< June 6	June 8 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Hoey[edit]

insufficient notability; references do not meet WP:BIO - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 23:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a meta-question in play: is publication in Landfall sufficient to qualify for notability? If yes, then Hoey is notable; if no, then he isn't. It's too early for me to opine on that right now. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I'm having trouble even finding this guy's name somewhere in this publication. I scrolled around, tried a trext string earch on the web page, but haven't yet found him... Besides, I don't know that the one mention is enough for WP:BIO. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 23:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One mention in one notable publication is not wide, independent coverage. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he's listed in the web page as "Tourettes", the pseudonym mentioned in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a notable mention, then; no one could tell who that is unless they already know teh guy AND know he's been published. How else can we tell if he's notable enough? (I'm at home on idal-up, so searching further is taking FOREVER.) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 23:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In searching, I found his Bebo page. I'm going to say that publication in Landfall is enough of an assertion of notability that the article is immune to speedy deletion. However, I don't see enough out there to get him to meet the WP:CREATIVE criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't enough to evidence that the subject is notable. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, one publication in one literary journal doesn't really meet what we would seem to require; a lack of outside coverage makes notability very scarce. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, that his name doesn't appear in the references makes them useless as any indication of notability.-gadfium 06:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Detele. Fails WP:BIO; doesn't qualify under WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. There is no indication of notability. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:55, 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. Black Kite 12:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Zets[edit]

Procedural nomination. I had deleted the article because its PROD expired, but I received an email asking me to restore it. I'm bringing this to AfD for further discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for an college computer science club that claims to have been among the first to use email and IM, the Internet is strangely silent on their existence. Not notable anyway. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete E-mail and instant messaging go back to the 60's (they actually predate the Internet), and this group goes back to the 80's, so I doubt the claim of early email and IM use. Also "never recognized by the University of Pittsburgh as an official club or users' group." Fails WP:ORG, since I don't see any secondary sources. --Phirazo 04:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking verifiable notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prodder. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i agree with Phirazo, as e-mail and instant messaging originated back in the 60's and an early IM-style server was begun in 1984, well before this group's 1986 founding. I also think there might be some WP:COI here. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 07:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete, It was not a computer science club. It was interdisciplinary and played a key role in introducing technology to non-technical majors at a time when non-technical majors had little exposure to technology. While email and instant messaging go back to the 60's, there use by university undergraduate students in non-technical majors does not. Very few non-technical undergraduates at universities used technology for communication and collaboration this way. Were the Zets the first undergraduate group anywhere to do that? Probably not, but it does not follow that it is not notable solely on that fact. A group does not have to be the first at something to be recognised. It is correct that the group was never formally recognised by the University. That actually led to contention as the group used university computer systems in ways the university had not expected, and the university was not sure how to deal with it. Other than being officially recognised, the group acted as a student group in every other way. It had a formal constitution, officers, meetings, activities, just like other student groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Droopydog (talk • contribs) 13:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're argument makes some pretty strong points against keeping the article. You seem to say they only had local, limited notability (or rather nostalgia) to a small group of people. That fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Also reliable, independent sources could at least help your case Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete,The Zets was formed around the same time that the University of Pittsburgh introduced a policy where all undergraduate students were entitled to computer time. This policy extended to time on Unix and VMS-based systems. As such non-CS students were starting to use these systems in ways that were not anticipated. This led to the University of Pittsburgh needing to set policies with regards to user limits on computer time. As the members of the group graduated, or not, and spread across the globe the ties back to this group led to email correspondence during the first Gulf War, creative writing about the group and the group spawned a rock group. Because of the sketchiness of digital archives from this period it is not always easy to find reliable, independent sources. However some mentions of the group can be found.
- alt.prose story The Zets is an example.
- The yosi referred to in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications Vol. 1 No. 2 article [From <Bonehead> to <cLoNehEAd>: Nicknames, Play and Identity on Internet Relay Chat http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol1/issue2/bechar.html] is Yosi the Zet.
- Adam Engst refers to this same Zet in one of the early editions of his books about the Internet. Adam has been contacted to help locate the IRC log which was published in the book.

One needs to remember when considering this entry that as the group pre-dates the web much of the material of the time may be difficult to find but that doesn't make it any less important to record the existence for future Internet and social network archeology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosithezet (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure about this, if they really were the first to use IM and email, then wouldn't there be many more reliable sources? Fails WP:N, WP:R, and WP:COI. Soxred 93 16:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and verfiability Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete, The Internet Archive Wayback Machine has many archives of the group's earlier websites:
- http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.zets.org
- Description of the organisation from 2001 which includes descriptions from as early as 1990. http://web.archive.org/web/20010503032306/www.zets.org/intro/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosithezet (talk • contribs) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and no refs DA PIE EATER (talk) 20:48, 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 Keep (non-admin closure), Substantial information has been provided to keep the article. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wahab Iyanda Folawiyo[edit]

Very little is known about why this person is notable. No reliable third-party sources are given. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original nomination that was changed:

"Very little is known about why this person is notable. The only sources given are two articles from a very shady-looking website for a small newspaper. No reliable third-party sources are given. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)" Note:Nomination Withdrawn See below, suggest it simply be speedy closed. --Blechnic (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As per this conversation, the two "shady looking websites" (a phrase the nominator has now deleted from his nomination) are Nigeria's second largest newspaper (and leading business newspaper) and a major news website. I've already warned the nominator (who attempted to speedy this eight minutes after creation) regarding this; this appears to be clearly a bad faith nom. — iridescent 23:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No issue with reliable third party sources. See [1] and [2] Nk.sheridan Talk 23:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the editor who created the article of this discussion. Cheers, Nk.sheridan Talk 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Nk.sheridan's post, I'm changing my vote to Keep.
Sources seem to be reasonable, and they indicate that the subject certainly was well known. Coverage suggests that the subject passes WP:N. Keep Tony Fox (arf!) 05:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep ~~Appears to be bad faith nomination, particularly calling legitimate sources "shady looking," then altering~~ nomination to remove that information--it should have been stricken out, or the article renominated if needed. If it was merely an accident then the nominator could have withdrawn after learning otherwise, but not withdrawing, and covering up the original nomination, shows, imo, bad faith and an attempt to waste time with this nomination. I do want to point out that calling The Guardian Nigeria's second largest newspaper is not quite so straightforward as it seems, and that from an outsider's point of view, reading it could lead one to interesting questions, particularly reading the obituaries. But it's hardly a small newspaper and it would have taken less than 20 seconds on the web to learn that. Had the nominator simply said he/she had misjudged the sources I could have bought that. I added the original nomination above.
--Blechnic (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I'm not familiar with AfD proceedings. I didn't think that I could stop them. Also, I removed the comment because it was proven false. I wasn't trying to cover anything up, I simply wanted to remove a statement that I now know wasn't true. It was indeed a case of me misjudging the sources, and I fully admit that, as I did earlier as well. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 06:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll buy that, it's almost impossible on Wikipedia to figure out procedures. Do you still want to continue with the nominating this article for deletion? --Blechnic (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, go ahead and stop it. Thanks for your help. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 07:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with west African sources, the more legitimate ones can easily look shady. The Wikipedia article on The Guardian doesn't quite carry its correct flavor in Nigerian society. --Blechnic (talk)

Okay, so can I withdraw the nomination myself, or does an admin have to do that? Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, you can do it. No one's going to vote to delete this, so you can just close it. Or someone else can. --Blechnic (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry for my ignorance, but how do I go about closing it? Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:47, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ground House (film)[edit]

Non-notable film, by non-notable director, article created by director "Raymond Mamrak", who gets a whole 9 google hits, none suggesting any notability. Google suggests film hasn't even been made yet. Camillus 22:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any indication that anyone has taken notice of this film at this point. If it starts to get picked up by the media, then maybe it'll become notable - at this point, there's nothing to indicate it's notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Film has no coverage in reliable sources, and there are self-promotion issues. Bláthnaid 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't a single independent verifiable source. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL. Artene50 (talk) 08:52, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paruthiyur Krishna Sastri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non notable religious leader with no reliable sources and no assertion of notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable with no reliable sources to establish notablity - also, notablity is not asserted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found with a google search. Most of his mentions in the net search trace it's roots to mention in Wikipedia articles.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 03:27, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sippin' on History[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sippin' on History

no sources anything but the release date, no cover art, no track listing Caldorwards4 (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The single just charted this week, the release date is still a ways off. No verifiable info exists. (Seeing the name Brett James on there is a good sign, though...) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as only relevant links on Google are Wikipedia and a message board post. Once reliable sources are unearthed, and a track listing comes up, this page can exist IF this is the correct title. (At least we didn't have another "Untitled ..." situation here.) Spell4yr (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - four Google results suggest that there's absolutely no verifiable proof that this will be the album name. Wait until it's officially announced. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jessica's page until more info comes to light, like a believable title. CRocka05 (talk) 04:15, 9 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 relevant policy arguments in the discussion below hinge on WP:BIO1E. There is no debate that the article's subject has significant press coverage; the policy-based delete recommendations argue that this significant press coverage only covers the Britain's Got Talent competition. However, the consensus below is that the additional press coverage of the subject's record deal with a division of Sony BMG nullifies the WP:BIO1E argument, and the article should be kept.

Regarding Schcambo's point that a banned user created the article, it should be noted that Wikipedia:Banning policy#Enforcement by reverting edits points out that helpful edits made by banned users can be kept--and the consensus here is that this article meets our guidelines. Darkspots (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Johnston (singer)[edit]

Contestant in a reality TV show. He lost the competition, and has done nothing outside of the show, meaning that all of the media coverage about him has been directly linked to Britain's Got Talent. As such, I believe that Andrew Johnston is not notable, as he famous only for one event. It is worth noting that despite the fact there are some articles for last year's losers (The Bar Wizards, Connie Talbot) the subjects of those articles have received coverage for events outside the show. Conversely, some of last year's losing finalists (including Bessie Curzons) did have their articles deleted. I also intend to assess the articles of the other finalists from the last series (including Faryl Smith and Kate and Gin) and possibly nominate them for deletion also. J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - As with a previous nomination for Faryl Smith, it is very likely that he is to be offered a contract. If , in a few months nothing arises then I will be happy to change my vote in another nomination. Thenthornthing (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If and when he does become notable in his own right, I would not only support the creation of the article, but I would be happy to help write it. Until then, I do not feel that we should have an article. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the exact same nomination for Faryl Smith, and for the same reasons as given by Thenthornthing above, with the same proviso. Also, with regard to the comment about possibly nominating the Faryl Smith article for deletion, I should point out that it has only just gone through the AfD process, being nominated on 1 June with the result to keep on 5 June, just two days ago. With regard to The Bar Wizards, any coverage seems to link to BGT and all 4 references on that article all come from the first series of BGT. And certainly three of the sections, Company History, Forthcoming Projects and Tandem flair show read like adverts for them.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments by Milburn. Losing a talent contest, even one like this does not make one notable. Might get a contract? Might not. Might not achieve notability either way. We can't have articles on people because they might become notable. Wikipedia s not an indiscriminate collection of information. If, someday, notability is achieved, we can create an article. cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~PS. Does not have significant, not-trivial media coverage. Has no claim to meeting WP:BIO. Dlohcierekim 12:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Change to keep per User:Tangerines and appearance of reliable sources indicating notability. Dlohcierekim 17:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)`[reply]

Delete, per Dlohcierekim. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MUSIC, WP:NN and WP:BIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He's done nothing whatsoever outside the talent show - you might as well make pages for every single contestant for every single competition ever. Sparrowgoose (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've yet to see nominations for other articles. Faryl's article had one, and was kept. Surely if you are to argue this then all the articles should be nominated the same way. Thenthornthing (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if I had the time and energy. I simply don't want to go looking for articles to delete. If someone wants to bring an article for discussion here, and if I stumble into it, I'll have a look. Otherwise, not me. The keep arguments seem to be based on "other stuff exists". That's as may be. Dlohcierekim 13:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my nomination, I intend to review the other articles and possibly nominate them. I wasn't aware that Faryl Smith was nominated earlier- I will consider renominating if I believe I can bring new arguments to the discussion, or if I believe that there were errors in the original nomination. J Milburn (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSorry but I have to reply to the comment, - The keep arguments seem to be based on "other stuff exists". I in no way based my vote on any such argument at all. I mentioned the result of the AfD nomination for Faryl Smith because it is relevant due to the reasoning given in that for the result to keep and both being finalists in BGT where Smith didn't make the final three, and Johnson finished as runner-up. If you wish to claim that the keep argument is based on "other stuff exists" then you could also by that same reasoning argue that some of the delete votes are because "other stuff has been deleted" which was also mentioned above. It would do no harm whatsoever to wikipedia to wait a short while, and see if this lad does actually have an album released or not through Simon Cowell. If not and he then drifts back into obscurity then fair enough, delete it.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out that others had been deleted in an attempt to preempt the inevitable 'but XXX was kept/exists!' J Milburn (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Additional comment Apoligies for a second comment. However, on the BGT website it states that Simon Cowells Syco Music company "will be talking to Andrew, Faryl and Escala at some point this week" (about recording contracts). As I said above do think that this AfD could at least be held off for a week or so, to see if he does get a record contract.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cowell signed Talbot after the show, then dropped her. She remained non-notable until she was signed by Rhythm Riders. J Milburn (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP Oh wow. He lost the show. Just like Jason Castro lost American Idol and he still has an article. Oh dear! And Ron Paul isn't winning the United States presidential elections of 2008. Let's remove him. You can see my sarcasm. Obviously, the person who tagged was not well informed on how to use Wikipedia. I am very angered at how you people are behaving at this article.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Someone needs another look at WP:BIO. Losing the thing isn't the question. Meeting WP:BIO is. Some of us think he does, some think he don't, and others think he will. Also, I would recommend not editing or taking part in discussions while angered. It tends to cloud the reasoning faculties. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, multiple non-trivial media appearances means he meets WP:BIO. Note the Faryl Smith article was already nominated for deletion, and was kept. Neıl 龱 09:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seeing as he is now signed to Sony BMG in the UK Yo daniel (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us a link to a verifiable source? Dlohcierekim 13:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous reports from various reliable news sources online all confirming that he has been signed by SyCo Music (and not Sony BMG itself) with an album due out later this year. That makes him notable. I will add the source to the article.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Now that a record deal has been confirmed, I (nominator) feel that the article should be kept. Please do not speedy close this as a nomination withdrawn to respect the opinions of those who have already !voted delete. J Milburn (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also note that the article was created by a banned user avoiding his block by using sockpuppets. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 19:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is irrelevant in this instance who created the article, it is only relevant whether or not he is notable. Given that he now has a record deal and is thereore not simply famous just for one event only, he is therefore notable, regardless of who created the article. It should also be borne in mind that the nominator has also now voted to keep given the record deal.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:26, 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 keep per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). Editors interested in pursuing a merge are invited to do so on the article talk page. Skomorokh 16:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Crazies[edit]

This article concerns a loose affiliation of fans of Duke Blue Devils men's basketball. The only claim of notability seems to stem from an online ESPN column that referred to them as the rowdiest fans in the land. Aside from stating that they are indeed fans of Duke's teams, and that they are in fact rowdy, this stub has absolutely no purpose or encyclopedic worth. It's composed of one paragraph of casual observation and two links to sports publications acknowledging their existence. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Duke Blue Devils men's basketball. Generally fan organizations are covered in the article about the team that they are fans of. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - probably the most well known fan section in the United States. Still probably not anything that can't be mentioned in Duke Blue Devils men's basketball either --T-rex 03:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to merging) - If any fan section deserves an article it's Duke's. 43.5K Ghits to "cameron crazies" And 2,300 in Google News specifically. de Bivort 08:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is more media attention on the Cameron Crazies than one specific article. There are also plenty of other examples of basketball student sections. But, yeah, there are almost 44,000 google hits for Cameron Crazies...I think the article can be given additional sourcing without too much trouble. matt91486 (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Duke Blue Devils men's basketball. This is an OK article, but it would look even better in the other article. Someone might need to slim it down, or not. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 15:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are trivially easy to find. There are already a couple cited in the article. Far more obscure fan groups have been kept at AFD in the past; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakland Zoo (cheering section). Zagalejo^^^ 18:20, 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 per WP:V. No reliable sources have appeared during the AfD, and the "keep" opinions do not give any indications that any may be forthcoming. Sandstein 23:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ningen[edit]

Speculation on the existence of a legendary creature. Only one reference that does not appear to be reliable. TN‑X-Man 20:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep It's an article about a Cryptid, we have many such articles, and is not speculation on its existence. It's just documenting what the cryptid is supposed to look like, the legends about it etc. The User who created this said in his edit summary that it is work in progress, and that means there will be more edits to it. You didn't even leave him 10 minutes to expand, you could have at least waited a few hours and see what would happen. If that's now biting nothing is. Articles don't spring fully formed from nowhere...--Phoenix -wiki 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Remilo (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to mermaid(see below)~~Delete~~ unless stronger sources can be found. Right now all that's there are some "artists' impressions", and if that's all that can be gotten, this cryptid isn't going anywhere.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be found. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on continuing the article, and I have other reliable sources for future paragraphs. Remilo (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The above keep arguements have convinced me that an article on this can exist, but the current one is pretty bad. It needs to be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone and could use some better references. I'd like to give the author and others more than just five days for these improvements, so a keep here shouldn't preclude later AfDs if problems cannot be solved. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete No evidence this is widely noted in independent, reliable sources (WP:NOTNESSIE). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

The article has had a lot of information added to it since the deletion tag was first put up. More information will also be added in the next few days. Remilo (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete - article is pure nonsense. References are a joke. All google results appear to be anime related --T-rex 03:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is not nonsense. There are several popular manga and movies that contain the word Ningen, because it translates to human, which is a wildly used word.Remilo (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger-than-any-of-the-people-above delete, at least till credible sources are provided. Ningen is indeed the standard Japanese word for human. It's used a little more broadly, for some applications where English would use person and the like. It's normally written 人間, not ニンゲン; but as ニンゲン is katakana it's acceptable (as is にんげん). Japanese Wikipedia redirects ニンゲン to 人間, explained as human; it also has a disambiguation page for 人間, which doesn't mention this. The sources given for this article are underwhelming. (Actually they're not sources in the normal sense: at least one of them is translated to form this article, which thus might, strictly speaking, violate copyright.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey hey ningen sucker, ah ningen ningen Delete (If you want a reason, I've read the article, and I can't believe people are taking it seriously for a moment. It's nonsense.) JuJube (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep This article was marked for deletion when it was only one paragraph long, and had only one source. Since the article has been expanded and had a lot more information and sources in it I think it should no longer be subject for deletion. When writing the article I made sure to say that it might exist, and that they were alleged photos. Phrases that keep the story neutral, true and correct under the Wikipedia:five pillars. Also the article is not "speculation" as Tnxman307 said.Remilo (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've stricken out the duplicate !votes by User:Remilo. You get only one, Remilo. Deor (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed so they are no longer votes. Remilo (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:V unless some actual reliable sources are found. Discussion-board posts (and copy/pastes of same on other Web sites) don't cut the mustard. Deor (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do not delete for a week than come back and review.If reliable sources are not found then delete.Basically, delay postpone deletion for now until article has had time to improve.Xp54321^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm keeping my vote as a delete. The sources that are currently cited (blogs and forum posts), are not reliable sources no matter how much you stretch it. So far this is just a vague rumor going around some forums. Not wide-spread enough to meet the inclusion criteria.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion I suggest that instead of keeping or deleting the article, that it is moved. Since essentially it is a giant Antarctic mermaid, I suggest it is made as a section in the mermaid article. Some of the sources are reliable, and if the information stated from the other sources is also on those pages, then that only those are kept, and all other sources deleted. If the information from the other sources is NOT in the reliable sources, then the rest is deleted. Remilo (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to mermaid per Remilo.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Umm, I've read this article and I've read Mermaid, and, frankly, I don't see any connection at all. What makes you think that would be a good merge target? Deor (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (or should I say "very strong comment"?): Still not worthy of being merged anywhere. A week ago, Remilo wrote above: I plan on continuing the article, and I have other reliable sources for future paragraphs. So where are these sources? Right now we read: Recently in the Antarctic Ocean, some research was done. The Japanese government called for scientific whaling, and they may have found something. A report containing a possibly real photo was leaked onto the internet. The report claimed [blah blah blah]. (I'll forgo comment on the wonderful Japanese euphemism of "scientific whaling".) So what is the title of this report? Where was/is it linked on the internet? (Give us a URL.) And what credible news source -- something like Asahi Shinbun, Mainichi Shinbun, Yomiuri Shinbun or Nihon Keizai Shinbun, as opposed to some supōtsu shinbun, weekly magazine featuring girls spilling out of undersized bikinis, blog, private Geocities site, etc. -- reports on this report and treats it as at least probably genuine, as opposed to a hoax? (NB I'm not expecting evidence that this antarctic beastie is genuine, merely evidence that the evidence for it is taken at all seriously by a nontrivial number of sane, sober, educated adults.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 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 --JForget 00:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Couper[edit]

AfDs for this article:

conflict of interest: article created by subject, self-promotional, dubious notability Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless "presented in major collections throughout New Zealand" can be referenced, and includes public collections as per WP:BIO. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability seems marginal at best, no sources other than the artist's own website, and autobiography.-gadfium 22:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I can find are some group exhibitions [3], [4] and a $250 prize [5]. Not notable yet.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN & WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This 4 year old article fails WP:BIO and independent WP:RS and was likely made by the subject of the article himself here Artene50 (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly stronger than weak delete. Although WP:UNKNOWNHERE and its corollary are lousy arguments for AfD, I'd have to say that, having worked in the New Zealand art scene for many years as a reviewer and artist, I have heard of him, though not very much. I know he's exhibited at the Sarjeant in Wanganui, though, which is one of the country's better know provincial galleries. Whether it's enough to meet notability standards here, though, I doubt. And I can't find much evidence of his work being in major collections nationwide. BTW, "Matt couper" +art -wikipedia returns some 650 ghits. Grutness...wha? 01:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable sources for this article. Soxred 93 03:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim of notability. An artist is expected to have some semi-notable art. --T-rex 03:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't turn up any substantial news references to this fellow, and being in collections doesn't really prove notability to my view. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:00, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal prog[edit]

~~This page has already been deleted, and is a recreation of deleted material~~.The only citations on this article are clearly insufficent. Recommend Delete because of notability concerns.Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not the same as the article discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brutal Prog, so I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted material. The present article is thinner and less well sourced than the deleted one (which at least included one third party source, "Brutal prog and Beyond", by Will York, San Francisco Bay Guardian, August 7, 2002). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced Neologism.Inhumer (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:01, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El Arsenal[edit]

Non-notable comic book. No outside sources of indication of critical commentary in field. Is mostly a plot summary. MBisanz ^talk 07:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is early days yet and no attempt has been made to try and improve the article - a quick dig revealed a couple of interviews which could help provide more of an overview. I'm sure there is more out there to be had (reviews for example to help produce a "reception" section). (Emperor (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep because Emperor added two links to reliable sources. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:17, 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, Malinaccier (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The interview at Comic Book Resources sounds really promising. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:51, 8 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. Wizardman 22:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of KaBlam! episodes[edit]

Unsourced and OR. WP:NOT#DIR. -- Mark Chovain 06:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is not referenced. It fails WP:NOTABILITY. --RyRy5 (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails my notability checking ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and expand. There is quite a body of precedent for spinning out lists of television episodes from the main article on the series; Wikipedia:EPISODE#Process even recommends it. Most of the episode lists also have a one or two sentence synopsis of the episode and the original air date, which would enhance this article, and references will help, too.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in main KaBlam! article and split off if someone ever gets around to writing summaries. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with thedemonhog. Either Merge or Keep. Lists like this only improve with exposure and become very useful encyclopedic sources for further reasearch. Needs referencing, but my assumption is that the current information is factual and verifiable.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:41, 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, Malinaccier (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per thedemonhog. A mere listing of episodes doesn't warrant its own article, when it is the only content. If enough content is found to substantially flesh out the episode descriptions, then this would be a good article. But not yet.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Since individual episode articles are frowned upon now, according to consensus, episode list articles are the preferred alternative. This is a series broadcast nationally on a major network; I see no reason why it doesn't warrant an episode list article. WP:OR only applies to brand new original thought; it does not apply to lists of existing television episodes. 23skidoo (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You say it's unsourced. Could we use this as a source? 99.230.152.143 (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FICT which explicitly allows spinout List of Episode articles for series. Eusebeus (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is going to expand beyond its present form, and actually have specific info about each article, then I would vote to keep. But all that there is here is the bare listing and nothing else. Without any other padding this article doesn't belong on its own, it needs to be a section of the program article. Until it is fleshed out, it should be merged and redirected to the main article.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:13, 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 red-faced withdrawal, didn't see that he'd served in the state House. Blueboy 96 21:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George D. Weber[edit]

Unsuccessful candidate in an election, no other claim to notability. Blueboy 96 19:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — no evidence of notability and unreferenced. macy^talk 19:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Served in state legislature 1964-66, satisfying WP:POLITICIAN. Needs better sourcing, but deletion for lack of notability would be inappropriate. Townlake (talk) 20:07, 7 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 owing to no consensus at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Land (disambiguation)[edit]

A dab page with only one legitimate entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I disagree. By the way, doesn't this belong on WP:MFD? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I should have specified WP:DAB#Partial title matches as justification. Also, it doesn't appear to qualify for WP:MFD. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are no links to this dab page. At all. Meaning to get to it, someone would have to search "This Land (disambiguation)".-Wafulz (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundantly useless or uselessly redundant? ¨victor falk 12:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no user will ever lay eyes on it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:28, 6 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) 19:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete generally disambiguation pages shouldn't include partial matches and on that basis there is only one valid entry. I do think it is conceivable that people looking for This Land Is Your Land might end up at This Land but a hatnote in that article should suffice. Guest9999 (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read shouldn't include partial matches and without case law and without being a wiki-lawyer don't exactly what it means. Given that truncation of titles and phrases are common, especially to the first one or two words of a group of words I say keep. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Do not add links that... include the page title in a longer proper name" without such links on this page there is only one entry - I don't see how that is Wikilawyering. Guest9999 (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this harmless dab page as long as there's a reasonable risk of confusion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - we have a tv show that ran for 16 years, and a very well known song. I'm not even sure which one of the two you are claiming is non-notable --T-rex 03:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We're not saying that they're not notable, just that they don't belong on this dab page because of the guideline I specified. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well my point still stands in that I'm still not sure which one you don't want to link to. Both clearly apply. --T-rex 18:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a disambiguation page is a navigation tool to guide a reader to the article they are looking for. In this case, it seems likely that people may mistakenly think the name of the song is "This Land" -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 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 Keep. Extremely borderline as regards WP:MUSIC, though four releases on Matinee are reasonable, but it's the reviews that tip it - Pitchfork and Popmatters are not trivial. Black Kite 23:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Math and Physics Club[edit]

Non-notable band, doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BAND. I put a speedy tag on the article, the article's creator put on a hangon tag, and therefore another editor made the incorrect assumption that a contested speedy requires an AfD. But since the third editor removed the speedy tag, we have to come here. Corvus cornix_talk 19:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. All significant contributions by a single deleted editor or anon with no other contribs. Related articles (albums, EPs) should easily pass speedy if this goes through.J293339 (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable band, only releases on a non-notable label. TN‑X-Man 20:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Labelmates of The Lucksmiths and Tullycraft. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being label mates of a notable band (and I'm not saying those are) is not a notability criterion under WP:MUSIC. Corvus cornix_talk 06:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't the Popmatters Best Indy 2006 award and Pitchfork review constitute nontrivial third party coverage? Also, rename to "Math and Physics Club (band)" and set up a disambiguation page. People searching for "math and physics club" are likely not looking for this band. AfD hero (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that depends on what you mean by "nontrivial".J293339 (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks like the pitckfork review [6] is a pretty in-depth coverage, and pitchfork media are very well-respected music critics. Popmatters (also well-respected music critics) provide in-depth coverage in their review here: [7], and award the band "Best of Indie-pop 2006" here: [8]. I think these references pass the nontrivial bar by quite a margin. AfD hero (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In case anybody else is unaware, Pitchfork is a webzine with no editorial policy and a reputation for covering obscure bands because they are obscure. You know that annoying guy at the record store that only listens to music nobody's heard of? That's Pitchfork. As for Popmatters, it's kinda tough to find any reliable info on them. So again, I guess that depends on what you mean by "well-respected". J293339 (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What? Please cite your source. I seem to recall seeing an editors note in one of their reviews I read a couple years ago. Pitchfork is, for better or worse, the most influential review publication - print or web - for indie music. AfD hero (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You are the one citing Pitchfork as a source. I believe, in this instance, that the burden is on you to show that it is a reliable one, not an influential one. J293339 (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        pitchforkmedia.com is linked to from over 5,000 wikipedia articles, most of these using it as a review source. [9] AfD hero (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfD hero's point about Pitchfork Media is a fair one to make, even if influential does not always mean reliable. A quote from Time magazine ("An insider's guide to indie rock", p. 50, April 4 2005): "These days, influence resides in places like Pitchforkmedia.com, a website with the clout of Rolling Stone or Spin." Besides Pitchfork and PopMatters, the band has also had significant mentions in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and I've added those citations just now. In my view, it's enough for WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While it's good to see a significant source, such as the P.I., that just reports on music rather than trying to influence it, now there's a bit of a depth of coverage issue. Of the articles in question [10] [11], only one is actually about M&PC, and it's under 200 words, a good chunk of which is pretty boilerplate stuff. Last I checked, getting mentioned in the paper didn't warrant an encyclopedia article. None of this coverage, separately or together, meets WP:MUSIC. J293339 (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the response, and thanks for providing direct links to the articles. I do agree with you that separately any one of these sources would not establish criterion-one WP:MUSIC notability, but, with respect, I disagree with your conclusion that taken together they do not. One contentious point is your interpretation of what the guidelines mean by trivial. WP:N says: Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. This means that every article does not have to be exclusively about the band. If there are multiple non-trivial mentions, WP:N does allow that as an argument for notability. The "trivial" examples from WP:MUSIC in the guidelines include a concert listing, or booking info. The second P. I. article, I would characterize as a non-trivial mention—some content can extracted from it to add verifiable content to the article. The reviews in influential webzines on their own would not be enough, but considering that one is Pitchfork and the other named MPC's album best indie pop album of the year, that does help in the overall argument to notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The reviews in Pitchfork and Popmatters are highly nontrivial and stand on their own. The seattle PI coverage is icing on the cake. We should not be so narrowminded as to ignore professional publications with enormous readership simply because they are on the web rather than on dead trees. AfD hero (talk) 02:48, 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 speedily deleted G3 vandalism (hoax). Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Family's Circle of Life[edit]

No evidence that the show ever existed. Imdb and TV.com links lead to Love, Inc., another television show. IndulgentReader (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an obvious WP:HOAX. Uses false TV.com and IMDB pages and a search of both sites shows no such show exists. Only Google results are for this Wikipedia entry. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Obvious hoax, no proof the show even exists. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:10, 7 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 Snowball delete as awfully silly. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Holland[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:BIO. brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - though "having a Masters Degree in Advanced Astrophysics from the University of Life", I thought should qualify it for some sort of speedy but not sure on which grounds.-Hunting dog (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete make-uppy nonsense. Camillus 22:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Quite retarded, especially for an article about someone with an IQ of 160. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Nonsense article with no WP:V Artene50 (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - reads like a myspace blog --T-rex 03:57, 8 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. Synthesis based only on primary sources, with some duplicate content already in main articles, no real world information, not to mention being almost completely plot summary with a dash of original research. Black Kite 12:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alien and Predator timeline[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alien and Predator timeline (2nd nomination)

A previous nomination apparently came to no consensus. Since that time, little to nothing has been done to address the concerns raised there. Despite the concerns that the article is not verifiable and consists of personal synthesis of the fictional works, no third-party sources are cited, nor, so far as I can find, do any even exist. Aside from the questions of notability which this raises, the significant and unanswered questions regarding verifiability and synthesis preclude even a merge at this time. As such, deletion is the only possible alternative, as without secondary sources to verify the information, those questions cannot be resolved. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is an obvious possible alternative since there is no pressing reason to delete and the article seems well-constructed (unlike the AFD as the article hasn't been tagged). And it's too soon for a sequel to AFD#1. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tag is fixed, thanks for bringing that to my attention. As for "too soon", general practice is that one should wait for at least one month after a "no consensus" result, and the previous nomination which had this result was in April. I do believe that original research and lack of verifiability are pressing reasons to delete, why do you believe not? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the first entry. This is sourced to the director, as reported in a secondary source. The detail is thus neither original nor unverifiable. There's a mass of other AvP material out there and per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:DEADLINE, it is our method to let this accumulate into the article over time. Your impatient desire to abort this process requires better reasons for support. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment: I don't think a "making of" featurette on the DVD of the film, expecially an interview with the director, counts as a secondary source. I believe that featurettes and interviews are considered primary sources, correct? (Interviews most certainly are). --IllaZilla (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, to respond to Colonel Warden, while we do allow limited use of primary sources (such as the work itself or director's comments), we allow such use only if the use is simple and noncontroversial. Stating "Luke Skywalker was a character in the film Star Wars", citing Star Wars, is fine, as this is a simple, factual assertion. On the other hand, assembly of a timeline is, as you stated yourself, complex, and as is clear from the last AfD, controversial (some agree that the film verifies the timeline, others do not). This is exactly the type of original synthesis prohibited by the ban on original research. In such a case, secondary sources are required to verify the material. Those sources, from everything I can find, don't even exist, so it's not a question of eventualism—without secondary, independent sourcing to verify the article's content, that problem can simply never be solved. That is exactly why I've nominated for deletion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far as I can tell, the facts presented in the article have not been seriously challenged and so they are not controversial and do not require especially good sources. All the tapdancing about sources just seems to be Wikilawyering to dress up an insubstantial bias against contemporary fiction - "cruft", "unencyclopedic" and other forms of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But the argument that primary sources cannot be used in such cases is nonsense on stilts. For example, I have recently been working on an article about a Dickens character - Gradgrind. I cited the primary source on a point of detail because this is the best source. Secondary sources in such cases can misquote or otherwise distort the facts of the original and so they are less trustworthy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question of sources here goes beyond simply whether the films verify the dates given in the timeline or not (and it's been challenged as to whether or not they do...having watched all the films several times I'm not convinced that they do, as few dates are given in the films). I don't think anyone is saying that primary sources can't be used at all. What I think is being said...at least what I'm arguing...is that primary sources alone do not establish the notability or significance of the article's subject and are not enough to support a stand-alone article on that subject. For example, in your Gradgrind article you have a primary source to cite the character's role in the novel. This is perfectly acceptable and indeed the best source to reference that information. However, you also have 2 third-party secondary sources discussing the character's impact on language and how the character is meant to satirize another notable author. It's the secondary sources that show why the character is notable. If the character had no impact or significance outside of the book, then it wouldn't be appropriate to write an encyclopedia article on him. Articles about works of fiction should contain real-world context from third-party sources; this is Wikipedia's primary means of establishing notability. The no original research policy specifically says "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The verifiability policy also states that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Even if the films verified the dates in the timeline, they don't tell us why the timeline of events in these films is notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article. That's the core problem here, I believe. How is a timeline of the Alien and Predator films any more notable than any other timeline I might concoct for any other fictional franchise? Without any third-party sources, I have to conclude that it isn't notable, and thus seems to fail the policy that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a guidebook of the Alien and Predator universe. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Dlohcierekim 13:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not the core problem since the notability of the Alien, Predator and Alien vs Predator movies and other works is beyond question. This article is part of a huge bundle of articles covering this extensive material and is just a chronology in a list format. In providing a list of dates from the mass of source material, it performs a similar function to the individual articles which list those dates separately. If not presented in the current form, it might be merged into another of the many companion articles where it would attract little comment. The extravagant arguments above seem quite redundant to normal content editing and do not justify the extreme measure of deletion. The real issue here is whether the chronology is actually accurate and verifiable. This is what the readership cares about - whether the information is right or not. If the matter were not notable, the existence of the article would be unimportant since, by definition, no-one would read it. Traffic statistics indicate that the article actually gets about 5000 hits per month and these seems adequate reason for us to maintain and improve the facts that it presents. The editors who have done the work of getting the article to its current state are to be commended for their efforts in providing material for so many readers. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an editor who has made major contributions to the article, I still don't think it should stay. Just because the films themselves are notable doesn't mean it's appropriate to create dozens of "spin-off" articles on related topics that have little to no notability in and of themselves. By that rationale we could run off and create separate articles for every prop, every character, and every other random thing associated with the series in any way, whether there were sources to support those articles or not. Notability is not an inherited characteristic; it's only appropriate to "spin-off" an article if there are enough secondary sources to support an independent article on the sub-topic (for example, just because a politician is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about them doesn't automatically mean that there should also be separate articles about their wife, children, and pets). Article traffic is also not necessarily an indicator of notability. I definitely think that the basic information in this article could be better presented in the parent articles about the franchises, such as Alien (franchise). But notice that that article already contains brief plot summaries of each film in the series. The timeline article simply sythesizes this info in a different form. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Complex info set. Contents verifiable from Series. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Articles may not be based purely on primary sources, per WP:V and WP:NOR. Therefore the claim that "contents [are] verifiable from the series" is irrelevant. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, your comment is completely wiki-lawyering and is totally irrelevant. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it rather rude of you to dismiss the comment as "wikilawyering" and "totally irrelevant". I am pointing out that the article fails 2 of the core article content policies, which is why it was brought here for discussion in the first place. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After u used irrelevant towards my rationale and simply used it towards your rationale, I find it beyond unbelievably rude of to question something that is obviously fair. This comment under the circumstances is incomprehensible. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incomprehensible? How exactly? I'm simply making the point that articles cannot only be based on primary sources. That is one of Wikipedia's core policies. I'm sorry you have a problem with that, but it's the whole reason we're debating whether to keep this article or not. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the timeline helps alien and predator fans understand the chronological sequence of events in the series. --Tj999 (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a rather weak argument to me, since Wikipedia is not a fansite or fanservice. The series of events are already summarized in the plot sections of the film articles, and the fictional events themselves do not merit a separate article on the subject of their chronology (especially in this series where the sequence of events is blatantly obvious even to a non-fan). --IllaZilla (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the guys and I who put the timeline together actually had to scan the movies and their novalizations to get the correct event settings. This is not a fan based article. This is a fan help article. I did not creat the article for my own health. I did it to give the facts to those who did not have them. --Tj999 (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per my reasonings in the article's previous AfD, mainly:

It consists entirely of synthesis based only on primary sources, which makes it original research (thus failing one of our 3 core policies).
It amounts to nothing more than plot summary in a different form, without real-world context, and the plots are already summarized quite well in the articles about the films themselves (thus failing a second of the 3 core policies, "what Wikipeida is not", namely WP:PLOT).
The verifiability of the information has been challenged and not addressed (thus failing the third of the 3 core policies).
The notability of the subject has been called into question, and no reliable third-party sources have been brought to bear to show notability, nor is there any evidence to suggest that such third-party sources even exist that could be used.
Despite some cleanup and improvements in the writing, none of the article's major issues have been addressed or solved in the 68 days since the conclusion of the previous AfD, despite several maintenance tags having been placed on it even before that time. This leads me to conclude that the article's issues of notability, verifiability, and original research cannot be fixed, or at least that no one who is actively working on the article is endeavoring to fix them.

Though there is some precedent to suggest that timeline articles such as these do have a place on Wikipedia (see for example the Narnian timeline, which is a Featured List article...note that it uses third-party sources and real-world context), they must still be able to meet inclusion criteria based on our core article content policies. It is my belief that this article does not meet these criteria or policies and it is unlikely that it could be improved to the point where it would meet even these minimum standards. There may be other examples in Category:Fictional timelines that we can point to to show extremes at both ends: timeline articles which are exemplary and which meet our criteria/policies and others which fail them. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This rationale contains too much policy and is completely wikilawyering. So it's irrelevant per wiki-lawyering policy. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but where is there a precedent indicating that it's unacceptable to cite our core policies when explaining one's opinion on a Wikipedia-related issue, especially an AfD? My reasons for supporting deletion are based on the policies, therefore it is pertinent to point to them, whether you consider it "wiki-lawyering" or not. Your response seems childish and not very civil. If you can't form a good counter-argument that doesn't amount to "I'm dismissing this comment because it's based on policies that I don't like", then I kindly ask you to refrain. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent??? That's clearly a legal term. I rest my case. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's an everyday word with a definition that's perfectly appropriate to this discussion: "An act in the past which may be used as an example to help decide the outcome of similar instances in the future". It also has a second definition as a legal term, but just because I have a decent vocabulary doesn't mean I'm a lawyer (Mr. "I-rest-my-case"). For what's it worth, I'm actually a grad student in history. We obviously disagree with each other's arguments. Let's just let it be, shall we, and let others state their points. There's really no point to us continuing to bicker. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A textbook case of synthesis and original research. Quale (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally engrossing timeline. No real world significance. How can anyone have a rationale that relies too much on policy??? An indiscriminate collection of information. "Usefulness" is not a valid keep argument. The timeline is in and of itself not notable and serves as no more than a plot guide. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 06:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. That the synthesis may have been made off-wiki is irrelevant unless the source making it can be shown to meet WP:RS, which I don't think this one can. Deor (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't this indicate third-party sources which exist to boast the notability of the topic and appropriateness of using it + information from primary sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CallipygianSchoolGirl (talk • contribs) 03:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deor is, I believe, bringing up a new source to illustrate the point that the only third-party sources that seem to exist for this information are entirely unreliable. This is the only secondary source I've seen so far that could apply to this article, and it clearly wouldn't pass WP:RS. It's been 2 and a half months since the close of the previous AfD; plenty of time for interested editors to find reliable secondary sources to support the article. None have (check the article's history...no-one has even attempted to insert any), and as many here point out it's highly unlikely that any even exist. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or how about this one: [12]? It seems "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." and really, nobody seems to be arguing that the facts are wrong from the primary sources, it seems people are just hammering for non-primary sources to back of claims of non-notability. CallipygianSchoolGirl (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How you can claim that source as "trustworthy or authoritative" is absolutely ludicrous to me. Take one look at its home page: "The Movie Timeline is the history of everything, taken from one simple premise: that everything you see in the movies is true - the real mixes with the fictitious, so long as it's reported in a movie somewhere...Welcome to a self-confessed complete waste of time...here's a bunch of pointless movie trivia, arranged in the form of an over-long fake chronology. So jump on in - the time-wasting's lovely." Yeah, that totally sounds like a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Plus it only covers 1 of the 8 films that this article is attempting to synthesize. I could call all of its dates into question, since I don't recall any specific dates being given in Alien vs. Predator. As a matter of fact, if you'll read some of the "delete" comments in this and the previous AfD, several editors have expressed the concern that the primary sources (the films) don't actually support most of the dates given in the timeline article. Verifiability is one of the core arguments in this discussion. I'm actually going through the films at the moment (since I own them all) to see if I can shed any more light on this verifiability issue (and as part of other article improvements I'm working on). So far I've only gone through Alien, which doesn't give a single date at all in the entire film. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for violating WP:NOT#PLOT and possibly WP:SYNTH, or merge with Alien vs. Predator as a complement for interested readers. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merging would be good but the timeline is too long. --Tj999 (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone watches theses movies and creates a timeline, its considered OR. If someone watches theses movies, creates a timeline, and then sources the movies, then its not OR??? Delete per fancruft, OR, no real world information -- Coasttocoast (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What else do you source when you are creating a timeline for a film series? --Tj999 (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some third party sources independent of the subject, ideally, but as myself and several others have pointed out it's unlikely that any reliable third-party sources have been published that specifically discuss the chronology or timeline of events in this series. See the Narnian timeline, it uses a couple of third-party sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the Alien and Predator seires don't have other material like Narnia does. Though there is a Marine Handbook for the movie Aliens that might include some information. I have not seen the book, but maybe it is at a library or something. --Tj999 (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could not locate a copy on Google book search. Dlohcierekim 13:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The book he's referring to is the Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual. That's a primary source, though, as it's directly connected to the film franchise. It's not a third-party analysis of the subject, it's a manual that presents the fictional aspects of the marines and their equipment in an in-universe fashion, similar to A Guide to the Star Wars Universe or the Star Wars Encyclopedia. These are all books that were released as official supplements to the films, so I don't believe they're considered secondary sources, especially because they don't contain real-world analysis and are works of fiction themselves. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a good and reliable secondary source because it is by a different author. It is reasonable to suppose that he would have good access to the source material and that his output would be checked as owners of such valuable properties are usually concerned to protect them from degradation by poor work. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate alternative way to present the material--in fact, probably clearer for people who aren't fans. The material is documented by the primary sources, as appropriate for articles dealing with plot. DGG (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --IllaZilla comments about Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual is just more wikilawyering. The standards he or she are suggesting would require that every editor on wikipedia have the equivalent of a law degree specializing in wikipedia policy. Not so kwel. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you think having standards is "kwel" or not is not pertinent to this discussion. It's only natural to assume that newer editors won't have an in-depth understanding of Wikipedia's policies or processes, which is why we always assume good faith and try to improve content. However, when other editors with experience see something that they feel is inappropriate, it's totally within their rights to debate whether we should keep it. That's exactly what we're doing here. This article has already been through an AfD before, 2 and a half months ago. Since then no one has done anything to address its fundamental problems. It doesn't appear that anyone involved in this discussion is totally new to Wikipedia. We all have some experience with the policies, which by the way were formed by consensus amongst many editors (even though you seem to want to dismiss ones that you don't think are "kwel", and by extention dismiss anyone who happens to agree with them). As for my comments about the Technical Manual, they come from the fact that I've actually thumbed through the thing and know what its contents are. Colonel Warden, it's not a secondary source. It's an officially licensed book that's part of the expanded universe of the series, just as the novels and comics are. It's entirely a work of fiction; it presents all of its information from an in-universe perspective and doesn't have any real-world analysis. It describes things like the M577 A.P.C. and M56 smart gun as if they were real. I'm not criticizing its contents, I'm just saying that makes it as much of a primary source as any of the comic books or other works of fiction, in the same way that The Star Trek Star Fleet Technical Manual is considered a primary source reference for the expanded universe of Star Trek. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already understood the nature of the work and still consider it a secondary work as a matter of fact. The presentation of the work in a fictional format is merely a matter of style. What matters for our purposes in verifying the chronology is that it treats the dates as canonical. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note on that, then: This particular franchise has a notorious lack of "official" canon between its different forms of media. The films follow one another, and the comics follow one another, etc.; but several of the comics completely contradict the events in the films and vice versa. There is no established canon for the franchise as a whole, as there is for Star Wars. That's why the timeline article is fairly limited in its scope, only covering the films. The Technical Manual is meant to complement the film Aliens, but it's at best questionable whether it's considered canonical or not and whether any dates given in it would match the "official" timeline of the films. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like many of IllaZilla's comments --This particular franchise has a notorious lack--without a source is completely hypocritical and comes off as specious, given the standards that he or she demands from all editors. Experienced editors don't waste time with wiki-policy. Nor do they argue about double-standards that even they could not and clearly fail to live up. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a trap. I offer a well-reasoned argument backed up by policies, and you dismiss my opinion as "wiki-lawyering". If I were to simply say "this article should go because I don't like it", you'd dismiss it as unreasoned and having no basis in policy or practice. I have no stomach for games. You're simply being petulant because I said that one of the points in your initial comment was irrelevant. You should know that you can't make me angry. I'm done responding to your repeated groundless rebuttals and insults. Happy editing. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the only issue considered here is the sources. After comparing the article up for deletion with the article Narnian timeline, that's the only real issue I see. Both deal with fictional timelines, both deal only with the fictional timeline. (True, the Narnian article tells you about some appearant real world dates, but you have to realize that the 'real world' presents in the tale of Narnia is no more our world then that of Alien vs Predator is.) Both timelines are subject to some controversy as well. In case of the Narnian ones there is dispute between experts in the field according to the article itself, and in the AvP case, there are canon issues due to the myriad of uses the concept has. Were one to consider all sources of AvP stories in their canon however, one would need to involve all sources of tales touching any part of Narnia as well. Since in the case of Narnia all sources not in the main, lewis-written sequence are ignored, I think it's not unfair to ignore all non-movie sources of the Alien and predator universe. So, in my opinion, there are only three real issues to consider here. Firstly, you could claim that AvP is pulpy science fiction, and not worth the space on Wikipedia. This standing is valid enough, as it is obviously subjective. Secondly, you could claim that there are not enough reliable secondary sources to signify the information. To verify this, one would have to read the books written about the AvP movie universe and decide if the books are reliable, and if the books contain the information. Lastly, you could decide that the points I just made are all good and valid, and therefor put Narnian timeline up for deletion as well. Personally, I think that the article fits well in Wikipedia, but that has nothing to do with the policies, I've found Wikipedia a huge source for information, much information of which is trivial. Note I did not claim this information is trivial. I'd like to hear any thoughts on my post, but I'll simply ignore or mock any post which responds with nonsense, make false arguments or blatant insults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.25.78.195 (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As others have said above, this is an obvious example of original research. Terraxos (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is an inappropriate article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as verifiable and notable. Because it does not offer an original thesis, it is not original research. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for sub-articles and cruft is never a valid argument. Providing a timeline based on sources does NOT advance an original argument. "Cruft" is an unacceptable argument that cannot be taken seriously. The films can serve as verifiable evidence. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for sub or spinoff articles. Which is acceptable on Wikipedia. The films can be watched in the real world and thus it has notability to real humans who watch and care about them. It is encyclopedic per the First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Aliens and Predator. The film articles need secondary sources, a timeline associated with those articles, as sub or spinoff article, only requires primary sources. A timeline does not need analysis. THAT would be original research. real world context is obvious. Just because something is obvious is not a reason for us not to have an article on it. But it isn't original research and is verfiable. Then you're arguing for a merge and redirect without deletion per the GFDL. There is no reason to outright delete the article and in the worst case it would be merged and redirected without deletion. A legitimate search term in the worst case scenario would be redirected without deletion. We only must delete copy vios, personal attacks, and hoaxes. A timeline of a significant franchise is consistent, per the First pillar, with a science fiction encyclopedia. Plus, "cruft" is never considered an academic argument. Actually, the article is completely encyclopedic and "cruft" is a non argument. Wikipedia is the place for syntheiszing plot summaries of film series. The article passes WP:N, WP:V, and WP:IS. Per our First pillar, Wikipedia is a science fictional encyclopedia. It is NOT just a general interest encyclopedia, as the First pillar clearly states it is "general encyclopedia, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." The mission of Wikipedia according to the overwhelming majority of its contriubutors its to contain articles of this nature which is appropriate for Wikipedia per our policies and traditions. Per Wikipedia:Five pillars, it is encyclopedic per our First pillar of one of our most core policies, i.e. it concerns an incredibly notable franchise and presents verifiable information in clear, organized, and discriminate manner. It is therefore consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on science fiction or Aliens or Predator or all three. There are over 1,000 published specialized science fiction encyclopedias; thus there is no reason for a paperless encyclopedia not to share elements with those. Thus, I am citing a specific POLICY, in first the FIRST PILLAR of that policy when I note that it is an element of a specialized encyclopedia. As for any other possible personal interpretations of other policies that may question the reason for inclusion of this article, then apply Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, as removing this article "prevents" editors "from improving or maintaining Wikipedia." The article is a legitimate search term created by a good faith editor and defended by at least one other good faith editor. In even a worse case scenario we would redirect the article without deleting it. Deletion, which removes editors' contribution history from the public eye, is an extreme last resort reserved for hoaxes, personal attacks, copyright violations, etc. We do not delete articles when a redirect exist and since we have articles and Alien and Predator series, we have such redirects. Saying sources do not exist or the articles' lack of sources does not mean they do not exist. Considering how much coverage the film series has had in Fangoria, Starlog, et al, I have a hard time believing that given enough time and research the article could not be better sourced, but even so, sub-articles are permitted to rely on primary sources. I can never take an argument that has a word like "cruft" seriously. It adds nothing to any conversations, just as an vulgar or unacademic word does and distracts from whatever other merits the argument may or may not have. The article is necessary for providing the chronology in clear and encyclopedic chronological context. Alien and Predator are not part of Star Wars, so Wookipedia has no relevance to this article. And even so we have plenty of overlap with other wikis, which is fine, vecause we are the most comprehensive overall wiki. We are here to write a paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that is the sum total of human knowledge, that combines general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs. There is no solid basis not to have this article; there is no benefit to our goals by deleting it. We do, however, have potential gain by keeping it. The topic is hardly "trivial". It concerns the context of a blockbuster and notable film series. It presents the subject in a coherent and discrmininate manner. All this time wasted trying to delete good faith articles could and should be spent finding sources and improving them. Articles that are not hoaxes, not libel, not copy vios, etc. should not be deleted. Can we collect reliable sources? Yes. Should the article be kept? Yes. Is this article representative in part of what Wikipedia is? Yes. A timeline presents material that may or may not be spread out in a bunch of articles in a far more clear and concise manner and therefore serves a valuable purpose. I would be shocked if you cannot find any reviews of the films that do not discuss the chronology and timeline in some manner. All of these are reasons for inclusion. There is no reason for deletion that benefits anyone. The article passes the Five pillars and Ignore all rules and I see nothing reasonably convincing otherwise. So in other words, you're actually arguing that the article must be kept. Thanks for the clarification. I thought you meant keep after all. Notability is inherited. Sub-articles only need primary sources. There is NO consensus that notability is not inherited. Sub-articles like this one only need primary sources and notability is definitely inherited in this case. Every article on Wikipedia does not have to be GA or FA status. As has been established in discussion on Plot, many have argued that sub-articles or spinoff articles are not the same as a regular or mother article. All encyclopedia articles synthesize, whether they do so from primary or secondary evidence. Anything that uses more than one source, synthesizes from those sources. That is what encyclopedias do. Notability is inherited from article on the subjects. I have a hard time doubting with all the publications and reviews out there that published sources do not touch upon the timeline in some manner. The article does indeed merit a Wikipedia article of its own. A spinoff article only needs to be based on primary sources. The article passes Notability (fiction), Notability, and What Wikipedia is. As for the tone, that can be fixed by editing. The movies are reliable sources. Notability is unquestionable here. "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia. The article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. There are no legitimate reasons to delete this particular article which is notable and verifiable. Which is not needed on sub or spinoff articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be brief in my response, since this appears to be a rather jumbled copy/paste of all your arguments from the previous AfD, which I've already responded to there:
1. Only 1 editor in this (second) AfD has called the article "cruft", so there's no need to go on extensively about your feelings on the term and it being a "non-argument". I do agree that a more reasoned rationale is required, but several such rationales have already been presented.
2. The concept of original research is not restricted solely to articles which advance a thesis. Synthesizing primary source information is part of writing an encyclopedia, of course, but an article which consists only of primary source synthesis, without any third-party source material to support it, is original research. This is clearly true of this article, for which the creator admits he had to make analyses and speculation because very few actual dates are given in the entire series of films.
3. Deletion is not reserved only for extreme cases such as copyvio and personal attacks. Per the deletion policy (bolding indicates my emphasis): "Reasons for deletion include but are not limited to violation of copyright, content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not verifiable in a reliable source, and unreferenced negative content in biographies of living persons. In the normal operations of Wikipedia, approximately five thousand pages are deleted each day through the processes outlined below."
4. The First Pillar does say that Wikipedia incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. However, this is not a free pass for inclusion of any topic. In fact, the First Pillar goes on to give many examples of what Wikipedia is not, including "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The argument that this article's content would be "consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Aliens and Predator" is a very weak one. Firstly, no such encyclopedia exists. Secondly, by that rationale I could create an article on any subject x under the claim that it would be "consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on x" (ie. an article about my dog would be consistent with a specialized encyclopedia about my dog). This is why Wikipedia has notability guidelines which rely primarily on the subject's coverage in reliable secondary sources.
5. So-called "sub-articles" are not exempt from our core article policies. Notability is not "inherited" from one article to the next. A subject should not be spun-off into its own article unless there is enough secondary source material to support a stand-alone article on that subject (or such sources could reasonably be assumed to be available). The claim that "sub-articles only need primary sources" is completely contrary to the core article policies and guidelines and the vast consensus that formed those policies. As many have pointed out, there do not seem to be any secondary sources that specifically discuss the timeline of events in this film series, therefore this is not a topic that has received sufficient third-party coverage to warrant a stand-alone article.
6. I highly doubt that the phrase "Alien and Predator timeline" is a likely search term. I'm not sure how you would provide evidence that it is. Article traffic does not indicate use of the title phrase as a search term.
At this point we are both merely reiterating points we've made before. I don't think there's anything to be gained by rehashing these arguments which already came to no consensus in the first AfD. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any use of "cruft" is unhelpful. The article is unoriginal research. Deletion is not justifiable in this case. The article is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on fiction, timelines, films, etc. Sub-articles are consistent with our core policy principles and notability is inherited from the other articles. The phrase is obviously a likely search term as multiple editors came to the article and the AfD. I agree that there's nothing to be gained by rehashing the same arguments the failed to get the article deleted the first time around. Instead efforts should be focused on improving the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, there are many ways people arrive at articles and AfDs other than by using the article title as a search term. A link to the article appears in Template:Alien, for one thing, so it appears in the navbox in every Alien-related article. I'm sure some editors arrived here because they are AfD watchers. It's probably even likely that at least a few had never seen the article before this AfD was initiated. For me personally, the article was on my watchist. In any case I feel that "likely search term" is a weak argument to keep, as we have no way (that I know of) of tracking what phrases users type in the "search" box. Common sense says that words and phrases like "alien", "Alien (film)", and "Alien vs. Predator" are certainly likely search terms, but I for one highly doubt that "Alien and Predator timeline" would be. But again, we have no way of knowing, so it's a pretty weak rationale either way. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless they arrive at and so any arguments presented to delete here are weak. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should also like to point out WP:NOTINHERITED as well as this recent discussion at WP:N, both of which assert that notability is not automatically inherited from "main" articles to "spin-off" articles. In fact, "notability is inherited" is included as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, an essay which you yourself have cited above in reference to the "cruft" argument (re: WP:ITSCRUFT). See also the summary style guideline on "unnecessary splits", which further supports the argument that WP:N applies even to spin-off articles: "Editors are cautioned to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Instead, editors should fully develop the main article first, locating sources of real-world coverage that apply both to the main topic and the subtopic." I fully disagree with the notion of "inherited notability", and I believe these examples show that the general community consensus also disagrees with it. Therefore your continued insistence that "notability is inherited" does not carry much weight, unless you can provide some example of consensus or precedent to support it. I find the Al Gore III example you give unconvincing both because the article was eventually deleted, and because the arguments on both sides seem to have rested on the subject's coverage or lack thereof in secondary sources. You have cited only a single editor's opinion in support of the "inherited notability" idea, and I note in the very comment you cite that the editor's assertion of notability relies on media coverage. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus that notability is not inherited which is why it is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that notability is inherited is the argument to avoid. I've provided at least 3 areas where consensus seems to indicate this. I think WP:NOTINHERITED sums it up rather well: Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that. In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case. At the very least, we should not assume the notion of inherited notability and should discuss it on a case-by-case basis. In this situation I believe we have a topic that has not been proven to be notable, due to a complete lack of secondary sources. There has been plenty of time given for editors to find such sources (2 and a half months since the conclusion of the previous AfD), so I think we've assumed good faith and given a fair chance for such sources to be found. They haven't been found, so I think it's pretty clear this is a non-notable subject. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that notability is not inherited is the argument to avoid. I've provided an area where consensus seems to indicate this. Even the quotation you have above says "this is not always the case," which applies to this particular article, which is notable in its own right anyway and is covered in plenty of sources which means it is pretty clear that this is a notable subject. Wikipedia does not have a deadline. We have had articles that have taken years to be properly sourced. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find most of your statements in the previous comment to be absolutely incorrect. WP:NOTINHERITED indicates that we should avoid arguing that notability is inherited either down or up. I find "notability is inherited" to be a non-argument based on that essay, the summary style guidlines, and clear consensus at WP:N. The "area of clear consensus" you provided was merely this comment from another editor who happens to share the same opinion as you do (two can play that game, BtW), and clearly the consensus in that discussion was that notability is not inherited because the AfD that comment comes from closed as delete due to numerous editors citing notability concerns, 9 of whom agreed that notability is not inherited (vs. 2 who believed that it is). Your example actually disproves your claim. You also state that this article topic (the timeline of events in the film series) is "covered in plenty of sources", yet the overwhelming opinion of editors here is that it is not covered in any outside sources. Other than the films themselves, what sources do you have to offer that cover it? Not a single reliable secondary source has been presented by anyone, in the course of 3 months and now 2 AfDs. We may not have deadlines, but we do have common sense, and we have assumed good faith in this article's case for plenty long enough to honestly admit that either there are no such sources available, or no one is willing to look for them. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find most of your statements in the previous comment to be absolutely incorrect. WP:NOTINHERITED indicates that we should avoid arguing that notability is inherited either down or up. I find "notability is not inherited" to be a non-argument based on that essay and lack of clear consensus elsewhere. The close in the Al Gore discussion was incorrect; it should have been "no consensus" and clearly there was no consensus in that discussion regarding whether or not notability is inherited. Your examples actually disprove your claim. You also state that this article topic (the timeline of events in the film series) is "not covered in plenty of sources", yet the overwhelming opinion of editors here is that it is covered in outside sources. Other than the films themselves, reviews and other publishes sources do you have been offered that cover it. Obviously reliable secondary source have been presented by editors in the course of 3 months and now 2 unnecessary AfDs. We do not have deadlines, but we do have common sense, and we have assumed good faith in this article's case for plenty long enough to honestly admit that there are such sources available, and time is being lost repeatedly arguing over the article in AfDs rather than looking for them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but flipping my own words back on me won't succeed. Notability is not inherited. Broad consensus supports this. Constantly repeating that it is doesn't make the statement any truer. Just because you disagree with the close of the Al Gore III AfD doesn't mean there wasn't consensus (which there clearly was). No reliable secondary sources have been presented for this article by anyone. The only sources brought forth have been this and this, neither of which could even remotely be considered reliable. Reliable, published third-party sources do not appear to be available covering this topic, and they are required to support the claim that this is a notable subject. The sooner you and others accept that, the sooner we can get on with the business of writing an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate collection of information. I agree that we are wasting time repeatedly arguing over these issues, so I will simply wish you happy editing. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is inherited. Consensus does not support otherwise. Constantly repeating that it does does not make the statement true. The Al Gore III AfD lacked consensus. Reliable secondary sources have been presented for this article, which is a notable subject. The sooner you and others accept that, the sooner we can get on with the business of writing a comprehensive encyclopedia/almanac. I obviously agree with your last sentence, so happy editing to you as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCH. This is someone's observations of a fictional work arranged in a novel way. ORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCH. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not advance a thesis, so it's not really original research and it's stuff others can verify relatively easily. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thesis is that the movies fit together into a fictional continuity in this certain way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is hardly "original" research when some of the movies are titled "Alien vs. Predator". Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this were "list of Alien and Predator works," sure. The arrangement and continuity are the original research, not the mere inclusion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the events in Alien versus Predator take place prior to Alien versus Predator to, just as obviously the first two Predator movies occur before that "vs." films and the four Alien films after. I don't see how anyone could reasonably come to a different arrangement or chronology. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, assembly of a timeline is complex, and as is clear from the last AfD, controversial (some agree that the film verifies the timeline, others do not). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The films and publications on them are both notable and reliable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Films featuring Predators are set in the present, films with just the Aliens were set in the future. Info is unworthy of a timeline. Alientraveller (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is more complex than that and so is worthy of a timeline. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? Better than best, --dorftrottel (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, no real-world significance. dorftrottel (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, no claim to real-world significance. Eusebeus (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is unoriginal research with real world significance. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful information about the subject. Timelines of fictional events are no more OR than timelines of nonfictional events. You don't need a source to say that a certain article was published in the New York Times on such and such a date, the article is the source. Ford MF (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very well sources, i see absolutly no Original Research in this. Myheartinchile (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a single reliable third-party secondary source to establish any real-world notability, you cannot seriously call that very well sourced. Just say honestly and up front that you are in favour of keeping the article in spite of the very weak to nonexistent reasons to keep it under current policy and guidelines. I could appreciate that. Our inclusion threshold is subject to constant discussion and change, but saying that the article is 'very well sourced' is bollocks. dorftrottel (talk) 07:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find any references to refute the claim that this is original research. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the works themselves, you must mean. Ford MF (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I tried looking for info derived from the films themselves, but so far nothing seems to support materials as seen from our Wikipedia article. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I suggest here would be to add a reception section to the article, i.e. use reviews that comment on the timeline (I recall reading such reviews, especially critics who discuss the continuity of the Alien versus Predator series). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:42, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Stamos[edit]

There is no evidence that this person is the son of actor John Stamos. Also the references do not match up with any of the claims. In addition, there is no notability. IndulgentReader (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. I can't find any evidence that there is a person by this name, that he is the son of John Stamos, or that he has done any of the things described in this article. None of the article's references mention this person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax or otherwise non-notable. No relevant Ghits. —97198 talk 13:02, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Logan[edit]

Makes a lot of claims, but no real assertation of notability. He's had his art everywhere, but I don't see any reliable sources about him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep he's been written about and seems recognised by the press which presumably gets over Notability issues - one of 20 'celebs' in this [13] and known for his Alternative Miss World [14], and seems to be a Derek Jarman short film about him [15] article about him and his museum on BBC [16] though that is local news section.-Hunting dog (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh and in the collection of the National Portrait Gallery [17], that provides an independant citation for the "retrospective was held at the Museum of Modern Art, Oxford, in 1991" *walks away muttering IDONTLIKEIT...* (modern art not anything personal to the BLP)-Hunting dog (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Claims" are assertions of notability, TPH! And in this case they are mostly justified. Certainly notable, though more referencing needed. He was most famous before the internet age, but there will be plenty in print. Johnbod (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Works in the NPG and the Arts Council collection [18] (it's a Flash site, but he'll show up if you search his name).--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like an article with worthwhile potential...Modernist (talk) 04:41, 8 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 G11, blatant advertising of non-notable content, sockpuppetry, blatant conflict of interest, failing WP:Notability (bands). It's easy to get Internet listings but there is no evidence of wide, independent coverage here. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get 2 Know Us[edit]

Non notable EP/album by non-notable band, no significant coverage, nowhere near meeting WP:MUSIC, spam, spam, spam. Red Hugh (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I apologize for my misunderstanding of WP:MUSIC. Are you saying that coverage on AMG (All Music Guide), Amazon and other mainstream media outlets is not significant enough?? DedraHughes (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am unfamiliar with this subject, but the nom appears to be a Single Purpose Account and sockpuppet of another user that knows how to insert AFD templates, with his/her only edits relating to the destruction of this article. The edit summaries left on Get 2 Know Us, "spam spam spam spam", and spam, spam, spam are inappropriate. Please do not let a SPA sockpuppet game this site's procedures.

Comment Laughable, but on the subject of SPA sockpuppets you might want to see how much spamming has been done by this band. Here and here and here and more if you bother to look. Sockpuppets? Apart from the current one, try these on for size: CrazyJay (talk · contribs), FrankRosser (talk · contribs), Lisahughes (talk · contribs), Youngcrowd (talk · contribs), Davidcarter writer (talk · contribs), Davidcarter biowriter (talk · contribs), Express Michelle (talk · contribs), AshleyConner (talk · contribs), AmilRowland (talk · contribs), Donotello smite myers (talk · contribs) and so on. Please do not let SPA sockpuppets whose only intention is self-promoting spamming game this site's procedures. Next time try pointing your accusatory finger in the right direction! Red Hugh (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate the condescending tone from one hiding behind a sockpuppet. Both sides appear to be at fault, though I will not vote either way in favor of a blatant single purpose account attacking other apparent single purpose accounts. Your AFD would be stronger had you used your regular account and tried to be civil. SashaNein (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Says the editor that makes sockpuppet accusations without evidence! Haven't you embarassed yourself enough for one day? Red Hugh (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Red Hugh", I have contacted WikiMedia regarding this matter. You have presented content that the band and its label directly instructed to be removed from Wikipedia. In early May 2008 all blocks preventing articles on "Profound Intent" were removed per WikiMedia. Those user accounts and content you have presented here, cannot be used in this case. This article is about a notable "album" from the group and not the notable "group". I think you are making a "mockery" of both "Wikipedia" and the group. Your actions displayed here are clearly childish. All info presented in my article on this album is backed by sources (presented in the Ref list). DedraHughes (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI COI COI COI COI COI COI COI. Red Hugh (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "RED HUGH" PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MAKING ANY FURTHER MENTIONING OF MY ACCOUNT ( AshleyConner (talk · contribs) ) IN THIS DISCUSSION. I DO NOT SPAM. PLUS YOU HAVE SOME TYPE OF ISSUE TO HAVE EVEN TOOK THE TIME TO GENERATE THAT LIST! YOU'RE THE SPAMMER! GOOD DAY! A Creator of Articles 19:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please don't comment with all capitalized characters. That is considered as yelling which is frowned here at Wikipedia. --RyRy5 (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty seconds is all it took, after seeing what happened when I tried to click on the Profound Intent redlink. Red Hugh (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the yelling, accusations about SPAs and sockpuppets, the threats, etc., aside, this clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. Please also see these previous discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Profound Intent, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Profound Intent (2nd nomination), and check the deletion logs as well. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the debates, but I see that they were all 'courtesy blanked' by JzG one full year after closure. There is information about this AFD that is being left out. I don't care to find the answers since it's just degraded to a SPA (I thought you were retired, that's all I'll say) versus SPA (members of the band) matchup. SashaNein (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear the "retired editor" has moved house, and does not yet have internet service at his new residence. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone here is hiding behind computers. I'm sure the group is busy making records. However those like myself choose to write articles about them and their works. FranklinRose (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, User:One Night In Hackney has retired and to the best of my knowledge, does not even have internet access currently. Also, time to look at this, the Profound Intent folks have been rather... insistent about getting their musical spam onto WP, when they have failed multiple AfD's. SirFozzie (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Clearly a malicious Afd by an SPA with an axe to grind. ukexpat (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Says the editor that issues level 4 vandalism warnings for adding back an afd template! What part of WP:MUSIC does this album meet then? Since the band isn't notable? Red Hugh (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break; post here if your not interested in drama[edit]

Strongest possible delete Profound intent are doing everything possible to be mentioned in wikipedia. It does not meet notability guidelines. Red Hugh made a good nomination, though maybe saying "spam spam spam" was a bit hostile.---Phoenix -wiki 20:46, 7 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 Sophia the Martyr. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Sophia, Mother of the Virgin Martyrs[edit]

Unsourced orphan. Somewhat cryptic. Has the appearance of a fabrication. Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or merge). An extremely poorly written article, to be sure, but that could be improved. Definitely not a fabrication -- though perhaps the importance of the martyrs Faith, Hope, and Charity (and their mother Sophia) has been stronger in eastern christianity than in western. As a compromise, the material could be merged with Faith, Hope, and Charity and this article redirected.70.74.14.67 (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm familiar with St Paul's letter to the Corinthians, I'd never heard the legend that they corresponded to real people. Odd really. I do think a merge would be more appropriate unless better material independent of the content of the article Faith, Hope and Charity (which is well written) can be found. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Later: I concur with Deor. Sophia the Martyr is a good candidate for a redirect target. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sophia the Martyr, another article on the same topic. (This article actually existed first, apparently, but Sophia the Martyr is clearly better written.) Since this article gives no sources for its detailed description of the martyrdom, there's nothing to merge that I can see. Deor (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on your religion. 70.74.14.67 (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sophia the Martyr. The name of this article is one of the permutations of the name of that individual. John Carter (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sophia the Martyr; can't merge as the text at this title is unsourced. GRBerry 13:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per above. Culturalrevival (talk) 17:09, 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 --JForget 00:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Bletsoe Storm[edit]

Disputed prod. Suspect to be a hoax. There is no evidence that this event ever happened. Search of news archives draws a blank as does a general Google search. nancy ^(talk) 17:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a hoax. Ani Mate 17:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are we allowed to mentions the editors other offences? MortimerCat (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - hoax. Yes, Mortimer, we most certainly do mention the 1981 Bletsoe plane crash and Opposite Sex Identical Twins. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - uncited hoax nonsense. Guliolopez (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear hoax, but there's no point in making it a speedy delete - it's better to let the AfD run so that any future recreation under any name can be deleted under WP:CSD#G4. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is MascotGuy. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:39, 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 AfD withdrawn by nom after running for almost 9 days (and Wikipedia is known for its IT articles anyway). Gwen Gale (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TAGES[edit]

This article was lately tagged CSD G11 as blatant advertising and speedy deleted, since the text makes no assertion of significance. An editor who worked on it is most unhappy about this. This article is wonderfully written and informative but may not belong on Wikipedia because it clearly fails WP:CORP, given independent and reliable coverage on this is quite thin. So where is the fuzzy line on these IT articles? I like them a lot (too much), so I get kinda wary about keeping things like this. On the other hand, IT coverage is one of Wikipedia's many strengths. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confused comment. It was me who restored the article, though it seems as if Gwen may have been about to do so herself. The complaint she received about deletion was bitter, rather ill-tempered, and perhaps rude; but on looking at the article I had to agree that any promotion was not blatant (indeed, it didn't strike me as promotional) and I also thought that the author's complaint of a systemic pro-GNU-etc bias might have something to it; after all, it does seem that every Linux distro, however obscure, has its own article (a fact that I as a reader find very welcome). The article is primarily about a product, and therefore WP:CORP does not directly apply; further, if it did apply it would be a guideline, not a policy. Perhaps the best thing to do is for somebody to source a moderate degree of the content to independent references. Oh, if the article does remain I think it should be retitled "Tagès".-- Hoary (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it looks like an advertisement more then anything, and tried removing some additional content to make it look more neutral, but don't know what else to do. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the author of the article in question, sorry for not having registered on wikipedia. Let me comment on a few key issues which were brought up in here: First, my initial complaint to Gwen Gale was indeed ill-tempered, and was rather rude. Please do understand that these words were written in the heat of the moment, the minute I saw that my work was deleted on grounds of what (in my opinion) are false accusations. Please accept my apology for this crudity, as there was no intention to hurt her feelings or discredit her.

Secondly, I see that some sections were removed under the claim of "advertisement" (edited by JasonHockeyGuy), let me stress this once more: I have nothing to do with the vendor of TAGES. Nothing. I merely wrote an article about their product. The removed sections contain material/quotes which is/are well-established (documented on CDFreaks.com). Additionally, would writing about a breach of a system amount to advertising? I fail to understand the logic behind this, *there was no advertising going on*.

Despite all this, wikipedia shows some of its two faced nature on other grounds, where there is mistreatment for other violations. Wikipedia forbids copyright infringement - we all know this. Now, check the SafeDisc article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safedisc): " UnSafeDisc circumvents and decrypts SafeDisc encrypted files by opening the ICD file format, decrypting it, and converting it to an EXE file. However each program requires a specific patch to enable full functionality.". Many articles on wikipedia link to tools or tutorials the main purpose of which is circumventing copy control measures (and thus, are illegal in various jurisdictions), yet no one erases them or modifies them - and I think we all know why. As I said, there seem to be an anti-DRM bias on this web site, judging by the vast majority of the DRM-related articles.

Respectfully yours.

Keep --SkyWalker (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:36, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Shenanigators[edit]

A band that fails the notability guideline for bands. There are no reliable sources and the band has not had a chart hit. I originally prodded the article, but the prod template was removed without comment by the article's creator, so I brought it to AfD. Bláthnaid 16:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 16:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BAND. Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Team Blackout[edit]

Apparently non-notable musical group. (Page has been originally marked for speedy deletion, but the notice was removed by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) who said that it wasn't a candidate - I don't see how the page asserts, let alone establishes notability, but since she suggested this venue, I am bringing it here.) It appears to have an AllMusic entry, but the page contains no information. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The aticle does not (in my opinion) assert notability. I added the article issues tag in the hope that the article creator (or one of the other users to edit the article) might add sourced content to assert notability and expand it, and even though they have had plenty of time to, they have thus far failed to do so.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:36, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TROFL[edit]

Cannot possibly be attributed to a Reliable Source J293339 (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —J293339 (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Whatever was there is gone now and is now a redirect to a Wiktionairy page. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete last version that had any content is clearly a neologism that hasn't caught on. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TROFL&oldid=122462003 Initial version makes it look like it was something someone made up one day. -- Mark Chovain 13:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Soft redirect equivalent of a R1 Speedy, except R1 does not apply to soft redirects. Nothing about the term is present at the Wiktionary target, so no real point in maintaining this soft redirect over to there. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Said acronym can not be found in the given Wiktionary page. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 02:14, 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 17:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From The Pavilion[edit]

Online cricket management game. Questionable notability, likely COI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have 2 independant sources for From the pavilion, according to "nawlinwiki", WP:V and WP:RS thats what i need.

http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.fromthepavilion.org http://www.smgnews.com/index.php/games

Also, there is no conflict of interest as i dont stand to make any money from the site, so im not sure wat the go is there....

Sully89 (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — Sully89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Non-notable website. Fails WP:WEB. nancy ^(talk) 16:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why isnt it notable? WP:V and WP:RS say that 2 third paty sources are adequate. i have those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sully89 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between proving that something exists and showing that it is notable. If you read WP:WEB you will see that it requires the content to have been the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". nancy ^(talk) 17:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.fromthepavilion.org shows why it is notable. Thats an independant third party website which values the dollar value and analyses the trffic of a website. also www.smgnews.com is a website dedicated to sport management games and mentions FTP several times, like this interview with the creator, http://www.smgnews.com/index.php/component/content/article/41-Top_Stories/7-FTP_Beta. If other cricket games like "Battrick" have a their own page, wat else do you need to establish that this is a notable website? Sully89 (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sully89. Whilst I admire your passion on this topic, none of your arguments (so far) have basis in policy or Wikipedia guidelines. If you have not already I would urge you to read the notability requirements for web content and also the essay Other stuff exists. nancy ^(talk) 06:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources presented are not notable in their own right (and the one about the web traffic is underwhelming, to say the least). A search indicates that no solid reliable sources have reported on the game. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then can you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battrick and tell me why the referance there are different from the ones on FTP. FTP has a traffic analysis and 2 articles from www.smgews.com, Battrick has 2 articles from www.smgnews.com and an article on sport management games in general, i cant see a difference from article to article in notability

58.108.107.156 (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — 58.108.107.156 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

While this is a case of other things exist, I'll note thatBattrick looks like it should be gone to me, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battrick closed as no consensus. It's also part of Hattrick, and there seems to be support for its existence, along with some small coverage of it. I personally think it's not notable, but consensus states Tony Fox (arf!) 04:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if Battrick gets its own indiviual article with the same degree of notability and nearly identical website referances, why cant FTP? Also, if you note the second to final point on the Battrick deletion discussion, "Keep, it seems to meet similar criteria as another game Hattrick which was voted to be kept here albeit this has a smaller userbase"

58.108.107.156 (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the bit where I said I think the other one's not notable either? Battrick is an offshoot of Hattrick, which gives it a bit of hang-on notability despite the links. Honestly, I think the lot should be dropped as non-notable, but I'm one opinion of many. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And we'll see what the opinion is on Battrick: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battrick (2nd nomination). Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only thing is, its a different issue since Battrick dont have any acceptable referances and FTP does.

58.108.107.156 (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

um... it does? The sources here are all non-notable, and are quite similar to those available for Battrick. Anyhow, last comment from me; I suggest finding good reliable sources quickly. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what is this article not notable? Given thats a relatively new online you are unlikely to find many sources. It is notable based on that fact it is competitor to Battrick and other online sport games such as Hattrick, Footstar, Sokker etc - of which all have articles in wikipedia. Also it is notable based on the fact that it is unique compared to other online games, in terms of the gameplay itself. It is also notable based on the fact that more than 1000 users play the game now. You are basically claiming that Battrick isnt notable..but somehow it is because its linked with Hattrick..in what way is Hattrick notable? - In that same way FTP is also notable. Anyhow - if you can tell us in what way it is not notable..maybe we can then understand the argument that you present. Currently your reasoning does not make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescoopercronk (talk • contribs) 08:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC) — Jamescoopercronk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - this one actually has validity, but past that, there's no non-trivial reception or coverage that would demonstrate notability to satisfy WP:WEB. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:48, 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 nominator. the wub "?!" 14:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Sannibale[edit]

Delete ~~Rationale: A youth player that not yet made his professional debut~~ Matthew_hk t c 16:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep per new info from Angelo. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Number57. Giant Snowman 17:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to a number of sources I've just found, he played at the professional level for a number of Serie C teams, and also appeared in the 2004 Italian Supercup final for Lazio. The article now includes all this information. --Angelo (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lots of these article, thanks for research. Matthew_hk t c 17:26, 7 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-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dora Pavel[edit]

I see no reson that this person is notable in the english speaking world. maybe on the romanian wikipedia. also, writer of article repeatedly removed templates from article. Sexy Sea Bassist 16:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 17:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The writer has received awards for her work and been written about, which makes her notable. Notability on en.wikipedia is not limited to the English-speaking world. It does not matter what language she writes in, as sources can be translated by editors that speak Romanian. Bláthnaid 17:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Independent coverage of subject who's won awards in her field. Sounds notable per WP:BIO to me. WilliamH (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. non-english is not a reason to delete --T-rex 04:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being notable in Romania (and France) also makes the person notable in the English-speaking world. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:38, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Warrick[edit]

This should probably be deleted in line with WP:CRYSTAL. The episode will undoubtedly be notable when it comes out, but as of right now it contains a large amount of speculative, forwarding looking statements which cannot be confirmed through a reliable source (and is subject to change). JBsupreme (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. The article can be recreated in when the episode airs. There is another upcoming CSI episode here which should also be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. Bláthnaid 17:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 17:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is just a stub that can be recreated, although this source seems to think that this is the title. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:53, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hanako Oku[edit]

I see no reson that this person is notable in the english speaking world. maybe on the japanese wikipedia Sexy Sea Bassist 16:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The film The Girl Who Leapt Through Time was released in the US last year and the UK earlier this year... as a result, Hanako Oku's albums are available to buy now in English online music stores (such as Amazon) and in specialist music shops in England. If you look through the J-Pop and Japanese female singers categories in Wikipedia, there are many other artists who many are listed, that many English speakers will not have heard of... yet they are considered notable enough for inclusion in the English Wikipedia, alongside their counterparts on other language wiki's. Why should tyhis article be any different? David Bailey (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 18:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability does not vary from language to language, unless one wants to intentionally produce a culturally-myopic project. To my knowledge, a preference for cultural myopia is not yet a Wiki policy, or even a guideline. A quick Google News search shows this subject all over the place, including an article in Chunichi Shimbun [19]--dead link now, and not archived-- a constant problem in writing about Japanese subjects-- and mentions in major newspapers like Asahi Shimbun [20], Tokushima Shimbun[21], Nikkan Sports [22]. Clearly notable. Dekkappai (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Dekkappai shows, ample sources indicating notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekkappai. Proposing that only the English speaking world can adjudicate notability is a very bad idea, and seems to go against the spirit of WP:BIAS. Neier (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:38, 8 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, but nothing should stop an editor putting a redirect here in good faith. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He Mele No Lilo[edit]

Non-notable song, failed WP:MUSIC as it did not chart. I doubt if being is a Disney movie makes it notable. ViperSnake151 15:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Short, non-referenced. Limetolime ^{I want an award!} ^• ^{look what I did!} 15:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything said by the nominator...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Lilo & Stitch. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable sources so the information cannot be verified. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs which leads me to believe that the subject is not notable and is eligible for deletion. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:46, 15 June 2008
Redirect to Lilo & Stitch. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Can verify the content from this article in Washington Post here so suggest redirecting is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 18:36, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Muralidhara Swamiji[edit]

Non notable religious leader. Sources quetionable at best. Sources to establish notability are lacking entirely. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable religious leader, no relaible sources found. He is only mentioned in passing in other sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ism; No references = No article. Limetolime ^{I want an award!} ^• ^{look what I did!} 15:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable / per above ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 22:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable no sources. MBest-son (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SNOW. Culturalrevival (talk) 03:31, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypasounds[edit]

Barbadian soca artist with no albums, previous nominee for Barbados Music Award. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I declined the speedy since I think being a nominee for an award makes it ineligible for speedy as he's done *something* to warrant being nominated. I found a profile in Circuit Magazine, a tiny mention in The Nation, another Circuit mention that refers to him as a staple and [http://www.newsday.co.tt/features/0,61981.html participation in a 'major event'. While it's weak, I don't think it was a clear-cut speedy. There may be more information available as well. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The nomination i think would make him notable-- weak keep Guitardude3600 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypasounds is a Barbadian DJ,turned performing artist who has in the last 3 years released ragga soca music during the Barbados Cropover Season.His music is featured on the Compilation CD, IT IS CROP OVER Vol. 2 / 3.He was nominated for numerous local awards, such as the peoples monarch and Barbados Music Awards.He was also a finalist in the NCF (National Cultural Foundation) Party Monarch Finals 2007 in which he placed 8th.He is also a registered member of the local COSCAP (Copyright Society for Composers, Authors and Publishers) in Barbados.Scikokid (talk) 15:18, 31 May 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) 15:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Just like the others; more references desperately needed. Limetolime ^{I want an award!} ^• ^{look what I did!} 15:54, 7 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-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Night (film)[edit]

Non-notable film that is not in commercial theatrical or DVD release Ecoleetage (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 07:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Found a few sources [23],[24],[25],[26], I added a reference in the article for the Highly Commended - Independent Feature at the The Festival of Fantastic Films 2006 [27], sources for the other 2 Awards and Festivals would help better establish notability. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's won some awards; it's notable enough. (I've never much liked the notability requirements anyway.) Just put up a cleanup tag and trust that somebody will improve the article at some point. Sonicsuns (talk) 03:39, 5 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) 15:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the awards section is referenced. Malinaccier (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if the lead is expanded, an image is added, and a few more refs. are added. Limetolime ^{I want an award!} ^• ^{look what I did!} 15:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough sources out there, it's won commendations and award from some pretty large festivals, I think it's notable enough. Ged UK (talk) 16:05, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burrito (comics)[edit]

Non-notable indie comic book character. I couldn't find any reliable sources, but had to add search terms because searching for just "Burrito" would be hopeless. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge information into Burrito: Jack-of-All-Trades. No need for separate article Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 06:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge separate title and character articles are rare and this isn't an example of where it is justified.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now nominated Burrito: Jack-of-All-Trades for deletion on the same grounds. Blast Ulna (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:05, 23 May 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 20:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as there is no evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burrito: Jack-of-All-Trades. --Phirazo 04:40, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Sopa de Pene[edit]

Actually I think the page could anyway be deleted/merged back into soup - but am raising as Afd to generate discussion rather than leave on Prod as the text for this page comes entirely from edit [28] which has been on Soup page since 2006. As reason for previous prod was hoax we need to determine if it is actually hoax so references on soup page which seem to have entered common belief now even if they weren't before can be fixed. I think it has some basis in fact as "tronquito" (bull penis soup) is mentioned frequently regarding food in Equador, but have not found originating source for this name/details that is prior to the 2006 edit. Hunting dog (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.
Delete - Tronquito might or might not be notable (note those ghits inevitably mention it right after "roasted cuy (guinea pig)", implying a common source for all of them). It's a moot point. We're talking about "The Soup of Penis", which seems to have no independant ghits (the one mentioned on the talk page is on a blog from two months after the paragraph was added to Soup and seems to derive from it) and certainly has no reliable sources. Does "The Soup of Penis" exist under that name? Seems unlikely. Is it notable? No - if we can't be sure it exists, it certainly is not. Does "Tronquito" exist? Probably. Is it notable? Not without significant coverage in reliable sources, which we simply do not have. If you would like to start Tronquito, I think it's a good deletion candidate as well, based on current (lack of) sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, so could be a hoax. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:33, 6 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) 15:04, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Culture Crash Comics[edit]

Non-notable comic, no outside sources or indication of notability MBisanz ^talk 05:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 05:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Check again, Mr. Nominator. There are independent sources already. Starczamora (talk) 08:46, 2 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) 15:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is pretty bad, but there is enough demonstration of notability for a start. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article format is not that good, the contents clearly, although not in detail, describe and express what Culture Crash Comics is. Although further general sources are lacking since the official website has been down for several years now, the former staffs' websites are used as a substitute since they still have information about the defunct comic book. – Vekou (talk) 03:59, 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 Merge. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of One Piece episodes (US TV broadcast edition)[edit]

Completely unnecessary and NPOV split out from the List of One Piece episodes; goes against the anime and manga MoS and unnecessary. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do what you gotta do. I created (split off) this article because two lists, one with over 300 eps and the other around 100 weren't fitting nicely on one page. If there's a MOS that says get rid of it, that's fine with me. Do whatever the current consensus supports but keep in mind the ridiculous number of episodes and how best to format the information. The current rules may not work well with lists this long. May need some sort of WP:IAR here, although what I don't know. Collectionian: what do the relevant MOS's specify? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 04:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up, the main episode list (which is crazy at over 300), should be split up similar to List of Naruto episodes, but first the arc issue has to be dealt with (are the official and sourcable, or fan creations? the story arc page sources out to a wikia). Once clean lines of splitting are decided, then it can be broken up into an appropriately shorter number of lists, with the main episode list losing the summaries and just having titles, while the sublists have the summaries and appropriate leads. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Following the Naruto example is a good idea. You could just redirect and save a whole AfD although maybe there are some people who feel strongly about this article, I don't know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 04:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything involving edit version does seem to get a bunch of passionate voices involved. Especially since the episodes appear to be being rereleased in an unedited version, the information on the edited version is best reduced to a footnote somewhere. Delete Doceirias (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge non-duplicated info I can see tons of redundant information, like this vs this, where only the airing date changes for the first few arcs. Notice that the US airing date can be included on the main article on the "Episode list" templates using the "AltDate" parameter: "The next notable air date, such as the first air date of an anime in English.". In other words, this can and should be solved by normal editing, formatting and partitioning on the main episode, since this split is duplicating too much stuff. It ought to be easy to make a section listing on what order the story arcs were released on the US, so no reasons for split. If an article is different on the US and the japanese version, it can be detailed on the episode summary or on a US-specific section if it's a mojar change on several chapters --Enric Naval (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor quible: Actually it would be the EnglishAirDate field, not AltDate. The Japanese ep template has a param just for that. :P And agreed on the differences. If the differences between Tokyo Mew Mew and 4Kids version Mew Mew Power can be summed up in the main article and cleanly covered in the episode list, so to can this series.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tokyo Mew Mew and Mew Mew Power may be somewhat different, but in terms of story and episode count, they're pretty much the same show. One Piece has story changes, not to mention 39 episodes worth of content was cut, including skipped episodes, merged episodes, what have you. For more information, check out [29] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matty-chan (talk • contribs) 14:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Enric Naval. My comment at the One Piece story arcs AfD may also apply here. And before I forget, have a look at this nightmare. —Dino guy 1000 16:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the...fill in your own word...that's not worse than a "monster of the day list." Blech...lots of One Piece clean up to go yet I see...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guide would be useful for people who only watch the dub. I know some guides merged the English and Japanese guides, but those animes have dubs that are closer to the original in terms of story and episode count, so they can be explained more simply in one article. The One Piece dub has cut and merged 39 episodes worth of content out of the show, where three Japanese episodes make up one English episode and half of a Japanese episode can be used as part of an English episode and the other half is half of another English episode... to see what I mean, check out [30]. We can't merge this. As well, another useful thing would be... like I said, story changes. In the original, Arlong shot Bellemere, but in the dub, he sent her to the dungeon. In the original, Luffy used his own blood to defeat Crocodile whereas in the dub he used his own sweat. Also, there's terminology changes. Now the dub fans can have a guide where a character in the original who was referred to as Zoro is now referred to as Zolo so they know what they're reading, since he's Zolo in the edited dub. Matty-chan (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the list is kept, it needs to be renamed so that it doesn't violate WP:BIAS, and Funimation's episode list needs to be merged in with List of One Piece episodes, since FUNi is releasing episodes sans editing, and notes (properly sourced, of course) should be added indicating what Japanese episodes were used for each of 4Kids' episodes. Needless to say, though, I still think they could be merged in their entirety if 4Kids' episodes are handled correctly. —Dinoguy1000 16:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. Other series have been hacked by 4Kids, its their specialty. There is a reason there is a rather intense hatred for the company among anime fans :P That said, it is entirely possible to cover the series in a single episode list. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Matty-chan, we don't really need to list in detail all the changes, that's what people means by cruft. Make a section detailing all significant changes, like you did here. Irrelevant details should be outsourced to anime wikis --Enric Naval (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Look, I have nothing against 4Kids Entertainment or their One Piece dub, but I'm just thinking of the people who ONLY watch the dub. This guide is for them. I really don't see how we can write that three Japanese episodes make up one English episode and whatnot on a site like this. Matty-chan (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We do not do a detailed break down of every last comparision between an edited dub and the original. We let people know it was done and give some general overviews of what. We are, in fact, not a guide for the people who have seen the dub or anything else. We're an encyclopedia. For the detailed breakdown, i.e. "for more information," its up to those people to decide they want to know exactly how it was edited and go find that information. We provide an overview, not the deep down nitty gritty. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        To put it in on other words: since this is an encyclopedia, the fact that the chapters were botched is a remarkable encyclopaedic fact, however, the fact that japanese episodes x,y and z were merged into episode n is not, unless there is something remarkable about that merge, like some controversy on why that specific merge was done while others weren't. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:36, 6 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) 14:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant information. We're also not platform on which anime fans can grind their axes against whichever localization company they hate this week. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the variant in not notable on it's own --T-rex 03:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's been days since the last comment was made, and concensus seems to be merge or delete. Can someone close this? —Dino guy 1000 15:23, 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.

List of No Angels songs[edit]

The result was Nomination withdrawn, as other such lists exist. TN‑X-Man 15:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod. Indiscriminate list of songs. As Wikipedia is not a directory, I believe this article should be deleted. A list of notable songs, maybe, but this is a mess. TN‑X-Man 14:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers. In case the notability of the group should be an issue, the No Angels are probably the most successful girl group in Germany (and I think they are boring, but I wouldn't want to go into systematic bias against non-British/American bands here). – sgeureka ^t•c 15:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sweet deity. I looked around, but didn't see that list. I'll withdraw the nomination, but . . . yeesh. TN‑X-Man 15:42, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Industry Demonstration[edit]

Non-notable demo CD of a marginally notable band. Cites no sources; no Google hits except a mention on the band's website; consequently also fails WP:V. Sandstein 14:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable Kingturtle (talk) 02:15, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Glory of Christmas[edit]

No assertion of notability. Prod removed asserting "produced since 1981." Author adds "widely advertised." Well, not here. Potatoswatter (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A Google search for "Glory of Christmas" +"Crystal Cathedral" does turn up some sources, such as this one and this one that would seem to attest to a modicum of notability for this annual production. I'd avoid it like the plague, myself, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. Deor (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep My google search turned up this site. Its a blog sadly (not very reliable) but it suggests the article is genuine:[31] Artene50 (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jengod (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC) (1) Wikipedia articles have no "author," (2) Notable:[reply]
- "'The Glory of Christmas,"' seen worldwide by more than 2.5 million people during its 25-year history..." (Living Nativity Seen by 2.5 Million; Angels Welcome the Season With Heightened Flying AbilitiesMurray, Virgie W.. Sentinel. Los Angeles, Calif.: Dec 8-Dec 14, 2005. Vol. LXXI, Iss. 38; pg. C8)
- "This year marks the 25th anniversary of the 'Glory of Christmas,' a large-scale spectacle famous for its flying angels and live animals." ('GLORY OF CHRISTMAS' ; PRODUCTION'S 25TH YEAR // GLORIOUS SPECTACLE // Inland families make show an annual tradition HELENE BLATTER. The Press - Enterprise. Riverside, Calif.: Dec 7, 2005. pg. D.01)
- "For more than a quarter of a century, the "Glory of Christmas" performed inside the all-glass Crystal Cathedral has been wowing audiences with their high flying angels, nimble dancers, live animals and magical special effects to create one of Southern California's most popular holiday productions." (Celebrating The Sound Of The Season With "The Glory Of Christmas" Anonymous. Sentinel. Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 26-Nov 2, 2006. Vol. 72, Iss. 12; pg. B6, 2 pgs)
- "It is a theological puzzle: Should the birth of Jesus be celebrated with a big bang, a la the Crystal Cathedral's "Glory of Christmas" with flying angels and Hollywood special effects, or a humble pageant, put together with homemade costumes and pint-size shepherds?" (Spiritual or spectacle? Lavish Christmas extravaganzas appeal to some, offend others who prefer humble celebrations; [1,2,6,7 Edition] Sandi Dolbee. The San Diego Union - Tribune. San Diego, Calif.: Dec 15, 2005. pg. E.1)
- "...spiritual inspiration is the point of this Cecil B. DeMille-type production that fills the 12-story, 3,000-seat glass church near the Garden Grove Freeway." (VOLUNTEERS CATCH SPIRIT OF 'GLORY' ALLAN JALON Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File); Nov 28, 1986; ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los Angeles Times (1881 - 1986), pg. J1)
  - Aren't those all local newspapers? (Or local sections of a national paper based in SoCal) Potatoswatter (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. Is local notability objectionable? jengod (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep All the references I've been able to find are either in the Orange County Register, LA Times, or Long Beach Press-Telegram, all locals. It's been broadcast on DirecTV in the past on one of their special event channels, but cant find any reference in IMDB, only in a DirecTV press release that mentions only the title. WP:NOTABILITY currently says nothing about local notability so we cant use that as a guideline, it states substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources The LA Times and OC Register are certainly reliable sources but I'd still like to see some better sources from outside of Los Angeles to solidify the notability of this topic or I'd be inclined to switch to weak delete.--Rtphokie (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure where bloggery counts in your personal metrics of notability, but some tourist reportage can be read on Google via "Glory of Christmas" blogspot "Crystal Cathedral"
- Also, the Schullers/G.O.C. were featured in a USA Network special called The Great American Christmas; the suicide of the musical director was reported in the USA Today via the Associated Press and CNN; and Variety covered it when they tried a PPV deal in 1992. jengod (talk) 01:11, 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. Shereth 20:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RUBIOS Robot Operating System[edit]

Recreated prod deletion. Non-notable operating system. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I believe the provided academic references confer notability. Potatoswatter (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd thought I'd heard of this before, but as proven below, this is WP:AUTO (isn't it great people don't change their names on WP?) and nothing relevant when Googling rubios robot -rubio -site:ucsd.edu. Potatoswatter (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - those academic references are all by the same party: the party that created this product, and likely the party that also created this article. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, smacks of self promotion in its current form, prepared to redact if independant sources are added, as the current ones look to be a blatant conflict of interest per this link. It also would badly need a rewrite for the perspective of the average reader, if it is kept. MickMacNee (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note -I led the development of RUBIOS and created the article. I'm puzzled by the comments expressed here. There is a similar article describing the Microsoft Robotics Studio and it did not seem to create any problems. Yet the article describing RUBIOS, an open source alternative, is nailed down because of accusations of self promotion? I thought the whole point of the wikipedia is that people can express their views and make edits at will. I encourage those who are expressing so strong opinions to try RUBIOS, compare to alternative products, like the Microsoft Robotics Studio, and express their views. In the process I fail to understand the logic under which this article shall be censored but the equivalent Microsoft article should not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movellan (talk • contribs) 08:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're incorrect, Wikipedia is not for the purposes you describe above, you can read about what wikipedia is for here. Wikipedia is not a product review site, nor a vehicle for evening up the market between M$ and the open source movement. Microsoft has an article simply because Microsoft are a notable organisation (I haven't even read that article btw). But every article has stand on its own merits compared to wikipedia's policies, it cannot be saved because because other stuff exists. MickMacNee (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note -I just read the Wikipedia COI policy. I understand better now the concerns expressed above. I do not hide the fact that I led the development of RUBIOS and wrote the RUBIOS page. I included the references only because it seemed to be a requirement, not because I intended to self-promote. I'd actually prefer to delete them. I also don't care about evening up the market between MS and the open source community. The intent of this page is to inform people about RUBIOS, keep track of its evolution and its use, and show how it relates to other related robotics projects. Articles with similar purposes related to other robotic suites seem to have been accepted without a problem. One thing I love about the Wikipedia is the the distributed/collaborative editing, and with the fact that there may be a diversity of opinions expressed on the article, some positive, some negative. In fact this discussion is a good example of why I wrote the article to begin with. If there are specific things about the article that are considered problematic I'd be glad to address them. If the fact that I led the development of RUBIOS disqualifies me from writing the article, I will delete it. Frankly I just don't see much of a difference between the RUBIOS article and the already existing articles on other robotic suites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movellan (talk • contribs) 10:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being the author doesn't necessarily preclude you from contributing, but it limits your ability to judge the notability of RUBIOS as an entity. Due to the nature of the open source movement, there are articles created all the time about this or that, they all have to be justified on their own merits. Wikipedia is not desinged to be a record of the development of a project if its starting point is relative obscurity. Pointing out other non-notable articles merely usualy has the effect of highlighting these articles to others who will put them up for deletion if they think its appropriate. MickMacNee (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Here is an article in Wired magazine about RUBI. Would this count as external validation of the significance of the project (if not its internal OS)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heardtriednoblekeep (talk • contribs) 16:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I understand your points. I tried to modify the site to show how it relates to other similar scientific projects. I don't believe the other articles are non-notable. The following feature about RUBI from NPR may also help explain the context of the project that RUBIOS drives NPR . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movellan (talk • contribs) 18:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have concerns about this process. Robots are likely to become a key technology in daily life the ways personal computers became a key technology in the eighties. This article documents one of the early robot suites that tries to tackle the many problems the robotics community are encountering. Documenting this history is important and we owed it to future generations. Many of these early attempts may end up being non-notable but some will. I think that none of us, including me, Evil Spartan and friends, are qualified at this point to label these early attempts as notable or non-notable. We should also be really careful about deleting work that could be useful to understand the history of everyday robotics. Movellan (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not demonstrate notability. Sources discuss the RUBI project (which might be an approriate subuject for an article) rather than the RUBIOS software. Claim that subject may be notable in the future is irrelevant because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:48, 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 copyright violation of this. Rudget (Help?) 14:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zardonic[edit]

Non-notable record producer. Includes a (kinda) reference, so I didn't think it qualified for speedy. TN‑X-Man 14:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article does not even make a claim that meets WP:MUSIC from what I see. There are no cited sources, either (just mostly random links). Erechtheus (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to keep and little or no assertion of nobility. Also, according to this page, an article about the guy who's nickname this is was deleted under A7 already. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 14:32, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Realm fighter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Completely unsourced speculation Ged UK (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced, as well engaging in crystal-ballery. TN‑X-Man 14:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After a few minutes of Googling I haven't found any reliable sources discussing this game, so it seems to be non-notable. Una Laguna^Talk 15:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' non-notable game. JuJube (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL, unsourced as well. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:33, 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 a7, no credible claim of notability, sources don't support article. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Zol[edit]

Non-notable person, seems to be a hoax, google finds nothing TubularWorld (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:MUSIC as it is about a non-notable musician and it seems none of the content can be verified with any sources let alone reliable sources and much of it is either original research or even, as TubularWorld pointed out, a possible hoax. AngelOfSadness talk 14:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. According to the (current version of the) article, this is a teenager (17 or 18 years old). At a guess, this is a real person, but the article fails WP:MUSIC. Earlier versions claimed notability, but these claims have been removed, so it could presumably be speedily deleted per CSD A7. --Bonadea (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot be notable. Hardly believable. Some parts don't even make sense. ???? Rdbrewster ♪♫♪ 15:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is ridiculous. Makes me wish we still had WP:BJAODN. This is classic.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a hoax, but completely fails WP:BIO, WP:BAND. Not notable, WP:SPA purported vanity article. WilliamH (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any sources to confirm the existence of this person, much less to indicate that he has achieved any notability as a musician. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:26, 9 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 Change to redirect. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In The Court Of The Crimson Queen[edit]

This is all speculations and conjecture, and even those are not cited. Also, wp:crystal -- Mblumber (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, it's just far too much unsourced speculation Ged UK (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how would you like me to source and reference it? I manage all of Toyah's official webspaces... and prepare copy for them all. Please refer to www.toyahwillcox.com for substanitation. CA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decaytreasure (talk • contribs) 14:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

What is needed are independent sources. Since you are webmaster of the only source cited in the article, the article is currently original research. Independent coverage is needed to demonstrate the verifiability and notability of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As it stands right now. However, with the addition of reliable sources, (that is, independent, third-party sources), this article would be vastly improved. At the moment, a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnxman307 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with permissive recreation. The article fails the verifiability guideline. There are no secondary reliable sources cited. (Toyah's website is a primary source.) Further, if the original editor is the webmaster of the Toyah website, then this strays into the realm of conflict of interest and original research. The article is not written as a press vehicle, but nor should it rely solely on contributions from the artist's press handlers. —C.Fred (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited my !vote: at such time as reliable independent sources on the album are available (e.g., release date, track list, multiple reviews in major magazines), the article may be recreated without need for a deletion review. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then Redirect to the artist. We should probably make a "nth studio album" redirect for every musician popular with the teeny-boppers. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah - there seem to be plenty of secondary sources confirming the album out there on the internets. There's certainly no WP:CRYSTAL in terms of the fact that there will be an album of this title, though (hell, even The Telegraph]'s mentioned it! The article does need any speculation trimmed and references added to the rest, though (perhaps someone who - unlike me - has broadband, can find something on this BBC interview]?) Oh, and since when has Toyah been "a musician popular with the teeny-boppers"? Fee Fi, you need to get out more! Grutness...wha? 02:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC interview seemed to be more about Pantomime and Christmas lights and Hell's Angels doing stage security. I didn't hear any discussion of the new album(s). —C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added an external link (to telegraph online) to substantiate the release and title of the album as opposed to merely inlcuding an inappropriate external link. I cannot do right from wrong!! CA. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/28/cmfame28.xml&page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decaytreasure (talk • contribs) 16:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to avoid multiple edit conflicts if you remember to sign your posts. --Rodhull andemu 16:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Toyah Willcox is a notable artist and therefore this album, when it appears, will be notable per WP:MUSIC. Sure, the article should have the ((future-album)) tag but it appears that WP:RS are available for it already and coverage will increase. And, being in my mid-50s, no way am I a "teenybopper", nor was I ever. --Rodhull andemu 16:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to recreation of the article when sources are available. Right now, all that's been independently verified is that the album is scheduled to be released later this year. Incidentally, I just gave this album the Amazon test, and the only thing listed for pre-order right now is Good Morning Universe - The Very Best Of Toyah, scheduled for release on 30 June. —C.Fred (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, it seems to fail WP:MUSIC right now: "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources and should use the ((future-album)) tag." (emphasis added) The article does not mention any release date yet. —C.Fred (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DecayTreasure: Well here in lies an issue which needs to be thought of by wikipedia. Putting osmething in amazon and it not being scheduled release is not the be al and end all. artists are now using different methods of distribution and ways of releasing music... many of which don't include standard record shops or online vendors. (download, magazine/newspaper giveaways, PWYC (pay what you can). There's currently no confirmation of formats for the album release. Just because Amazon doesn't provide a listing doesn't mean that something isn't going to be released or has been released. I know that in time proof will appear which vindicates the listing.. I guess its just hanging on til then. CA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decaytreasure (talk • contribs) 19:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toyah Willcox for now. Currently fails the WP:MUSIC notability guideline but with no prejudice to recreating the article once it can meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 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 --JForget 00:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Studio album[edit]

This is all speculations and conjecture, and even those are not cited. Also, wp:crystal Mblumber (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, oh dear gawd, not again. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sigh. Please see here. We've been over this and from what I can tell, none of the issues have been addressed. If anyone can add the link to the previous AfD, it would be appreciated. TN‑X-Man 14:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Wasn't a similar article just deleted? It isn't even titled properly for this sort of thing. 23skidoo (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Salt. We should probably make an "X's nth studio album" redirect for every musician popular with the teeny-boppers. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:PERNOM, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE, and WP:KETTLE --T-rex 04:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought this page was already gone. CRocka05 (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - Delete this article, salt the article title against receation, warn author, move on. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as well as being unsourced, it's very unlikely Sceptre ^(talk) 00:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although there is a couple of sources, they really aren't enough in order to make any sort of good article. No songs have been confirmed or even rumoured either. Simon171717 19:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - No need for this page. 76.124.165.253 (talk) 21:10, 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, through a careful reading of overall consensus, but with no consensus as to any fitting redirect. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanden Plas 1500/1750[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vanden Plas 1500/1750

It's not a notable model, I don't see why it needs a whole article, it may as well just sit within the 'parent' article with all the other model types. Ged UK (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copying over from article discussion page)I respectfully disagree with the deletion request. The Vanden Plas model had a different nameplate to the Allegro, was finished in a different factory and was issued a different brochure. I believe that for the purposes of official government tests (fuel economy etc) the models were considered distinct from the Allegro, but I will have to check in the brochure when I dig it out.

It is unfortunate that I had barely started this article when it was listed for deletion - the car has only a small mention in the main Allegro article, and I thought I would start a new article that I could expand over time.

Rfreedman81 (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC) (copied by Ged UK (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete the Vanden Plas is a notable brand, however we already have an article about that, and VP was a name used by British Leyland on a vast array of its cars over time - we used to own a Maestro Vanden Plas, for instance. There's nothing tremendous here that isn't already in Vanden Plas. -- Roleplayer (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and merge data into Austin Allegro) — whilst I sympathise with the assertion by the article's creator that this was to some extent a different model, finished (note, not "built") in a different factory, the fact remains that the parent company was a past master at badge engineering, and for the purposes both of (a) informing the reader in an easily understandable way (in one place), and (b) of maintaining consistency amongst other BMC and BL articles regarding badge-engineered cars, we should keep the VDP models as a section of the Austin Allegro article, and expand the section. Any info which is too broad for that article probably belongs in the Vanden Plas article. I would like to see a redirect maintained from the present deletion candidate, however. – Kieran T ^(talk) 23:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Austin Allegro (as a new section), basically as suggested by Kieran T, omitting general information on the brand, retaining the present title as a redirect (as usual). Peterkingiron (talk) 21:52, 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 as notable (non-admin closure). WilliamH (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Arabella Miller[edit]

Unnotable rhyme. Probable hoax. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 11:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya - I haven't finished writing this page! So requesting its deletion may be premature and unhelpful! The nursery rhyme is from England - You are not which is why you think the rhyme is unnotable - it's not part of your cultural background.

It is not a hoax as my references demonstrate. It is niche as it is of interest to those involved with pre-school children, leading singing classes etc.

There are loads of action and nursery rhymes listed on Wikipedia so I added this because it was missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Organicbaby (talk • contribs) 11:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is extremely rude to use AfD before an article is a week old, let alone an hour. Does nom really think judgment can be passed two minutes after the last edit? The provided references don't give evidence of much history behind this rhyme, but it's certainly not WP:MADEUP. I'm not looking up WP:N for public domain music, because nom is silly, but this seems like a keeper. Potatoswatter (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not because it's a rude or silly nomination, but because it's a good nomination of something that turns out to be notable after all. Nyttend (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very well sourced by now. The rhyme has inspired a book, which shows notability (for the rhyme, not necessarily the book). --Bonadea (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive comments - I'm currently researching some further information regarding the origins of the rhyme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Organicbaby (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 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) 19:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnomax[edit]

Hoax Skarebo (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a part of the hoax:

Delete: smells like spam. Look at the external links section. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as hoaxes. The chemistry described in Magnomax is completely inaccurate. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both—possible G3 speedy. Does seem to be a hoax. Both external links in the Magnomax article appear to involve nonexistent domain names, and googling for selected terms and names in the articles turns up nothing relevant. Deor (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Googling does turn up relevant information, albeit under the name Magnamax. However, it seems to be uncommon, except in pseudoscientific bracelets. Possibly the name has recurred under similar conditions. Article cannot stand as is without references. Listing of nonexistent refs (Wayback Machine confirms) indicates a hoax. Potatoswatter (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any relevant information in a "Magnamax" search—in particular, nothing that relates to a material developed by anyone named Kerr. Deor (talk) 18:04, 7 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 articles, following the only strongly asserted comments. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Buckton (Home and Away)[edit]

This has gone to an Afd discussion as the Proposal to delete Charlie Buckton was objected to. The reason the PROD was opposed was due to the fact that WP:FICT is a proposal and not a guideline. Fair enough, but this proposal is based on several already standing guidelines which should be analyzed when deciding what to do with this article.

Before i go through the reasons why this article should be deleted. It should be noted that it was decided to delete several articles recently based on the notability arguments i present here. Each case is individual however it may be good to look at. The discussion can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Harris

WP:N states that a subject is considered notable, if it has recicved significant real world coverage. I did a google search and the only remotley notable thing i found was a newspaper photo gallery, with the character and it was only included because the actress is notable. Remember this is an article about the character.

WP:WAF states 'When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline and the more specific notability guideline for fiction-related subjects by including independent reliable secondary sources.'

My point is that these two characters do not meet notability guidelines and as a result an article is not warranted. When more information is avaliable regarding this character it should be included in List of current Home and Away characters. It should be noted that very few of the Home and Away characters have their own articles and the only characters that have thier own articles are those that are considered notable and have been on the show for several years, including Alf Stewart and Irene Roberts. (There are others because i havn't got around to merging them into the list article, its the middle of exams for me, but ill get around to it in the holidays. ) Printer222 (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natural, my understanding is that the character is new so at this point she is not notable. I object to many of the recent decisions to delete Soap Characters as a lot seem to be based on WP:Fict. I also believe that many of these articles can be written with sources that show they've been in notable storylines. It's more of a case of finding them. I also believe strongly that the guideline WP:Notable makes it far too difficult for fictional characters to actually be notable and that people are wrongly taking it as a policy. My belief is that if the soap character has 1) been in notable storylines 2) has had an influence on outcome of the show for the shows season or a period of time and 3) the article is well sourced then they should always be kept. However, this seems to fail on all three of these accounts. However, I am unable to judge as I am not familiar with the goings on in the soap it belongs to. Englishrose (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, or merge to List of current Home and Away characters if this is a notable character in the series. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per previous discussion, WP:FICTION and WP:RECENTISM. Moreover, any of these characters has media coverage. We have to extend the cleanup and better organise WP:SOAPS to avoid the creation of these articles in the future. Minor characters can be added in Lists of characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of current Home and Away characters - character does not have wide notability at the moment, but given that there is a merge target it might as well be sent there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:11, 9 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, owing to no consensus but some wariness about deleting. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mojtaba Pourmohsen[edit]

This page was originally up for speedy deletion under A7, but I declined it because the article makes claims of notability. I think that this poet might be notable enough, because he appears to have won national journalism awards and has been connected to censorship practices in Iran. There aren't a lot of google hits, but many of them are in Arabic, so I can't read them. I did manage to find one article in English that mentions him. Overall, I'm ambivalent about this article. I stand by my declination of the speedy, but if the community decides that there just isn't enough out there about this guy, it should be deleted. Danaman5 (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to add to above: I should also mention that I was searching for the romanization of his name in Google. If you searched for his name written in Arabic script, you would probably get more results. Unfortunately, I don't know Arabic.--Danaman5 (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I stand by my opinion it should be deleted, my reasoning behind that opinion can be found here.Shoombooly (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Or at least postpone the decision long enough to give anyone out there with relevant knowledge time to do a clean-up. If this was properly referenced then the notability issues might be addressed. But the article was only created in May and tagged in June, hardly seems time for people to take action to fix things before being deleted.Austin46 (talk) 10:02, 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 both articles, following strong comments from two editors and no others. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The First One[edit]

The articles for the Sara Bareilles albums The First One and The Summer Sessions should both be deleted - there's barely any information for either of these early albums and no cover art, and due to the minimal content, information about these albums is contained to the Sara Bareilles main article. In addition, the same person created a page for her iTunes-only single, which could easily be added to the main SB article. These articles are also full of grammatical errors. Cue the Strings (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles fail to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:46, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Memory shaving[edit]

Strange computer crime I've never heard about before where someone takes RAM chips out of work PCs and sells them, something that doesn't seem to make any sense (I guess they figure no one would notice a slow computer or hastily closed case?). G-hits number 432, with few sources actually coming up with this crime at all beyond one of the sources on the page. Nate • (chatter) 08:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weird neologism. tgies (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism, and the source provided does not confirm the extraordinary claim for the associated losses. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 09:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete this article about an unnotable neologism. I think this won't survive Wikitionary. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NEO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. JJL (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While many here are quick to dismiss the believability of this term, I have heard of this term being used twice by information technology professionals. People who commit this crime usually do so during the night or a holiday, they do not do so when the computer is operational and the surroundings are filled with people. Why people want to steal RAM is another matter of course, but if people commit armed robbery for $30 at the petrol station, anything is possible. Of course, my anecdotal evidence is not meant to be taken as gospel, but it seems rather odd to me that nobody has heard of this term or act before. Rilak (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It exists; I've seen one machine so far brought in to vendor for damage assessment because it was installed in a university dormitory and a (soon-to-be-ex-) roommate had broken one of the plastic mainboard sockets while trying to remove RAM from the system. Dunno how common this is, but sadly it happens. --carlb (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:46, 8 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, CSD A7. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjan Kamath[edit]

Seems like a non-notable and possibly self-promotional biography. Is completely unsourced. I checked Google, IMDB, and several specialty subscription film databases, including the Film International Index and Film Literature Index, both of which are international in scope, and got nothing. Sadly looks like there is no way to source at this time (and in the meantime, Wikipedia is not a webhost). I'd be happy to be proved wrong about the sourcing. phoebe / (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are a number of sources that verify his credentials - [32], [33], [34], [35], but borderline notability. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 09:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:47, 8 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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LaCUNAR (musician)[edit]

Lederer, the only member of the band, has dropped the label (from indie-rag newsletter pg 14, column: 6) and says "probably the name" as well. So that would mean he's even more of a nobody (no disrespect). Some time during this he had been working on a friends record; and working on "songs", which he says [according to the same article]: "Won't be for them [Terpsichore Collection], and I'm just going to be working on songs, and play some bars, and just keep working on friends' records."

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:48, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darnel Situ[edit]

Never played for first team. Sparrowgoose (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Youth caps do not make a player notable either. --Jimbo^[online] 12:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 19:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:32, 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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yaesu VX-150[edit]

There is no indication that this product would pass WP:PRODUCT. PROD was contested with comment: "Old article was created before Wikipedia required sources or claims of noteworthiness." That may be true, but it's not a reason to keep the article. B. Wolterding (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or merge with manufacturer's article (if known) per WP:PRODUCT. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 09:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The manufacturer is Yaesu (brand). However, I don't see why building a catalog of their present and past products would improve that article. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:48, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jérémy Hélan[edit]

Never played for first team. Sparrowgoose (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete player fails notability at WP:Bio#Athletes having never played in a fully-pro league before. --Jimbo^[online] 12:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 19:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ATHLETE. —97198 talk 12:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:32, 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 Merge was an option but none of the information cited had proper referencing so there was actually no verifiable information to merge. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Toa[edit]

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the plot section of several Bionicle articles without any real world significance. As such, it is pure repetition and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely correct, in that it has little to no significance. There's gotta be a Bionicle-wiki out there that this should be added to instead (sort of like what happened to all of the articles concerning characters in Blizzard games). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per above, a perfect candidate for moving over to Wikia :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 07:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 09:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of characters are legimate spin-out articles when the main article, in this case the notable Bionicle franchise, grow too large. Edward321 (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if kept, this will need renaming, since the main article is at Toa (Bionicle). Toa are Polynesian warriors - yet another part of Pacific island culture that has been commandeered by this franchise. Grutness...wha? 02:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - nothing here that can't be said in Bionicle --T-rex 04:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:49, 8 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 owing to no consensus, borderline notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Castleman[edit]

Non-notable songwriter. Was only nominated for a Grammy; unlike her husband, she didn't win one. No reliable sources to be found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ neutral I haven't been able to find anything on her (also tried under her maiden name) - apart from news snippets simply listing the Grammy award nominations for 2007. There's considerably more coverage of her husband, Robert Lee Castleman, although his article currently has no references at all. Not only did one of his songs actually win a Grammy, he's also a solo performer. Voceditenore (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there is still a lack of non-trivial coverage of her as a person. Two of the three refs added to the article only mention her as the co-writer of one of the songs sung by the artist who is actually the topic of the article, e.g. Alan Jackson and Alison Krauss. The third does have a comment specifically about the song "Red Rose", but the article is only 174 words long and appears to have a one-liner for each of the nominated songs. Looking at the notability criteria for composers and lyricists, only two could possibly be used for a keep (only one is needed).

Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.

Does the Grammy nomination (albeit not a win) satsify 2?

For 1, the relevant criteria for a notable song are:

"Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable."

The single "Red Rose" was ranked 23 for 4 weeks on Billboard's Hot Country Songs. Does that count? Dunno. I'm changing my vote to neutral for now. Voceditenore (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just now I've added a few references. I could not find an in-depth profile of her, but there are plenty of non-trivial mentions of her in articles about other people—enough for me to argue weak keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources are trivial or pertain only to Like Red on a Rose. I still say delete. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Risking an accusation of being a sexist, I propose merge/redirect to her husband - Robert Lee Castleman.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That works too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:59, 8 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 all to Casting Crowns. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Williams (drummer)[edit]

Per WP:MUSIC, "Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band." I can find no evidence that this person has any independent notability.

I have also listed other band members:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —G716 <^T·_C> 04:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Casting Crowns. None of these is notable enough for their own page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Casting Crowns. None of these is notable enough for their own page. Or what he said. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect all per above, and WP:BEFORE. Neier (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All to Casting Crowns as they don't appear notable enough for independant articles. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:08, 9 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 (since someone has already done this) Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Garrett[edit]

Per WP:MUSIC, "Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band." I can find no evidence that this person has any independent notability.

I have also listed other band members:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —G716 <^T·_C> 04:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Casting Crowns. Not notable in own right. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 09:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:01, 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 Redirect (since someone has already done this) Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Garrett[edit]

Per WP:MUSIC, "Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band." I can find no evidence that this person has any independent notability.

I have also listed other band members:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —G716 <^T·_C> 04:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Casting Crowns. Not notable in own right. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 09:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:01, 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 Redirect (since someone has already done this) Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Garrett[edit]

Per WP:MUSIC, "Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band." I can find no evidence that this person has any independent notability.

I have also listed other band members:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —G716 <^T·_C> 04:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Casting Crowns. Not notable in own right. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 09:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:01, 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 Redirect (since someone has already done this) Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Garrett[edit]

Per WP:MUSIC, "Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band." I can find no evidence that this person has any independent notability.

I have also listed other band members:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —G716 <^T·_C> 04:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Casting Crowns. Not notable in own right. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 09:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:01, 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 The result was Speedy delete, deleted by Jimfbleak for reason G3: Vandalism. (non-admin closure) Nazgul533 ^talk ^contribs 06:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Danzigdorffeln[edit]

I can find no reference of this individual anywhere else on the web or even on the references that are provided. I believe it falls under WP:HOAX. Nazgul533 ^talk ^contribs 04:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant misinformation with misleading references. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, with no objection to speedy delete. I researched it independently from the nominator and reached the same conclusion. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Total lack of verifiability, total lack of existence. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:59, 7 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 the main list per unanimity of responses and merge the two sub-lists. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 16:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN[edit]

Unnotable and excessive list of programs aired by a television channel in the Phillipines. Wikipedia is "not electronic program guide" and not an indiscriminate list. A list of every minor program ever broadcast by this single channel is not appropriate and does not "contribute to the state of human knowledge." Nor do THREE lists. How many lists does one channel need? Failed Prods with removal reason of "object: why only prod the list of ABS-CBN there are more than a dozen lists of programs of other networks out there?"

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar; redundant lists:

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN only... other two lists may be deleted. pikdig (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The current list. Merge the other two lists into the current lists. pikdig (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 09:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for the list of current and previous programs. For the regional network group list, merge to the current list. Please take note that ABS-CBN is one of the major networks here in the Philippines. -Danngarcia (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "sub-lists" into main list as ABS-CBN is a major network and a list of shows is key. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge everything with the main list. ABS-CBN fanboys tend to edit with wanton abandon, as I have noticed. Starczamora (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the current list and Merge the "sub-list" to the main list. ABS-CBN is one of the major networks here in the Philippines. Dehm46 (talk) 15:52, 8 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 The current article may be a but ORish but there is clearly an article to build here and deleting it only means that we have to start from scratch. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World development[edit]

As I wrote on the talk page: As far as I can tell, this article was created and maintained by only one editor, User:Mikael Häggström, and has no citations or external links beyond those confirming facts. The important thing that is missing is a confirmation of what the definition of World Development is, and that this is an accepted use of the term. "World Development" could be used to describe many things, and I can't find any similar use on Google (though admittedly I didn't look very hard), so as far as I can tell this is a topic that User:Mikael Häggström simply made up. That's not to say I don't think it's a good article -- it's well written and well cited, especially beyond the introduction, which I think is the most problematic area of the article, and I'd hate to see it be lost because of that. I'm just not sure this is an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. If multiple links were added to things that deal with this topic in a similar manner and confirm that the term "World Development" is used in this way by someone other than User:Mikael Häggström, this article would be much the better for it, but I can't find anything, and unless that happens, I really don't think this is appropriate for Wikipedia. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 19:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind and am withdrawing this nomination (see below), but it's already got several delete votes on it, so I'm not sure what should be done about it. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no quality, or importance. DeadmanUndertaker 19:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No quality? This doesn't make much sense, considering the article... ff m 00:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This may be better kept if it is moved into the project space, or transwikied to Wikinews. ff m 00:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete high quality article with plenty of WP:RS but the term itself seems to have been WP:MADEUP by the primary author. ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 03:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep changing my recommendation per what Mikael Häggström has written below. ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 09:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, by the same reason as I created it. I admit I put those words together without using any source that has made so, but I don't see how that would be more original research than e.g. the article technology development - I found no confirmation on Google for that compund either. I find it frustrating that the whole article would fall just because of the definition of the term. So why not just state that the term has no strict definition/various definitions, but MAY be used as the astronomical developments etc, and MAY also include life and humanity etc. And, to the fact that I've been the main creator and maintainer of the article so far, I do welcome everybody to contribute to it, preferably in a more creative way than deleting it. And to "lack of importance" I strongly think global warming, poverty and ecomomic growth are important, and even if considering that their individual articles already exist in other places the overall picture of the development is justified. It tells a lot more than the development (disambiguation). And if it still must be removed from Wikipedia I too prefer a transwikification to Wikinews than a deletion. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it (tech devel) would be better titled Developments in technology and a similar name for this article. ff m 14:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's just that "world development" is so general a term, and could be used to discuss an impossibly large number of topics, whereas "technology development" is a lot narrower; but I agree that the Technology development article has similar problems. Wikipedia isn't the place for defining new topic areas -- it's an encyclopedia, it's supposed to give information about already-existing topic areas. If someone out there said, "'World Development' means to this, this, this, this, and this" (and people agreed), then it would make sense to include that here. But that's not the case here. I agree, though, that this article should not be lost; it could be transwikified it to somewhere, or you could even publish it on your own site. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 02:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the vast scope of the subject rather justifies having an article on it, in order to present different scopes, and in a more readable version than a disambiguation page. Sure it may be renamed e.g. Development of the world, so there won't need to be any original research for the name of the article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:54, 6 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, _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unencyclopedic article with original research. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It may have some OR, but it also has WP:RS, so I don't think a complete deletion is the best choise.Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is more like an essay putting different things together than an encyclopedia article. Borock (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree most of it may be found in other articles as well. However, it might take a long time to find it, and some knowledge would be completely lost in a deletion.Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Epitome of WP:OR. The name of the subject is natural history. Potatoswatter (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, according to that article "natural history" is an obsolete usage. So natural science instead, now that the scientific world has moved beyond thinking in terms of creating a history. Potatoswatter (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Again it may have some OR, but it also has WP:RS. Better remove only any OR than everything. Sure World development may be redirected to natural history once this one is moved to something else (like development of the world).Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw and move to "Development of the world": I wasn't really sure whether this should be AfD'd or not from the beginning, since it was a very well put-together and cited article except for the name. I think my biggest problem with the article was that the term "world development", while sounding like it might be a real term used by academics, just seemed to have been pulled out of thin air. Though "Development of the world", which the author proposed, isn't much different, it resolves that problem in my mind. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think we should be considerign the notability of this topic. Off course the information included in the article is notable. But I would like to see secondary sources which justify all the various topics (astronomy, economics etc. ) being justified as a individual topic. Overall this feels like original research in the sense that it puts forward the editors views on what are important developments in the world. What mainly worries me is that there is no objective way of saying what should and should not be apart of this article (e.g should medical breakthroughs, emerging diseases be apart of the article?). In summary, I would like to see references for the introduction, if you want me to change my vote. Ziphon (^ALL_ears) 09:50, 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 merge/redirect the content to No Regret Life. Since there doesn't seem to be anything to merge, though, I'll simply redirect the article leaving the history visible. --jonny-m t 04:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow is the Another Day[edit]

Lacks notability per WP:MUSIC. Fleetflame 03:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is the Article. No reliable sources for this album; fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:51, 7 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)} 03:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: where are the references? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I'm not doing things right as I'm new here. However, I do not see why this article merits deletion for two reasons. First, given that No Regret Life has separate articles for their second and third albums, I do not see why their first cannot. Second, No Regret Life has performed an ending theme for the popular anime Naruto, which satisfies section 10 of WP:MUSIC. As for sources, I do not see the need to cite the album itself as a source. I am open to suggestions on how to improve this article. - Aurum auriga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurum auriga (talk • contribs) 04:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section ten of WP:MUSIC reads, "But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article." Yes, the band's other two albums have articles, but they haven't been around long and shouldn't be here--they probably just got overlooked. I would put any information relevant to this album in No Regret Life. Fleetflame 04:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the case that the separate articles on the other two albums are to be questioned as well, then I would agree on the deletion. The only reason I created the article in the first place was because of the existence of the other articles, so if you say that they shouldn't exist in the first place I see no reason for my article to remain as is. I would be more than willing to incorporate the content in the separate articles on the main one. - Aurum Auriga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurum auriga (talk • contribs) 04:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all their albums into No Regret Life article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the other two album articles into No Regret Life. Fleetflame 00:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect all their albums to No Regret Life. --DAJF (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - per WP:BEFORE. - Neier (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. May I just say that I love the title. If you do too, you might be interested in Kanemura Osamu's book Happiness is a Red before Exploding. The (B/W) photographs in it are pretty good too. -- Hoary (talk) 15:16, 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 Already redirected Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Huffman[edit]

Contains no content that the "casting crowns" article doesn't. My position is blank+redirect Ironho lds 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - non-notable—G716 <^T·_C> 19:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JNN. Please be more detailed. SashaNein (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a musician in a rock band does not imply notability. The article includes nothing to suggest any notability - it is essentially a sub-stub. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 01:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:03, 2 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, _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:MUSIC, "Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band." I can find no evidence that this person has any independent notability—G716 <^T·_C> 03:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unable to have an article on his own. Agreed with G716. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have also listed the other band members for deletion:

—G716 <^T·_C> 04:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:00, 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, substantially the same as May 10th article and nothing has changed that would make that notable now. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Precendent is that if a country did NOT take place in the Eurovision contest, they don't need a page telling you that they didn't. Only other content is WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could this be a G4? The same page was deleted May 10. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does indeed seem like a possible G4. No good content in the article, unsourced, WP:CRYSTAL, etc. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Editors don't need to reserve a spot like this. If and when there is article-worthy content, then create the article. Until then, don't litter the 'pedia with empty cupholders.Professor marginalia (talk) 02:42, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Routemaster Rampage[edit]

Notability not asserted in article, only self-published references and links. Creator with obvious WP:COI. --Latebird (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like it might also be a hoax. I find it hard to believe that one of these buses could make it to Cape Town from London. And how about the expense? It would be better to give the money directly to charity than have the rally. Borock (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not directly hoax, probably intent to have the rally and use wikipedia to get more web hits, but will probably never happen. Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL since no WP:RS. Also page created by Grifco (talk · contribs) who have only contributed to this page and Go help which sponsors this event, so WP:COI as stated in nom. --Stefan ^talk 07:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: how come that the author had indeed conflict of interest? I would like to remain neutral until this question is answered. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 11:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the youtube video linked from the article, then you'll see the same name appear in the intro. It's obvious that this is a SPA created solely to promote Go help and related projects. --Latebird (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI or not, the article seems promotional, I cannot locate any verifiable, third party sources, no evidence of notability, etc. Dlohcierekim 22:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability from WP:RS, appears to be part of a WP:COATRACK with the Go help article. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the word. Dlohcierekim 02:43, 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 00:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Price (Tunnel Ball)[edit]

An (almost) certain hoax. No sources supplied to assert any of the claims made. No evidence of the existence of tunnel ball as an international sport can be found on a quick web search, although I would be happy to be proved wrong. Mattinbgn\^talk 01:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was tempted to speedy delete this, but there was a sufficent claim of notability. The article does appear to either be a hoax or about a non-notable person though. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably WP:COI, created by user:Bazzajim, article states David Price (Bazzajim) implying that it is himself writing, can not even find a article on Tunnel ball and can not find any WP:RS for tunnel ball (should say references as a notable sport does not exists, tunnel ball exists [36] but does not look like a sport with a world champion ship), so should have some kind of hit in google, but I can find none, would agree with speedy. Very likely hoax. --Stefan ^talk 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~G3 No proof that tunnel ball is a sport, no sources, no anything. Very likely hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete Likely hoax, non-notable no matter what. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, eyh, I played tunnel-ball when I was at primary school, but I find it somewhat dubious that it's played professionally. I think it's too plausible to be a G3 though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, per above. Probable hoax, and if not, unreferenced bio of a living person. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Sources first, notable content second, article creation third. Too many junk articles are created when these requirements are implemented in reverse order. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced article about an unnotable person. Probable hoax, too. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. Borock (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete An unreferenced article on a totally unnotable individual. Artene50 (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N: there isn't any assertion of notability, and there is a complete lack of citations. Happyme22 (talk) 23:18, 7 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 requested to be closed by nominator. Non-admin closure. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 14:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATEX directive[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/ATEX directive (2nd nomination)

The article is unencyclopedic and full of jargon -- Npnunda 00:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel, in it's current state it should be deleted. If someone wanted to add it later and rewrite it so it was more like an encyclopedia and less like a work manual that would be fine with me. --Npnunda (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- No reason for deletion stated, seven interwiki links and a external link/reference to a eu page shows notability to me, agree page should be rewritten and improved, but not deleted. The german and polish pages look quite good. All other country pages is called ATEX, maybe should be renamed? --Stefan ^talk 02:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Could be nurtured into a presentable article. It's likely sources are available for this one and the EL offered, while not sufficient by itself, is enough to give credence this is a keep candidate. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with Professor marginalia. If someone wants to write an article about this that makes sense to people that would be great. There is Stefan a reason stated for the article to be deleted as in It's current form it is Unencyclopedic which if you check WP:AFD is why I nominated the article. I have no problem removing the request if someone honestly intends to rewrite it. It just doesn't seem to be happening. --Npnunda (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK sorry, let me clarify what I mean, your reason for deletion is 'unencyclopedic and full of jargon' as far as I understand it we discuss topics, not articles, i.e. we delete articles on Unencyclopedic topics, not topics written in an unencyclopedic style. The current ATEX directive is written in an unencyclopedic style, I agree, but as far as I know there is no policy that states it is a reason for deletion, (if I'm wrong please give a me link since I have missed that policy), the topic is I think encyclopedic and notable and should therefore not be deleted. It is not interesting and it is questionable if it will ever be much improved (maybe this AFD will improve it), I agree, but this is WIKIpedia which means we keep such content for anyone to improve and do not put a time line on when it must be improved or we will delete it. (maybe I'm wrong??? but that is what I though). If you really mean that the topic is unencyclopedic then please state how you mean that (i.e. which criteria), do you consider this topic to be a manual or what other criteria do you mean? I really do not understand. IF we really delete badly written articles this should be deleted, but as a topic I think it should stay. --Stefan ^talk 03:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an article with insufficient context. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Stefan I think we have some neutral ground here. Here is where I agree with you. I agree that ATEX directive is notable. I also feel the same way you do when you say hopfully someday the article will be improved. Maybe from this AFD. My problem with the current "article" being in an encyclopedia is that it reads like a work manual. WP:NOTMANUAL I actually wrote that in my comment just before the Professor wrote his. I also don't see where it talks about what ATEX Directive really is beyond the first sentence. I mean it seems to talk about things other than Apex like explosions etc. Sure, explosions are related but that's not what the APEX directive is. If an article does not talk about It's subject beyond the first sentence it should be deleted or we are misleading people who expect to read about APEX directive article. I think that fits under Wikipedia's guidelines. WP:DEL#REASON If somebody truly wants to rewrite it, It would be great. In It's current form I think it should be deleted. --Npnunda (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree that it is a problem with the article, but I still do not agree that it is a reason to delete it, just to improve it, if only the first sentence is relevant then delete all but the first sentence, do not nominate it for AFD. But never mind, I have now tried to address your issues, i.e. describe WHAT the APEX directive is and word it less like an manual and more like a encyclopedic article. You issue with jargon I can not fix, I only tried to wikify a bit more, but again that is not a reason to delete. I do not think that this falls under WP:NOTMANUAL or insufficient context. --Stefan ^talk 07:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on deletion, but definitely don't speedy delete: there's plenty of context. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Badly written articles have never been a reason for deletion, nor has lack of context. These things can be fixed and the correct action according to the deletion policy is to place approriate tags on the article. It is not even right to specify keep on condition it is improved, it should be left and editors will improve when they have time/inclination/knowledge. The subject is clearly notable, as a piece of EU legislation in itself, because of the large number of businesses it effects (flour mills for instance - this is not just petrochemicals and the military) and because the public rightly have a concern over potential explosions. I find it incredible that the debate here is not more decisive. SpinningSpark 17:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- After reading the newly written version of the article and doing a little research on the subject. Stefan you have convinced me. Let's keep the article and close the AFD. --Npnunda (talk) 00:19, 8 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, merge discussion now underway. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment and protective systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Equipment and protective systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres (2nd nomination)

Article is full of jargon and Unencylopedic. -- Npnunda 00:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge No satisfactory reason to delete is provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article seems like it could be cleaned up, especially if it's a Europe-wide standard. However, this may be the most awkward article title I've ever seen. TN‑X-Man 14:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Intrinsic safety. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete because none of the information can be verified unless there are reliable sources, which the article lacks. The content is well written (although wikilinks are needed) but citations need to be added. Happyme22 (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article for deletion. I now feel it should be Merged with ATEX directive.--Npnunda (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already merged all content I though was suitable to ATEX directive, suggest redirect even though this is a very cumbersome name that will hardly be used and not missed much if deleted ... :-) --Stefan ^talk 01:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as no valid criterion for deletion has been mentioned. Ford MF (talk) 23:38, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Bianchi[edit]

Lots of David Bianchi's, but this manager and former band member doesn't get many Ghits, so I'd say he fails WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. He played with some notable bands, but it looks like he was mostly a guest or touring musician, not a full-fledged band member[37]. Pburka (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion tag has been removed. Vandalism? Rdbrewster♪♫♪ 16:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not in the history, so Twinkle may just have hiccuped. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:V. Notability is asserted but cannot be verified without reliable, third-party citations. Happyme22 (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete number of Google hits is not a reliable metric for notability. However, I did not find significant coverage by verifiable, reliable sources. Willing to keep an open mind, if someone can find somthing.Cheers Dlohcierekim 21:55, 8 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 Dragon Ball Z Hit Song Collection 16: We Gotta Power. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Gotta Power[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, unnotable single opening theme. Being a theme song of Dragon Ball Z does not make it notable. Failed PROD. Prod removed for no stated reason. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, meets WP:MUSIC#C10, but that's it. So as per WP:MUSIC, redirect back to Dragon Ball Z Hit Song Collection 16: We Gotta Power. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:MUSIC#C10 only applies to musicians, singers, and bands, but not to individual songs. --Farix (Talk) 16:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey, it does too. How silly of me. Cheers for pointing that out. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I've always hated this song. Redirect seems to be the likely outcome, and merge anything that isn't already on Dragon Ball Z Hit Song Collection 16: We Gotta Power. — _Maggot^Syn 13:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragon Ball Z Hit Song Collection 16: We Gotta Power. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragon Ball Z Hit Song Collection 16: We Gotta Power. Happyme22 (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems like the best solution. And yeah, this song sucks hard. JuJube (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:52, 8 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 23:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gothtronic[edit]

This seems like maybe a bit of an overly specialized combination of musical genres to have its own article. I also can't turn up many mentions of the term as a musical genre on Google, so this doesn't seem like an established genre to me. Also, article is entirely unreferenced and probably original research. tgies (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the nom pretty much summed it up. A google search turns up nothing, which leads me to believe it is, in fact, based off of OR. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom DA PIE EATER (talk) 20:51, 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.

Frank Evers[edit]

The result was keep. Artist has won a major award, other vandalism has been removed. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 20:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Frank Evers

Article fails to make adquate assertions of notability Benon (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, article used to be about a cartoonist, and over the course of May, became about a totally different Frank. —97198 talk 03:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I reverted the hijack by the logistics specialist, which was shoehorned into this article inappropriately. The cartoonist has won a significant professional award, so despite its stub status, I think he should stay. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He used to draw for New York Daily News, he's won several awards in his field, seems notable. WilliamH (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established. — _Maggot^Syn 13:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Won a major award and it appears that Dhartung has cleared up the other confusion. TN‑X-Man 14:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Maxa megalon 2000 16:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and expand per Dhartung. This is a cartoonist who's won a notable award. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:52, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koboi labs[edit]

Recommending deletion. This was a contested speedy deletion. The article is about a non-notable fictional company in Artemis Fowl (series). Unfortunately, I don't see how a fictional company is covered in the CSD, so I'm nominating it here, just in case. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete this just because you don't know what its about! Others do and need this information. [redacted personal attack Dlohcierekim 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.33.180 (talk • contribs) [reply]

I would like to note that this anon IP modified the nomination to remove my claim the subject is non-notable. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they could get this info just by reading the books. Come to think of it, the scarcity of blogs and forums about this lead me deeper into thinking it is non-notable. Dlohcierekim 21:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested the community's belssing to remove the comment added by this anon IP as a personal attack (an epithet against persons with disabilities) at the Wikiquette alerts board. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In-universe treatment of nonnotable element of fictional work. No evidence of reliable secondary sources that would establish notability. Deor (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have read the series and to be honest anything about this company can be easily covered in the main Artemis Fowl article. -- Roleplayer (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No outside sources, and anything important is covered in the main article. Vaguely (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Info. Cited from Artemis Fowl: The Graphic Novel," = original research. Among the 61 Google hits, I saw a couple of essays for sale (for term papers), blogs, plot summaries. I do not see significant media coverage or real world significance. Google scholar gave me nothing, as did Google news. I was going to suggest merge and redirect, but I don't think that's necessary-- all we have here is plot summary/in universe stuff. Dlohcierekim 21:24, 8 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 A7, no meaningful assertion of significance in text but this is also a G11, blatant COI advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reflection Velocity‎[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Reflection Velocity

Recommending deletion. This is a music group that, as far as I can tell, fails WP:MUSIC, however the article's creator claims that the commercial release of the artist's music on iTunes and similar services constitutes notability. This was nominated ‎for speedy under CSD A7, however the article's creator contests it. I felt that, under the circumstances, a nomination here was appropriate. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC & WP:RS. And as per WP:CHART, iTunes does not establish notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 per tag already placed on page. Just releasing an album on iTunes doesn't make you notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to concur. Will let it be for now in case something turns up. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to locate anything to suggest meeting WP:Music Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18:18, 7 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.