needed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after transwiki is completed. Lacks reliable sources to verify that the information isn't original research. The subject fails WP:NOTE by not containing any secondary sources, and as such is eligible for deletion. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). The consensus of the discussion is that the sources that exist are reliable and demonstrate the notability of the article subject. Darkspots (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Hoogewerf[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural listing for user:EBY3221, who was having trouble listing the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*delete Has this just been recreated? This is listed right next to a closed AFD for the same article, where the result was Speedy Delete. If it has been recreated, then salting might be appropriate. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Scrub that - looks like AFD nomination was going a bit awry and I was a bit premature. (Insert humerous observation here). StephenBuxton (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is notable - found these sources: [21], [22] &[23]. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found the same sources but then realized that 2 were published in 2003 - before the 2006 Speedy Deletion. Reading those both, they seem like uncited articles about the firing of Hoogewarf from Forbes. The third one appears to be a blurb about the annual Hurun Report, of which Hoogewarf is the editor. Although the publication may meet notability for a separate article (haven't researched enough to be sure), would then recommend the editor be a subheading of that article and not the other way around. EBY3221 17:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Egads, I forgot to add my original objections: the article seems to be an autobiography or a vanity piece, it's uncited, and I could not find enough objective references to feed a Wikifying rewrite.EBY3221 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find it very difficult to understand EBY3221's reasoning. Why should the fact that the sources linked above were published in 2003, or that they were "uncited", invalidate them? Their existence shows that this a notable subject whenever they were published and whether or not they have been cited in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was unclear. My reasoning wasn't that the previous speedy deletion invalidated the cites, or that they weren't named before. Sorry. What I meant to say was this - I found the same 3 cites on the subject as StephenBuxton. 2 are 5 years old, not from mainstream English sources, and are primarily concerned with discussing the firing of the subject from his previous position at Forbes. The other is not an article but a stub about a publication in which the subject was listed as the Editor. This isn't a lot, when compiling the notability of person. Which is why I voted the way I did. EBY3221 (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St andrews economic forum[edit]

Non-notable conference. No independent sources cited. Only one such conference held so far (last month). No assertion of notability shown. User name of original author indicates possible conflict of interest. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, schools have forums all the time. Why is this one special? L0b0t (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable at this point. Maybe down the road. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero notability demonstrated, no reliable sources. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no references, ( and name of article capitalised incorrectly). Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 08:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Alison. PhilKnight (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Pargeter[edit]

This actress' only claims to fame are parts as extras, four episodes of a radio soap (as an infant) and an alleged part in The Subtle Knife - a part whose name doesn't even turn up in the plot summary. No IMDB entry. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. No verifiable roles in notable works. No verifiable awards. Etc. Appears (at best) to be WP:CRYSTAL. And at worst vanity/hoax. Guliolopez (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The main claim of notability is based on being the recipient of a "Bambi prize". Claim is for 2003 on Bambi prize article. And 2005 in this article. A quick search of the Bambi website however, for either year, shows no mention of an award going to a person of this name. Further reinforcing that it is either a hoax, or overstatement of the subject's industry experience and recognition. If this article did not already have an AfD open, I'd be pushing for a speedy delete. (Without prejudice to recreate in (say) 15 years. If and when the notability criteria are met.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of any media coverage is suspicious. The only 'source' I found was her CV, which indicates that she was only ever an extra, and so isn't notable. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article claims she auditioned for Lucy Timmins in the BBC's Lark Rise to Candleford "and was accepted", but according to this [24] the part was played by Olivia Hallinan. It's not conclusive, because she may have played an uncredited bit part as a younger version of the character, but it doesn't bolster this article's negligible attempts at asserting notability. --Ka renjc 22:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Hallinan played Laura Timmins. On the other hand IMDB doesn't list a Lucy Timmins in the cast. I'm guessing it was a non-speaking, uncredited role (i.e. an extra). DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball time? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call for speedy conclusion of this AfD. I realise that Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy is not official policy, but it is increasingly evident that the user who created the page in question was either the subject, closely related to the subject, or an agent of the subject. And either created it as vanity, promotion or for similar reasons. The creating editor has since (possibly panicking) blanked the page repeatedly. Normal practice would be to reinstate the page. But, for reasons of "child privacy", (and all the reasons noted above) I think this debate should simply be closed ASAP. And the article deleted. Guliolopez (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have just speedy-deleted this per WP:CSD#A7, as well as there being issues around the privacy of the subject, who happens to be a minor. The associated image has also been removed as it was unlicensed/privacy concerns - Alison ^❤ 17:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a1, no context. Prod notice was removed in bad faith by a serial vandal. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English Film Awards[edit]

Contested PROD. Film awards for which I could find very little via a google search when I looked, no references provided other than imdb and notability is not asserted. role^player 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tout monitor[edit]

Original author using this article to promote his service/industry, even though he did remove the direct link to his website. No independent sources to establish notability, not able to verify. Exists primarily to promote. Speedied once and re-created; another editor inexplicably removed the speedy tag on the second try. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Make this cruft go away. L0b0t (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at the moment article is more of a dictdef than spam but, I can't get to the one reference to verify. If its a notable term it should be covered in lots of 3rd party reliable sources and it isn't. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertisement for non-notable product/service. --Damiens.rf 15:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero references that indicate that the subject is reliable, and insufficient context is given. I'm almost surprised this wasn't speedied again the second time.CrazyChemGuy _{(talk) (Contribs)} 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More like an advertisement than an article. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of you people know anything about the sports betting industry or this terminology? It's fairly well known, just hasn't been documented in a online encyclopedia to reference. It's a legitimate category and can reference numerous sites that are considered Tout Monitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigguyceo (talk • contribs) 05:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm sure you'd be happy to educate us, if only we'd go to your web site. (He's the original author, folks.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you go to my site or not. It's simply a reference for this category terminology. I thought this was a place for information? So what is wrong with what I wrote? Rather then just telling me off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigguyceo (talk • contribs) 06:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you used it for promotional purposes, which is specifically prohibited. You only listed your site and another site (apparently affiliated) as references. The purpose of the article seems pretty obvious. If you had included some other references from independent, reliable sources, this might not have happened. Wikipedia is constantly bombarded by those who seek to use it as a venue to promote themselves or their services, and numerous editors and administrators spend an extraordinary amount of time in an effort to keep that stuff out and keep Wikipedia true to its mission. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already removed the external link to my site and added other references. The purpose of the article was to simply add to the gambling terminology section. Share the knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigguyceo (talk • contribs) 06:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment let's lay off Bigguyceo for being the author folks he seems to be trying to improve the article. The problem seems to be more with reliable 3rd party referencing. He obviously isn't trying to sell his services when he removed the link quite willingly. I still think it isn't notable enough for its own article but, it may be appropriate to mention it in a different article on sports betting/gambling. It may also help if Bigguyceo can contribute to some other articles in a constructive manner for those that don't automatically assume good faith to have something to help them. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A paragraph or short section in Sports betting might be appropriate, but nothing more than that. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chillay Productions[edit]

The only assertion of notability seems to be removal of two videos from YouTube. 9Nak (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These kids need to be knee-deep in an ELA class studying spelling and grammar, rather than playing video games or monkeying about with the encyclopedia. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable group Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable subject, no NPOV because author admires them and created page only for that reason (see rev) Shoombooly (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are 96 Google hits here but they come either from the company itself, blog sites or youtub. Doesn't seem very notable at present. Artene50 (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability Nick Dowling (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable company at this time. Article not warranted. --VS ^talk 11:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to be notable due to apparent lack of secondary coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per N. Five Years 13:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 1600[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previously nominated twice; no consensus was reached the first time, and after almost two years, the article remains unreferenced and establishes no claim to notability. The second nomination was about 8 months ago; no improvement since then. This is just another cellular phone. Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide and Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog, so this material really doesn't belong here. Mikeblas (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~Strong Delete~~ This seems to illustrate a problem with the Wiki process. People will fight like apes to keep an article but then once the AfD closes they go on their merry way; never trying to make any of the improvements they swore were imminent and were all that was needed to make an article great. This is an encyclopedia not a product guide. L0b0t (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Vote changed to redirect per Thetrick. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redirect to list of Nokia products as is the case with several other models. Thetrick (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above if thelist already exists otherwise delete. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not because I want this article so bad, but List of Nokia products lists them all with links to the product pages, which would mean that deleting them all results in a list without any context, other than numbers. I agree WP is not a product catalog, but that debate can go a long way, since every last combat tank, airplane, car, gameconsole and apple product (etc etc etc) is featured in its own article. Why shouldn't all (nokia) phones be? Or even all types of Coca Cola, or all types of Ferrari? Agreed, a lot of those phone articles need work, but that in itself is no reason for deletion. If the article was nominated twice and twice kept, that's a strong indication that there's some merit to it being kept. Sometimes you just have to wait for someone to eventually pick of the glove and expand this article. Otherwise we will have to AfD a lot more than just this cellphone. Shoombooly (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:WAX doesn't help much. I nominate articles as fast as I can, and I do wish I could delete all the cataloging articles about unreferenced, non-notable products. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I understand where you're coming from, i have the same with non-notable songs and albums that can't easily be gotten rid of. But looking at the previous 2 AfD's for this article, there was a good bunch of people that wanted this kept, why not just accept the results of 2 other tries (in which you were involved) and move on, surely there's plenty of other things that need cleaning up? Apparently the other 2 times it wasn't deleted because people saw merit to this article. As i've learnt here, a badly written article can sometimes stay, indefinitely, as you know Wikipedia has no deadline. This means it has forever to get improved, when its given the chance. Shoombooly (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - CommentSeeing a large number of article of a given sort which deserve deletion, but perhaps don't fit well as a group nomination, could make one feel a bit as Caligula did when he said [25] that he "wished all Rome had one neck." Edison (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. I did accept it. I accepted it, then waited several months and noticed no improvement in the article. I did that twice. Note that the first AfD didn't keep the article--it just didn't reach a consensus. The "no deadline" doctrine doesn't apply to articles that don't need to be here because of WP:NOT or WP:OR or WP:N, like this one. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references to show that it satisfies notability requirements. Simply being a product offered for sale by a large company in no way provides inherent notability. Wikipedia is not a surrogate of the vendor's webpage. If being offered for sale by a large company was sufficient notability to justify an article, then since notability is not temporary, every product ever offered for sale by a large company would be notable. I would not oppose a redirect to a list of Nokia products, although even such a list will sometimes have questionable notability. Imagine a list of every product ever sold by Sears Roebuck in the last 115 years. Edison (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why not? Wikipedia tries to list every Roman Emperor that ever lived, every invention, every town (2 million or so), every creature...why not every product? I'm sure more people noted the 1600 than one of the hundreds of species of amoebe listed on WP. Also, what about this for example? It's a remote, big deal, yet has a fully fledged article. I'm willing to bet more people had a nokia 1600 than a apple remote. But that's not the point, is it, it went through AfD twice, was kept twice, nothing has changed, so why the need to delete, nothing has changed and there's no deadline? Why the tenacity? Shoombooly (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Please see WP:WAX. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
switch to Keep, see below Merge and redirect to List of Nokia products.My initial instinct is to support Shoombooly, my WikiProject Orphanage partner-in-crime. However, my friend, I think that your arguments for keeping this article speak more towards the fact that there are a lot of other articles which deserve deletion (see Edison's Caligula quote, above). Doing a cursory Google search for this phone only reveals the specs for this phone, and not any other reason it's notable. ~~The Apple remote is notable, in my opinion, simply because it can be used for so much, and is pretty unique as far as remotes go, in that it is a remote for a PC, which is not a common thing.~~ But cell phones are common as mud these days, and there doesn't seem to be anything unique about this phone that is not already covered by the cellular phone article. If you can find something specifically unique about it, then I would switch to keep. Until then, I would merge all the specs into the Nokia product article. Sorry, pardner.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I must slap you Aervanath, with this link: PC Remotes. Not that unique, that Apple Remote (better design though). Anyway, i could argue the buttons are different (they are, quite unusable as well), or other things that are slightly different. Point is, i really believe that when people search for gadgets in google, they often end up checking WP. There's no real line when it comes to products. Look for example at BlackBerry#Phones with BlackBerry e-mail client. Are they all notable phones? Yet they all have an article. Randomly deleting the Nokia 1600 after it was already kept twice seems a weird thing to do. Just because it is a simple phone doesn't make it less noteworthy than say, a Nokia 3310. I would agree to delete, if there was a policy to do so. But given the list of nokia models had so many articles for so many models, and given that this article survived AfD twice, it seems against my Vulcan logic to delete it this time round. Shoombooly (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Consider me slapped. :) Alright, so I'm obviously wrong on the "PC remote is unique" argument. However, I think my other arguments are still valid. I think there is other stuff like this, so we should keep this one, too, is not a valid argument, and I would probably vote "merge and redirect" for the Blackberry client phones you linked to, as well. As for "it was already kept twice", see WP:Consensus#Consensus Can Change. Especially since, as Wikipedia matures, and our number of articles grows, arguments for inclusion have been undergoing much more rigorous scrutiny than before. I think the other "redirect" votes above are evidence that, for some of us at least, the previous consensus is no longer valid. Also, I would point out that the result of the first discussion was in fact no consensus, which defaults to keep. I would point you to WP:PRODUCT, as well. As for searching for gadgets on google, google WILL still give the redirect as a search result, and since I am urging that we keep all the Nokia 1600 info in the Nokia products article, it is not as if we are therefore preventing users from finding information about the phone.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply Well all that being said, the link to your main point of argument is broken! Of course consensus can change, but still, the consensus does not seem to be outright deletion. Also, i think the steady growth of WP isn't necessarily automatically maturing, since there are many new people who post rubbish articles. Again, why bother with this article at all, it's here, it's been here 2 years, not enough people took offense. Again, what's the point of listing all inhabited places in the world, most never ever noted by any of us, but not to include a phone millions of people know from experience. That does not compute for me. And also, WP:OSE is NOT, I repeat, NOT policy! I could just as well write an essay outlining why OSE is a completely valid argument. OSE is used every day in WP, as an argument to create all sorts of stuff. Most of which never gets deleted. Using WP:OSE is just as invalid in this argument as me claiming OSE is. Shoombooly (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply to reply to reply to comment I have fixed the link above. I should point out that I did not vote for "outright deletion", either. And I agree with you that OSE is not policy. However, I tend to agree with it, especially, as I said before, because I think that the other articles you are citing probably don't deserve to be independent articles, either. Just because something's not policy doesn't mean it's not right.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        RRRRRRReply But with all the crap there is to delete, this one isn't so necessary. And that's basically my point. Shoombooly (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        They'rrrrrrrrreeeeee grrrrrrreat! So you're voting "keep" on the basis that we should delete the other stuff before we delete this one? Or am I mis-interpreting you?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Final words on this one I'm voting keep because it is common practice on WP to have articles about consumer goods. Whether it be Big Mac's, Opel Astra, Gameboy Micro, Canon EOS 300, Twinkies, Palm Treo, Sandisk Sansa or whatever else is available. Mind you, I did not even need to check those pages, i just knew they would exist. Are they all revolutionary or notable? No. Perhaps the BigMac, but surely not the Sansa. The thing is, once something is common practice, what's the point of singling out this article and deleting it? Just to make an example? If you allow so many, why bother deleting a few? So yes, my point is that if we refuse to draw a clear line, we should allow the borderline cases as well. Not because the item is so notable, but because deleting a few sets a completely arbitrary precedent. Why delete this one but not that one? There's no strict rule on it. If an item was bought by millions of people, it is at least somehow notable, right? "Nokia 1600" on Google yielded more than 5 million hits (or 1 million depending on the method), surely that's notable? It's all a matter of definition. OSE doesn't help because of SO MUCH OSE. There's no end to what can be deleted under OSE rules, and therefor we should not even start. Other stuff does exist, and because we let it, and have no desire to have it cease existing, this may exist as well. As if the Whopper / Caramac is a notable product...still millions know it, and it gets an article. Same goes for this phone. Millions used it, so it gets an article. 1 million google hits can't be wrong. Just my 2 cents. Shoombooly (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Final refutation One million Google hits prove nothing if none of them give enough information to make an article with more than just bare specs. Also, the problem with allowing borderline cases is the old "slippery slope" argument. If we allow all the "borderline" cases, then that means that effectively they are all inside the border, which means even less notable articles are now borderline, which by your argument should be allowed, and thus it keeps going. At some point we have to start knocking back the borderline cases.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Consumer products such as cell phones are like books or movies: they become "notable" when people write about them (for example, reviews). There are published reviews of this cellphone (one is already linked from the article). There are even a couple of articles mentioning this phone on Google scholar; the first one seems very interesting but I can't access it. --Itub (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
switch to Keep I think the review cited is nothing more than an instruction manual, and therefore doesn't hold much weight for me. However, the article from Google scholar that Itub gave above IS more than that, and I have updated the article to reflect that. It now meets basic notability guideines. --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with articles about similar phones, like I did with Nokia 6800 series Towel401 (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, maintaining the page history in the event they become notable and an article is warranted. Interstate 15 seems a more logical primary target than Soulja Girl, but I will add a hatnote to the article. Shereth 23:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I15[edit]

Non-notable rapper once played with Soulja. Damiens.rf 14:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their 1st album has yet to be released, imminently non-notable. L0b0t (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soulja Girl per precedent set with Arab (rapper), who was redirected to Yahhh!. Spell4yr (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Interstate 15, and put in a hatnote. 70.51.8.208 (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not much notability for the group. If they charted work of their own, then some notability can come up. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 22:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Spell4yr. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason really too do delete or redirect. Do to they are gonna release an album in another month or 2, so where gonna bring it back then, What's the point of deleting SPBLU SIGN PLEASE
Comment This group has been "ready to release an album" several times already and it still has yet to happen. What indication do we have that this time will be any different? Until they actually release the album and there is a charting (and not the Hot 100, either.. an actual airplay Top 40 chart for Urban, Rhythmic, or CHR/Pop) single, they fail WP:MUSIC. End of discussion. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Yet another of those annoying "They're gonna be famous someday, and then you'll be sorry" "up-and-coming" "next big thing" "world-famous all over Napierville" non-notable music articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 23:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Museum Mile, London[edit]

This article has been in existence since Dec 2006, without any statement of notability, or expansion. The term appears to have been applied only by the London Borough of Camden, and in fact appears to conflict with other uses to apply the term to museums around South Kensington. If this article were to be retained, I should like to see some evidence that it's used beyond LBC. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — promotional or not, this page provides a worthwhile list of important museums in this area of central London. The term is used by "Visit London", the official London tourist board website, and is thus used by others as well as the London Borough of Camden. I have added a reference. Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That link is to the opening page of 'Visit London' and doesn't appear to contain any reference to 'Museum Mile'. I can't find it on 'attractions/culture/' either - and a site search returns no results.

Museums in London are all listed in ((London museums and galleries)). While the contents are notable, this article just seems an arbitrary list - and includes the Theatre Museum which closed and transferred its collection to the V&A. Kbthompson (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Try here. I think you clicked the wrong link! Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Kbthompson (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art was a research library (not open to the public), has now closed and its collection is being incorporated in the British Museum. The Petrie museum is also closing, to be incorporated into the UCL Institute for Cultural Heritage. The Huntarian Museum is in Glasgow - its the other brother that founded this collection, and there's no specific article. The Brunei Gallery is a redirect to a University college. Last time I was there, the Royal Opera House didn't have a gallery, or exhibition - although the building has intrinsic interest. Kbthompson (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list might be appropriate at Wikitravel but it has no place here. Thetrick (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the one who originally suggested that this page needed drastic attention at WikiProject London. This is a failed tourist board initiative that is not signposted in any form in the area, is not labelled as such at the museums concerned, and the only circumstances in which I can see someone using the term "Museum Mile" in the context of London would be to refer to Exhibition Road. – iridescent 19:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — I can't see a reference to the failure mentioned above. Is this just a personal opinion? If not, please provide documentary evidence. The London tourist board information seems to be up-to-date on their website. The term has been used for South Kensington museums too and I have added a note and reference for this (from Fodors) in the article. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Failed" is a value judgement of mine based on the fact that not a one of these museums is actually using the term (because it's a personal opinion, I've not added it to the article). The visitlondon "source" is a red herring, as (aside from that one paragraph) it just leads to a pdf mirror of the LBC website. Incidentally, LBC relaunched the initiative about six months ago - again, from personal knowledge there's still not a single piece of signage either at street level or in the museums involved. The local paper doesn't contain a single usage of the term and the only hit on the London Tourist Board's website is to the mirror of LBC's leaflet. A google search excluding wiki mirrors and the official websites seems to show a roughly 3-1 usage in favour of South Kensington as opposed to Camden, including the only hit I'd consider a significant source. – iridescent 15:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, I have added further references and done some reorganization. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. —_{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete much as it kills me for anything museum related. Filtering out New York because there seem to be discussions about New York's museum mile that also mention without talking about the subject of this article, doesn't return anything promising. It appears to be a nn initiative. If the article is kept it needs to be more clear because to a non-Londoner it's confusing. Are these near each other? Is it two different initiatves? Two places - similar name? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I have updated the introduction and reordered the material to improve clarity. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per iridescent (who initiated discussion on this - I'm really not trying to steal your thunder) and per nom. I thought listing it would throw something else out, but while the individual institutions are notable - and can be listed as such on ((London museums and galleries)); this is just an arbitrary grouping of museums scattered randomly around Camden and Westminster. Three, on the list, are in a state of flux - closing and moving into another collection. Where there was a clear omission, I added it to the template for London museums. I think full plaudits to Jonathan for trying, but like 'off-West End', 'off-Kensington' is really is a non-starter - and there is nothing more to say about the list in the article.

It might be worth mentioning as a footnote to List of museums in London that these are sometimes referred to as Museum Mile - but the same term is applied to Albertopolis - and that both uses seem to be derived from its use in New York. Kbthompson (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — If this term has been used by the official London tourist board website and have some other references on wikipedia, there is no reason that it can not exist as an article here simply because there is no “signage” at the streets. I don’t think we should so much strictly judge this term by comparing it to the one used in the context of New York using the same standard and conclude its value by its less significance than the one in NY. To delete it by those kinds of reasons is arbitrary. For many foreigners who may not be familiar with London, the long list of List of museums in London are not as meaningful as the list in this article. It is at least a valuable source of knowledge to museum goers like me from Asia. Also, another term Albertopolis is too difficult to understand since it is unable to find the meaning from a dictionary. The term of “Museum Mile” is much friendlier to non native speakers. AlisonLiu (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8-Legged Monsters[edit]

I do not believe that this is a real film. It is not listed at IMDB either as a title or on the list of movies produced by the claimed production company Bad Robot.[26] Google does not turn up any hits on the title. Is this maybe just confusion based on the real movie Eight Legged Freaks? Deli nk (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - hoax, does not appear to exsist --T-rex 14:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eight Legged Freaks just in case it is valid confusion or an alternate title for said movie. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Hoax. so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 03:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertorial Infotainment[edit]

Advertisement disguised as an article about a non-notable defunct local radio show Dravecky (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable local radio show with some advertising thrown in. TN‑X-Man 14:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And, for the record, I had already deleted the link to Cafepress that the author has so throughfully included for people who might want to make a purchase. - Dravecky (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable self-promotion. L0b0t (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable college radio show. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An radio show with Internet streaming that existed before RealPlayer launched along with a CafePress store began eight years after the show was cancelled? Something doesn't compute. Nate • (chatter) 00:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G11, non-encyclopedic spam--Rtphokie (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gizza^Discuss ^© 13:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Narayanalayam[edit]

Non notable organization. No reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete', non-notable as no reliable sources presented.Bless sins (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gizza^Discuss ^© 13:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanmayananda Saraswathi[edit]

Non notable. No reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Only 1 result for google search that is wikipedia itself.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 15:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karl-Heinz Blomann[edit]

Contested PROD. Article is unreferenced advert created by single-use account Special:Contributions/KarlBlomann almost certainly in violation of WP:COI. Delete Thetrick (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Subject has an entry [27] on the German Wikipedia. This article seems to be a clunky translation of that page. So far I have been unable to turn up much in the way of sourcing in English other than directories that confirm: yes he does exist, he played the saxophone and mixed some tracks on some albums in the 1980s, and he co-founded the label that released those albums. Without more English language sources (that pass muster with RS), I think the German Wiki is the place for this article to stay. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mainly, I admit, because the SPA accidentally removed the clean-up and CoI templates from the article when they removed the prod (never a good sign). But also because of WP:N and WP:RS issues, as L0b0t points out. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 03:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triat (World of Darkness)[edit]

Non-notable fictional gods used in a role-playing game. No independent sources seem to be turned up by a search on "triat world darkness" on Google or Google News (which, of course) doesn't cover everything. This is a non-notable part of a significantly notable game (which I'm *not* disputing). If there are any significant independent sources located I will glady withdraw my nomination. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 13:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Werewolf: The Apocalypse- While I agree with the nom that this certainly does not have enough real-world notability on its own, it did play a major part in the plot and game mechanics. It definitly needs re-written from an out of universe perspective however. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't be opposed to such a merger. Anyone who knows the importance of these fictional elements to the game is welcome to do such a merge. It should be noted that Werewolf: The Apocalypse is already bloated with lots of in-universe writing, and this article should be massively trimmed being doing any sort of merge there. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per years of precedent regarding all things fannish. The Triat exists in Werewolf and (under different names) in Mage and is one of the major unifying points of the old World of Darkness universe. Considering WoD is one of the most popular gaming franchises in existence, and considering we have every damn Pokemon ever organized into several Pokedexen, I think this is a definite keep. Haikupoet (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I'm not arguing that the WoD isn't notable, I'm arguing that this part of it isn't, or at the very least the article as written does absolutely nothing to demonstrate this notability. As I stated above, my Google searches (which don't hit everything of course) didn't seem to turn up any independent resources. I fully expected this argument to be made, i.e. something like "WoD games are notable, hence every small part of it is notable", but I'm waiting for the evidence that I was unable to locate. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are gravely misreading my point. It is not that it is notable because it's part of WoD, it's notable because it's one of the most significant plot elements underlying both Mage and Werewolf. Most of the cultures in the three biggest games have a three-way oppositional structure that relates directly to the Triat; I'm not overly familiar with Werewolf apart from the basics, but Pentex embodies the Wyrm while the Garou embody the Wild. In Mage, the Traditions represent the Wild, the Technocracy represents the Weaver, and the Nephandi represent the Wyrm. One could argue that a similar pattern exists in Vampire, though it's a little unclear as to whether the Sabbat or the Antediluvians represent the Wyrm, as the Vampire mythos predates the fully-developed Triat; however, the three-way oppositional structure still obtains. Haikupoet (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't invalidate my point. If it's notable (in th Wikipedia sense of the word) there should be other sources to back this up. In the current state of the article, there are no such sources and I was unable to locate any in my online searches. If it's "one of the unifying plot points" and is notable because of this (again in the WP sense of the word), there should be something other than your assurance (i.e. references that are independent of White Wolf) that can tell me this. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the alternative would be to merge contents into several articles that are already quite long, including at least Werewolf: The Apocalypse and Mage: The Ascension. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are quite long because they're already full on lots of in-universe material that should likely be trimmed down. What in this article, besides the first sentence, is non in-universe material that puts this into context? --Craw-daddy | T | 10:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no specific requirement for the amount of context, as long as there is enough to show that it is a game character, and not a deity or whatever in some actual real world mythology. If the game is very notable, all major plot elements are notable also. We have a policy for giving full coverage of appropriate material when we cover something. DGG (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim of notability. Neither really any need to merge, as nothing in the article is significant --T-rex 19:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reach for the Sun Bottle Hunt[edit]

A one-shot marketing promotion, with no evidence of lasting notability Ecoleetage (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ATTENTION all marketing majors, ad-men, public relations firms, et al. For the love of Pete please stop putting your work product into the encyclopedia. You lot will be first against the wall when the revolution comes anyway (just ask the Golgafrincham Ark B passengers and crew.) Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Week Delete - It just doesn't seem to be WP:NOTABLE. I couldn't find anything besides the manufacturers website which refers to the bottle hunt. Nk.sheridan Talk 13:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Could possibly have some source for WP:V per Jkatzen's comments. Nk.sheridan Talk 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not surprised people may not find it not notable, but the reason I added it here, is that it was an early-Internet-days meme, and there is sorely little available talking about some of the activities of the period. The year-long promotion was very well known among the few web-savvy individuals back in 1996-1997, but because it (admittedly) was only a marketing promotion, little remains of it. The promotion, though, introduced thousands of people to internet search engines when they were still a novelty. According to a book by author Daniel S. Janal (from Google Book Search), "Sunny Delight offered college-bound students an Internet scavenger hunt and a chance to win a $10000 scholarship. This ploy received nationwide attention . . . ." Also see an excerpt from another book discussing it. Alas, I'll probably be outvoted by people trying to trim down Wikipedia's listings, but I'd like to see the article stay. As a side note, if you search Google for sunny d "bottle hunt", there are some passing references to it on a number of sites. Jkatzen (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- re: the RFD, this wasn't a one-shot contest. It was repeated three times over an extended period. Jkatzen (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Neutral; if Jkatzen can add some references to document the event and its historical notability, then I have no problem with Keeping. The first, or an early, promotion of this kind is certainly a good claim to notability, and coverage of the event would cement that, I think. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It may get a passing mention now and again but the criteria for notability is that multiple sources should address the subject in detail. --neon white talk 01:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if it can be better sourced Broonsparrow (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no substantial coverage; just another promotion. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 03:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recycling in schools[edit]

Appears to be an original essay, not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR essay. L0b0t (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is an original essay. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - currently an essay, but a legit article could be written on this topic --T-rex 14:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research written as essay, plus copyright violation. The entire Go Green section has been copied verbatim from here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An OR personal essay and possibly copyvio Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, and creator makes no effort to search for references.Sebwite (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that the article is sufficiently notable. Davewild (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to Me (NYC)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article falls into WP:NOT#NEWS category. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep Notoriety and notability are not the same thing, while this couple has had trivial mention in student newspapers, blogs, and tabloids (the only sources listed in the article other than their own website.) that is not enough coverage to warrant an entry in the encyclopedia. Here in NYC we talk to each other every day, no help from college drop-outs with cardstock signs required. L0b0t (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and L0b0t. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim of notability. Sitting around in lawn chairs is not notable. --T-rex 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, I wanted to go outside and sit a while, then write a Wikipedia page about myself. You're telling me that wouldn't be notable? :-( Spell4yr (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see a good amount of RS coverage and last time I checked, the New York POst and Times were not "student newspapers, blogs". WP:IDONTLIKEIT was not a valid delete reason last time I noticed. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but they are tabloids (technically NYT is not a tabloid but nobody has bothered to tell that to Sulzberger.) The sources at the link you provide for the most part just repeat a newswire release. The only sources listed in the article itself are to student papers, blogs, and tabloids. Again, notoriety and notability are not the same thing and WP:I'VEHEARDOFTHIS and WP:ILIKEIT are not reasons for inclusion. L0b0t (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment' The Seattle Times and San Francisco Chronicle both seem to be independent stories. Last time I checked any twp of the three big ones: NY Times, Seattle Times, SF Chron, NY Daily News.... would meet WP:N. ~~I might have a go at re-writing it~~ if I have a moment this afternoon. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability, even with newspaper articles. I've been the subject of newspaper articles but don't plan on writing a page about myself. Spell4yr (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just re-written the article with a number of sources, none of which "repeat a newswire release". It has RS coverage and I suggest future commenters !vote on the current state, not the past !votes which related to a different article. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the rewrite, quite frankly, looks great. Would this be akin to a performance art piece? Do we have subject-specific inclusion criteria for events like this? Despite the mentions in the newspaper I'm just not convinced that this was a big enough "happening" or project to warrant inclusion. Every city has ~~street crazies~~ bohemian free-thinkers that hold up signs and talk to strangers. Tallahassee had King Love, New Orleans has that guy at Shell Plaza with the sandwich-board deploring the persecution of our "Psychic Prisoners", Brooklyn has the guy on the C train that's quite keen on Jesus. Talk to Me was a quirky human interest story but nothing more; I just don't think it merits an article. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - you forgot Provincetown's Lobster Guy ;) Thanks for the comments on the re-write. I don't know if we have subject-specific criteria. I try not to go along the lines of "well all x are (not) notable" (not saying that you are doing this) so I'm not sure what precedent there may be. It is human interest but the fact that interest lasted for ~ three years is a good sign that it had some substance. I tried to think of a possible larger article of which this could form part, but I can't think of anything. I will think more on it. In the mean time, this has time to run and we can think :) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- After giving the matter some consideration I'm going to have change my vote to a keep (vote changed above). The rewrite looks good, we have no specific reason to exclude it, and we have things like The Gates and Naked Cowboy. Although, King Love[28] should have his own page too. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rewrite doesn't look much different, and still not remotely notable. This is akin to having the article President Bush chocked on a Pretzel, notability is different then "it got mentioned in a newspaper" --T-rex 23:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article passed AFD only a few months ago and has been rewritten to address improvement issues. 23skidoo (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if enough humans are interested in something, and write about it in major sources, its notable. that there's national coverage for this is in my view decisive--I accept that the NYT byitself can sometimes be parochial. DGG (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps the name of the article should be changed? As it stands, it refers to a single publicity stunt from six years ago. If this represents a genuine cultural happening, then having the NYC in the article name is confusing. --Ecoleetage (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought about that as well, Eco. But then I looked at the disambig page and I think it makes sense because it began in New York and then led to a trip across the country. Not married to this name, but can 't think of a better one either. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 12:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I found some more press coverage such as Washington Post[29], and a mention in Psychology Today [30], the latter suggesting that maybe this is part of a larger phenomenon and the content should be merged in some yet unwritten article.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Imo there are enough refs to meet the notability guideline, and it's quirky, quirky is good. RMHED (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep for the time being, due to the confusion over the non-english sources. Rather than simply relist I will close the discussion to give the editors time to dig up sources rather than just evidence of their existence - bear in mind that Google hits are not acceptable indicators of notability. If nobody can (or will) actually source this article it should be renominated in a relatively short period of time. Shereth 03:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Runner[edit]

Obscure, non-notable video game. Next to nothing for Google hits [31], no reliable sources. Fails WP:N, WP:V. RGTraynor 11:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not a notable video game. We simply cannot have a Wikipedia articles on every video games. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is supposed to be about learning new things (even about stuff that is completely unfamiliar to an English-speaking audience). If you go to Google Japan instead of the standard Google, you can find more information about the game. I often find that there's more information about Japanese video games on Google Japan than there is on the "regular Google." GVnayR (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is strong evidence reliable print sources exist for every super famicom game released. ~I cannot read Japanese, so it will be hard to search for myself, but I do know this trend. User:Krator (t c) 16:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I am the creator of this page. While this game may not be notable, neither are pages on many of the games listed on here. We don't try to delete those either. mattiator (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, yes, oftentimes we do when we find that the articles lack reliable sources and the subjects lack notability. RGTraynor 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we go by Google Japan, then only 1680 hits are yielded for "ソリッドランナー" (the title of the game). Of these, the majority (I dare say 1650+) are from blog, fan-, or commercial (shops) sites that easily fail WP:RS. Of the remaining potential sites, they are little more than profile pages. I failed to find sites that have information on development or reception. Unless reliable print sources are brought up, I fear looking for online sources is a dead end to keep this article. Jappalang (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: tag this article and give it a little more time. I'm not convinced that any of us Westerners can make proper use of google to find this Japanese game, and I think there's a strong presumption that most super famicom games are notable and have plenty of coverage. Randomran (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#G3 and WP:IAR - hoaxes aren't speedyable but blatant rubbish is. Pedro : Chat 15:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zadù[edit]

Fake, the depicted person ist Heribert Weber. Matthiasb (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete ~~Qualifies for speedy deletion - will tag the page~~. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, my bad. Hoax is insufficient reason. I still believe it is a hoax though, so should be deleted. Will Untag the page.StephenBuxton (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: WP:CSD#A7 - blatant and obvious hoax...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 11:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Notability is shown on the page - professional footballers in top leagues are notable (see WP:ATHLETE. However, if this is indeed a hoax, it should be deleted. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as deliberate misinformation (vandalism) Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:HOAX. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - as hoax. So tagged. TN‑X-Man 14:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearhealth[edit]

Contested PROD. PROD reason was "notability". Article about a piece of open source software in use in health organisations. Article does still read a bit like an advert. role^player 11:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After reading the notability guidelines it seems that certainly "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." that threshold is established. A google search shows substantive coverage from ZDNet, OsNews, Slashdot, and many more as well as consistent coverage in the Open Source Healthcare site of record site LinuxMedNews.com . Furthermore many resources covering the topic in the medical field are not available online such as the leading magazine publications and things like VistA Healthcare News which this month features ClearHealth.

Secondly "deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources", it seems like any reasonable effort conducted reveal the results mentioned above which are clearly substantive and independent and meet the basic notability guideline. This article was also in response to an article request.

Finally the guideline of "When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established" it seems that even if you feel notability is not now established there is a strong probability it can be.

How is this article not notable in the context of this one [32] ? Both are the largest open source systems for powering healthcare settings, VistA is for in-patient, ClearHealth is for outpatient. ClearHealth ranks higher on sourceforge and freshmeat than the VistA system? It powers the largest open source healthcare outpatient system in the country, Primary Care Coalition, as referenced in the article and in this months VistA Healthcare News. How can something be an advertisement for an open source project which is free in dollar terms and free under the GPL software license?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.36.248 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional numbers with citations from the California Healthcare Foundation and VistA & Open Healthcare News. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.36.248 (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs a lot of work to assert notability, but it's there. A rewrite, including some numbers, can make it wothy keeping. 9Nak (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am just a novice to wikipedia but I am a physician and a hobbyist in open source. My opinion is that a clearhealth article is notable based on the awareness of it in the medical community, it has been reviewed and discussed by NIH, NLM and CDC and from my understanding is likely to be certified by CMS for funding assistance which is a very short list. Having the entry is consistent with other entries already in wikipedia. I do agree that the article could use some work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John.r.hathaway (talk • contribs) 05:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect, for now to List of educational institutions in Scarborough, Ontario as there is no consensus to delete and Toronto District School Board would list up to 451 elementary schools but currently has none. Tikiwont (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Springs Public School[edit]

relatively unknown elementary school in Toronto. The article is just one sentence long. Yettipolitician123 (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete School hasn't been covered in any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not a notable elementary school. No sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --T-rex 14:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since when were schools not notable? This is a real school (I did a quick google search and added two refs to verify this, and the GPS coordinates given). No reason to delete something just because its a stub! CrazyChemGuy _{(talk) (Contribs)} 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has claimed that the school is not real --T-rex 23:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toronto District School Board, per precedent and WP:SCHOOLS. Existence!=notability _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Merge and redirect to List of educational institutions in Scarborough, Ontario (the appropriate locality article) A viable verifiable encyclopaedic article is not currently possible, due to the lack of reliable sourcing; without this, the stub is merely a directory entry that fails WP:N. I'm not sure this needs an AfD though; common practice is just to merge and redirect to the locality article. EJF (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or merge to Toronto District School Board as also suggested... either suits me. EJF (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —EJF (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —EJF (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of educational institutions in Scarborough, Ontario per usual practice. This could have just been done without coming here. Toronto District School Board isn't such a good merge since it doesn't detail any schools. TerriersFan (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per TerriersFan. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect somewhere. Fails criteria for a standalone article, but this does not mean delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 02:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MCB (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Webbook[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the references provided verify that the term is used, not what it means exactly, a neologism that is for wikitionary not wikipedia. Move it across? SGGH ^speak! 10:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a protologism, e-book and netbook are more widely used.--Michael White^T·C 11:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This type of articles shouldn't exist on Wikipedia. Maybe it could be moved to wikitionary. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 15:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blitz Tech[edit]

Non-notable, no independent sources, no relevant Google or Google News hits except their own website. Was prodded, prod removed by author without improvement. Huon (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable corporate division. Do not merge, as the information is already covered in Blitz Games Studios.--Michael White^T·C 11:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Topic sufficiently covered in main article. This is a non-notable spinout, and we should WP:AVOIDSPLIT here. Fails the WP:GNG and WP:VGSCOPE guidelines. Randomran (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Intercontinental 2008[edit]

Few non-wiki and non-pageant fan site ghits. Almost no third party news sources can be found on Google. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 08:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World Famous Beauties 2007[edit]

"... is a fictif annual beauty contest". I think that says it all. No ghits whatsoever outside Wikipedia. Contested prod. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 08:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable, probably hoax. Huon (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. Fails WP:V. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Nakon 22:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Universe[edit]

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

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

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

I was about to try to clean up this page, but I am not sure that this article satisfies WP:WEB or WP:N. Specifically, it fails to be notable as there are not multiple, independent mentions of the subject in reliable sources. All the references currently in the article are to web forums, podcasts, or webpages except for two press releases (from Wizzard and SubscribeCast) which are not independent of the site itself as they indicate a business relationship. The only source that might qualify is the blog positing from news.com.au, but since even this would only make one mention, it fails the "multiple" aspect of WP:N. Therefore I suggest it be deleted. DestroHolmes (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Tough call, this one. Article currently lacks reliable sources, the only source that could be useful is number 1, MSN Money, which is broken. No hits on google news. --neon white talk 01:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some important history on this page, but maybe that's not a good reason to keep the page on Wikipedia. I have copied the article to an offline file in case the show re-emerges and stirs more controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.30.208 (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entries on this page, are all from the podcast creators mouth and/or web site. Everything is factual and no external sources were necessary. All information gathered on this specific podcast is all factual not opinion based and should not be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.113.146 (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why anyone feels this entry should be so heavily linked/sourced. The information presented is all factual, and it seems like this information should be preserved as a record of both MU's popularity and also of the major problems that ended in MU's downfall. If it IS deleted and Mr. Grundy begins another business venture that could have similar problems, people should know about this situation. I'm voting against deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.108.11 (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the information in this post is very factual and not at all opinion-based. Nobody is disputing the facts as presented. Why delete it? People who are interested in knowing what Mysterious Universe was have nowhere else to find factual information as is contained here. As mentioned earlier, if Mr. Grundy is to go back into the podcasting business, people should be informed about his history and what transpired with the downfall of Mysterious Universe. I am against deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.214.55 (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this post is correct. It should not be deleted. People who may be interested in what Mysterious Universe was need the information as is contained here. As mentioned earlier, if Mr. Grundy returns to the podcasting business, people should be informed about his history and what transpired with the downfall of Mysterious Universe. I am against deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthdemon (talk • contribs) 00:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC) — Truthdemon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This article should absolutely NOT be deleted. There are NO factual errors. The fact that it is based on internet sources does not invalidate the events. Is the person who marked it for deletion suggesting that no wikis can be made relating to internet events? The article should stand both for the historical record and as a reference for potential future customers who may be considering subscribing (if Mr Grundy decides to revive the show or go into business again). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SensibleSam (talk • contribs) 22:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. There are no errors. WesTer

Comment This article is being considered for deletion because of notability concerns. There are no reliable source on the article so therefore it's accuracy cannot be assertained. Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising. Also i believe the above 4 comments to be the same editor, who may be involved with the article. --SineBot (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the above comments ARE from 4 users, or more. The above commenter has no basis for such a statement, and should perhaps offer proof before making such assumptions. The consensus currently seems to indicate that this article should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.148.15 (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC) — 67.42.148.15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There currently is no consensus are no valid reasons for keeping this article have been put forward. --neon white talk 16:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the four people that posted a RipOff Report. On the EERIE Forums, we have discovered that three of the reporters were forum members. That right there verifies that the Ripoff Reports were made by four separate people. Deleting this Wiki would be irresponsible and uneccessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.185.255 (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC) — 71.61.185.255 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This posting is factually correct and relevant and should not be deleted. There are simply not enough sources available for this information, but that doesn't mean it is not valuable information to the general public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.90.101 (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the entry above this one - I think you are confusing a comment on the page above that is alleging four comments on this page came from the same source with a reference elsewhere to four "RipOff Reports" being filed against Mysterious Universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.241.82 (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC) — 99.163.241.82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak keep I am not happy about an attempt to deconstruct every single reference in this article to prove that a popular podcast is not really notable. If it's on a top 50 list, it can make a reasonable claim to be notable. Perhaps it's borderline, but I don't see what the encyclopedia gains by deleting this. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources are reliable and many are primary and self published by the creators themselves which cannot be used to establish notability (see comment by nominator). There is very little to suggest notability. Remember popularity is not the same as notability, being on a top 50 list does not guarantee notability. There is little evidence of this getting any coverage in second party reliable sources. --neon white talk 01:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: We've had some single-purpose accounts voting to keep. Please see my comment at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Truthdemon. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know how to fight this, and frankly don't care. Truthdemon is the only login I use for wikipedia. I sign in from work and home, thus the different IP addresses, I guess. I have never signed in under a different username. I may have forgotten to sign in, and edited the wiki without signing in, but I can't be certain. Franky, accusing me of sockpuppetry, or whatever, seems a lame excuse for disregarding my comments. I only created the account to keep the Mysterious Universe Wiki A)updated and B) fairly evenhanded, since someone, initially Thekloofy and now DestroHolmes seemed to want to whitewash (and now delete) the entry. I found and edited the MU Wiki because I wanted it to reflect the truth of what was going on with MU. If you want to deceive inveigle and obfuscate, go right ahead. If you wonder who I am, I am Gatorbobo; I was Gatorbobo at Mysterious Universe (before the Forums were deleted) and I use the same username in other forums as well. I'm easy to find, if you want to verify my existence.Truthdemon (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Gatorbobo[reply]

Accusations of sock puppetry should not be taken personally. This afd contains many very similar posts by multiple accounts that have little edits other than this afd. This is naturally suspicious. If you have not violated policy on sock puppetry or meat puppetry then ignore it. The problem with your editing seems to be that you are adding original research that you may personal believe to be correct but is not verifiable which often happens with those who have a conflict of interest. --neon white talk 15:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My bringing this article to AfD has nothing to do with disputing the content of the article or some desire to see it removed or hidden. In its present form the article contains unencyclopedic sections and parts do not meet WP:NPOV principles. Further, several of the references are to pages that have already disappeared from the internet, as will more over time. Before I spend anymore time working on this article, I want to establish that indeed it satisfies one of the most common reasons cited for deletion - lack of notability. Mysterious Universe has not, to my estimation, been discussed in multiple and independent reliable sources - one of the key definitions of notability here on Wikipedia - and now that it is defunct it will likely never will be. If the community decides here that it is indeed notable, and therefore a Wikipedia article is warranted, I will be more than happy to work to make this a better article in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines and principles. But I definitely do not want to spend more hours working on it only to have it nominated for deletion a few months from now when another editor notices the lack of reliable sources. Finally, for what it is worth I do not believe there is any sockpuppertry going on here; all the above comments likely come from separate individuals. Several new editors were likely directed to this debate from a comment on Podcast Alley or some other webforum. DestroHolmes (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing other individuals to post is considered to be meat puppetry which is dealt with under the same rules as sock puppetry. From Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets "Sometimes users who appear to work with a common agenda are not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users editing with the sole purpose of backing each other up, often called "meatpuppets." Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another. For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. --neon white talk 15:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable. Seems to have some OK sources. Needs a thorough cleanup. AfD is no substitute for cleanup. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? --neon white talk 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per G7 - User Request. Article deleted by Tanthalas39 at 03:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC). UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FUNLIB[edit]

Article was originally proposed for deletion as it did not cite any sources per WP:N and WP:V, and that searching didn't reveal any sources. Since then, the article has been blanked then stubified by the author but no sources have bee added. It's been about a month since the prod, so I'm bringing it here. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 07:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Article has since been speedily deleted under criterion G7. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 00:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for want of sources that aren't Wikipedia mirrors. WillOakland (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is deleted already... Mm40 (talk | contribs) 15:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 03:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chili cheese burrito[edit]

Article about an action to get Chili Cheese Burritos back to Taco Bell [33], a joke about a comedian that it is Mexican slang for penis, and a 'reverse engineered' recipe [34]. This leans towards nonsense and advertisement, and is in any case unnotable. I prodded it yesterday giving the same reason, but as the creator contested (see talk page of the user and the article), the prod was removed, so here I am. Cheers, Face 07:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not one of those things you stand on to shout your opinion at passers-by. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability, insufficient sources for verifiability, inappropriate subject for an article. Huon (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Too much POV, but it does look like there is a certain amount of notability to warrant an article. The www.Chilicheese.org page lists news coverage such as Philidelphia Weekly, and on a nationally syndicated radio show [35] (although I have been unable to listen to that Mindows Media file). StephenBuxton (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure OR rubbish. L0b0t (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a Google search, you'll find quite some forum/blog posts about it, and as Stephen showed, an RS even mentioned it. The article might be rubbish yes, but it's not OR. Cheers, Face 13:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Huon is right. It is an inappropriate subject for an article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the POV problem, I think I see a WP:COATRACK. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ridiculous. JuJube (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails just about everything, CB ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 03:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic weaponry in popular culture[edit]

This seems to be just a trivial dumping ground for anything related to Sonic Weaponry. Relevant content should be in the sonic weaponry article only, not in this subpage of clutter. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is just a trivia list. An attempt could be made to write an encyclopedic article on the subject and its real world impact but, this isn't it and probably isn't even the skeleton of it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 09:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom --SkyWalker (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd be surprised if there weren't some mention in some sci-fi magazine or film book, given gadgets like Dr Who's sonic screwdriver. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate list of very loosely associated bits of information. Plus, they forgot Earth vs. the Flying Saucers and Target Earth. Deor (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crufty cesspit, they also forgot Banshee one of the early X-Men. L0b0t (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a trivia list. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I think Casliber may have been on to something regarding Doctor Who's sonic screwdriver, but I'm not sure there's enough real world info out there to really warrant this list. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess almost every sci-fi movie or television series has sonic weapons, which would make this list indiscriminate (WP:NOT#IINFO). I wouldn't mind seeing a nice sourced paragraph or two about this topic at Sonic weaponry, but this list is just a bad idea. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list is. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 01:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Merg to Sonic weaponry and could also have some references. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful with Sonic Weaponry. And make sure Hawkwind's Sonic Attack gets a mention too. --Ka renjc
- Also, Noise Marines. L0b0t (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a good place to bring the material together.If sssentially every game and what not has it, then frst,it shows that this feature is notable, and ,second, it makes the potential length too long for a merge. DGG (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Sonic Weaponry. there're Google Books refs, topic is popular within the society and Wikipedia needs to cover this popularity. I agree that rewriting as some sourced paragraph could be nice, but content must be kept now for that to happen later. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zef (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Notable element of (sorta) fictional technology, and as DGG puts it above, the abundance of information suggests both notability and lack of suitability for merges elsewhere. Ford MF (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but don't keep (so merge or just redirect) in any case. This is awful, it's just a list of every time there's a form of attack that has something to do with sound. Some of these aren't even weapons. Ugh. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have sonic weapons really had a significant enough impact on popular culture to warrant an encyclopedia article? Popular does not always mean notable. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#INFO. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, I think it does. I interpret the guideline as saying that things can be notable even if they are not popular. But in any event, widely used by notable artists is saying a good deal more than "popular." DGG (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to meet the general notability guideline of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If someone turns up some kind of "sonic weaponry monthly" magazine, I'll change my vote. Randomran (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial list. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, created contrary to WP:TRIVIA. Does not cite sources that speak to the subject (or any that don't, almost). WillOakland (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G7; User Request. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between Raising Hell and Amazing Grace (song)[edit]

I created this page last year for what turned out to be a non-notable song. It's currently redirected to the album of the same name, but I don't see anybody searching for this as currently titled, and so I think it would be better to remove the redirect page entirely. Spell4yr (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suppose this would also qualify as a G7. I didn't realize that almost all of the content was written by me originally. Spell4yr (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as ((db-author)) - so tagged.Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. References added since nomination show some notability. Dweller (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Seaward[edit]

Abysmally fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Much of it, in fact, reads like WP:HOAX. Qworty (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Funny entry, but NN act. Associated redirects should be deleted as well, and a few associated edits reverted Thetrick (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and bounce out of the castle. A couple links are legit -- the Guardian article mentions Seaward by name -- but not notable enough outside of his backyard to be notable. Spell4yr (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No delete Will add some more references (there are many) for verifiability and to prove notability. Please note this is my first article. What does "NN act" mean? Sprintakid (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NN is wikipedia shorthand for 'Not-notable' see Wikipedia:Notability - I'm neutral on this for now. Article certainly isn't a Hoax - ref's to Guardian articles check out and he seems to have got other bits and pieces of news coverage[36] but I'm not sure if its enough to warrant an article -Hunting dog (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Abysmally fails WP:ENTERTAINER" - I disagree (certainly with the word 'abysmally' - isn't that a little too emotive?) as a person should have made contributions (to the arts in this case) that are "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." His contribution is unique, interesting and definitely unusual. I agree he fails on the other two criteria on WP:ENTERTAINER, but under the same heading it says "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards." i.e. not necessarily all.(Sprintakid talk) 13:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just delete it! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a few references, but I'm still neutral about the article as things stand. William Seaward has been quoted in some reliable sources, including the ABC in Australia and in The Guardian, as well as being interviewed in The Scotsman. He's also had TV and radio appearances. So he isn't without note. It also makes me very happy to know that, somewhere in the world, Shakespearean plays have been performed in bouncy castles. I'm neutral still because of two concerns - one is that it seems like his career may have just started, and that he really hasn't done a lot yet (two productions at the fringe, and a third on the way); and the other is that I'd probably be happier saying that The Strolling Theatricals company is more notable than the director/founder. Once the unsourced content is discounted, we have a solid (short) piece about the company and some lines about William Seaward, so I'm thinking it might make more sense to have a Strolling Theatricals article and redirect to that. Anyway, I'll hold of on a !vote for a bit, in case anyone has any better thoughts. - Bilby (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete From a historian's point of view, I see no reason to delete this article. Like seemingly worthless internet blogs, the more pieces of information we have on people, their lives and their thoughts, the more we're contributing to an archive for the future. Unfortunately, only big names get into the books, but because cultural contributors like William are just below the surface of popular recognition (as of yet), databases like Wikipedia must be relied on to keep a record of them. We cannot wait for the possibility that he might become a celebrity. Anthony Arundel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.11 (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He certainly gets press from many reliable secondary sources. While all of them aren't "in depth" (some are arguably so like the first Guardian one), the combination of the sheer number of them seems to warrant inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I've decided to go with keep. The subject has been interviewed in a major newspaper, and both he and his work have been discussed in several other significant reliable sources, including international ones - many of whom directly quoted him in relation to his work. I think the article needs to be trimmed back to cover only verifiable information, and I'd still make a case for a merger with a new Strolling Theatricals article, but that aside he seems to meet (just) the notability requirements. - Bilby (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 15:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Lockhart[edit]

Has published a handful of short stories but has apparently never published a book. Fails WP:BIO and WP:BK. Google throws up a lot of people with this name, but none of the notable ones appears to be this one. Possible WP:AUTO and WP:COI, given the username of this WP:single-purpose account. Qworty (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the page, and someone better associated with this issue needs to explain WP:COI and WP:BOOK to Mr. Lockhart. I'm assuming good faith here, since he hasn't been a nuisance. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 06:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the non-notable/non-verifiable bit - welcome user and point them in the right direction. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Christopher Lockhart is a non-notable science-fiction short story writer. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Image[edit]

Was nominated for CSD G11 by Realkyhick, I thought it had too many editors for that, but it might not be notable. Selket ^Talk 05:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not CSDable, but still worthy of deletion. All self-reference and redlinked names. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 06:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously, I prefer a speedy, but I'll settle for plain ol' delete. Not notable, self-referenced. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It's blatant advertising. Maybe notable/maybe not but, still advertising. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:COMPANY. [37] [38] [39]. Not to mention they have produced an Oscar-nominated film (The Black Dahlia). The blatant advertising can be removed by reverting to the pre-09 June version. --DStoykov (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm ... does anyone disagree with me? --DStoykov (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. At last count, four. The pre-June 9 version does little to change my mind about notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you disagree that Nu Image "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" as per WP:COMPANY? Or do you claim that established criteria are not relevant here? --DStoykov (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no substantial evidence of notability; fails WP:COMPANY. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Blue Beam[edit]

The article lacks any sources that meet Wikipedia's verifiability standard. Valhawk (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, badly sourced conspiracy theory, also major parts are a copyvio from here. Huon (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a stupid conspiracy theory.<--- who the fuck are you to say that it is stupid? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT Delete, Article is verifiable through credible sources and cross-referencing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.161.238 (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 03:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Movies Made in Shreveport[edit]

Listcruft; no sources, almost impossible to independently verify. An indiscriminate, unreliable list. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, indiscriminate, unverified list. JIP | Talk 05:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is fraggable on three separate levels: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:LIST. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 06:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given by JIP and Bullzeye. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. also note that the majority of films listed have a release date in the future --T-rex 14:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not IMDB Shoombooly (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was - Clearly no consensus to delete so defaulting to Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 11:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence_Kaptain[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Laurence Kaptain

Largely unverifiable, non-notable autobiography. Romanempire (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This quick search shows plenty of sources that show notability, and that the article is verifiable. Kevin (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a standard for concert musicians? They are much more likely to get press than the typical band/band member, but that doesn't mean every single soloist is notable (even if this one did play with Yo-Yo Ma). Thetrick (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most professional orchestra musicians can say that they have played with Yo Yo Ma in one way or another. That doesn't in itself establish notability. It should also be noted that the non-fiction bibliography references have nothing to do with the content of the article. The article in itself reads as if it was lifted straight from a concert program, and is clearly on Wikipedia as a means of self-promotion. It should be deleted.willietanner (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page is clearly an autobiography; it's sole maintainer is User:LKaptain. Romanempire (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that the article is dubious under WP:COI but nonetheless there might be enough notability for it to be kept under WP:MUSIC. However, that standard seems more geared towards bands than concert musicians. Can this nom be relisted under music-related discussions? --Thetrick (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Changed, I think. Romanempire (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Romanempire, you meant "its", not "it's". M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant self-promotion. L0b0t (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant autobiographical, non-npov self promotion Shoombooly (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a player with the very notable groups listed is notable. Given his specialized instrument, he's not a regular member of any one orchestra, but from the information presented he's probably at the top rung of the field. There should be reviews--id the nom think to look? BTW, if all professional athletes are notable, why not all professional musicians? DGG (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Professional musicians need to meet different criteria for notability, as, for example, they are not followed by throngs of media writing hundreds of sports pages. Romanempire (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some here are commenting that is is self-promotion. That may be so in it's current state, but that is a reason to improve the article, not delete it. Kevin (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would agree if WP:COI weren't the only issue. I think the debate is shaping up to being a question of whether the article satisfies WP:N, and, in the larger picture, what criteria need to be met for concert musicians in general. Romanempire (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A1) User:Selket non admin closure. ~ Eóin (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Pillinger[edit]

Contested prod. Claims to be a member of the band Aqua (band). The author changed the Aqua article to reflect this but I can't find any evidence that it's true. In fact I can't find any evidence about this person. Likely a hoax. ~ Eóin (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unreferenced WP:COI article tied in with vandalism of another article Thetrick (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 vandalism/hoax, no proof that an Alex Pillinger was ever in Aqua. Possible COI too, given the author's username. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 15:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin DuPriest[edit]

No references, individual does not seem notable enough. Article was severely vandalized when I found it. I repaired vandalism and disambiguated a link. He sounds like a cool guy and all, but I don't see need to keep this article. CosineKitty (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up ... guess who originally wrote this article about Kevin DuPriest? That's right, a user named... User:Kdupriest. Hmmm. CosineKitty (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced and blatent WP:COI. Thetrick (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Developing a Microsoft SharePoint Web Portal is not notable --T-rex 14:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or shall we give all WP admins their own articles as well? Gotta draw the line somewhere. Shoombooly (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom after relisting with many thanks to those who commented and further clarified editor consensus on this article, which falls under WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Gardner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

While this topic is meaningful to Wikipedia's history it is not notable in the wider world and does not meet the proposed guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). Most of the notability stemmed from a single series of edits this individual made to Wikipedia to further an impersonation scheme over which no subsequent criminal conviction is noted in the article. Moreover, the article notes only one earlier criminal conviction, for a wholly un-notable and single crime. Biography of living person policy is meaningful here because here both because of the undue weight brought to bear by his Wikipedia edits along with the BLP warning: Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly (to put it more pithily, the "gotchya" side to this article is a bit glaring, even if this happened in good faith). Given this, the Wikipedia community might ponder the conflict of interest worries this article raises for Wikipedia, given the self-referential aspect at its root. Lastly, most of the independent coverage was limited to stories stemming from a short string of AP reports, which are more often than not cited by the other sources and I also find it a bit odd (and perhaps telling) that one of the references cited for this article is a Wikipedia project page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's obviously notable that a sex-offender's hoax was exposed by a Wikipedia AfD. Further, the article is factual about its subject's actions, the fact those actions reflect poorly on the subject is the the subject's fault, not the article's. Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 01:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the references provided in Joshua_Gardner#References indicate sufficient coverage of Joshua Gardner in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of his notability per the general notability guideline. Deletions of articles concerning otherwise notable individuals per our biographies of living persons policy are primarily designed to avoid providing publicity concerning people who have suffered a derogatory notability through no fault of their own, not to assist serious criminals in the avoidance of the well-deserved infamy for their crimes. John254 01:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there are sufficient secondary sources to indicate notability. The Wikipedia ref is a problem, however the info that it purports to verify is verified by one of the other refs. Kevin (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have removed the Wikipedia ref, in case anyone is looking for it. Kevin (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The secondary sources are rather impressive, including international coverage. I don't think the article serves primarily to mock or disparage its subject either. Maxa megalon 2000 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 03:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amie Roosevelt[edit]

I can't find any significant coverage to indicate that she is notable as a musician. --Michael White^T·C 01:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. Has notable relatives, but notability is not inherited. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few GHits is generally sufficient to declare non-notability. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only notability is her familily relations, only royalty gets notability for that (ridiculous as that may be) Shoombooly (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage (even only mentioned in passing in an article on the accomplishments of Roosevelts in the present day). Mention in Roosevelt family is sufficient but could possibly be beefed up from sources to justify a redirect. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punk Rock's Effect on Politics and Economy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Punk Rock's Effect on Politics and Economy

Contested prod. Original research. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable subject, and I do sense original research here. No good use. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay full of OR. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, and seems to be discussing effects of Politics and Economy on Punk Rock rather than the other way around. FreplySpang 03:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to OR concerns, as well as everyone knows punk rock's effect on politics was that anti-Bush CD a few years back, and its effect on the economy is Green Day's record sales. Spell4yr (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure OR, commie, nonsense; written by someone too young to understand the ideological nuances that go far beyond "...support for left-wing politics...". What about Rock Against Communism? Spell4yr, you forgot Let Them Eat Jellybeans and all the other anti-Reagan albums. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original Research personal esssay Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concurring with all the above. Shoombooly (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 03:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Yonan[edit]

IMHO this conflicts with the guidelines in WP:Autobiography, and it is written like an ad. See rev history and name of first author. But since it asserts notability, consensus must be reached. Shoombooly (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's written like an ad, indeed. I suspect it's a copy-and-paste from somewhere else. It is somewhat notable, though, so maybe with some cleaning up and referencing it would be worth keeping. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notablity asserted but not proven. One new reference shows existence but not notability. Thetrick (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The reviews in reliable sources (embedded in the article rather than listed under the references heading) such as Tagesspiegel Berlin are probably enough to demonstrate notability, but since the search function at http://www.tagesspiegel.de/suche/ only covers articles since 1996, I can't verify the 1988 review of his performance. I found two references to him at the Google News archive and none at various Chicago-area news sites such as Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times or PioneerLocal.com. I would expect to see more coverage of a professional concert violinist, but there may be a good reason for the relatively small number of references. --Eastmain (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable. If he's as good as he says he is, he will yet deserve an article, written by another editor. As it stands, it seems a strong case of self-promotion via a single-purpose account. (By the way, I hope you don't mind that I fixed your link to WP:AUTO, Shoombooly.)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of course I don't mind, as long as this means you will from now on fix ALL my mistakes for me? :P Shoombooly (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 would encourage the original author not to take the deletion of this material personally or as some kind of judgment on the quality of their contributions - it happens to us all at one point or another. Shereth 03:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of compatible and incompatible programs for Windows Vista 64[edit]

Unsourced, unencyclopedic. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic list/software guide. JJL (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate, unsourced list, too small to be of any use. Possibly written just to state a point. JIP | Talk 05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could end up being too long to be maintainable as well. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started this page because this information is not centralized anywhere on the web. I hope that with time this could be added to by people who have experienced success or failure with Vista 64. I personally need this list. When I embarked on a quest to make Vista 64 work, I could not find a list like this anywhere. I am certainly not on a mission to make a point, especially not one negative to Microsoft. I personally hope Vista 64 works, so the assertion otherwise strikes me as ridiculous.

No one else has bothered to make a helpful list. Wounldn't you all like an encyclopedic reference on this matter?

It is unencyclopedic because I don't have time to write the whole dissertation myself. It is intended to be just a start.

It is too small because it is just a start.

Having said all that, wouldn't you all rather be writing something, and adding, instead of just being a bunch of deleters. Build it, don't break it down.

I can't believe you all would try to break it down before it is even started up. Or, you all would have me write a complete and cross referenced article in one fell swoop. I don't have time for that so go ahead and delete it if that floats your boat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcwiki9 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to abandon this page for now, as the work will likely be deleted anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcwiki9 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some of you are unaware of the difference between Vista and Vista 64. If you were aware, then you would be aware of the need to know what works and what doesn't --Marcwiki9 (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although it is laudable that you tried to spread knowledge, there's various ways to do so. An encyclopedia needs references, and when you post an article that's completely unreferenced and has little context, people read it nonetheless, and, apparently, AfD it. You don't have to write articles in one swoop, but you could easily do most of the work in Notepad first, it's all plain text and some simple commends here in wikiland. As the article stands now, it's hard to maintain, one could list every program ever made, and how would we check all this info? A list of 32 bit programs incompatible with v64 would have been better than including both options in one article. As it stands now, delete. Shoombooly (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put in some of the references. There is no way I am going to write the whole thing in notepad and then import a copy ready article. I was hoping other people would see the value and start adding to the article. I see this page as a very valuable support for the Windows Vista 64 article, which I also started at the same time. I still don't see how anybody can come upon an article on the day it was started and mark it for deletion. That just boggles my mind. Is there a competition to see who can mark it for deletion first? Whatever happened to the talk page? Just boom, come along and bang it out as worthless with two words. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article listing only the programs that don't work would be very biased, and would not be helpful to people who want to know what does work. If there was a list of software that didn't work, and someone wanted to know if a particular program works, and they didn't see it on the list, there would be no way to differentiate what works from what wasn't even tested.

this article could get very large, similar to [40], however that list is NOT specific to Vista 64. As far as I can tell, the Vista 64 list does not exist yet. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Articles that long may not be appropriate for wikipedia, it's an encyclopedia, not an almanac. If there's a list of what doesn't work, the rest will probably work, not that biased i think. You don't have to write a feature ready article from scratch, but you don need to assert notability in the first draft of the article, otherwise it ends up here. The first thing to consider is how your article links up with the articles already on wikipedia. Lonely long articles with little context end up here much quicker than short stubs that have context, references and links from other articles. Before writing anything at all, that should be on your mind. Also, it's debatable whether or not a list like that is encyclopedic content, it will need a lot of convincing people, and what you provided so far, apparently, didn't convince everyone. Keep in mind that we all want a good wikipedia, but that not everyone goes about it the same way, but that when there's consensus about an issue, this is usually not anything personal, and you should not get angry if your ideas don't catch on. Better find ways to make them catch on than start an angry rant, because that will just alienate everyone from your point of view. Be patient, and be resourceful. Shoombooly (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment I have used Vista 64 quite a bit. To assume that any given software works is a mistake. In my experience, getting 32 bit software to work is a moderate challenge. Anyone who has gone through the trouble that I have will appreciate having a resource to go to to find out what works and what doesn't. In todays day and age, it is likely that searchers will wind up at Wikipedia. Wikipedia has many lists and tables. I see no problem with another one. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment But how will you prove what works and what doesn't? It's probably all going to be original research? (WP:OR Shoombooly (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I am not a grizzled old hand at Wikipedia. I am just someone who likes Wikipedia and is trying my bit to make it better. If you check out the references you will see that none of them are OR. I have picked content straight from the software's web site (Microsoft, Apple) or from the consensus of software support boards. This does not seem to be OR to me. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment That's true. But they should ALL have a reference. And even then, it just doesn't feel like a proper article yet. How will you link to it from other wiki articles? Shouldn't all programs have hyperlinks to their WP page, and/or homepage? What's the context of the article? How do i get there from the mainpage? That all needs answered. And even then, not everyone may be convinced, be prepared to have discussions about it with people. Shoombooly (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you Shoombooly for the constructive input. Those are excellent questions. I will have to eventually provide all the links you note that are neccessary. The genesis of this article is that I had real trouble getting Vista and old programs to run under Vista 64. I don't think that I am the only one who hoped that Wikipedia could provide some help, in an encyclopedia manner. However, it seems now, that there is no one here besides myself who thinks as I do. So, it is probably hopeless. I was hoping that others would see the potential here and run with it. Instead the opposite has happened and it seems likely the article will get deleted. That seems like a shame to me. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:NOT is pretty clear that Wikipedia is not a directory. A single page that intends to list every piece of software that is available, whether or not it is compatible with 64-bit editions of Windows Vista, is hopelessly unmaintainable. There are well over 100,000 pieces of software that have been written for Windows over the years; if someone wants to find out if a particular piece of software is compatible with 64-bit editions of one specific operating system, they aren't going to come to this article to find out -- they'll either go to the article in question, or to the software vendor's web site. -/- Warren 02:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not attempt to categorize so much software, just the big and interesting ones. There are a lot of lists and tables on Wikipedia, including some for Windows itself. [[41]], [[42]], [[43]], etc.
  - What counts as big and interesting ones? That will differ from someone's perspective. For example, none of the s/w listed sound interesting to me. Is there anything you can suggest that would remove the subjectiveness of the definition? --soum ^talk 04:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. An absolutely unmaintainable list. Aside from the points raised by Warren and others above, let's just assume that it somehow can be made into a comprehensive enough listing of (in)compatible software, nicely formatted and reffed and all that. But softwares are going to be updated all the time - who's going to keep the list updated to reflect present situation? And outdated list would be more useless than no list. Also, how much purpose will the list serve? Software compat is improving day by day. Just saying a software is compatible with Vista x64 isn't useful - most probably the user is looking for the patch/version that gives the compatibility. And those are best suited for the indiv. articles - thats where the user will first look. The goal of the author is commendable, but a list in an encyclopedia isn't the way to that end. --soum ^talk 05:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fully agree with soum. Commendable goal, but as i said before, be resourceful and find another way to get the information across. Shoombooly (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Nice idea, but encyclopedically a nightmare and legally a nightmare - every single detail would have to be 100% referenced else we could see a class action againt WP for defamatory statements, and the information would be changing hourly as new versions and new MS patches become available. --Triwbe (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that about clinches it. The consensus is clear. I vote to delete it. Delete. All of the above is noted, and the problems are surmountable. This list needs to be made somewhere, but not here. The solution to the legal problems could be to include only software programs that self declare compatibility or not. Microsoft and Apple do this, of course. Most other software does as well.

I apologise for wasting all of your time. I thought I had a great idea to improve Wikipedia. The original reasons for deletion were an assertion that had nothing to do with the need for this information, and I thought was an unfair knee jerk reaction. I imagined that KurtRaschke was on a hunt for pages to delete, and was pouncing before a real analysis of the issue. Assuming good faith was a challenge. For all the words that Wikipedia has written about not taking it personally, there is a real uncomforatble experience here, and it is not a great way to make friends. It is my opinion that Wikipedia needs to do something to be nicer to the newbies. There are a lot of people out there who could help, but if a persons experience is uncomfortable, then they won't want to come back.

Perhaps there could be something bigger than a sandbox for people to propose an article. People could fill in a form where they document the need for the article, and they could certify that the article can be made compliant with all of the "what wikipedia is not" items one by one.

My experience of rejection was uncomfortable to say the least. And it originally appeared that the rejection was for bad reasons. Eventually the analysis became complete.

Perhaps there is a better way. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hey don't be so negative, you have generated a lot of discussion and hopefully we have all learnt something here (well most of us anyhow). The only way any of us find out is often by making attempts and getting rejected. Wikipedia has many many different policies, but one of the major ones is WP:CONSENSUS and it can be a bit of a kangaroo court, it's a pity some people have not read, or have forgotten civility, a core wp policy, and one I try to keep to and something others should read carefully and thoughtfully. You to can help yourself by reading as much as you can. Start with WP:ISNOT and WP:MOS, and others in you welcome message on your talk page. Don't be discouraged and Be bold. --Triwbe (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Taking the article at face value, it's something that's unmaintainable as, given the criteria, virtually any Windows program would qualify for listing, and that's thousands. An article on compatability issues with Vista is viable, but my main concern here is with maintainability. 23skidoo (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand how you feel Marcwiki9. It's not what's being said, a large part is how it's being said. Shoombooly (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I will disclose that I have a problem with articles like this in general. I feel they are unencylopedic and almost impossible to maintain. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 05:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World history japan-cold war[edit]

OR, unreferenced essay. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Creator has posted this school assignment many times (admin-only but it's six times under two names) today. I warned which he deleted. Suggest user education leading to block if he doesn't 'get it' _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unreferenced OR by unconstructive editor. Thetrick (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Reposted several times already, original research, essay. I agree with TravellingCari's suggestions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As per previous comments - and how did the Polish Corridor get into an article about Japan? Ecoleetage (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as redundant to World War II under an inappropriate name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, that's a very simplistic and poorly researched essay. Only the Sovs helped fight Franco? Tell that to the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. L0b0t (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 also a CSD A7). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ForestWander Nature Photography[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/ForestWander Nature Photography

A father and son company that takes photos of rural West Virginia and that gives many of them away via the internet. They were once a finalist in one category of a competition, and I'm willing to believe that there was once an article about them in the Charleston Gazette (although either its server or my browser refuses to display this). And -- plastic at the ready? -- you may choose to purchase the prints too, via the links thoughtfully provided in the article.

However, Wikipedia is not a web directory, the company doesn't seem to have won any competitions, there's no mention of any exhibitions or substantial coverage in any magazines (let alone book-length publication), and it all seems of very minor note; unless of course you want free screensavers of rural West Virginia, in which case Google will no doubt locate them for you.

Moreover, the only contributor of substance to this article has been User:Forestwanderer. I start to suspect COI.

I prodded this article on 6 June. Forestwanderer proceeded to make a number of edits to the page, which to me indicated a desire to keep it; I therefore removed the prod notice myself.

The last of the edits by Forestwanderer has a summary pointing people to further justifications to be read on the talk page. Yes, do take a look: it's quite revealing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be blatent WP:ADVERT and WP:COI. Thetrick (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is some notability. A local newspaper article (the link worked when I tried it) And finalist in a Nature Conservancy photo competition is not nothing. But it is not enough to justify an article. It may be that this photographer will gain enough attention to merit an article at some future date.Elan26 (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see notability here and this is blatant advertising and a conflict of interest to boot. freshacconcispeaktome 11:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personally I would have db-spammed it at first review since it's blatant advertising, and the author is same as company name, so never NPOV. The democratic way will do too. Shoombooly (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Should have been G11'd - blatant spam ukexpat (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Modernist (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author Response I appreciate the civil and professional comments above by Elan26 - However, there is no need to be nasty about the article or the intent of the author. ForestWander Nature Photography does not stand to make a significant "advertising" benefit from inclusion on Wikipedia and spam accusations should be carefully moderated as this accusation is not taken lightly.

I do however believe that future recognition will be warranted but obviously and unfortunately is not a consideration at this point. Since the concensus is to delete the article then please by all means delete it.

I tried to copy other company's inclusion in wikipedia and thought that it may be of benefit considering the growing popularity of my work.

In addition to the News paper article and Nature Conservancy Competition we have been published in the local Mountain Highlands Traveler Magazine, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy and our country church photograph was used on the cover of a recent Rounder Records bluegrass CD. I am not sure that this will add any additional notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.218.178 (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am new to using wiki mark up language and to the wiki concept I guess I learned the hard way.

Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers,

Thanks for the discussion and learning experience.

How may I ask for someone to write an article in the future?

Or if possible can I merge or transfer the article to my user page?

Forestwanderer

Counter-response by nominator: I regret that your first experience of editing at WP got you bitten as a newcomer. The unfortunate fact is that a large number of individuals and companies seem to want to use WP as a place to host their CVs or corporate descriptions; these are implicitly (and often explicitly) self-promotional, and more experienced editors here tire of dealing with this kind of thing and are sometimes less courteous about it than they should be.

It's not appropriate for you to ask for anyone to create an article about yourself. If you merit an article, it's likely that you'll get one. (You may have to wait a bit. Among photographers, consider the renown of, say, Ken Domon or Eugene Richards, and look how long they had to wait to get even a short, crappy article. And I can think of plenty of photographers who definitely deserve an article but don't have one.) If/when you do get one, it's quite appropriate for you to monitor it for bias or inaccuracy. Putting aside bias for now, you're free to edit out inaccuracies, but only by citing published sources.

If you're an active editor of Wikipedia, it's quite appropriate for you to describe yourself on your user page, and for this description to link to your website(s). It's not appropriate for somebody who's only a rare participant to turn the user page into something that could be interpreted (even if harshly) as an advertisement for himself.

I'd guess that you have a lot to contribute to articles about West Virginia. I encourage you to work on these. You'd then be welcome to mention your work on your user page, and people might well follow the link(s) to your own site(s). -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC) ... PS I've saved the article to a subpage of yours. 01:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 03:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walk the Walk (album)[edit]

Duff has denied working on a debut album via an interview with JustJared.com. Xerz (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources about this album yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here's the link confirming her denial of the album: [44]. SKS2K6 (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The interview just shows the unreliability of the article source. Kevin (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's see if she can sing first, before devoting an article to it. (oh, and no reliable sources)Shoombooly (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 One Piece chapters. Please note, I'm not performing the merge myself, I'll leave that to interested editors. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece side comics[edit]

Fails WP:FICT and WP:N completely. List of the side stories from included in the One Piece manga volumes, which are not notable and not anything generally mentioned within anime/manga articles unless they are relevant to he work itself. Failed PROD removed by an IP with no reason given. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possibly merge some of it to List of One Piece chapters, but probably largely just not notable. Doceirias (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of One Piece chapters mentions of each side story into the list of chapters for the volume it's in. (Assuming you can parse that -- sleep deprevation does bad things to my clarity.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of One Piece chapters, and/or List of One Piece episodes for the side stories that have been animated. ((Justyn (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)))[reply]

Merge Too long, but notable. Otherwise i concur with the 2 Merge-voters Shoombooly (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie^☆S93 02:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Omnitrix aliens[edit]

Only pertains to the subject inside the fictional universe in the American animated cartoon show Ben 10. I do not believe this establishes notability. Dabby (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lack of sources notwithstanding, this list is a primary character list and essential to the understanding of the series. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep not THAT notable, but apparently important to the series, and it's not going to be possible to merge this into the main Ben 10 article. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the minute details of this tv show are not notable. --T-rex 14:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support towards the deletion of this unnecessary material. Dabby (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced well enough, lists the voice actors, list makes sense as its own grouping, and the article exists on nine other wikipedias. Good enough for me. In the very worst case, this should be trimmed and merged into List of characters in Ben 10. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced, has been frequently edited since 2006, might be too long but that's no ground for deletion. Being detailed about things isn't such a bad thing, as long as it is readable. Shoombooly (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is full of imformation that the fans of both series can enjoy.I also agree with Sgeureka, at the very worst it could be moved, not deleted.Pacboy94 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I agree with The Rogue Penguin, it is well sourced and essential to the understanding of what the series is about, ben's aliens.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Understanding the aliens is integral to understanding the show. There is too much information to merge into other articles. Ged UK (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People new to the series need an understanding of the characters. Deleting a page for major stuff like this is like, saying Sonic the Hedgehog doesn't deserve a page. Skeletal_SLJCOAAATR_Soul_Striker_of_Vengence (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should fictitious characters deserve a page? The show/game Sonic the Hedgehog would deserve a page as it talks about the creation of the show/game, public audience response to it, etc. However, the character Sonic should not deserve a page because it is completely in its own made-up universe, and therefore can definitely be merged into the main article. Dabby (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then AfD Sonic the Hedgehog (character) and watch your worldview be crushed in an instant. Your opinion of fictional works notwithstanding, fictional topics are as deserving of articles as roads and highways are. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C)
Keep Not much else to say that other havn't. This article is highly important to the show, and would be like deleting any of the multitudes of pages found by looking up the phrase "List of characters". —Preceding unsigned comment added by GEM036 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is content that should be covered, but there is too much to include it in the main Ben 10 article. This breakout is reasonable and appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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