< October 13	October 15 >

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Schanley[edit]

non notable actor. Has had many minor roles in television (see imdb) Honey And Thyme (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Bad Faith~~ nomination by an account that was created only today. When the nom's apparent SPA activity was brought into question, the account began nominating other articles so as to not appear a SPA. Intersting that a new account knows how to nominate an article, but does not notify any of the contributors to said article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe it informs me how to nominate an article for deletion on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion page. I also believe all my nominations so far are worthy of deletion, but that is for the discussion to decide. Honey And Thyme (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I don't see a conspiracy at work here--the actor in question obviously lacks notability, as is evidenced by the lack of external references (and I couldn't find any either). The 'bad faith' appellation is thrown around too easily, sometimes. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nom's very first act... before making a spelling correction... before adding a source to an article... before making a comment at a discussion... before asking a question of another editor... before themself partcipating in an AfD discussion... was to nominate an article for AfD. Not quite what is seen from a newcomer to Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is why I struck my comment. I think it is difficult to reward what is questionable activities, and this circumstance is questionable. If the article is that bad, someone else will nominate. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The guy has done a LOT of small roles, and I was a bit surprised I couldn't find anything about him at all. 1700 ghits of blank pages and script capture pages, and nothing that was even remotely borderline wp:rs. Nothing about him interesting that even failed wp:rs. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep after second, then third consideration. Based on argument and sources provided by Phil Bridger. Regardless of other issues, appears to be notable, verifiable and sourcable. I knew even then that the guy had done too many roles to not be notable, I just didn't find the sources myself. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is consensually accepted that IMDb by itself is not enough for WP:BLP articles. This lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Hence my delete !vote. JBsupreme (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS. Plain and simple. Undead Warrior (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News [1] and Google Books [2] searches demonstrate that the subject "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions", to quote WP:ENTERTAINER. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as pointed out by Phil Bridger, there appears to be plenty of coverage in Google news. They are behind pay walls but summaries such as "Keith MacKechnie and Tom Schanley are hilarious as a pair of card- playing, epithet-spewing racists who have a complaint and a one-liner about everything ..." indicate coverage about actor and his work. -- Whpq (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It definitely requires ((expand))ing, and ((refimprove))ing but, if sources can be found that confirm the recurring roles in multiple shows than it may in fact scrape the barrel on notability and verifiability but, the article could contain both and IMDB doesn't cut it on it's own. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above it does need expanding, but the actor in question appears vaguely notable, and I have doubts over the motivations of the nominator. Bob talk 10:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per work by Phil Bridger. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the Google news link, in addition to all the 10-25 years ago acting reviews, I even found a couple listings of Tom Schanley as a script writer for upcoming feature films. He may be notable for more than just acting. Felisse (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete, A1. While only two people weighed in on this discussion, this article had no context whatsoever and appeared to have been cut-and-pasted from somewhere, hence the speedy. Blueboy 96 04:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sing to The World Tour 2010/11[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sing to The World Tour 2010/11

If someone can figure out a good speedy argument, feel free. Pure crystal. Year of this supposed tour isn't known, nor is the name of the album it is theoretically in support of. —Kww(talk) 23:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL by a long shot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unsourced speculation -- Whpq (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Blueboy 96 04:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Scherer[edit]

non notable actress with only very minor roles Honey And Thyme (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep and request Admin closure of a ~~Bad Faith~~ nomination by an account that was created only today. When the nom's apparent SPA activity was brought into question, the account began nominating other articles so as to not appear a SPA. Intersting that a new account knows how to nominate an article, but does not notify any of the contributors to said article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that the timeline of the nom's account creation and activies since then are a bit odd, as he has only gone on an afd tear, but need more info if you can. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure wish I could give you more, but I'm not a checkuser. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Just as in the other AFD, I won't !vote simply because there is reason to question the activies of the nominator, and I don't want to reward those activities. If the article was that bad, someone else would have (will) renominate. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--lacks notability: I can't find anything but a tiny little bit on IMDB and a Facebook page. There's no notability here. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The nom's very first act... before making a spelling correction... before adding a source to an article... before making a comment at a discussion... before asking a question of another editor... before themself partcipating in an AfD discussion... was to nominate an article for AfD. Not quite what is seen from a newcomer to Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The provisional keep !vote is bogus. Either the deletion has merit, or it doesn't. This one does (due to lack of non-trivial coverage by third party sources). I trust the closing administrator can make the right decision based on the strength of the arguments presented on the whole rather than how new the (single-purposed) nominator's account is. JBsupreme (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much as I hate to delete someone with such memorable roles (per IMDb) as "Woman in Bar" and "Blonde" (in two different shows; a cross-over!)... the nom does have a point. --GRuban (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - her film work as documented in IMDB is unremarkable, but she has received coverage for her one-man play [3], [4], as well as being noticed when making her local theatre debut [5]. However, the coverage is not substantial enough to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Blueboy 96 04:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Schmidt[edit]

non-notable actor Honey And Thyme (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and request Admin closure of a Bad Faith nomination by an account that was created only today. When the nom's apparent SPA activity was brought into question, the account began nominating other articles so as to not appear a SPA. Intersting that a new account knows how to nominate an article, but does not notify any of the contributors to said article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Okay... one actually non-notable out of the pile of nominations... but did anyone consider [6][7][8][9] might offer WP:ATD? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it's questionable, but in this case I don't know that the article warrants keeping. Anyway, let's watch the contribs for a while and see if there are any identifiable patterns. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe we all agree on this one... — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please pardon me if the standards for actors are different, but is a single IMDB link combined with unreferenced assertions of having minor rôles in a few films sufficient to establish notability? Delete simply as a nonnotable person, regardless of the nominator's quality or lack thereof. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But a search finds other sources that confirm the IMDB. If IMDB informatons can not be confirmed elsewhere, than they should be used. Yes, the article only had onse source... but that does not mean others might not be available... and WP:ATD urges a proper search before nominating. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please WP:AGF there is nothing "bad faith" about this nomination. Does the subject lack non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources? If the answer to that is yes then the correct action is to delete the article. Period. JBsupreme (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JB supreme. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced and nonnotable. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is actually a bit misleading as the subject is better known as a comedian rather than an actor. However, there aren't any reliable sources writing about him that I could find, although show annoucements were common. -- Whpq (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly non-notable. Someone should WP:SNOW this. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we should hold off on SNOW for the moment considering the fact that the nom didn't bother to notify the creator of this article, nor the creators of any of the other "people with surnames starting with Sch" biographies he's nominated. I'll be letting them know shortly. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 09:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Malkin[edit]

No evidence of notability. Nothing shows up on google and he has competed in one triathlon, where he ranked 45 out of 104. Possibly an amateur event. Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 23:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm surprised it's survived this long. As I said in the PROD, no indication of notability. The races don't seem to be notable, and he hasn't done that well in them anyway. The "Personal Life" section suggests this is a joke on some friend of the creator. —KCinDC (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree--no notability, and it seems a joke more than anything else. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Jll (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. While I agree that the sub-lists by genre are shaky at best, they should be separately (and collectively) nominated, with no effect on this list. The ability to organize this large body of work with an index is exactly what a digital encyclopedia is all about. As was pointed out below, redlinks are where (at least some) articles are born. I note that my personal opinion is often to delete indiscriminate lists, but I also note that this list does not appear to be indiscriminate, and the consensus below does not support deletion. Finally, I think this encyclopedia will never be done - but that's not a reason to stop trying. This list is an effort at furthering the encyclopedia; if it hasn't received the attention it deserves, perhaps that is a reason to template it with a request for expert assistance, or possibly even rescue. Frank | talk 16:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of solo piano pieces[edit]

There are millions of piano pieces. There is no reason to have this article, especially when most pieces themselves are not notable enough to have a wikipedia entry. In addition, the sub pages (solo piano pieces from France, etc.) have no business being on WP. Timneu22 (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--per nom. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are millions of these, and I played over 9000 of them when I was a piano student. Most of them were just one-offs by most likely red link composers. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just about all the links on this page are links to other pages that should also be deleted, in my opinion. What is the process? Does each page have to be individually nominated for deletion? This seems like an awful long process — I don't know how these pages got started but this is certainly not wikipedia's standard practice. Timneu22 (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I frankly see no reason to delete this. The nominated page is an organizational page for a series of lists. Picking a letter at random, it leads to List of solo piano pieces by composer: H. On that page I see no red links for "non notable" compositions; and frankly I suspect that most of Haydn's piano sonatas have enough published commentary that they'd all potentially meet our criteria anyway. Nor do I see minor composers appearing on the sublists either, none that I've visited at any rate. I frankly do not understand the problem. The nomination appears to relate to a series of articles other than the one you actually see here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is based on the fact that this article is a list of lists. Further, what is the criteria for getting on this list? Should we go through every solo piano album ever produced? I just cannot see how this article or the articles in its contents are relevant for Wikipedia. If anything, there should be a category that includes this, but certainly not an article. Timneu22 (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a list of lists. I still don't understand why that makes it worthy of deletion.

Criteria for getting on the list seems to follow from the content found on the sublists. Those lists appear to list the solo piano compositions of notable, article worthy composers, organized first by composer, and then alphabetically and by country. The nominated article collects links to those subpages

Again the nomination and comments seem to be addressing some hypothetical list of all solo piano pieces, instead of the actual content on these pages. I agree that an attempt to list every piece for solo piano ever written by hundreds of forgotten composers might be a daunting task to maintain (though even that may not make it worthy of deletion). But this is not that list. Moreover, notability is assumed: a title like "lists of solo piano pieces by notable composers" is unnecessary. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, severely indiscriminate list. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerdis. There seems to be a misunderstanding - this isn't a list of all solo piano pieces ever, merely the notable ones. And there is nothing wrong with organizing notable piano pieces. --GRuban (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful navigational list that helps readers find information. This is perfectly acceptable per WP:LIST, and is discriminate in that the eventual targets of the links are notable solo piano pieces, not the millions of unnotable ones. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What determines if a piece is notable? Timneu22 (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand WP:N, but I am saying that the qualifications for a Solo Piano Piece's notability is really quite subjective. Do you list every Beethoven sonata? Every Chopin polka? Only the popular ones? What is popular? I think this page lends itself to lots of wikijunk. Timneu22 (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. I think describing Beethoven sonatas as "wikijunk" just tripped the Wikipedia equivalent of Godwin's Law or something - one pool of hungry crocodiles awaits. For what it's worth, we have a whole Category:Piano sonatas by Ludwig van Beethoven, complete, with a full article for each one. And a template for them, Template:Beethoven piano sonatas. I strongly don't recommend you nominate them for deletion as well. Mercy. --GRuban (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The GRuban comment takes MY previous comment completely out of context. I'm saying that people will list all sorts of random pieces and junk up wikipedia. As an example, do we add every piano piece by these pianists? I don't think there is a good spot to draw the line when it comes to this list. You cite the Category:Piano sonatas by Ludwig van Beethoven category and I believe this is correct Wiki behavior; why do we also need to have a list of pieces if we have the category? But really, my question centers around where do we draw the line. Every piece by all those jazz pianists should not be on wikipedia, but this list and its sublists suggest they should be. Timneu22 (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because a category organizes things one way, and a list another. ... these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. There's a whole guideline about that. There are plenty of more lists organizing the same pieces, by the way: List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven, and List of sonatas, just to name two. We have no shortage of space. If the information is notable, organizing it in multiple ways is perfectly fine. As for the list lending itself to cruft, every article on the Wikipedia lends itself to cruft, all the time. Any proud Austrian kid can at any time go to the Ludwig van Beethoven article, and add multiple sentences about some restaurant that proudly bears "Beethoven ate here" on a sign on its wall, and another few about his uncle Johann's story about being Ludwig's eighteenth great-grand-cousin-twice-removed. If lending itself to junk were a reason for deletion, we'd have to delete the whole Wikipedia. --GRuban (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    
    I just disagree. There is no way this list or its sublists will ever include every relevant piece of solo piano music. I cannot think of a time when someone would be looking for this information, either. Timneu22 (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the arguments of Phil Bridger and GRuban. Although I generally cringe at lists, and lists of lists as a concept somewhat unnerves me in an M.C. Escher meets The Twilight Zone way, I think the goal behind this particular instance is very worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia -- in fact I'd go so far as to say that this sort of list is one of the many reasons why non-digital encyclopedias are so inferior to Wikipedia: namely, the ability to be a concordance AND an encyclopedia at the same time is unwieldy in a physical format, but here we have the joy of digital storage. Cheers! JasonDUIUC (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the lists on this list contain the redlinks by which articles are born, and this is one of the purposes of lists; another is that they can annotate in a way categories cannot. Did I read that not every Beethoven sonata is notable? I hope that was a misprint. Oh, and if Chopin wrote any polkas, that would be notable indeed. :) Antandrus (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is clear now that the lists will probably be kept. Good luck policing all of them. No one has yet answered where the line is drawn. (I never suggested that Beethoven's sonatas did not belong.) I just ask this... let me pick a random artist: is every Jim Brickman piano piece notable, and why? This is just a single example of a fairly well-known artist who has released a number of albums. I want to know how this will be policed. Timneu22 (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all of the keep arguments above, especially that of GRuban. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another hodgepodge, randomly assembled list. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orderman[edit]

This is an advertisement. No other pages link to it, and it includes such terms as "world leader" and "market leader". This is blatant advertising. Timneu22 (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--indeed, advertisement, as blatant as it comes. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to do nothing but promote the stated company. MvjsTalking 08:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No !vote as yet because I haven't researched this, but I would like to point out that it's perfectly acceptable to have such terms as "world leader" and "market leader" in an article if they are verifiable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cathal Crowe[edit]

Not notable. Wholly fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 09:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, subject doesn't seem to meet general WP:BIO criteria (while has a few mentions in local papers/etc, coverage doesn't seem to be "significant"). Also not satisfying WP:POLITICIAN as a "first level office holder" (subject is 2nd level office holder). If a reliable secondary source confirmed "youngest councillor" claim, MAY be notable. (Maybe). Otherwise fails => delete. Guliolopez (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, i think it smells COI advertising. --Soman (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no COI involved here, just someone with a keen interest in politics and admire this particlar politician given his young age and what he has done for his community. I have tried to make more references in the article and will certainly try to find a reference confirming that he was the youngest elected county councillor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dub2405 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISurv1vor[edit]

Article about web content (online game) of dubious notability per WP:WEB, with no reliable third party source to establish notability Boffob (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While there currently is not much content on this page, I hope to change that in the near future by calling upon several people to help me add information to the page. Online reality games have become a prominent fixture in the world of gaming on the internet. They're not "real" shows, but the way they're crafted and run make them as "real" as possible. iSurv1vor is one of the more prominent of these online reality games on the internet today, and I feel it deserves a page to detail and chart its great progress over the past several years.Onetz53 (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Onetz53 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Utter failure of notability by presenting no independent coverage of the game. If this is a "more prominent" online game, there would be coverage of it in the media to support that assertion. The lack of reliable sources also means that there's not much that can be done to verify the article. The article is just one notch away from being a speedy deletion candidate. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So just because there's no "media coverage" of iSurv1vor, the article is a total bust and should be deleted? I say it's "more prominent" than other games for several reasons. There are hardly any other ORG's currently out there that are entering their 10th season. The iSurv1vor group on Facebook has amassed an amazing community of nearly 100 former and potential players. There's just an exuberance surrounding this game and this series and I really do believe it deserves a place at Wikipedia to detail it for fellow gamers and potential gamers. Onetz53 (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can we verify that it's the only ORG in its tenth season - or for that matter, that it's actually in its tenth season? As for the following, every community on Facebook with 100 people does not get its own article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and C.Fred. Non-notable online game. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verifiable, third-party sources establishing notability of this game. The article's creator also has a conflict of interest with the subject, as the article's creator is also the copyright holder of the images shown in the article. MuZemike (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep What is a "notable third-party source" for a online game? Specially if it's not commercial, it not gains cover in the press (just because it's not a awarded title or like). The game is notable simply because is a one-of-kind.MRFraga (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things on the web are one-of-a-kind; not all of them are notable enough for an article. Notable web content either has gotten the independent coverage, has gotten an independent and well-respected award, or is distributed by somebody else. iSurv1vor meets none of the specific criteria, nor does it meet the general criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Proof" that iSurv1vor has currently been around for 9 seasons: http://www.geocities.com/mummball/fiji.html http://www.geocities.com/mummball/patagonia.html http://www.geocities.com/surv1vor3/greekIsles.html http://www.geocities.com/surv1vor4/china.html http://www.geocites.com/surv1vor5/egypt.html http://www.geocities.com/surv1vor6/cambodia.html http://isurv1vor7.proboards41.com/index.cgi http://isurv1vor8.proboards42.com/index.cgi http://isurv1vor9peru.proboards85.com/index.cgi

As far as "proving" that other games rarely reach 10 seasons, all you have to do is scroll through the listings at either ORG Reloaded (http://orgreloaded.com/indexs/survivor_casting_php.php) or Fantasy Games Central (http://fantasygamescentral.yuku.com/forums/67/t/Advertise.html) and you'll see that the vast majority are random, new series that honestly won't last more than a couple seasons (if even that). These two websites are probably the most major sources of ORG casting. ORGs hit their hay-day five or so years ago when shows like Survivor were still fairly new, so for a current series to still be going strong from that time period is pretty "notable" to me.

I think to simply ignore the facet of ORG gaming across the internet doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. It's real, it's fascinating, it's fun. So why not include it on Wikipedia? Onetz53 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you of the reliable source guideline, "It's unknown here, so include it", and "those are popular pages". Please re-read the basic Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability. MuZemike (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whilst I appreciate that the article hasn't had much time to develop, only 19 ghits suggest that this game does not currently meet the notability threshold for inclusion (WP:N) Marasmusine (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not much is available in the way of reliable source material. See Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. This seems to be a misunderstanding between reliable sources and Wikipedia reliable sources. -- Suntag ☼ 12:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amidst the Bloodshed[edit]

Non-notable album from a redlinked band. The PROD template was removed by the article's original author. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a chance will yah? I'm working on the article, but you guy's won't let me and it may not be notable, but I'm working on the problem right now,—I expanding it—and well I'm well aware of it being from a red linked article, but, I think if someone helped...well actually, if someone actually edited the article with me more, then it wouldn't be considered for deletion. So, please give me a chance...Give the article a chance...it may need work, but I think it shouldn't be deleted. So please don't delete! [[ User ]] (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Album by red link band, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't speedy delete Now it's got sources, view here, and well, I added them, but I'm looking for, so just too let you know, I'm not going to respond as much to the messages you or anybody gives if it involves this article, unless on the articles talkpage. [[ User ]] (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I agree with the Hammer and his otters. No notability (yet), and not very well written. Even given that there's less coverage for metal in the mainstream media than for other genres, this is simply not enough. "By a reviewer named" says it all, I think. Who is this reviewer? Etc. Delete. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: If you guy's and women wants it to be notable, then do it yourself. I'm angry at you users: you want Amidst the Bloodshed to be notable, but you guy's are relying on a regular user. I'm ashamed, I'm really ashamed on want you users are doing: you are abusing them. Making users do it themself, well then, I'm angry at you guy's, because I'm trying to satisfy you guy's and you are shunning into the wall, like you using me. I'm sick of that, I'm pushed around all day, I'm very angry at everyone and everything. And you guy's call youself helpful, I am really ashamed. You guy's should work on Amidst the Bloodshed instead of me. [[ User ]] (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have been trying to work. I did a good-faith search for sources and found none. The fact that the band is a red link doesn't help things. In fact, since the band is a red link and there's no valid assertation of notability, I feel that the album meets the newly created criterion for non-notable albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Synergy 04:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kijevo, East Sarajevo[edit]

An unremarkable village. No sources, and only one line of information. LAA Fan^sign _review 21:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but source. According to WP:OUTCOMES, places are notable by default. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Villages are inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real places are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, villages are notable on Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that the original editor has removed the deletion notice from this page. I'm restoring it. --Lockley (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Places are inherently notable no matter the remarkablity. Mvjs Talking 09:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of The Dogg[edit]

Unsourced article on forthcoming album. No independent reliable sources provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability in article, WP:CRYSTAL issues.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 11 October 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 21:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cant see anything that would indicate this is anything but a hoax. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Notability is there, just needs content. Tagged with ((expand)) also. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Louise Boyvin d'Hardancourt Brillon de Jouy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Anne Louise Boyvin d'Hardancourt Brillon de Jouy

Independent notability not established; neither being an aristocrat nor a friend of someone famous is adequate for this- notability is not inherited. Playing the harpsichord, however well, does not satisfy WP:MUSICIAN on its own, although I'm sure she could lay down a mean riff. Rodhull andemu 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not at all knowledgeable with the notability guidelines for composers (although, I did just now read them); and do not believe I can make a valid argument either way. I do note that she is mentioned in the Norton Grove Dictionary of Women Composers, but I don't know how to interpret the "reasonable length" criterion of the notability guidelines. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google Books search [10] would appear to indicate that she was a notable composer/musician in her day, and notability does not expire. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for expansion -- This article is little more than an unreferenced stub. It is categorised as "Women composers", but the text does not even state that she was a composer. Her relationship with Franklin is interesting, but does not establish her notability (and that is all the article covers so far). However, her status as a composer might do so. Her appearance in Grove is probably an indication that she is notable, but the article does not deal with that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supersweet[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable magazine. No sources found, just false positives. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:47, 10 October 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 21:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created by a Supersweet-article-writing-only account, and still has a heavily promotional tone 22 months later. -Haikon 06:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dračí doupě[edit]

Fails notability since September 2007. Check talk page about some sources, but they don't look satisfying. Magioladitis (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has anyone who speaks Slovak or Czech been asked about this? Both languages have significant articles on this game; although I definitely don't know anything about their notability policies, it seems that an article on this game could reasonably be written using their sources. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 14 October 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 21:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 21:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 21:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also notified the Czech WikiProject to get some input. TravellingCari
Keep I don't think this game necessarily fails the notability guidelines for games. It's been the subject of several published works and has been in print for 18 years. It seems notable enough that English speakers would occasionally encounter it and want to look it up, but without speaking Czech that's hard to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haikon (talk • contribs) 06:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual parts of the "Dračí doupě" were reissued many times and in many variants in Czech Republic.[11]

The game is popular up to now, mainly among Czech teenagers . Moreover, the article is accurate, although it doesn´t cite any sources. Agree with Haikon, occasionally may be useful for English speakers.--Vejvančický (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is probably the most played RPG game in the Czech Republic (by virtue of being the first on the market) but ... the current article is just a very shallow overview of the game plus the list of available characters (Czech Wikipedia article grew into low quality how-to guide). It does not provide encyclopedically useful information as who, when, why or how many. Wikipedia will get better, not worse by deleting this text. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current quality of the article is not a reason for its deletion, in fact, your arguments seem more for keeping the article than for deleting it. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 04:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion keeping the current text would more likely discourage and scare potential contributors than to encourage them to improve it. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suel Forrester[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of SNL. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above--same rationale, but try to find some way to review these systematically. DGG (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to merge. Wikipedia is not a directory of every sketch character created on SNL. Some are more famous than others and should be covered in proportion to their exposure in secondary sources. The three gnews hits that come up all make the same one sentence comment about the character in a biographical sketch about Kattan. I'm not inclined to feel that is more than trivial coverage. Protonk (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 11 October 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 21:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with Protonk to the extent Wikipedia no need to have content about every sketch in every show covered here. But for some shows, there is in fact need. The show in question is Saturday Night Live, one of the key shows in the genre. For the most important shows, we should have such content--content, not articles. . Again, Protonk is right that here is not enough notability for a separate article; but there does have to be for content in an article. DGG (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need to merge or redirect. Not every character has to have a redirect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marina da Glória[edit]

POVy description of a non-notable place. Damiens.rf 00:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like part of a race? There's nothing to demonstrate notability here. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 14 October 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 20:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I'm with Nyttend (again): no notability, no references. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge / redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Knight[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A fictional character in a long standing soap opera with no real world information. Article consists 99% of plot. No references of third party sources (in fact no references at all). Article created before character appears in the show (see WP:RECENTISM. Fails notability (see also WP:FICTION). The only facts worth are already in wikipedia in List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters. No reason to create another article just to put unverifiable, unreferenced plot summaries, minor than these appearing in the B&B storylines.Article was deleted in June 8 and recreated some days later with the same content. Unfortunately, I discovered that after nomination for Afd. Maybe db-repost could apply as well back in July. Magioladitis (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a combination article The existence of a separate article is not justified, but a combination one is. The existing list that the nom. mentions is a bare listing giving the name of the character and the actor, without the slightest mention of the role in the story. This is not adequate information. In a sense this argument is moot, because regardless of the decision here --even a G4--there is no reason not to add information to the list, or to make a combination article for recurring characters. It's a pity content disputes end up here. Plot summaries are of course verifiable and referenceable from the primary work,so the objections of the nom to a combination article does not hold. At worst, this should be a redirect, and the nomination mentions no reason why not to do it. The last few weeks has seen a significant unwarranted change in the purpose of AfD--instead of discussing whether to delete articles, we are discussing whether the merge or redirect them. According to policy, this is not the right place. DGG (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we have a redirect for every character that appears in the show? Moreover, this article was deleted and recreated against consensus, with the content, a week after its deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:17, 11 October 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 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--non-notable, and incredibly wordy. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Delete and/or) redirect Nonnotable and unduely plot-heavy. Redirection still allows interested editors to merge (although its easier to just come up with something new and shorter) but also actively discourages recreation for ooh-a-redlink newbies. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge and redirect to Full Moon wo Sagashite. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ginyuu Meika[edit]

Fails notability since September 2007. Articles is unreferenced as well. Magioladitis (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The article says that it is a 1-chapter 1-shot bonus in another manga, so merge it there. --Gwern (contribs) 23:53 11 October 2008 (GMT)
Merge and redirect to Full Moon wo Sagashite per reasoning given by Gwern. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:07, 12 October 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 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people of Indian origin to be featured on the cover page of Time magazine[edit]

Although I can see how this list could be interesting, I do not see evidence of third-party coverage of the topic to confer notability on this list. I must conclude that this is a "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization", as listed at what Wikipedia is not. Orlady (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial intersection. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lists should be discouraged; this one in particular is not worth having. Timneu22 (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while lists should not be discouraged (see WP:CLN), this particular list is trivial. Otto4711 (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, it is interesting as trivia. No, it does not meet Wikipedia article standards. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the classic indiscriminate list, with no details about any of the persons on the list other than that they were (a) on the cover of an issue of TIME and (b) of Indian origin. The only item of interest is the "unknown Dalit woman who carries human excreta on her head as a means of livelihood" and has been on the cover of TIME magazine, two things that I'm certain that I will never accomplish. Mandsford (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 2, 5, 8, and 9. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cake Bake Betty[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinity Cat Recordings. G4 or not? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:Music specifies that if a band has had a publication in a notable magazine or other publication. Cake Bake Betty had an article written on it by SUPERSWEET a notable magazine. Also toured with Be Your Own Pet a notable band. Clearly fits WP:Music under these two points. --St.daniel ^Talk 15:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've never heard of either SUPERSWEET or Be Your Own Pet, let alone Cake Bake Betty BMW(drive) 23:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect I doubt that I've heard of every notable band that exists in the world but that does not nessecarily effect their notability --St.daniel ^Talk 23:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 10 October 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 20:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I acknowledge the above. It was more of a rhetorical comment in the grand scheme of things. I still say delete due to lack of notability, which I have spent a couple of days trying to determine BMW(drive) 20:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again. Same reasons as last time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--very POVy, not very well written--and Supersweet itself is nominated for deletion. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Tim Hughes. As Deiz mentions, nothing to merge here (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Voice, One Heart[edit]

Non-notable, non-charting charity single. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Tim Hughes. Schuym1 (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tim Hughes. While it is referenced, sort of, there is not enough to establish individual notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, could be very briefly mentioned at Tim Hughes if appropriately sourced, but nothing to "merge". Deiz talk 01:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Terry Deary. Frank | talk 17:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master Crook’s Crime Academy[edit]

Article about a series of unpublished books. Only one of the twelve has even got a title. Publication dates out to August 2012 are listed, but "may change dramatically as they have not been written yet." No source is cited. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for this kind of speculation: see also WP:BK#Not yet published books: "Articles about books that are not yet published are strongly discouraged." At most this merits a mention in the author's article. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is crystal ballery at its epitome. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I editied it a bit, making it filled with more complete fluid sentences rather than just random information, and cutting it down solely to stuff that has already happened. I guess I've done all I can the the information I had. If its still not good enough, then by all means, delete it.--Coin945 (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source for the information I suggest you add a note of this forthcoming series to the author's article, and wait till there is more solid information for a separate article on the series. JohnCD (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THe only two places I could find that included this series on the internet lie in these two sites. Are they good enough for mention on Terry Deary's site on Wikipedia? [12] [13]

Just quicly searching around now, I found worse sources but sources nonetheless at: [14][15][16][17][18][19]

If any of these sites make it any more worthwhile to include, then please notify me and I will. If not, then also notify me and I will wait until enough of the series has been released to make the article worthwhile. Thanks.--Coin945 (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think your references (1) and (2) are good enough to justify a reference in the Terry Deary article, but per WP:BK#Not yet published books I should wait till the first one is published to make an article about the new series. JohnCD (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll wait until the first of the books are released. Even though I've been editing Wikipedia for quite a while, there are a few things I'm still not quite sure about, and this is one of them. Thanks.--Coin945 (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terry Deary. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete, please see talk page for analysis Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of traps in the Saw film series[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Deleted at a previous AFD but relisting here due to concerns raised at DRV. My recommendation is to delete as indiscriminate trivia about fiction and original research. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Articles should only be considered for deletion if they are hopelessly beyond salvaging. This is clearly not the case. Yes, the article is imperfect. However, offers were made in the second AfD and in the subsequent DRV to edit this down to Wiki-friendly standards. I would gladly invite all interested “Saw” fans to join an effort to save this article. After all, we are here to build an encyclopedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Drastically improve the article before the close of this AFD or delete - supporters of the article have had over a year since the first AFD to make this article compliant with relevant policies and guidelines, including but not limited to WP:PLOT and WP:RS. It is time, to coin a cliché, to put up or shut up. Otto4711 (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:AFD states, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." If being an imperfect article was grounds for deletion Wikipedia would be trimmed considerably.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment There was no requirement a year ago to rewrite it -- that AfD ended in No Consensus. Quite frankly, we shouldn't even be having this discussion. The second AfD was clearly a No Consensus situation and it should've been closed that way -- read the DRV to see why we're back on the AfD carousel. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the DRV and I also read the AFD that preceded it. The article was correctly deleted and the article's supporters should count their blessings that the closing admin decided to reverse himself. The article remains out of compliance with a number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It is time now either to bring the article into compliance or delete it. Otto4711 (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it was correctly deleted, it wouldn't have been relisted again. The article's detractors should count their blessings that they are getting a do-over. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article does need a lot of work, but as User:Ecoleetage, deletion should only be used in cases where it's beyond salvaging...I.E. hoaxes, vanity pieces, obscure items that have featured virtually no coverage. I don't see how an article describing one of the bigger premises of a notable horror film series is any less valid than a list of James Bonds' gadgets with no real world information, or a list of magical objects in Harry Potter's universe (both of which are articles). And yes, I am aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. But if I were to nominate either of those articles for deletion (but I won't, as that would be disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point) they would undoubtedly be kept, mainly because Harry Potter and James Bond are both much more popular franchises and would have more people coming up to save it. Saw on the other hand, is not as popular and it's far easier for someone to go "Blech, more torture porn. Who needs articles about it?" and write it off as cruft. Does the article need a lot of work? Absolutely. I admit that I haven't been too focused on the article lately as I usually edit character/film related articles, and as of late most of my Wiki-attention has been on another article which I am trying to get to featured status. But I will try to get to this article, and it's certainly not impossible to fix this up. Critical reception and impact on popular culture (already the Saw traps are the subject of a fairly signicant haunted house attraction in California, and I've lost count of how many shows have played upon them) as well as inspiration and cited comparisions to preexisting objects in real life.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what you envision would be the ideal presentation of this article if you and others could devote time to it? Would there be as much plot detail? What kind of real-world context would be explored? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ideal presentation would be more focus on the traps and less focus on some of the excessive plot information that's occurred recently. In addition, as I explained on my post, more focus on information outside of the films...what impact the traps themselves have had on popular culture, reception they may have received, information on the concept and creation of the traps, etc.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So can we not include that information in each film article? It just seems like each film is trap-driven, so why can't these details be explored at the separate article? I am not seeing the need for this particular topic. Why not Saw (film series)#Traps as a component of all the movies? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not strongly against the idea of a merge if that's the only alternative to deletion. But a section about "Traps" was once on the Jigsaw Killer article and it grew too long and was put back into a seperate article. Detailing the traps on the film articles would already make them more plot heavy, and they already need to be less.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can agree that plot detail could be cut back, no matter where we focus on the traps. I was browsing the Saw film articles, though, and they struck me as awfully empty considering the content of this particular list. Can the content not be trimmed and redistributed? I mean, as the article stands, it sounds like an accumulation of plot detail and does not use reliable sources. If the article is kept, I really hope that improvement can be seen. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If push comes to shove, I could agree to that proposition. I don't know, maybe the traps could be redistributed to their articles about the film that they appeared in. At this point I'm just getting weary of the whole thing, so your idea would probably be the best solution if this article gets deleted, which it probably will given how things are turning out.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the list of Bond gadgets or the list of Potter items fail Wiki-policies and guidelines the way that this article does, feel free to nominate them for deletion. This other article is just as bad is no excuse for keeping either article. Otto4711 (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated earlier, I have no interest in disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I don't think they should be deleted either. My only argument was that if they were to be nominated for AFD, they would probably have better chances of being kept only because they're more popular and would have more people running to its defense.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an enormous violation of WP:PLOT. Plot detail is acceptable to complement the topic as conveyed by secondary sources, not the other way around. There is far more plot detail than any informative real-world context from secondary sources. None of the sources that do exist really exercise significant coverage about traps throughout the film series; is there a reason to break out each individual film article when it comes to covering the traps from each film? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral at the moment. There are serious WP:PLOT concerns, as noted, and possible original research issues. I see a glimmer of a possible article in the inclusion of some development-style information in some of the traps, but not enough to convince me that the material shouldn't be in the film articles instead. There were notability concerns raised in the previous AFD, and I'd like to see someone answer that by providing some substantial secondary sources. There might be a couple in the article now, but the unfortunate formatting makes it near impossible to tell what sort of sources are there at a glance, and I don't feel obligated to search myself, since my comment is neutral. ;) What is really needed is some secondary sources that focus on the traps themselves—not the film or the plot—that can provide the basis for an encyclopedic article. Right now, this article is an extension of the film articles instead of an article about the traps, if you catch my drift. Pagra shtak 21:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's not "original research" to summarize a part of a film. And there is no policy against "trivia." And WP:PLOT never had consensus to be added to policy anyway. There are plenty of film reviews regarding the Saw series and I'm sure many of the reviews mention the traps. This article adds to Wikipedia's coverage of the Saw series, and it can be improved through normal editing. It's not a hopeless case. There was no consensus to delete in the second AFD. I'm certainly interested in what Stifle meant in the second AFD when he said "Per the general weight of comments" since nine people who said delete used the word "cruft" (as in, "I don't like it"). --Pixelface (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which includes "Wikipedia articles are not simply plot summaries", is most certainly official Wikipedia policy. A mere "mention" of a trap in a review does not constitute a reliable source that is substantively about the traps in general or a particular trap. Otto4711 (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- (ec) I'm getting tired of this whole "cruft" thing. I hope Protonk won't mind me copying his comment from the last AFD here:

"Delete. Fancruft. Not covered in reliable sources. Just because it can't be merged into the film or the fim series doesn't mean we need an article on it. The article consists of WP:OR and WP:PLOT information almost entirely. Links to photos on EBAY as sources??? Links to Photobucket shots of the script as sources???? How did this survive AfD before? I strongly suggest that the closing admin look at the article prior to closing this if there is even a hint that it might be closed as "no consensus, default to keep". There isn't a single reliable source posted. Not even to reviews of the movie. Doesn't belong on wikipedia." Protonk (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Protonk used the word "fancruft", but this is clearly not an "I don't like it" argument. It's a serious concern about the existence of secondary sources—one that has not been adequately responded too, I might add. If someone says "Delete this cruft", instead of jumping on them for using the word "cruft", you should complain instead that they have not provided a reason for deletion. When Stifle says "Per the general weight of comments." in his closing argument, I suspect that means that he gives strong weight to a well-presented argument like this, and little or no weight to arguments like "Strong Keep Don't see why it shouldn't be kept." and delete comments that mention cruft with no rationale. Pagra shtak 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pagrashtak, I hope I am not stepping on your toes, but I decided to be bold and remove the bold print from the word "Delete" in that quote -- although it is formatted as quote, it nonetheless gives the impression that there is a !vote from Protonk, who has not weighed in here yet. The quote remains -- I have no problems with its presence -- but I don't want a closing admin to scan the page and mistake that bold print for a !vote. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This is a great article. It's already come back from the dead once, let's save it again. It's a fantastic article, and I've referenced it many a time. Deon555 (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT for reasons why your argument is considered weak. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT are based in an essay, not Wikipedia policy, and the essay is prefixed with the notice that "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints, and they may be heeded or not based upon your judgement and discretion" (the italics are mine). The fact that Deon555 has already referenced it should provide some degree of confirmation to its encyclopedic value. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an encyclopedia, not a fan guide. Not to mention the fact that 20% of the "references" are to e-bay auctions no longer in existence (example), and a huge number of the "references" are to pictures of the traps off of photobucket and similar, a large number of which violate copyright (reproducing the scripts for example). These are 'references'???? This article is absurd. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arguing that other pages existing in the same vein is a reason alone for existence is not a good path to take BUT if this was one of those pages, I'm fairly sure it'd be given adequate time to respond to criticisms lest a rabid fanbase emerge and tear down the walls of the Internet. A lot of the traps do get sources, particularly on home releases of the films and the concepts behind them is interesting and not particularly fan as much as pertinent info relating to the Saw series. Considering the traps are the major focal point of the series, a major selling point of the films and generally involved with, based on or inspiring of the plot, they are valid information that with some upkeep can become a decent article here on Wiki. Keep.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article did get adequate time to respond to criticisms. The first AFD was over a year ago. Information included with the DVD releases are not independent, thus they fail WP:RS. Otto4711 (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This deletion discussion has been hopelessly corrupted by canvassing attempts by Wikiproject Saw via their October newsletter delivered to users by CyberGhostface (talk · contribs) (example). The newsletter implores readers to go and argue here why this article should be kept, not help decide it's fate, but actively ask them to vote to keep it. Newsletter has been delivered to 28 editors [20]. Plus, CyberGhostface canvassed someone else to vote here [21] which resulted in the person responding affirmatively [22] and then voted here to keep the article [23]. Discussion should be immediately closed as hopelessly corrupted. AfD is NOT a vote. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? The first time (after the article was deleted) numerous people e-mailed me because they weren't even aware of the discussion going on in the first place until after it was deleted. Why shouldn't the people who edit the article in the first place not be aware of the discussion of whether or not the article be kept? I also asked for help in improving the article. If no one's aware of the fact that it's in danger of deletion, why would they bother to try to improve the article? I did ask for help, but I told them to make their own arguments and look at "arguments to avoid". I also asked for help in improving the main article and to add real world information. Am I not allowed to do that? Jesus Christ. It's not as if I'm hiring a bunch of meat puppets from school and asking them to mindlessly storm the AFD with "Keeps".--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dead serious. AfD is not a vote. Canvassing interested people encouraging them to vote keep is way, way out of line. See Wikipedia:AFD#AfD_Wikietiquette, the second to last bullet point, and Wikipedia:Canvassing. You didn't ask them to make their own arguments, you asked them to make their own arguments to keep. That is an important distinction, and is vote stacking. This AfD is corrupted by your actions. Given that you've made 348 edits to AfDs since the beginning of this year, you are certainly well aware of this concept. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last time it was deleted, various people who've contributed to the articles had no idea that a discussion was even going on and were only aware of it once the article was deleted. So I thought it would be fair that since it's up for discussion again. And I wasn't "canvassing" for votes. In addition to asking them for their own argument, I asked them for help on improving the article. Or is asking for their help on improving the article against the rules as well? Heck, I'm willing to bet that the people I asked won't even show up on this AFD in the first place. If you want, I can tell them to stay out of the argument, if that makes you feel any better.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But for the record, I'm being honest in saying that I wasn't aware that asking people who've edited the articles before for their opinion was against the rules. I was just under the impression that making sockpuppets and asking people to register on your behalf was.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I told them to stay away from the AFD. Happy now?--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I appreciate the attempt, unfortunately no I am not happy. The people who received this notice have an interest in the series and are biased in favor of the article being kept. This is why AfDs run through AfD, and not through project pages where appropriate. Else, we'd never delete anything that isn't encyclopedic. The AfD is still polluted. It's an unfortunate situation, but it's reality. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the people who I notified have even come onto the discussion, and probably wouldn't have in the first place. I mean, if it gets to the point where this AFD is bombarded with people yelling "Keep" I'll take responsibility for it but I don't see that happening now.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the message you left, "apparently notifying you because you were interested is against the rules", you seem to still not understand the problem. Notifying interested editors is not the problem. The problem is that you delivered a biased message to a partisan audience. Pagra shtak 00:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't. I mean, if an article about Saw is up for deletion, I thought I should notify editors who worked on the article in the past, not people who haven't. And it's already a given that someone who worked on the article is going to say "Keep" regardless of what I say. And I wasn't deliberately trying to rig the system; just because I've been on AFD for a bit (the reason I have so many edits on AFD as Hammersoft said is because I keep the COI log on my watchlist to look out for vanity articles) doesn't mean I knew about this. I just knew that hiring single-purpose accounts to say what you want them to say was against the rules. Either way, told them not to come on, and if they do, I'll take responsibility for it. --CyberGhostface (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CyberGhostface, if a Saw article was up for deletion, don't you think that the editors who worked on it are more biased to keep it? Granted, I've seen editors concede that their pet projects shouldn't be part of Wikipedia, but that is the exception. Editors who have not edited the article should be more welcomed because they can pass a more objective judgment, not having any emotional investment in that particular article. Editors of good standing are involved in AFDs, and recommendations need to be more than just votes, involving considerations of policies and guidelines. If the article at risk matches the policies and guidelines as perceived by these outside editors, then the article should ultimately be okay. As you can tell here, there is not such a clear consensus -- the issue is more about the topic than the content, which I think everyone can agree warrants clean-up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CyberGhostface, you have over 18,000 edits since 5 March 2005, many of which were in deletion discussions. This very same canvassing happened in List of traps in the Saw film series (1st nomination). In that AfD, you cited to Wikipedia:Canvassing. [24] I don't see how you now can say that you were not aware that it is inappropriate to canvass interested people and encourage them to vote keep in this discussion. I don't know what to make of it. -- Suntag ☼ 19:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the accusation. That first nomination was a year ago, and no I didn't bother to refresh myself on it when the article was renominated because I didn't recall anything in it that needed to be dredged up for this one (besides unpleasant memories), except that it was kept. And yes, I've been on Wikipedia a long time. And yes, I've participated in quite a few AFDs. And in all that time, the only time the subject of canvassing was brought up was in that AFD discussion a year ago. If I had known that 'canvassing' would have sent the Wiki-police to my door and cause such a furor like it has, why the Hell would I do it on Wikipedia in the first place? Sheesh. I'm not that stupid.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the diff Suntag. I think the crux of this is that CyberGhostface was and is aware of the Wikipedia:Canvassing guideline, but still feels it doesn't apply. He has and continues to operate under the false impression that people who have a potential stake in an article should be informed that it might be deleted, and worse that it's ok to advocate for them to vote to keep it. I hope he's finally learned his mistake, and does not repeat it in the future. It takes uninterested parties to evaluate the encyclopedic value of an article and how it meshes with our existing policies. 28 people being asked to vote to keep this article does absolutely nothing to further that purpose. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have and continue to operate under this? This is the first time I've done this, unless there's some other occasion I'm forgetting. (Scratch that, now someone will go through my logs and find something two years ago to disprove what I've just said...) I don't know what repeatedly hammering this is going to get: I've already taken full responsibility and told the people who edited the article not to participate in the AFD. What else am I supposed to do?--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/Merge some I have a high tolerance for this sort of plot-like material, but the detail is excessive. Given that the traps are apparently the main content of the work as a whole, some of the content could be used to expand the description in the main article. DGG (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I don't see why such a long and trivial article needs to have a place on Wikipedia. Isn't there a Saw website or listserv where the fans can go for this kind of information? And Protonk makes a good point about these references--they are laughable. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what it's worth, this looks like an article that could match the topic: Newman, Kim (November 2007). "How to main friends and eviscerate people". Empire (221): 106–108, 110. Graphically highlights the different methods used to torture and kill people in the Saw films. Not crazy about the Wikipedia article's plot detail, but this magazine article gives a little more weight to talking about the "methods" (mostly traps). If anyone has Empire, this might be worth finding out about this look at traps from a secondary source. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their website is abysmal. Does anyone know if this is worth trudging to a library for a back issue? 106-108 could very well be a 1 page "feature" on page 107. Protonk (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivia/cruft like this belongs on Wikia, not here. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the closing admin Since Stifle was kind enough to put the big "notavote" template at the top, I thought I should explain this a bit. I asked a group of people who edited the article previously and were not aware of a deletion discussion going on. When I found out this was discouraged, I notified them again and told them it would be best to stay away from this discussion. As of now, none of the people I 'notified' have yet to show up in the discussion, and I've already said twice now that I would take full responsibility if they did.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE the saw films are gory crap. we dont need articles about them.--Billthevampire (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC) — Billthevampire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Admittedly, no one will mistake them for Les enfants du paradis, but that's not the point of this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fail WP:PLOT. The films are good films. They are popular films, but this article is appalling fancruft and must go. X MarX the Spot (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still endorse deletion. No indication has been given that the traps in saw are the subject of third party sources. Without those sources, this is an editor selected collection of salient plot points. Protonk (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, how about my comment mentioning the Empire article covering the methods? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This fails WP:NOT#PLOT excessively. The traps are a prominent part of the series, but the plot sections in the main articles should be enough to cover the important details. The rest is just unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussion. Having this long list of traps, for me, is like extending the length of plot for the movies. No need to have all these details and plot observations. I see some good references like that "According to director David Hackl, one trap that has been constructed for Saw V could have potentially killed the actor placed in it." I think we can put some selective information to the articles and not construct a whole list of the traps because it's like rewriting the whole plot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list seems unnecessary and all of this should be in the plot sections of the individual films. A ni Mate 02:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. Eusebeus (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also seems to be full of original research. Themfromspace (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To the keep !voters who suggest this can be improved — please explain why it has not been improved significantly in the 13 months since the first AFD? Stifle (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment back Because no one demanded it. The original AfD ended as a no consensus, erring to keep, and the closing admin in that AfD never set a timeline to get it fixed by X-day. No one had any problems with the article afterwards. I would also point out that offers were made to improve the article in the second AfD and the subsequent DRV if the article was allowed to stay online -- and both offers were rudely ignored. (This overhaul will take at least a week or two, given the depth and scope of the article and the need to fix the references.) Now let me offer a challenge: since there were problems in the decision to close the second AfD (as per DGG's original comments in the DRV for the article) and since the article's supporters have repeatedly offered to fix the article, I am asking that this nomination be withdrawn and that the article's supporters be given two weeks to either fix it up or merge the data into the exisiting "Saw" articles. If, after, two weeks, this task is not completed, the nominator for this AfD (also the closing admin on the second AfD) can have the full right to speedy delete the article. Is that fair? Ecoleetage (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of editors' being "rude" about offers to "fix" articles at AFD or DRV. It's that many of us who've been around AFD for a while have far too often seen articles kept with promises that the problems with them will be addressed and then they aren't. Such promises would stand a better chance of being paid attention to if accompanied, during the course of the AFD, by actual improvements to the article or at least the location of sources that address the issues. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article of this size and depth will take a lot of time to get its references in order and to get its text in keeping with the style that some people have advocated. Expecting a quick fix is not realistic. And, besides, "many of us who've been around AFD for a while" actually have a history of saving at-risk articles. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me amongst them, in point of fact. I'm not suggesting that the article has to be perfect by the close of the AFD. What I am saying is that those wanting it kept need to demonstrate that the article has been improved, especially since this is round three (round four, really) for this article. Otto4711 (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually round three -- and an illegitmate one, IMHO. Again, we shouldn't be having this discussion since it became clear, as per DGG's original comments in the DRV, that the second AfD was improperly closed. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I wrote User:Stifle/Delete unless cleaned up. Stifle (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see a lot of deletes, so it's not looking good for this page. Anyways, I was just wondering if this page could be redirected, instead of just flat out deleted. I guess a lot of editors have spent a lot of time on this page, and it would be a shame for so much to go. A redirect would ensure for a good result for everyone. All those would said delete can be happy that they'll never have to see this page again, and all those who say keep can work on it on their sandbox. Would that be a fair compromise? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 10:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good observation, Cornucopia, but it is easy to forget these things aren't decided by a head count. Besides, the second AfD went 13-12 in favour of keeping, but the closing admin opted to delete rather than call it as "no consensus." Ecoleetage (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection is probably not warranted, as there is no obvious redirect target since the list covers multiple films, and the likelihood of someone's searching for this specific string seems pretty low. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, I just wanted everyone to keep in mind that redirection is a possibility. Thanks for the kind reply Ecoleetage. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not a member of any project regarding this particular subject, and i feel that the information is rather useful since sometimes i cannot make heads or tails about the movies when i see them. Since there is considerable wikipedia presence from other notable movie series (e.g. Dune, Star wars, star trek to name a few) I dont see why the Saw series (which created a renaissance of sorts for horror movies) cannot enjoy the same consideration. --Bud (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That something is useful does not make it encyclopedic. This is a subtle, but important point that tends to be lost on many Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia is not the compendium of all knowledge. It's the compendium of all encyclopedic knowledge. There's a large difference. See also WP:EVERYTHING. Further, that other similar articles exist does not mean by default this article should stay. If that were a valid argument, someone could create 20 articles of a particular type applying to 20 different subjects, and then refute any AfD by saying "But it exists over there and there, so it should exist here". See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but at the same time, neither WP:EVERYTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFF is policy - they are points raised in an essay. If your read the top of the page that has those links, it clearly states: "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints, and they may be heeded or not based upon your judgement and discretion" (the italics are mine). Bud001 is not off-base in noting the inherent notability of the "Saw" films and the value of the information provided in this article. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is an essay—an essay that shows why certain arguments are not based in policies or guidelines, or or sometimes contradictory to policies or guidelines. Hammersoft is using that essay to show why this common argument is flawed—I don't see the problem here. The "may be heeded or not" means that you're free to ignore the essay and spout the flawed arguments, not that you're free to ignore why the arguments are flawed. Pagra shtak 16:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only if you assume the arguments made by editors like Bud001 are flawed. If you step back and think about it, this is actually quite interesting. We're all looking at the same article, but some people see cruft while others see information of encyclopedic value. Who's right? I am actually enjoying all of the opinions here -- I should commend everyone who participated here, since this is one of the livelier AfD discussions I've seen in some time. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "encyclopedic value" suffers from significant interpretation. For my part, I could see the encyclopedic value of an article titled "Traps in the Saw film series" that was something along the lines of Campbell's Soup Cans. As a subject matter in and of itself, the traps may be interesting. Personally, I have some doubts about this because of the lack of external, out of universe references on the subject. But, assuming such references could be found, I could see the encyclopedic value of such an article. If instead we had an article called "List of Campbell's Soup Cans" that detailed every single can that they've produced and the labels they've put on them, I'd consider that pretty worthless and unencyclopedic. Just because we can include something doesn't mean we should. As I noted, we're not a compendium of ALL knowledge. If you can find external, out of universe references to each and every one of these traps you might have an argument for this list. I am certain you can not. But, you can find at least a few such references for the traps as a whole, as a subject matter in and of itself. That merits something like "Traps in the Saw film series". Some material from this list might be recoverable in support of that article, but this article needs to go. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(@ Ecoleetage) I'm not assuming the argument is flawed. I read the argument, and having previously read Wikipedia policy and guidelines, came to the realization that it is not based in those policies and guidelines. The essays WP:USEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS happen to explain the rationalization I used to arrive at that conclusion, but are not the reasons I came to that decision. Does that make it clear? Pagra shtak 18:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from, yes. And I respect where you are going, too. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as grotesque as I find the film, the article is a perfectly appropriate fork of a notable film, and the details contained therein are supported by reliable and verifiable sources. At least thinking of the gory details of the Saw films might help replace the far more gruesome aspects of the XfD process that give me nightmares. Alansohn (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, of the 49 references you refer to as "reliable" and "verifiable", 8 are photos of the script (and copyvios at that), 21 are simply screenshots of a scene or storyboard, 9 are invalid e-bay auctions, one leads to a bad reference on a site, and one of the references is repeated three times. 41 out of 49 references are essentially junk. There might...might...be enough out of universe references to warrant a subject article, but not an article such as this detailing each and every trap. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and that is why I kept saying it would take at least a week or two to track down the proper references to make the article appropriate, as per WP:RS. If it is going to be fixed, it should be done correctly and not in a beat-the-clock fashion. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can be done properly period. Try searching for these traps by name. You'll see what I mean. As a subject matter in entirety, yes. But, out of universe references for the individual traps? No. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree on that opinion -- it would probably require some offline searching in books and in horror film magazines (not every magazine has an online mirror). It can be done, but it will take some time. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The harder you have to dig, the harder you should be asking "Is this really notable?" --Hammersoft (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if can be improved or Merge to Saw (film series) if it cannot. To repeat what I stated at the previous AfD, an incredible amount of time and effort went into collecting this wonderful collection of movie trivia. If editors wish to make it encyclopedic and worthy of Wiki, I say let 'em, as that improves Wiki. Putting them "on the clock" to do so ASAP, is not per guideline. Wiki has all the time it needs. Respects to all, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a year already. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this article stays, could someone at least step in and get rid of the Photobucket and eBay citations? I mean, really... regardless of the topic, it seems a little embarrassing to see these places cited. I'll try to do this myself depending on the outcome and on if I swing by later on. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - For Hammersoft: Again...when the first AfD closed as "no consensus" and the article was kept, there was no timeline requirement to get the article fixed by X-date. I hope I am not being rude when I say that the "why didn't you fix it earlier?" thrust is a phony argument. For Erik: yes, it will be fixed. It will take time, due to the article's length and depth, but it will get done. That's why CyberGhostFace and I (CyberGhostFace and me? -- which is right?) kept offering to fix it without having that Damoclean sword hanging over us. If an article can be fixed, why delete it? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge and delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nien Nunb[edit]

Minor SW character not worthy of having its own article, which is completely non-notable with no third-party sources, and consists entirely of in-universe cruft. sixtynine ^{• speak, I say •} 20:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should be in the List of Star Wars characters article and only there. This is not Wookiepedia. DavidWS (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as appropriate There can be some intermediate level of content between the excessive article and the inadequate list. I don't think anyone really defends this content as written appearing in full in Wikipedia. The question is rather, what to do with it. DGG (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of Star Wars characters. Entirely uncited; merging material would just migrate uncited cruft from one address to another. Find sources for these characters, and maybe the "inadequate list" will become more useful. --EEMIV (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what's possible into List of Star Wars characters#N and redirect. I think it's fine this character has an article but this is an area where Wookiepedia does it better. --Pixelface (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything cited into the list of SW characters, in other words delete. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable character--Billthevampire (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. I don't see a need to merge: the list of Star Wars characters already says everything it needs to about this character. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lilith Astaroth[edit]

Self-Promotion, Autobiography, Notability Cazbahrocker (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been monitoring the Category:Heavy metal singers and Category:Female metal singers, and came across the page for Lilith Astaroth, which has little evidence to classify her as a Female Metal Singer. Upon further investigation, it appears as if all edits were contributed by the subject herself (WP:YOURSELF). PROD was contested by the subject of the article, and I believe theres a real conflict of interest (WP:CONFLICT).

As a result, this page is nothing more then a list of personal accomplishments (WP:RESUME), which are not notable to the general public:

CamGirls is apparently a documentary from over 3 years ago that has not yet been released. The link provided to prove notability and verifiability of this was last updated in June of 2007 and states that there is still over 150 hours of post production work to be done.
Her modeling engagements are similarily also non-notable in nature. Is there anything ground breaking in her work for generally unknown organizations like Fetish Factory or hotpunkgirls.com? The later of which is a defunct site and thus is non-verifiable.
Her movie appearance is also non-notable. She played an unnamed "Female Vampire" in a low budget independent film God of Vampires
Her television appearance on the canceled Dr. Keith Ablow show may be the closest thing to notable on the page, but only if there's other evidence that she is an expert in the field of internet safety, which she apparently isn't. Her other television appearance on Hypnotist Bernie's Exposition appears to be a local cable access show in which Miss Astaroth is hypnotized to help her further her career.
Musically, I haven't been able to find any evidence to confirm her affiliation with the three bands she claims to have been in: Blodgett, Natural Agression, and Cried. If the bands themselves are small and local (and thus non-notable) then her affiliation with them is also non-notable. The 2 solo tracks she links to is promoting her myspace page (WP:ADVERT), and there's little evidence of notability of her solo career as well.
Her work with Powerglove, a notable band in the area of video game metal, is limited to a self proclaimed 'burlesque/go-go' dancer which doesn't make her a notable contributer to the band and this information, along with where she she performed with the band, belongs on the Powerglove page and isn't a justification for her own page.
Finally, there really isn't anything notable about being interviewed at a game convention. Perhaps this would be notable if it represented something unique or prestigious, but the interview is merely her explaining why she plays a video game and how much joy she derives from it.

With all that said, I am new to this delete process. I've been editing Wikipedia for about 2-3 months, mainly very minor edits. I registered recently when I came across this article as I was interested in editing Wikipedia further. I believe I'm following the policies of Wikipedia properly, but I'd be happy to learn more. Cazbahrocker (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course. You did well:) Could have been speedy deleted- no notability at all.[25] To clarify- the refs used are IMDB, youtube, myspace, a blog and some goth websites. The documentary she was in was by a company with no notability whatsoever itself.[26], she was on local access television once, and I think on a national chat show once where you just have to be eccentrically dressed enough to get an appearance. Will we add every person who's been on The Dr. Keith Ablow Show once to this encyclopedia? Not that I've heard of that, being in the UK.:) Sticky Parkin 11:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'm not disagreeing, but if you Google the web and not the news you'll get (with all filters off) 6,340 hits for her and 291 for the production company, so there is indeed some level of notability even if she hasn't run over anyone with her car. --CliffC (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but it comes down to what those 6340 hits comprise. Very few, if any, are reliable third-party references about her. They're the kind of hits someone gets from being very very busy networking: people's MySpace, Facebook and Twitter contact lists, and similar. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again not disagreeing, but pointing out that it's a stretch to offer as support for the statement "no notability at all" two Google news searches. --14:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Google books [27] and Google Scholar of course [28] have nothing about this particular individual either. My point is that these would be more likely to indicate WP:RS, whereas her being mentioned on the internet a bit due to making sure she is does not. Sticky Parkin 15:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to show notability. The first page of Google results brings up her Wikipedia article and a number of sites containing information which is self-published by her. She did appear once on a TV talk show. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to show notability... all bands mentioned fail WP:MUSIC, barring Powerglove, of which she is their dancer. The modelling and appearances in independent films and the like do not establish notability, as those films are not notable. One TV appearance isn't really enough. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, I'm not convinced Powerglove pass WP:MUSIC either. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is self-promotion and anyone that studies the edit history should see the conflict. Not-notable. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No major sources provided so we must assume that she has not attracted too much attention yet. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment note that Powerglove was redirected to Power glove per an AfD [29] as they are not notable, but someone attempted to recreate it. The article as it stood today was a speedy deletion candidate if it didn't have a history, as it did not show the importance of the subject- well it did show their level of importance- no label, no studio etc.:) Sticky Parkin 12:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Camgirl with delusions of superstardom. Doesn't even count as an Internet celebrity, the standards for which are notoriously low. Clear COI. I love Powerglove to death, but being a go-go dancer for a minor joke metal band does not cut it. — Gwalla | Talk 23:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baptist Centre[edit]

Article about a building in Northern Ireland. It houses several Baptist organisations, which have their own Wikipedia articles, but there is nothing to suggest that the building itself is in any way interesting or notable enough for its own article. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merg with Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland. JASpencer (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Merg(e) with the Association: there's nothing about this building to demonstrate notability, such as being a National Trust site or anything like that. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree: Merge. If kept it should be renamed to something like Northern Ireland Baptist Centre, but I would not support its being kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#a7 Rjd0060 (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut, Butter and The Jam[edit]

Band does not meet any of the WP:MUSIC requirements. Google search does not list anything to support the idea that the band meets these requirements Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 19:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information from submitter of AfD... User that created the page JRXIII only has contributed to this band's page. Concidering the band members names, it is possible this is also a self-promotion attempt into Wikipedia.--Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 20:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete - I would call this more of a G11, but either way, it qualifies for speedy deletion.--Kubigula (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James A Sinclair[edit]

Non-notable bio. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced and unreferenced --Dreamspy (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete highly promotional, reads like copyvio, doesn't assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it's copyvio, Google can't find the source page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A7) — Absolutely no assertion of notability; the references only link to the main websites with no mention at all of the person in the article — possibly fake references. MuZemike (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rota Period[edit]

This page represents original research. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for original research. No evidence of prior publication in any reliable source. Google Scholar finds nothing relevant. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article appears to be created by same person as created this periodic table, which is both COI and OR. Lack of any independant sources shows this is not notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps it would be an improvement on the periodic table of elements, but Wikipedia is not the place to unveil new ideas in the hopes of achieving notability; it's a reference source that directs one to ideas that have been achieved notability somewhere else first. JohnCD says it best-- there's no evidence of prior publication in any reliable source. I wish Mr. Rota all the best, and hope that maybe the concept will be noticed by a magazine, a textbook publisher, etc., in which case it can be referred to among the 2.5 million articles on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per JohnCD, completely inappropriate for this project. Mvjs Talking 09:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madman Pyromania[edit]

This is an article about a private Fourth of July fireworks show. Neither a notability tag nor a (contested) prod have stimulated the sole SPA editor to produce any evidence of notability. Unreferenced, of course, and an orphan. I can find only a very few google hits, mostly myspace, and no news hits. There must be a large number of this kind of firework display in the world, and I see no encyclopedic value to this one. Wikipedia is not private webspace. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - no sign at all that this is notable, even in its local area - Hunting dog (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Unsourced, no claim of notability, please delete. --Lockley (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Before it's deleted, however, there's still time to tell us about your plans for Halloween, and I'm certain that it will be no less interesting. Mandsford (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Been keeping this one on my radar. Blow it up with one of those M-80s. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as consensus has determined notability is confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AndreaMosaic[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable software. Article is made by the creator, so conflict of interest is apparent, although in her defense she has stated that she had tried to make the article more neutral. CyberGhostface (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I contested the prod, but am glad the AfD has been raised since it might help this article. A number of references have been found, including a book that mentions how popular the software is and several how-to guides and reviews of photomosaic software that recommend it. None of the sources are great, but I would say it's just on the right side of the keep/delete boundary. COI/NPOV is a concern, but I don't think it's so bad that the article should be deleted - even if there have been some tragically unhelpful edits by various single purpose accounts. GDallimore (Talk) 19:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It seems to pass the wiki-sniff test with one substantive review in PC World an a couple of shorter ones. VG ☎ 10:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - How to create a photomosaic When someone ask how to create a mosaic then AndreaMosaic is cited as the main freeware tool for Windows OS:
- PC World article "Make Artistic Mosaics With Your Photo" mention two sharewares and then goes on with a detailed HOW-TO using AndreaMosaic
- PC Magazine video clip "Create a Photo Mosaic" is showing a HOW-TO for AndreaMosaic (software) and Patchworkr (online service)
- Engadget article "How to make your own Photomosaic" is showing a HOW-TO for AndreaMosaic (Windows) and MacOsaiX (Mac OS)
- Book "Flick Hacks" chapter "Make a Photo Mosaic" the author cite self made Perl scripts and then AndreMosaic (Windows) and MacOsaiX (Mac OS)

This should prove that in the small world of photomosaic software AndreaMosaic has a important place, i.e. notability.

Comment to Delete or not to Delete: If those references are considered "Weak" then probably we should delete many more articles on Wikipedia because they have weak references or no references at all and such deletion is IMHO not a good solution. For example looking at article Comparison of raster graphics editors there are listed around 50 software's for Image Editing with an articles for nearly each software. 30% of all those articles contain NO REFERENCE at all (other than the home page) and 14% has a reference weaker than AndreaMosaic. After I cited 3 of them in the talk page of AndreaMosaic they where added to the deletion list. Should we go to delete all of them?
- Articles without references: Ability Photopaint, ArtRage, Photogenics, Brush Strokes Image Editor CodedColor PhotoStudio Pro cosmigo Pro Motion Mootif, mtPaint, PicMaster, PixBuilder Photo Editor, Pixia, Project Dogwaffle, Seashore_(software), Tux Paint, WinImages, Zoner Photo Studio
- Articles with weak references: Artweaver, CinePaint, Helicon Filter, Kolourpaint, OpenCanvas, PhotoPerfect, Tux Paint

And those articles are just retrieved from the list of image editors. What will happen if we start to seek all other software list's or other articles?AndreaPlanet (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Can someone with a better knowledge of deletion processes suggest ways in which all of the above-mentioned articles without any references can be nominated for deletion. I prodded the first three before I got bored. Is there a better way? GDallimore (Talk) 11:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletion? Does this mass deletion has really a sense? Let's give a look at the list of Windows Software on Wikipedia. Starting alphabetically we have for the first 10 software's many articles without reference/notability: 1by1 (no references), 3D Home Architect (no references), 3D Movie Maker (notable), 3D Topicscape (no references), 3D World Atlas (historical, missing references), 4NT (weak/no references), A86 (software) (weak references), ACD Canvas (notable), ACDSee (notable), ACE (editor) (no references). What happen if we review the full list, should we really go and delete so many Wikipedia articles about software?AndreaPlanet (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to move some this discussion to the talk page, but I'll reply first here so other people would know where to look. You can nominate multiple articles in a single AfD, but it's wise to do so only when there's a strong relationship between the aticle topics. A software-related example were the mascots for KDE (the result was to merge to KDE) since the mascots didn't have any inherent notability outside KDE. Nominating together a bunch of image editors from different authors/companies, even if they don't have references, is generally not acceptable and will probably be reject on procedural grounds. So, you should probably nominate them individually. Also, try to search google (including news [all dates], and books) to see if the software in question is not obviously notable. See WP:DEL and WP:BEFORE. VG ☎ 14:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the references establish the notability of the software. As for the state of ogther software articles, they are irrelevant to this discussion, and I would caution against a mass nomination for them as usually the notability of unrelated software would need to be judged on a case by case basis. -- Whpq (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not a blatant promotion for the software and is backed up by WP:RS. Mvjs Talking 10:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This software should be in wikipedia. We can't make mosaics without software, and we can't talk of mosaics without talking about the software that created them. The references are pretty good: the Venice Biennale, for example, is not 'just a simple birthday party, is the Venice Biennale, very important. There are few software mosaics, this software is one of the best. If you talk about mosaics, you can and you have to talk about software. We live in the software age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.225.129 (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC) — 89.15.225.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just so everyone knows, this is User:89.15.225.129's first edit on Wikipedia.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, CyberGhostface, excuse, I have a dynamic IP, always changes. But this is not 'an argument against the software. If you do not have arguments, do not write, please. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.225.129 (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should probably register an account, so people won't think that you are a single purpose account.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in a discussion with someone who edits as a single purpose account Communal standards such as don't bite the newcomers apply to all users. Be courteous. Focus on the subject matter, not the person. If they are given fair treatment, they may also become more involved over time. Wikipedia articles improve not only through the hard work of regular editors but also through the often anonymous contributions of many newcomers. All of us were newcomers to editing Wikipedia at one time, and experienced editors are still newcomers, in ways, when they edit articles on topics outside their usual scope.

New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is impossible for a newcomer to be completely familiar with the policies, standards, style, and community of Wikipedia (or of a certain topic) before they start editing. If any newcomer got all those things right, it would be by complete chance.Please DO NOT bite the newcomers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BITE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.225.129 (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hardly 'biting' anyone...just pointing out the facts and giving good advice...if you don't want people to think that you're a SPA because your IP's constantly changing, then you should probably register an account. There are more benefits to being registered than not.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Mall[edit]

Non-Notable Padillah (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The mall is over 1,000,000 square feet in size; by ICSC standards that means it's super-regional. Also, according to this it gets 7 million visitors a year. Besides that, I'm finding plenty of sources online. I'm good with mall articles, I'll see what I can do here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Withdrawn. Padillah (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. —Spiesr (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helma Object Publisher[edit]

Article fails notability guidlines and has reliable source issues. Also written like an ad Pmedema (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. --Pmedema (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having only one third party source which hardly gives extensive coverage (it's mostly about Linux). GDallimore (Talk) 20:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any source to support notability. VG ☎ 10:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, non-notable piece of non-consumer software. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Create your own critter[edit]

Non-notable website, sources cited are inappropriate Oscarthecat (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what are considered notable websites? Pachannie (talk)— Pachannie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See the guideline Notability (web). JohnCD (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced except for a couple of blog entries. GDallimore (Talk) 20:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so blogs are not considered sources? Pachannie (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

They are not reliable sources, because anyone can put anything in a blog. Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what it says under the notability article "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" with the exception of personal blogs, Cuteable.com is not a personal blog, but run by a company called TS Fifteen Ltd. Pachannie (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as SPAM - I'd got this wrong, I thought it was a web-site, it's actually a business selling custom-made soft toys. Apart from notability, this looks to me like advertisement, and we have problems with conflict of interest - proprietor of the business is Annie Snyder, article author is Pachannie (talk · contribs) who is an SPA (no edits on any other subject), on Thisnext.com it is "first recommended by Pachannie". Wikipedia is not for promoting your own business. JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how it is a conflict of interest if everything I have listed is a fact. I'll take off the thisnext review, but it was reviewed by another person as well. 204.146.162.32 (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)— 204.146.162.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as soon as possible, please. I must say, I haven't seen more blatant advertising than this on Wikipedia. I hope that the contributor understands the difference between advertising and an encyclopedic article, but I have my doubts. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:WEB. VG ☎ 10:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Psychonauts. History will be intact, so any information that can be reliably sourced can be merged at editorial discretion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Razputin[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its game. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and smerg into Psychonauts --Pmedema (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of RS for this character. I'll get back to this in a few days when I have time, but some links are in the "list of characters" AFD for this game. Hobit (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff [30], [31], and [32] isn't bad. Brief bits: [33], [34], [35], [36], and more. Hobit (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect: Most game articles really only need the one article to contain its plot. Two, depending on circumstances, is usually too much for a single game, and three is plain overkill in most (but not all) cases. I'm not seeing anything in the sources provided that indicates this article can go above and beyond being a repeat of the plot summary. Nifboy (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - While Hobit has found sources on the reception of the character, I don't see a really strong article coming out of this: the details that are not gameguide or OR-ish are either already covered in Psychonauts or can be easily added (including the few bits on development of the character, and any specific review reaction to the character). --MASEM 13:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Redirect to Psychonauts (plausible search term) — I was originally inclined to agree with merging to Psychonauts, but I am taking in to account WP:SIZE implications (even though that itself is a very weak argument for deletion). ~~However, pending the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in Psychonauts, I would unconditionally support a merge to List of characters in Psychonauts.~~ MuZemike (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update — List of characters in Psychonauts has been deleted, so I will fully support a redirect to Psychonauts. MuZemike (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a perfectly legit search term. I'd like to keep, but I can't find sources, so dispose of it by redirecting it. -- Sabre (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The protagonist of a history is always a valid article, simply because the other characters are unsuited for receiving a article for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MRFraga (talk • contribs) 19:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Merge the sourced information, snip out the gamecruft. Has not been the subject of significant, independent coverage. Several good sources there - The PC Zone interview, for example - but ideally we need multiple, substantial coverage to warrant a seperate article. Use the above sources to write a paragraph about the character in the game's main article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Psychonauts as lacking enough coverage to write a reliable and objective article. A stand-alone article without adequate sources would just invite large amounts of WP:GAMECRUFT. A better approach is to merge it to a notable article, and let that section be gradually expanded. If it gets large enough and is supported by enough reliable third-party sources, then perhaps a split would be appropriate. Randomran (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus/Keep. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted & Ralph[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ted & Ralph

This character article does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Outside of The Fast Show, these characters were developed into a TV movie, which certainly attracted significant coverage at the time.--Michig (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any reliable sources for that significant coverage that can be applied to this article? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could search through newspapers from 1998, where the special was reviewed. In fact, the article already links to such a review. It was a major comedy show that would have been reviewed by pretty much all of the British newspapers. The TV film special was nominated for an RTS Award, which I think makes it kind of notable. --Michig (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right, it could very well make that special notable, but reading those reviews for specific critical commentary to these characters is what's needed here. Currently it's only referenced for its plot with a single cite to reference inspiration for one of the two characters. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Iconic characters with their own spinoff. the wub "?!" 21:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template nomination is plainly incorrect. The first sentence is "Ted and Ralph are fictional characters created by Arthur Mathews and Graham Linehan, played by Paul Whitehouse and Charlie Higson in the BBC comedy sketch show The Fast Show" which is neither "plot summary" nor "original research". Please come back with a real nomination, then we can have a real debate. In the meantime, I'll trust the wub on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you objecting to the nomination because the first sentence of the whole article is actually pretty okay? The nomination and rationale apply to the article as a whole, not just the first sentence. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is mostly constitutive of unreferenced plot reiteration and personal interpretation. There is not evidence of this topic having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject as stipulated by the notability guideline. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 124 google news results, and that's without even trying. the wub "?!" 21:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1 Wikipedia article with no evidence of having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject as stipulated by the notability guideline, which is probably attributable to not even trying. Or are you yet planning on distilling those myriad and sundry potential sources for use in the article to meet the Heymann Standard? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Angel, Eco-Warrior[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Merge to The Fast Show would be more appropriate than deletion, I think.--Michig (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are a fair number of news stories on the character [37], [38] are fairly representative. The book Group Identities on French and British Television makes brief mention of the character. The character is commonly used to describe the actor ([39] for example) and is also commonly used in the context of real "eco-warriors" [40] for example. The sources aren't great, but aren't horrible and the character appears iconic in the UK. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything cited to third-party sources to The Fast Show. In other words, delete. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~So merge or delete? I thought you couldn't do both? Hobit (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)~~ Ah, I get it, humor. Did you notice that there are sources provided above? Hobit (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - News stories provided as references are very small and barely mention the character. All of the show character's articles should probably be pared down and merged. - Richfife (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Moff Tarkin[edit]

No citations to third-party sources to establish notability. Original research, such as bits about "exerting power". Entirely in-universe. --EEMIV (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't he at least be mentioned in a list of characters somewhere? He's not some obscure character from the Cantina scene. He has a fairly signficant role in the first film, and is played by a notable actor. Zagalejo^^^ 17:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's already mentioned in List of Star Wars characters. --EEMIV (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is deletion what you really want? You can just turn the page into a redirect—no deletion tools necessary, and it keeps the page history intact in case additional production/reception info becomes available. (I bet there is some good production/reception info available in books and magazines already, although I'm not finding much at the moment, beyond a brief discussion of Tarkin's Nazi-like qualities.) Zagalejo^^^ 18:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'd prefer and what I did. It was reverted for much of the same thinking articulated below. --EEMIV (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles on fictional characters are a well-established part of Wikipedia, and this character is a notable one within this particular universe. Does it need improvement? Yes. Deletion? No. Gamaliel (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a fairly significant character in the films. If he was some minor character who only appeared in some Star Wars comic, that would be another matter.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck it. Nomination withdrawn. If the editor who reverted the redirect wants to actually address the "heads up" I created on the talk page, we can hammer out something there. Otherwise, I'll restore the redirect -- and merge the recently added production info -- back to List of Star Wars characters. --EEMIV (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete g7, author request. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shagtags[edit]

This is probably a hoax. It was started by User:Noodnood on 7 October 2008. Today, the user twice blanked the page.[41][42] The article has no reliable sources and Google search shows nothing. AdjustShift (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G7. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 17:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Degenatron[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable fictional game console from a video game. Attempt at redirect was reverted. The only third-party reference provided is a website that takes content from Wikipedia. I tried explaining why this was not a suitable reference to the article creator, but he readded. Pagra shtak 16:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Pagra shtak 16:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the reason why I readded it? The reference article was created first. It did not get any of it's content on Degenatron from my article. Check the dates. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, and as I replied to you there, the Wikipedia article on Degenatron was first created in 2004. That site takes content from Wikipedia, and is not a reliable source. It states very clearly at the bottom, "The Wikipedia article included on this page..." Pagra shtak 18:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per article's talk page: fails WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and WP:NOTABILITY. --Amalthea^Talk 17:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subtrivial--a product mentioned within fake ads in a videogame and utterly inconsequential to the game's plot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the everything test. JuJube (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--trivial, non-notable. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's probably one of the most well-known fictional consoles. And Rockstar even has a website for it. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is an obvious source for the article, and that game sold over 17.5 million copies. A redirect to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is also a possibility. --Pixelface (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any reliable, independent websites devoted to it? Any sources to show that it's "one of the most well-known fictional consoles"? Marasmusine (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect somewhere; a fictional product in a work of fiction needs a lot more secondary coverage to have its own article (even Mr. Sparkle doesn't), but the term is searchable, and likely a brief section in the GTA game on fictional products can be useful to have. --MASEM 13:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City per lack of verifiable secondary sources establishing notability (fiction). In addition, contains exclusively original research. Plausible search term. If a revert war ensues, use dispute resolution. MuZemike (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right fags, I merged it into Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be more civil! Themfromspace (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Kruskal[edit]

Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:BIO... no significant ghits (mainly directory listings, this article, etc.). Reads more like an autobiography, possibly created by the subject. umrguy 42 16:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This bio doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Kruskal hasn't made any impact in his field. He is a Fellow of American Academy of Pediatrics, but that is not enough to justify a Wikipedia article. AdjustShift (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AdjustShift. Could almost be speedied under A7, since there is not even any assertion of notability (as far as physicians go, his biography is pretty typical). SheepNotGoats (Talk) 17:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and unreferenced --Dreamspy (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete Why guess, when databases are available: 14 papers in Scopus (or PubMed), all of them first rate journals, citations of the top ones 87, 72, 37. Given that the highest cited ones are experimental medicine, where multiple publications and high citation counts are usual, this is not quite notability as a researcher. As a physician, he's head of Infection control & Travel medicine at a very important university medical group. Head of a major service there like pediatrics would in my opinion have been notable, but this not necessarily. DGG (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for the lit search. In addition to the non-notable citation counts that you pointed out, a total of 14 published papers (even if they're in high impact journals) is quite low for an academic. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 19:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete per DGG. (top citations by my count are 93 & 85, but not that many of them, ISI h-index = 10), and no explicit claim to notability... Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Pegasus Airlines. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus Airlines destinations[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminite collection of information. This list of cities has very little in common except that the airline flies there. It isn't needed and adds nothing to the encyclopedia. No sources are given for verifiability. No notability of the subject "Pegasus Airlines destinations" is implied from the list as lit ooks as one would expect a european airline destination map to look. Themfromspace (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be found, in which case merge to Pegasus Airlines, possibly trimming the article down to a list of countries serviced (not individual cities and airports), which might be worthwhile to have just to show the scope of the airline's service. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 18:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous discussions on destination lists. here and here. I've also asked the appropriate WikiProject to comment here.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I've added a reference to the Pegasus Airlines flight information. Deleting this article would require attaining a new consensus to delete all airline destination lists. In terms of merging, the list is certainly long enough to require its own article. Mvjs Talking 06:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not for being WP:INDISCRIMINATE though, as they are defined lists, there is nothing indiscriminate about them. I have been going thru them, and marked dozens of them as unreferenced in October 2007. Now, 12 months later, many of them still lay unreferenced, and others have simply had the unref tags removed, but had many edits since then. These lists are getting out of hand. We have many of these lists going directly against WP:NOT#TRAVEL, in that they are including frequencies, flight numbers, aircraft used on routes, and a whole lot of other unencylopaedic information. Worse yet, they are including terminated destinations, many of which are referenced to airchive.com, which is a website made up of scans of airline timetables and route maps - it is WP:POLICY that we are not to use references or link to copyright violations - which that website does by hosting copyright images and products (yes, airline timetables are covered by copyright). Also, back in 2007 when going thru articles, the unreferenced tags were removed on many articles and replaced with Destinations can be found at URL, as can be seen here as an example; if destinations can be found at the website, then why are these articles here? Many of the actual airline articles have zero information on the route network, but just a link to the destination list, with no prose. We are not a travel guide, nor an airline website. If having the destinations is important, then the best solution is Image:Airberlindestinations.png -- just without the copyright violation of having the logo on the map. And yes, it's probably about time all of the articles are again reviewed. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 11:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge with airline. WE have deleted articles on airline destination lists before, I think. A list of destinations would only be useful if one could be sure that it was up to date, but routes are opened and terminated at frequent intervals, meaning that the article will become unmaintainable. On the other hand, the airline has a strong commercial interest in keeping its own website up to date. It is therefore much more satisfactory for the airline article to provide a general description of the destinations and an external reference to a commercial website. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to airline article. Current airline article and destination article is not big enough for separate articles, and would be better off merged into the main article. The consensus at the appropriate wikiproject/s is to create the separate destination article if the main article is too big, which is clearly not the case here. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 02:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Coren 23:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Scholarship hall[edit]

The concept of scholarship halls, and particularly the University of Kansas's application of the concept, seems to lack stand-alone notability. While facilities of this concept may warrant a paragraph or two in Dormitory or University of Kansas, it certainly fails notability for a stand-alone article.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Delete but encourage creation of a proper article. The concept is notable. on what basis do you say otherwise? I think there is probably a good deal to be found in the professional literature, but I am not personally interested in working on this topic. However, the present article is altogether as impossible as most other college residence hall articles -- it is basically spam with almost no p[ossibly encyclopedic content, and comes very near to a G11 speedy. There is nothing in the present article suitable for reuse. (and ditto for the particular halls) DGG (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying that the concept lacks complete notability - just stand-alone notability. I encourage a discussion of it - just not as a stand-alone article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scholarship hall and merge in Pearson Scholarship Hall and Stephenson Scholarship Hall. The concept is both notable and controversial (exemption of scholarship hall kitchens from the KDHE inspections) - see here, here, and here for example. There are plenty of sources available to back up notability. We don't delete because of ad content or lack of sources in the page; we tag for cleanup and expand. TerriersFan (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 16:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the 3 news accounts given, the first two are really trivial and the third of probable local interest only. I don't think it can reasonably be expanded, especially since the first step to improvement would be deleting almost all the existing content. I doubt very much Scholarship Hall kitchens are exempt as distinct from university kitchens, but I suppose further sources are possible--the ref should be used for a more general article on UKansas residence halls--there is no reason to think these anything special. DGG (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge scholarship hall/Delete others: The concept of a 'scholarship hall' is too narrow to merit its own article, but the content is probably worth mentioning at University of Kansas and possibly elsewhere. The individual halls are entirely nonnotable and should be deleted without further comment. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scholarship hall and merge in Pearson Scholarship Hall and Stephenson Scholarship Hall. A notable article with interesting content can be made for the overall concept, and any advertish content can be edited, sources can be added, these articles can become a suitable combination article with a little merging and cleanup. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic anarchism[edit]

Fails WP:ORG "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." This article depends upon a mailing list and a website for its sources about the subject, the rest seems to be OR. Doug Weller (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomIRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 16:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typing "per nom" is a waste of everyone's time. This is a discussion, not a vote, so do you have anything productive to contribute? the skomorokh 16:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't it be great if AfDs really weren't votes in any way! Doug Weller (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Per nom" simply means the user agrees with the nomination as written and supports it. It's not a forbidden phrase by any means, it is widely used and has been for years. On todays AFDs alone there are a couple dozen "per nom"s. There is absolutly no reason to target this user and accuse them of "wasting time". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is well understood what it means. The issue Skomorokh is raising is that while "per nom" (WP:PERNOM) is often used, it is not to be encouraged.--Cast (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. the skomorokh 16:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is largely original synthesis, the subject itself a non-notable internet meme. Moreschi (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic of anarchism is a subject with such a anti establishment agenda that there is hardly any notable publications that do publish material regarding anarchism. Celtic anarchism is a subject quite known as common knowledge and has been shown in pop-culture such as the movie Arthur, braveheart to a lesser extent, etc. There are other articles that has less reference and this subject is as worthy as any of those to have an article for people to get a better understanding. What would be more productive would be to contribute and enhance the article rather than delete it. What may be preferable is to remove only the parts of people trying to adtop Celtic Anarchism today and talk about it in a historical perspective. Lord Metroid (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- but Wikipedia is built on references. Do you have any sources that discuss the Arthur or Braveheart movies in terms of being about "Celtic anarchism" (ahem, king Arthur, wouldn't that be "Celtic monarchism"?). If there aren't any sources, we can't have an article about it. --dab (𒁳) 21:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The topic of anarchism is a subject with such a anti establishment agenda that there is hardly any notable publications that do publish material regarding anarchism". This is wholly untrue. There is a wealth of academic literature on anarchism, and many articles continue to be published about its various forms. If nothing is published on this, it suggests that it is not notable. Paul B (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, existence of subject is not established by references. If better references are presented, fair enough. If not, delete away. --dab (𒁳) 21:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR at present, with the admission there are no specific organisations, there are not likely to be sources. DGG (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a jumble of predicable Celticist fantasies, non-sequiturs and extrapolations from a central concept that probably deserves a sentence at most. Paul B (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable and frankly pretty ridiculous. The claim that "hardly any notable publications that do publish material regarding anarchism" is complete and utter bullshit: there are whole publishers specialising in that topic, not to mention any number of periodicals and so on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig DeRosa[edit]

An article about a non-notable reality TV contestant with no likes to expand with future information. I would say that it should be merged to So You Think You Can Dance (Season 1) finalists, but that itself was a deleted article. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 16:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and unreferenced --Dreamspy (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; there's a fairly strong previous consensus that only the top two or three people in reality shows are notable for that alone. Redirecting to the season or the show would be fine as an alternative. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NWP Gaming[edit]

Article fails WP:N by failing to provide any verifiable sources indicating why it's remarkable in any way. Tried to tag the article on two separate occasions noting this, but they have been removed without any improvements in that direction. It is also suggested that the article reads much like a fansite, also failing WP:NOT#WEBHOST. MuZemike (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:ORG. Almost a speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 36 unique Google hits (and nothing in GNews) suggests a paucity of reliable sources. Therefoore, notability cannot be demonstrated and WP:V cannot be met. I'm also including Andrew Machalek, one of the clan members. — Scientizzle 20:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N and WP:V. Also fails WP:ORG byy the same token. Also agree with deleting Andrew Machalek by the same token. Randomran (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion for Andrew Machalek as well for lack of verifiable secondary sources that can satisfy WP:BIO. It should also be noted of the obvious conflict of interest with the two articles (self-promotion). MuZemike (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarvuism[edit]

Gimmick made up earlier this year and no indication of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Elements of commercial spam (using wikipedia to create notability). As with such things, it could become more notable, just isn't right now. Arrrr, matey ... --Quartermaster (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. The topic doesn't justify a Wikipedia article. AdjustShift (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — contains spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam, spam and spam. MuZemike (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please. No more imaginary religions. AdjustShift, this isn't even a topic! Drmies (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Useful unbiased factual reporting on a spoof religion.
- But not notable.—Largo Plazo (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Bonadea (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mixtape Messiah[edit]

Non-notable mixtape with little media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mixtapes are generally not notable. No sources here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH. The one review / source provided doesn't exactly pass WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can someone build a bot that automatically deletes mixtape articles? If an artist is notable, a mention of mixtapes within that article is probably fine - but an entire article on ephemeral material of suspect notability? No. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone not make sweeping generalizations? The problem with mixtapes is that anyone can make them, and in fact can make rather a lot of them, but they are a significant part of the culture with a long history, and there are several which should have good articles. 86.44.27.95 (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the article itself, and the title, which is an honorific for the rapper based on his ubiquity on mixtapes and ability to shift mixtape units prior to being signed, this is an official release on BCD Music Group, therefore by convention and generality mentioned at WP:MUSIC, is entitled to an article. The sequels Mixtape Messiah 2–4 are bona fide mixtapes, which may or may not be notable, and perhaps account further for the confusion. 86.44.27.95 (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's still a mixtape, just one with independent distribution. How do we distinguish? I'm basing the above on the fact that Mixtape Messiah 2–4 are available free to download at www.chamillionaire.com, whereas one must go to Amazon to pick up this. That suggests a contractual obligation, and i am unaware of Amazon being in the business of selling mixtapes. 86.44.27.95 (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defined as a mixtape here (XXL), but that's a strong assertion of notability. 86.44.27.95 (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2+3 both have quite a lot of reviews, which is why they were not put forth for deletion. #4 is also in AfD.—Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Characters in the Axis of Time trilogy. So Why 17:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Harry (Birmoverse)[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and all of the other characters in the series There is good reason why these are not appropriate for separate articles, but none oat all why they cannot be content in a ombination article for the characters in ther series. None is given in the nom. The way to do these is proposed merge, not afd. If support is needed for such merges, it's available. DGG (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all these Again, these should have been bundled. Hobit (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Duffy (Axis of Time)[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I think (almost) every character from Axis of Time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, uncited OR. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian (Ultima)[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional/Weak Keep - Article needs citations, but being the final villain in multiple games of a series seems to indicate some notability. umrguy 42 16:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article of course needs citations, but Ultima is a notable enough series, and he's a central enough figure that I think he establishes potential. I'm not too familiar with the PC gaming comminity but it seems likely that he would've been mentioned in gaming magazines, sites, etc. that could help establish this. S. Luke (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Sources likely exist given nature of character and importance of game. I've looked up enough of these for TTN's AfDs today. Someone else's turn. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources likely exist, eh? WP:PROVEIT, please. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, new day, backlog of TTN AfDs to hit. [43] discusses the guardian in some detail, while [44] discusses the impact of the Guardian (and more importantly, assumes the reader just knows about it. [45] briefly discusses the creation of the character, while [46] is a passing reference. Good enough for an article? That's a matter of opinion. But RS clearly exist. Combined with primary sources, there is no problem having a solid article. Hobit (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see one. Two is just a passing mention, so it cannot be used in the context of this article. What did you search on three in order to find a mention of its creation? As with two, four is just a passing mention. Just because the sources themselves are reliable and the sources mention the topic in some capacity, does not make the sources applicable for this article. TTN (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per, above all, WP is not a publisher of original thought and WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is an obvious lack of reliable sources establishing anything; if there are, then, as indicated above, please add them. MuZemike (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - being "mentioned in gaming magazines" isn't enough to meet the notability threshold - coverage about this character needs to be significant. Less substantial mentions will be fine for WP:V though, and should be used to enrichen a short "characters" section in Ultima (series). Edit: changed to "weak" delete, if the Chris Chan review linked to by Hobit above does indeed discuss the character in detail (can you indicate how much coverage? A paragraph? A chapter?) Further substantial coverage might knock me to the side of keep. Marasmusine (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Croc: Legend of the Gobbos. So Why 17:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Dante[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A google search returns several thousand results. Although this doesn't assert notability, I must assume good faith that somehwere in those results are legitimate references, if anybody wants to dig for them. S. Luke (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A two-game villian in a relatively unknown two-game series is a rather unlikely candidate for having any potential to be even a half-decent (by WP:WAF standards) article. If you do find any sources, they would be put to better use in Croc: Legend of the Gobbos or Croc 2 instead. Nifboy (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any sourced content to Croc: Legend of the Gobbos. In other words, delete. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlikely sources exist for a minor fictional character such as this. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Croc: Legend of the Gobbos per lack of verifiable secondary sources establishing notability (fiction). Plausible search term. MuZemike (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N and WP:V. If absolutely necessary, re-create as a redirect. Randomran (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to List of Sly Cooper characters. A merge seems to be planned anyway so an easy close. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Octavio[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge/Redirect to List of Sly Cooper characters per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Bison et al. Pretty sure we don't need to have yet another discussion on a bit Sly villian. Nifboy (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sly Cooper characters — agree with Nifboy. This was already established from similar AfDs on this topic. MuZemike (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per precedent of the other characters. Lack of sources, but perhaps the list can be improved to meet our content guidelines and policies. Randomran (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect despite the fact that there are objections, no one has provided any reliable sources which establishes the notability of the subject independently. Therefore, this article can only stand as a redirect at the most. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darkrai[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of game guide material, unnecessary plot summary, and original research. TTN (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list, and protect the redirect. How on earth are these things coming back? The standards for notability are quite clear: multiple, independent, third-party sources need to examine the topic directly and in detail. That standard hasn't been met for the most well-known Pokemon, with the sole exception of Pikachu. Bulbasaur doesn't meet it, and people have been trying for 6 years to find sources. For an also-ran like Darkrai, it can be presumed that that standard will never be met. In the event that people actually find multiple, independent, third-party sources that address this character directly and in detail, they can go to WP:RFPP and request that the redirect be unprotected.—Kww(talk) 14:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
provisional weak keep- I get the arguments. However, since the subject was the title character in the movie Rise of Darkrai, I would think it would have received some articles in japanese, in relation to the film. If any of these articles, should they exist, be found, translated, and referenced in the article, then that would establish notability. That said, I don't speak or read a hint of Japanese, so I don't know if I'm right or just being optimistic, hence the provisional part of my vote. If an effort is made, and nothing is found, then I have no objection to a redirect. As an aside though, I wonder why this was even brought here? Isn't standard procedure for individual pokemon to redirect to the appropriate list? Umbralcorax (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was redirected to the list. Pokemon fans have been edit-warring it back into existence since May, and, despite the flawless logic of your assertion, they haven't found a single independent, third-party source that examines Darkrai. I have no objection to them resurrecting the article after such sources have been found, but this is a good example of why these redirects need to be protected. It only takes one fan to start an edit war, and, despite that fact that most Pokemon aren't individually notable, they all have at least one fan.—Kww(talk) 17:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it was a redirect previously. I'm not saying it wasn't. All i'm saying is that there might be potential for a real article here. The second part was asking why, if it was a redirect before, why it wasn't simply turned back into a redirect instead of bringing it here in the first place? I get that there are edit wars and all over this. And personaly, I do get your reasoning for wanting the average pokemon to be a redirect to the list, as the average one, even if they have plenty of in-universe notability, just aren't that notable out of universe. I'm just trying to make a couple of points: 1- it IS possible that this particular one has out of universe notability, and 2- was it really necessary to bring this up for deletion? Wouldn't Dispute resolution have been better? And like I said- if nothing is found, I have zero objection to turning it back into a redirect and being done with the matter. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there was a better process for making a redirect stick. I've been trying to come up with one, but as it stands, AFD is the only path that works. The nominator did attempt to restore the redirect three times before giving up and bringing it here.—Kww(talk) 18:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough especially being a title character in a movie. (Nintendofootball (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to Pokemon: The Rise of Darkrai — There is only one reliable source that provides some coverage about the Pokemon itself, but there is nothing that even mentions the Darkrai in any of the other sources besides the German flyer, which does not count as reliable. I also agree with the above and would not oppose to semi-protection as the revert warring has been perpetuated by IPs. (However, that can be easily brought up at WP:RFPP.) MuZemike (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD isn't the place to resolve an edit war. The nom has been sending pretty much every article that someone reverts his redirects to AfD. That's not what it is for. Also, title "character" of a movie indicates some notability. Hobit (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral comment Discussion is certainly preferable to edit warring. AfD is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted, whether we support deletion, keeping, or anything in between. If someone reverts a redirect, soliciting discussion is exactly the right approach. Randomran (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree in principle, but not all discussion should be at AfD. User:Kww started a discussion on my talk page about what might be the right thing to do. I replied on his (sorry if gender is wrong) talk page. I think we need an answer to this, but AfD isn't the answer at the moment. At the least the problem is that only one "side" can bring things here. Bringing something to AfD you don't want deleted is generally considered pointy. Hobit (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know we're getting off topic... but I just don't see what's wrong with discussing at AFD, which is what it's designed for. You could always improve the articles that you don't want deleted (e.g. add appropriate sources), to avoid an AFD or build support for keeping. Randomran (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - And staying off topic: as noted in another thread, when in a "redirect war" with TTN or some other user can I bring something here if I don't want it to be a redirect (want a keep result?) I think the answer is no. And so why should the other side, which is pushing for redirect, be able to come here to get consensus? I could of course lie, and and bring things here I want to keep, but that would be pointy at best. Hobit (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to a suitable list of pokemon, or the specific game in which it appears. Lacks sufficient sources to meet our notability guideline, but bare sourcing at the moment makes a compromise reasonable. Randomran (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect somewhere (movie's my first choice) or maybe turn into a disambig; three unrelated plot summaries and a basic description is still entirely in-universe, and equally redundant with information found elsewhere. Nifboy (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pokémon (481-493)#Darkrai, nothing to merge. Everything is either plot, OR, general Pokémon franchise information, and that he is available as a toy, which is true for all Pokémon. Seeing how much difficulty much more prominent Pokémon have had to demonstrate notability, I doubt that even having a movie named after him is going to help. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are several Pokémon which are actually individually notable; this is one. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's simply impossible to get a description of a fictional character without using attributes from it own fictional universe.MRFraga (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources A few sources: [47] provides some details, [48] is really about the movie, but provides some data. Primary sources can be used for the rest... Hobit (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions at best. Falls well short of being a direct and detailed examination of the topic.—Kww(talk) 15:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With regard to game guides: Wikipedia is not a game guide, but a game guide published by someone other than the creators of Pokemon should be a valid secondary source for the purpose of documenting verifiable information about each Pokemon. Also, the existence of such guides from several different 3rd parties should be evidence of the notability of the creative ideas and characters portrayed, just as it is for Star Wars characters or other characters from a notable copyrighted source. take a look at [49] the 4000+ books on Amazon published by independent publishers such as Scholastic, Prima, Triumph Books, Troll Communications, and Beckett Pubns, as well as the expected Viz Media, Brady Games and Nintendo. Felisse (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If those are licensed (and I'm sure some are) independence becomes questionable. That said, some of them aren't (many of the game guides in particular). So those do count. Hobit (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's worse than "some of them are [licensed]". I've looked before, and so far as I have been able to determine, all of them are licensed. The Scholastic sources are all licensed by Nintendo. The Prima guide is licensed by Nintendo. The Nintendo guides are obviously not independent. If you sincerely believe that one of those 4000+ books on Amazon is independent and contains information on Darkrai, please indicate which one. I've spent many hours looking for an independent source on many individual Pokemon, and haven't found one yet.—Kww(talk) 20:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[50] appears to be independent (but older this this one). [51], [52] all look good. [53] includes 19 books. Some are price guides, one looks self published. But 19 "unofficial" books... Hobit (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first (book) link should have stuff on this one because it includes the set it came out in. Hobit (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The website is described as a game guide, which covers individual Pokemon as part of an exhaustive treatment. Guides that strive for exhaustive coverage do not provide evidence of notability for the individual things described ... that's the nature of exhaustive coverage. As for the information contained, it's a game guide, and contains material not suitable for Wikipedia The two Beckett price guides are collectors value guides. Your fourth is a great one for establishing the notability of the Pokemon franchise, which is not and never has been in question. It doesn't cover Darkrai at all. If I look for my nemesis, Bulbasaur, it gets mentioned one time as a part of a list of starter Pokemon. It covers the concept of Pokemon, the marketing of Pokemon, but doesn't cover individual Pokemon in any detail.—Kww(talk) 21:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:N says anything about "exhaustive coverage" being a strike against a source. It has to be detailed, not exclusive. That Beckett guide claims to be significantly more than a price guide.... Hobit (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to go play "search through the policies" again, because someone has been shuffling a few key sentences. It doesn't convey notability for the same reason a phone book doesn't: since my phone company publishes a complete list of every person and business on my island, being listed in their directory isn't an argument for my notability.—Kww(talk) 21:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As not every fictional character has a write-up like this (in fact very very few), it could also mean that they are all notable. Just saying. Hobit (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hima-Sella[edit]

Spammy, no indication of notability AndrewHowse (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before deleting this page please review in line with other pages such as ABB Group, Siemens, Yokogawa, Honeywell etc etc. All providing information linked to a specific company or organisation. If this page is to be removed for being 'spammy' then half the pages on Wikipedia would therefore fall under this catagory.

Just because you (AndrewHowse) have no specific interest in this article does not mean it is of no importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.117.103.18 (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, there are clear statements of standards for inclusion. WP:CORP applies here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice, I shall include independent news references relevent to the article and link them to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.117.103.18 (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent news references will not fix the advertising-speak that this article is written in. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article still reads like an ad. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, this is spam. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice: the business may or may not be notable, and appears to at least be a hardware manufacturer rather than a services business - but the prose would need to be rewritten from scratch. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burton F.C[edit]

Completely non-notable English football team, playing at a very very low level with no relevant third-party sources about them (some items found in Google searches are actually about other football clubs in the town of Burton-upon-Trent) fchd (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some way below the level required for notability.--Michig (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At Level 14, this team are most definitely non-notable. Bettia (rawr!) 08:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 09:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Fram (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1576 in Norway[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. __meco (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only entries in these years are very minor events in the history of Norway. These pages all are created from the history of one city, and have no further contents. Pages are some seven months old and are mostly an empty shell. These pages are all responsible for 3 or 4 categories each which only contain this page (e.g. Category:1576 in Norway, Category:1570s in Norway, Category:Years of the 16th century in Norway and Category:1576 in Denmark) which is an impressive overhead for these contents. Pages are part fo a sparsely populated structure (so it's not like deleting those will creating gaps) and have no truly notable content. These five pages are equivalent to one paragraph in Porsgrunn, which is the logical place to have these entries. Fram (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

Delete all. I'm very interested in chronology but these are going nowhere. The author would have been better creating articles covering events in Norway by longer timespans. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all As creator I have so far not had many others contribute to this hierarchy, however, common sense dictates that eventually other editors will tend to these pages and their backdrop hierarchy. It is also in the nature of such listy articles that their expansion will be piecemeal and incremental often. This is also a matter of getting used to the existence of this hierarchy. With 2008 in Norway as the frontpiece this may very well begin to take place relatively shortly.

Whether these should be redirected to pages per decade or even century should be the sensible alternative option. As a rule, such articles should never be deleted. __meco (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would mean that we would have an article "16th century in Norway", where the only entry was the first mention of the name of one city in one year. Perhaps it is better to hold of creating such an article until something really noteworthy can be said? Fram (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Just because there at current is not listed more than one item in each year, does not mean that there was not more notable things that happened in the years. As Meco mentions, the Norwegian-related contributors have not really gotten into adding stuff to these articles—and I take full self critism for not being fully aware of the potential. If such an article would get deleted just becaue there is one listing in them, no such article would get kept, because each year-article would to begin with be created when one person found one event that happened that year. But then another editor (perhaps working in a completely different field) comes along and finds another piece of information, and sticks it into the chronology. This encyclopedia is being built step by step, and we have to allow it to be built in such a way. Instead of making deletion nominations not based on policy—I notice that the nominator fails to actually quote deletion policy in his nomination—I would like to hail Meco for his efforts in creating such a hiarchy of chronology. It is efforts like Meco and his kind that make the Internet not suck. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the whole of the 16th century, there has been one entry for over six months now, containing one event of very minor importance. I don't mind an encyclopedia being built step by step, but there are limits to everything. As for deletion: I could have removed the one entry in these articles nominated as lacking any importance for the history of Norway, and then deleting the articles as CSD A3, no contents whatsoever. They fail WP:N completely. We don 't create empty shells in the hope that someday someone will come along and fill them. We wait with article creation until something noteworthy needs to be said. Similarly, we don't create low-level articles if there isn't enough (yet) to fill a high level article. We don 't have an article on the 16th century in Norway, but we have four categories all pointing to the fact that "The first mention of Porsgrunn by the writer Peder Claussøn Friis in his work Concerning the Kingdom of Norway" is done in this year, which creates overcategorisation (another reason for deletion mentioned in policy). And in the end, not every deletion nomination must be rooted in deletion policy, which doesn't cover all possibilities. If an article does not clearly fall into one of the usual deletion reasons, we have a discussion to define the consensus. A priori deciding that anything which doesn't directly reference the deletion policy must be kept is not what is stated in the deletion policy either. "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following...". My emphasis, of course. Fram (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The articles have now been expanded with multiple new entries. Turns out that there is no problem finding stuff that happens in each year, even through the Wikipedia search engine. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, especially since there is a strong move towards unlinking stand-alone dates. Such articles which put historical events into context will be very useful. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep all and devote the time & effort used here to adding content. I'm sure the norwegian WP will have information about some other events during these years. we're not talking about the early middle ages where there really may not be enough information for sustaining individual year articles. But 1842? DGG (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, thanks for expanding them, but please consider not creating articles until something worth adding is entered. They have some useful content now, but could just as well not have existed for the last six months. Fram (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Students Working Against Great-Injustice[edit]

Fails WP:ORG, no third-party sources. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless multiple sources of significant coverage in independent secondary sources can be found. This is a school group, every school has groups. The fact that it's better written than many articles doesn't change the fact that there are three links to the group's personal website...and nothing else. -Markeer 00:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently the organisation doesn't appear to have received the coverage by reliable sources that a verifiable, neutral encyclopaedia article, free of original research could be based upon. Guest9999 (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A high school student group with rather poorly defined aims and concerns. Being organized by the school board might possibly suggest the existence of some reliable sources, but Google results are not promising [54]. Curses! My enemies have found me here! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Firstly, this is not a high school club or group. This is one of the two student groups which are a part of the TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD, the largest school board in Canada. The reason for the lack of third party resources is because of the fact that it was only recently created. The reason for which search results do not appear of Google linking it to the TDSB: All tdsb website ( including the one referenced ) are not officially up yet, and can only be accessed through a direct link, as in the case of the group's website.

If you were to visit the website, you would find confirmation for all I have said. www.tdsb.on.ca/swag

Of course, as soon as the site becomes active, and the group's first event occurs ( November 2nd ), i will add further sources as this event is to be covered by the media. I take it upon myself to add third-party sources once they actually become available.

I must also add that this page has not been based on original research but rather positive factual information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokulan3 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If and when this group's event (or the group itself) is significantly covered by the press, you can feel free to re-create the topic with citations. The essential problem is that, as you yourself say, the only way to find confirmation of this group's bare existence (forget notability) is to visit their own website. From Wikipedia's perspective, this means you have no reliable sources. I am certain that this student group has great ideals and plans, and I honestly wish it the very best in all of it's endeavors, but articles about things that may become notable someday do not belong in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it is a reference guide to what can be known with evidence. -Markeer 17:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable student group. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to List of Nepalese films. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nepalese films of 2007[edit]

Delete list of nn films per WP:NOT wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Mayalld (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined list, part of the WP:FILM film by country listings that exist. Lugnuts (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge As Lugnuts above. However, due to the number of films Nepal produced, they could easily merge into one list at List of Nepalese films.Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Nepalese films as per Blofeld. Having all Nepalese films in one place makes much more sense than having dozens of short lists and allows users to find them easily. This improves Wiki.. and the same thing should go for the as yet unnominated Nepalese films of 2007. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to List of Nepalese films. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nepalese films of 2006[edit]

Delete list of nn films per WP:NOT wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Mayalld (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined list, part of the WP:FILM film by country listings that exist. Lugnuts (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge As Lugnuts above. However, due to the number of films Nepal produced, they could easily merge into one list at List of Nepalese films.Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Nepalese films as per Blofeld. Having all Nepalese films in one place makes much more sense than having dozens of short lists and allows users to find them easily. This improves Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to List of Nepalese films. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nepalese films of 2005[edit]

Delete list containing only a single entry per WP:NOT wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Mayalld (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined list, part of the WP:FILM film by country listings that exist. Lugnuts (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge As Lugnuts above. However, due to the number of films Nepal produced, they could easily merge into one list at List of Nepalese films.Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Nepalese films as per Blofeld. Having all Nepalese films in one place makes much more sense than having dozens of short lists and allows users to find them easily. This improves Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to List of Nepalese films. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nepalese films of 2003[edit]

Delete list of nn films per WP:NOT wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Mayalld (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined list, part of the WP:FILM film by country listings that exist. Lugnuts (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge As Lugnuts above. However, due to the number of films Nepal produced, they could easily merge into one list at List of Nepalese films.Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Nepalese films as per Blofeld. Having all Nepalese films in one place makes much more sense than having dozens of short lists and allows users to find them easily. This improves Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7 and/or as uncited BLP. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hervé Trioreau[edit]

BLP article which fails notability. Shovon (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. I don't see even a claim to notability within the article. Newsaholic (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and unreferenced --Dreamspy (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Iqbal[edit]

I have been through all the elements of WP:PROF and don't believe that Azhar Iqbal meets any of them. His work has been cited a handful of times [55] but otherwise he is a jobbing academic. Nothing wrong with being a jobbing academic but it does not confer enough notability for a biographical article. Nancy ^talk 13:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are 2 obvious red-flags here: (1) the article says "notable for his work on quantum game theory", but gives no independent confirmation or supporting documentation, and (2) the subject is currently a post-doc, which almost always suggests (except in extreme cases, which would be documented) that notability has not (yet) been attained. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and unreferenced --Dreamspy (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Weak keep. Searching Google scholar for "quantum game" led to results in which four of Iqbal's papers were listed in the top 20. So it seems that, if we believe quantum game theory to be an important topic, he is a notable contributor to that topic. However, to meet WP:PROF, he has to make a significant impact in his field broadly construed. For that, I think the results of searching for him by name are more impressive: one paper with over 250 citations in Google scholar. This seems very good, especially for someone as junior as the article states him to be. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David, are you sure it is the same person? - the A. Iqbal in the paper cited by 274 "D-Branes and Mirror Symmetry" is Amer Iqbal from MIT, i.e. not the same forename as the article and, according to the article at least, Azhar has never been associated with MIT. The other top hits in the search by name also seem to be this other A.Iqbal. Nancy ^talk 05:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I did filter out some non-physics contributions by another Iqbal but didn't notice this one. Thanks for catching this. That changes my opinion from weak keep to weak delete; he is junior and the corrected record reflects that. I've struck out the parts of my comment that don't make sense in light of this correction. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nepalese actresses[edit]

Delete list containing more redlinks than blue that is redundant to a category Mayalld (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is part of a series of lists of actors by nationality. The fact that it contains redlinks shows exactly why this list is not redundant to a category. It points the way for further development. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Please note that some of the entries within this list have failed notability guidelines. Please check deletion logs of few red links Hitro 07:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even if it were "redundant to a category," that would not be a valid deletion reason. Lists and categories are meant to complement one another, per WP:CLN. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list is part of Category:Lists of actors by nationality. The nominator has failed to present a valid reason for deleting this list. AdjustShift (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-To keep this article because the main editor included it within the category of actors by nationality , is not a valid reason either.Hitro 07:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See below. AdjustShift (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above.Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it would be good if these lists contained more information than just the name. E.g. birth/death years; most notable films, &c. —RJH (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, valid topic. --Soman (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Topic may be a valid one, but contents may not be. Its not a speedy keep item.Hitro 07:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Most of the entries in this list are non-notable. Three of the four blue links are related to Indian cinema. Most of the Red linked names may be non-existent. Many of red linked entries had separate articles earlier but all was deleted as per notability guidelines. Red list should not be encouraged Hitro 07:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The purpose of this page is to provide a place for Nepalese actresses who are not sufficiently notable to justify a separate article. I'm not an expert in Nepalese movies, but people who are familiar with Nepalese movies will find this page useful. There are some people on the page who will never have a separate article. We can erase wikilink from those names. AdjustShift (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are you seriously suggesting that (for those actresses that are not sufficiently notable for an article of their own), appearance on a list with no further details has some encyclopedic purpose? Mayalld (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Someone has to add further details on the list. I'm not familiar with Nepalese movies, but people who are familiar with Nepalese movies can add details on the list. This is not a "hopeless list", there's room for improvement. AdjustShift (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Synergy 04:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nepalese actors[edit]

Delete list containing more redlinks than blue that is redundant to a category Mayalld (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is part of a series of lists of actors by nationality. The fact that it contains redlinks shows exactly why this list is not redundant to a category. It points the way for further development. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even if it were "redundant to a category," that would not be a valid deletion reason. Lists and categories are meant to complement one another, per WP:CLN. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list is part of Category:Lists of actors by nationality. The nominator has failed to present a valid reason for deleting this list. AdjustShift (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Red links also encourage growth Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. But I would like to see more information than just the name. —RJH (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, valid topic, redlinks not inherently bad. --Soman (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although maybe cull the red links. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xardas[edit]

Non-notable fictional character, with little-to-no mention in reliable secondary sources per WP:FICTION.Ironholds (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N and WP:V. Randomran (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no interesting out-of-universe context, seems unlikely there will be any. Marasmusine (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Antagonist A.D.[edit]

Notabilty not asserted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

((prod)) tag was placed, and removed by the page's author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Could some one who knows what they're doin' please add in Antagonist (band) too. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a cut-and-paste copy of Antagonist (band). The latter article can then be moved and/or nominated for deletion.-gadfium 19:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Snoke[edit]

This article is essentially a one-issue biography, focusing almost exclusively on the paper he wrote with Behe. As you may be able to see from edit history, previous attempts to comply with NPOV have pretty much failed. I had previously attempted to PROD, but removal was contested. Silas Snider (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even a conservative Google Scholar search indicates that his works are heavily cited by others. The Behe paper is cited by 21 others; his book Bose-Einstein Condensation is cited by 202; his related paper "Bose-Einstein condensation of excitons and biexcitons: and coherent nonlinear optics with excitons" from Physics Today (2001) is cited by 127. Google News turns up numerous articles related to Snoke and his work. Regardless of the validity of his conclusions he appears clearly notable. Maralia (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 21 cites about his paper, 1 so-so cite about the author. The biography is a coatrack to dwell on intelligent design. His co-authored paper with Behe is notable, and an article about the paper itself is more justified than this bio. There are often hundreds of authors to notable physics papers these days-each of their authors don't become notable figures for wikipedia bio's as a result. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An biographical article needs biographical information. If all we have is stuff that talks about his work, then we should have articles on the work, not him.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Professor marginalia, the vast majority of this article is what Behe had to say about the reaction to the Behe & Snoke paper, and not biographical material about the putative subject of this article, Snoke. Coatrack. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The GS cites are sufficient for notability as a physicist. To be elected a fellow of the APS even though an ID advocate is an indication that his work is taken seriously. The citation for the election is sufficient third party sources. But we do not needs such anyway for researchers. The research is shown to be notable by the fact that many of his peers cite it. They show the notability . We don;'t have to discuss the physics and decide ourselves. They, the reviewers of the paper sfor Phyusical Review letters, the highest ranking physics journal and the other high-ranking journals, the Pittsburgh faculty are the people who demonstrate that he's notable. The routine facts of his bio can be taken from any adequately reliable source, including his official CV. As for his work in ID, I am not sure that one coauthored paper by Behe makes him particularly notable for it, and I'd reduce that part of the article sharply. The criticism of it should be mentioned, but need not be emphasised, for his notability fortunately does not depend upon such work. DGG (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Maralia and DGG. GS cites and APS fellow (see WP:PROF #3) show notability as a physicist. About 20+ relevant gnews hits, none to do with ID, further speak of the importance of his physics research. The article may weigh ID stuff too heavily, and there is the danger of coatracking and BLP problems, but that is not a real reason for deletion. He did write a book on A Biblical Case for an Old Earth in addition to the paper, so substantial but not overwhelming coverage seems reasonable.John Z (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Whitney Prescott[edit]

Previously prodded and deleted. Non-notable model. See WP:PORNBIO, which covers pornographic models. 13th place for SIGNY award is not a serious nominee for well-known award. Could not find any reliable sources to verify notability. AVN search reveals only trivial mention.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and unreferenced --Dreamspy (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to assault. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drubbing[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and I do not think that this page can expand beyond the current dictionary definition. Guest9999 (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear violation of WP:NOTDICDEF. Maethordaer (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this dictionary definition. Cliff smith ^talk 19:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to assault. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AptEdit[edit]

Unremarkable text editing software. Google turns up nothing other than various download mirrors; time for the chop, methinks. Ironholds (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AptEdit is a windows software released from 2006. It can view and edit any file, even a disk. —Chengwenhua 0:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- That doesn't give it notability, that gives it workability. Ironholds (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. A google search shows lots of download links, but no coverage about the software such as a product review. A search on PC Magazine and ZDNet turn up no indication of reviews or coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a straightforward advertisement by its author with no attempt to establish notability Tedickey (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Tedickey. Doesn't establish notability, just promotes the product. MvjsTalking 10:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Advertisement of an unnotable product. — ^Fatal Error 07:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedyDelete - as per WP:SD (G11), WP:SPAM and WP:N policy - DustyRain (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to qualify for G11. The articles content isn't spamtastic per se; having a product as its subject and a COI isn't really enough. Ironholds (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ayusha Karki[edit]

Another one in a long line of articles from this creator. Winning the pageant avoids a speedy, but there's no evidence that winning either of these pageants actually infers notability. While I'm aware that there are language issues and don't want to get into systemic bias, there's no evidence she's a notable person. We do not need articles on every teen pageant winner who aren't notable for anything else. Skipped PROD since creator has a history of removing tags and since s/he's allowed to do so with a PROD, there's no reason to go through that only to land at AfD eventually. TravellingCari 12:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 12:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 12:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly non-notable bio created by an editor with a history of tenditious creation of such articles. Mayalld (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and unreferenced --Dreamspy (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not an encyclopedic subject. The pageants related to subject lack notability. Hitro 06:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LSE SU Economics Society[edit]

No third-party sources to assert notability. Currently, there's extreme off-topic content in article. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most student organizations that exist at only a single university are non-notable per WP:ORG, and this article has no independent sources to establish notability. I have removed the long discussion of the Consumer Price Index which had been included in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Imagine if we included every student society at every university. Sure, Wikipedia is not paper, but this is very non-notable. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Rangers monsters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The content of this article lacks coverage in reliable sources and that the characters listed lack sufficient notability for an encyclopedia article.

And its associated articles as well:

List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers monsters (Season One) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers monsters (Season Two) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers monsters (Season Three) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Power Rangers: Zeo monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Power Rangers: Turbo monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Power Rangers in Space monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Power Rangers: Lost Galaxy monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of demons in Power Rangers: Lightspeed Rescue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of mutants in Power Rangers: Time Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Orgs in Power Rangers: Wild Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Power Rangers: Ninja Storm monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Mutations in Power Rangers: Dino Thunder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of criminals in Power Rangers: S.P.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Power Rangers: Mystic Force monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Rinshi Beasts in Power Rangers: Jungle Fury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am also requesting that after these articles get deleted (if it happens), that we make redirects to the series articles. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The series itself is notable, but these are almost entirely single-episode appearances that don't belong in an encyclopedia, even in list form. No opinion on the redirects, but it seems to me nobody is ever likely to type something like "List of demons in Power Rangers: Lightspeed Rescue" into the search box, so redirects are probably of questionable value. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all There's a lot of cruft here and the lists overlap way too much. Most of the monsters have only appeared in one episode and aren't of importance to the discussion of the show. A list of recurring monsters (like Goldar or King Mondo who both appeared in more than one season) might be the way to go. Themfromspace (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep them. The series has way to many monsters and this is a great way to keep track of them. I visit the pages often.

---Shadow (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow, these articles lack coverage in reliable sources. Keeping the articles merely because we can keep track of them has no sufficiency for keeping. You say you visit the pages often, and that is even less of a reason to keep. Your statement clearly sounds like a statement that falls under WP:ILIKEIT. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 10:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, these characters all appear in notable television shows and the shows are reliable sources. I'm absolutely certain that more people have heard of these characters than they have Mike Caplan. --Pixelface (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mike Caplan has been talked about in third-party sources, Googleheimer the Toy Robot has not been. Themfromspace (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I created the article Mike Caplan. Though he is only a local weather anchor, it seems that he, as a weather anchor, deserves his own article. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Nominated the associated template for deletion as well. See here . —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 08:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Almost entirely one-shot jobs, no sources could possibly exist besides the episodes themselves. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:LC items 2, 3, and 8. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to how you define the word indiscriminate. (And further, how you feel that it applies here.) - jc37 04:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: These profiles are an important factor. Fractyl (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But why?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they are an important part of the show, and some of them do play minor important roles. ---Shadow (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - As I'm only vaguely familiar with the series, would someone please clarify if there are any entries on any of these lists which aren't cases of a single appearance in a single episode? "Minor" characters are fine, but this many lists for this many "one-shot" adversaries makes me wonder if these couldn't be better displayed in an episodes list, to reduce duplication. - jc37 06:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These are lists of minor characters for 15 different television series. As they are now, they would clutter up any episode list or main article. Sure, some of the information is really unnecessary, but that can be removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MSRP Motorsports[edit]

Team does not have established notability. It has not finished a race and has no other notability except for a small cult following on the internet, which does not qualify for Wikipedia entry. D-Day (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Team "competes" in the NASCAR Nationwide Series. Every event in the series is nationally televised. Never finishing a race and ending races with poor results because they parked the cars isn't the reason to delete the article. I see numerous WP:RS, like this link that calls them the most profitable team in NASCAR. Royal broil 05:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because they haven't finished a race yet is no reason to delete an article. Using that mentality, 2008 ARCA RE/MAX Series Champion Justin Allgaier shouldn't have had a wikipedia article until this season. His article has been on wikipedia since 2005. That was before he obtained ANY notoriety in ARCA. Another candidate would be former NASCAR star Morgan Sheppard, who hasn't finished a NNS race in over 2 years. Give them a chance to prove themselves! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLG 2701 (talk • contribs)

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Spangled Banner - Super Bowl XXXVIII Performance[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Never charted, permastub. —Kww(talk) 11:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Or as a second choice, redirect to Beyoncé Knowles discography. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think a redirect would be useful as any inbound links would probably come from the higher level of either Beyonce Knowles materal or Super Bowl XXXVIII material. This may warrant a one line mention in the superbowl pregame section, but it is already included as part of the infobox there. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Ibrahim Rahimtoola[edit]

A possibly notable person, but the article doesn't explain at all who he is, or why he is notable, apart from a long list of nominations and degrees. Contains no prose or sources. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} - Do I suck or rock? 11:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: This is also possibly a COI violation, as the article was created by User:Rahimtoola, who has no other contributions in the English Wiki (altough it's not written by the subject, him being deceased). — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} - Do I suck or rock? 11:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be converted into prose, but the subject IS notable, as the former Governor of Sindh and Governor of Punjab (Pakistan), as well as Pakistan's first High Commissioner to the UK. Some biographical info on him here, on the website of Pakistan's postal service, from when they issued a stamp of him. -12.68.8.18 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and unreferenced --Dreamspy (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it needs a complete rewrite and sourcing. Being a High Commissioner to the UK and a governor of multiple Pakistani provinces is certainly notable. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Provincial governor and federal minister posts fly way over the bar for WP:POLITICIAN. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newport County Borough[edit]

Article originally PROD'ed with the rationale "Club has never played in the top 10 levels of the English football league system or in a national cup as required by WP:FOOTY. Infobox currently states the club plays in the West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division but this is not true" but PROD removed by article creator without explanation, so to AfD it comes. For the record, no sources found to pass GNG either for this very small-time local amateur team. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 11:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The highest level this team has played at is Level 13 of the English football league system, and so misses the cut-off point. No entries on the FCHD and precious little third-party coverage makes them non-notable. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny you should say that, I'm on a week's leave at the moment, and gathering Shropshire League information for adding to the FCHD is one of the tasks I've set myself for this week (along with expanding West Cheshire League data and setting up some North Berks League club records). - fchd (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet more proof that PRODs removed without a rationale should be considered invalid and reinstated. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BTW, I agree with Number 57. PRODs removed without rationale and/or article improvement should be reinstated (borders on vandalism). -- Alexf^(talk) 11:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. But I disagree about prods being removed. Any prod article will likely be quickly restored if someone objects, so if someone is willing to remove a prod, it's best dealt with permanently (if there such a thing) here. AfD is a quick and easy process. Nfitz (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. While the discussion is extensive, I cannot see any consensus to delete or keep. Closing as such. So Why 17:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Q. Schmidt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Has had roles in multiple notable films, but not significant roles. Therefore not notable. See imdb 1 Honey And Thyme (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete whilst multiple sources are provided none of them actually directly discuss the subject, the majority only mentioning his name as a cast member of various projects. Based on this any truly verifiable article would just be a list of credits, not an encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN --Dreamspy (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I find it more than a little odd that the first edits with this account are an AFD. If any other editors pop up here with votes for deletion as their first edits, they will be struck accordingly. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that the user knew enough to note this as "2nd nomination" -- a true newbie with exceptional omniscience to look up procedures would not be likely to note that at all. I am a tad suspicious. Collect (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though it does need a lot more material. I regard deletion as a statement that an article has little hope at all. Collect (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)</small[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Been in over 200 projects (including recurring characters), there are sources. He isn't the biggest name in Hollywood, but that isn't the criteria. There are no small roles, only small people with SPA accounts nominating articles as thier first action. WP:BIO doesn't say "actors of small roles aren't notable", so nom is flawed anyway. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I have to agree with the nominator and Guest, and disagree with Pharmboy: the sources are lists, nothing more. No discussion, no comments, really, no coverage. Yes, there are small roles. And this support for an AfD is not my first contribution. CC, whence this conspiracy theory? Drmies (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You keep mentioning conspiracies in the AFDs, but conspiracies require two or more people working in concert. No one has said they think the nom's motivations are coordinated with anyone else. The nom's edits DO look pretty unusual and his reaction to the issues DOES look suspicious as well. If not to you, then fine, but there appears to be a few people who have been here a very long time that feel the pattern is "suspicious" at best, based on their experiences. Feel free to disagree. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, 'keep mentioning conspiracies' is a bit of an overstatement. What, I mentioned it twice? And in the same context. See, when someone accuses someone else of bad faith without ever addressing the content of the question, I think that's a little fishy. These articles should be able to stand on their own, no matter the 'faith' of the AfD nominator, and I don't think they can. BTW, I don't even disagree with you on that matter (and am curious to see where it goes), though I disagree with you on the value of the content of the article. Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying keep a sharp eye out, that's all. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep COI alert. As the subject of the article, I can only advise that much information has in the past been removed from the article, but that the (minor) notability is there for those who bother to search. This seemed to have been agreed to at the first AfD... and my career has not stood still in the last 10 months. Naturally, WP:COI prevents me from adding them myself. But I have to ponder upon what throw of the dice had a new account's very first edit ever, within mere moments of the account being created, be a nomination of an article for deletion rather than tagging it for expansion and improvement. And further, why was it that this nom only began editing other articles after it was pointed out that it seemed to be a WP:SPA by CC above? At another AfD, when this was questioned, the nom responded as a very seasoned editor, sharing his understanding of guideline. Did the nom not read WP:ATD? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note on notability. Nothing personal here, Mr. Schmidt, but after I found nothing via Google (nothing besides mere mention of roles, no reviews, etc.), I looked at the references in detail. I believe it was claimed on the talk page that sources had been deleted? If they were stronger than the ones that are there now, that would help. But as I judge it, none of the thirteen references in the article confer notability upon the subject (with apologies for the length and detail of the section below):

1. Celebrity link: a portal page that does not actually have any kind of information on subject.

2. Trailerfan.com: pretty much the same kind of page, but this time including a list of movies subject was in--but no information, no reviews.

3. Craniumcandy site: first page for Naked Shadows does not mention subject; he's only mentioned halfway down on the page with the cast.

4. Trailerfan just proves that Naked Shadows exists. Clicking on proves that subject was in it.

5. Getamovie proves probably less than the Trailerfan link for Naked Shadows.

6. PR.com is an industry inside-site, which only testifies that subject was in Fear Ever After.

7. Fearnet site does not (any longer) mention movie subject was in, let alone subject.

8: a link to Amazon, to the entry for a film that subject was in. That's proof that subject was in it, not evidence of notability.

9: online review at a pulp fansite, that mentions subject, but does not address subject's performance.

10: CBC The Hour--a blog of sorts, with a video from Youtube and four sentences by a poster (and two comments thereon).

11: LA Weekly--dead link.

12: A page on Lycos Retriever, with one sentence mentioning the subject being on a show--but this is retrieved from Wikipedia, and thus doesn't count.

13: A link to a poster with subject's picture on it--a one-time show that apparently received no other coverage, or it would have been sourced. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note on a note on notability (there should be a law in the English language against intros like that).

The sources mentioned are there to back up the basic facts. They accomplish that. Each and every site need not confer notability.

A dead link simply means the page is no longer active. Good catch, but that doesn't mean the information isn't out there.

Google is inherently unreliable for the purposes mentioned: "Hit counts have always been, and very likely always will remain, an extremely erroneous tool for measuring notability, and should not be considered either definitive or conclusive."

Keep Notability is there. The individual is part of a series with a cult following. A simple, sourced, two-paragraph background on said individual is not unreasonable. Addressing the nominator's objections
1. "...whilst multiple sources are provided..." indeed they are. There are far more sources here than in many other articles. That, in and of itself, is not justification for a keep, but does provide perspective. Personally, I'd prefer to have a fluff article that is well-sourced and reliable than a unsourced (and hence unverifiable) well-written article. I'm not saying this article is either of these, but that's my POV on the subject.
2. "...none of them actually directly discuss the subject, the majority only mentioning his name as a cast member of various projects." And therein lies his notability. If band XYZ does something notable and person A was a member of said band, the notable act perpetuates to person A's notability as a member of the band. This is not the same as person M being related to person N and therefore they are notable. This is a person who is notable as a member of the group.
3. "Based on this any truly verifiable article would just be a list of credits, not an encyclopaedia article." Well, lists are acceptable too. Is that what you are advocating? I'm confused.

What concerns me more is that this is an extremely suspicious nomination. The individual making it seems to have no other edits. Despite my past with CC, I have to agree with him on the subject and this nomination seems odd at best. It does not address anything in the previous nomination as to the reason it was kept. Why should we delete it now? Consensus didn't change. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, band XYZ doing something notable doesn't mean that person A, who was a member of said band, is himself notable. Groups are frequently notable without all or even any of their members being notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm pointing out that they are notable as members of that group that is notable. It doesn't mean they need an extensive eighty-paragraph dissertation on their life story, but a stub is certainly apropos. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response--I don't know if I'm responding to Anonymous or to BQZip. Either way: WP guidelines on notability pretty much all include the word 'significant'--"significant roles in multiple notable films etc.," for instance, and "significant coverage", where "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail." Well, none of these references address the subject in detail. Maybe subject was a part of one 'series with a cult following'--OK, but 'cult following' pushes this to the fringe, and really, subject was such a tiny part that he is barely mentioned in any coverage on the series. Google hits are not a good measure? But the absence of Google hits is meaningful. Right, one is a dead link, but I searched that site, and subject cannot be found. The information may be out there, sure, well, go find it. I looked, I can't find it. BTW, notability does not confer so easily from band XYZ to band member A--and calling subject a band member is really overstating his importance in these projects. So: what these 'references' prove is that subject played parts in these movies--and? How were those roles significant (according to reliable, third-party sources), even if those projects were significant? As for laws on English language usage--I'll not address that comment, since I'm only an assistant professor, and I assume my critic outranks me. I do note that that critic says, facetiously or misleadingly, "Each and every site need not confer notability." True, but in this case not a single one of these sites confers notability. MQS, keep the faith, I'll go rent one of those movies you were in, but I won't vote for keeping the article. And in reference to the 'Keep' vote that came in while I was typing this: there ARE no articles on subject, except for this Wikipedia article. Now, is it elitist that there are no articles written about MQS? Drmies (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following meets at least a minimal criteria.

As for the comment on English, I hate the English language and I'm a native speaker. I'm sure you know far more about the subject than I.

That you found no articles on google does not mean articles do not exist. My point was the limitations of google, not your personal limitations (whatever those may be).

Please realize that large swaths of this article have been deleted. Please review the history and you will see that this person at least meets the minimal criteria. Those sections deleted may or may not sway you. If they contribute, please bring them back.

Missing citation: I have two articles that I was a main contributor that were featured on the main page. I understand that sources are important. Web links also go bad. This link was active and they have since deleted the content. It was there at one point. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The limitations of Google? If we were talking about someone that shouldn't be well documented by Google reachable sources, I might agree, but if you're claiming cult support of a modern actor, most of the major ones should be Google reachable sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Basic Guidelines of Notability (persons): If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."

Okay... though trivial coverage of a subject "may not" {does not say can not or must not) be sufficient, one can logically conclude that an overwhelming amount of trivial and "less than trival coverage" may then be sufficient. And yes, primary sources are available to support the content of the article, but were removed last June and never returned, though it was within guideline to have them used and secondary sources that were also removed supported the information of the primary sources. I have had and continue to have recurring roles: 28 episodes of "Tom Goes to the Mayor" as Joy Peters or other characters, 11 episodes of "Let's Paint TV" as a model or character, 9 episodes of "Tim and eric Awesome Show" in differing roles, 6 episodes of Comedy Central's "Distraction" as a nudist distractor. Further, and with respects to the nom because the information was easily found, I have not done 'only minor roles in notable films"... as I have starred or co-starred in many others...: Snatched, Delaney, R3tual, Gurney Journey, Bill, Accidents Happen, Fear Ever After, Dead Doornails, Piggies, Redemption, Kwame World, The Three Trials, Sniper Patrol 420,Naked Shadows,Huge Naked Guy, Skeletons in the Closet, A Happy Ending, Flesh Pit, Streakers, Santa Claus VS The Christmas Vixens, Schmucks (And yes, these links are IMDB... but included here ONLY because it easier than listing all the non-imdb sources that confirm these informations. If an editor does a proper search, this films can be verified. Here are just a few of the "slightly more than trivial" sources I found... Adult Swim (regular #8), Pulp Movies,Hollywood up Close, Fluge.com, Artwanted.com, TVIV.org, TVign. Also, the LA Weekly art critic who wrote the LA Weekly article has me on his website. Sorry... it's technically a "blog", but its the art critic's own site and its his own opinion as was originally shared in the now dead-linked article. Some non-wikipedia "wiki-type" sites I found include: Celebrity Genius (paragraph 11), Mcomet, Seventy MM, MetaJam. And here's just a few of the many non-imdb filmologies: Filmpedia, Filmklub, Mooviees, Mr Movie. I was surprised at the results of my 45 minute search... I guess some folks do like my growing body of work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, growing body of work. Maybe some folks do like it, and perhaps, sometime soon, some of them will like it enough to write real articles about it. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE This isn't the place for a person attack, and your comments are dangerously bordering on such. Please keep it civil. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pharmboy, your bold and all-caps notice has been noted, loud and clear. May I just point out to you that I didn't come up with the joke, the subject did. I wish that in this AfD discussion you would also address the contentual issues I and others have raised. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you thought I was making a joke. I was not. When my life and career are being minimalized, I am very serious. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Schmidt, considering what those roles were, and considering your sometimes tongue-in-cheek tone, it seemed pretty obvious to me. I do sincerely apologize if I misunderstood you. But I have no intention of minimizing your career; I just question whether it's maximal enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. I know that my career doesn't warrant me inclusion on Wikipedia; c'est la vie! Drmies (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not yet a has been, not a never will be and certainly as notable as most silent movie actors who have articles and much more notable than most places that have articles. (Come on, folks the High School that Ed Roth attended or a small neighborhood that was "one of the few areas in Orange County where non-whites could own real estate prior to 1948"? Let's try a little perspective, an assumption of Good Faith and drop the elitest attitude.

Not an accout created recently and certainly old enough to recognize an unreasonable attitude by people who would register just so that they could oppose a person's having an article. That makes the subject notable per se.

JimCubb (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think I've waded through all the filler citations in this article and still don't see anything that qualifies as non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. The masses of blogs and IMDb links really don't equate to notability, sorry. JBsupreme (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? So you believe that notability IS temporary?? and that an article can be returned to AfD as many times as it takes to get it deleted?? This is the second AfD. Here is the article that was sent to that first AfD. During the course of that AfD... while notability was still being dicussed, it was continually being deconstructed. During the course of that first AfD, there was an effort to return the information so the AfD could have a truer understanding of the article. But still, and during the dicussions, and before that fist AfD was decided, informations were again removed... informations that had sourcing in places other than IMDB... informations that would better allow a reader to determine notability for themselves. Here is what came out of that First AfD... much trimmer... many informations removed and never returned... but still showing adequate notability (as established at the AfD). Over the next 6 months, there were improvements made to the article to further show notability. Then, over a 2 day period in June, the article was again deconstructed... first by the removal of sources that were specifically allowed by guideline, and then with the removal of the text supported by that source as now being unsourced. Other sources were removed (although there were other sources available online). Content then removed as now being unsourced. Removed though alternate sources available online. Content removed as being unsourced... removed as being unsourced. Remove sources and remove content... and remove more content... because the source is gone. Six months after the AfD had decided by consensus that the article had shown notability and could stay, here's what remained. Some of those deletions were returned over the next few days and by the end of June the emaciated article was once again sourced. But then in mid-July sources were again being removed even though they were self-supportive or allowed by guideline. Then once again, huge swathes of the article were deleted as being unsourced... with the sources removed. Very little was ever again returned, though other sources were available and improvement is always preferred over deletion. And that brings us to now, where the emaciated and as-yet-unrepaired article again sent for deletion. Notability was decided last January. Notability is not temporary. WP:NTEMP recognizes that sources may disappear, which is why it exists as part of WP:Notability. Deconstructing an article does not remove the prior notability or the consensus that made that conclusion... and does not improve Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a lot of words about an article about yourself, Mr. Schmidt. I thought you were going to stay out of this given the obvious POV issues here. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When/where did he ever say that? This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, isn't it? Nothing prevents him from editing even his own article. While certain precautions should be taken with regards to such changes and such changes can certainly be scrutinized, he can still edit his own article (even Jimbo Wales has edited his own article). Respond to the significant volume of evidence above if you must, but comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually a few such constraints, dear BQZ: modesty, for one. I can't find fault with a given person correcting a factual error in a Wikipedia article about herself, but if such a person spends an enormous amount of time arguing in an AfD discussion that an article about herself should NOT be deleted, basically by claiming how important she is, well, what can I say. At the least I can say that content and contributor are easily mixed if content and contributor are the same. It suggests that the sources (which, despite your suggestive comment above, you haven't addressed) really don't stand up to scrutiny. For the record, I was the one who went through all the references, and I believe I have given an honest appraisal of what they are worth. Once more, those sources reference facts, existence if you will--not that subject is necessarily worthwhile. There is no in-depth coverage of this subject anywhere that I have seen, and that's all there is to it. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; looking at the sources, I don't see one half-decent source about this guy. Nothing has changed since the last AfD. One or two of the links are dead, and maybe they had more, but most of the references to this article are listing of this person in cast lists. Two of them are about him, and give birth date, real name and height, and frankly I doubt they're independent, and don't for one second consider them reliable sources. We don't even really have to consider WP:Notability, IMO; the article fails WP:V hands down.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing has changed since the last AfD? The AfD that found the article notable and worth keeping? If nothing has changed, then whay is there a second AfD?? As BQ points out below... a whole lot has been done to the article since the last AfD where it was found notable. It was taken apart, sources, removed, content removed, and all assetions of notability removed. So at least something has changed, else it would not have been rushed first thing to AfD by an editor who never before made one single edit on Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That AfD was closed wrong, IMO. Frankly, the editor who started an AfD is irrelevant, once real editors start weighing in against the article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, There have been over 70 changes to the article (detailed ad nauseum above). Seriously, that's what a well-researched document has: lots and lots of citations with verification for each and every claim. How on earth is anything in here not verifiable? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A well researched document relies on sources that speak on the subject they are being cited for; "the average Confederate solider ate 20 tons of corn over the course of the Civil War" should be cited to Agriculture in the American South, 1860-1865, not Statistics in the Modern Workforce. Again, only one or two of the sources are being called upon to speak on the subject they pontificate on; most of them are being called upon for an off-hand mention of a cast list. None of the sources are very reliable sources, nor do any of them have anything in depth on Schmidt himself; half the time, I don't even trust that they would note if Schmidt had been cut out of the final cut of the film, instead just copying what they are given by the producers of the film.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With sincere apologies to Mr. Schmidt, at this point he is non-notable. Looking at his credits on IMDB, I see roles such as : "Sex Club Patron", "Junkyard Mechanic", "Soda Pop Drunk", "Naked Drunk Biker", "Overweight Naker runner", "Male Bar Patron" and "The very indignant jogger". I have not seen any of these films (some of which are still in production), but these are the kinds of designations that are typically given to very minor parts, with perhaps a line or two to their credit. Playing such parts can become a notable thing, if done over the span of many years, in which case it's the longevity and number which confer the notability, but at this point, about 6 or 7 years into a career, it's simply the list of credits of a minor actor. For these reasons, I have to say that not only is the subject non-notable but, more importantly, the article itself does nothing to assert notability. This is not a reflection on Mr. Schmidt, or on the quality of his work, simply an evaluation of his status at this time. Things can change, and in show biz they often change quite rapidly, so I say all this without prejudice to whether Mr. Schmidt will be notable in the future, and deserving of an article at that time. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 20:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... in the past, the article did make such assertions, as the page history well shows... but they were removed and never returned. Naturally I could not be the one to return them. I noted in your list above, that you only mentioned the minor roles. I have worked on more than a few where I had starring or lead roles... I listed the films up above... characters with names like "Joy Peters", "Big Fat Jessica", "Fat Tony", "Cyrus", "Mister Bell", "Leo the Outfiter", "Billy Bob Barfield", "Bubba", "Texas George Gant", "Barney Stubbs, Eldon Stubbs, Jonas Stubbs" (as all three brothers in this one film, "Frank the Ticket", "Light-Fingers homeless Nick", "Hank the Nudist", "Lucky", "Santa No_Pants", "Cupid", "Larry Lajeunesse", "Father, Cabaret MC, Fertility Demon (in another film where I played three different lead roles), etal.. rather than descriptions. I have also has numerous occasions to apear simply in projects as "myself". All actors have had minor roles. Wining lead roles is difficult and competitive and very very very few background actors every rise to starring roles. I may have been asked about my lead roles at this live interview, or perhaps it was at this other live interview where I was "myself" being interviewed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I also find the AfD nomination by a supposedly brand new user quite suspicious. Clearly User:Honey And Thyme is not a new editor, which leads to speculation that it's someone with an agenda or animus against Mr. Schmidt. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the add-on. As for notability, many actors have bit parts for supporting roles, but a large volume of such appearances can make an actor/actress notable, in and of itself. I appreciate your well-rationed discussion above, even if we disagree. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree that volume can make the difference - I've written or expanded a number of articles about actors from the 30's - 50's whose notability is inherent in the length of their career and the number of films they appeared in, not necessarily in the significance of any one part (although several of them also had several standout performances as well). I guess where we disagree is in whether Mr. Schmidt has achieved that status yet. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect into Let's Paint TV. He's plenty verifiable but I don't think there's enough here yet for an independent article. Oh yeah, by the way I found the broken LA Weekly link for y'all at the Wayback machine. The link[56] discusses the show and Mr. Kilduff, but not Mr. Schmidt. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 04:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as lacking notability. Sorry Michael. :) X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (sorry Michael!) I've been through both the current version and the revision from the first AfD; it looks like the earlier revision was trimmed down for good reason. Of the many references used, about half mention the subject in passing only, while the rest don't mention him at all, and many of them don't satisfy WP:RS anyway. Concerns about the nominator are valid, but there is nothing in either version of this article that meets WP:BIO. PC78 (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The irritating thing about coming to these discussions while they are already in progress is realising that other people got their ahead of me and were able to get first crack at making the pithy comments. Thus, I have chant the "as per" echo -- in this case, PharmBoy, Collect and BQZip01 said it best (and first). Ecoleetage (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Observation I know we're supposed to focus on content and not contributor, but can someone please take a look at the person who put this article up for AfD? This individual joined Wikipedia on 14 October and this was his/her very first contribution. I know all about WP:AGF, but that concept has a fraying point and it strains credibility that someone who is supposedly brand new to this project would take the express lane to AfD and start nominating articles about actors for deletion (this is one of several served up for the chopping block). Ecoleetage (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. Focus on the comments made by experienced long term contributors. We all trust the closing admin to do the same. JBsupreme (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding peanuts to the irrelevant Well, if it is a bad faith nomination by a possible sockpuppet, that point needs to be raised. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the SPA who is the nom has questionable motives, but that doesn't matter at this point. The subject matter *IS* notable and is sourced. Looking at the history (and the deleted stuff...) demonstrates that more can be done as well. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply comment Please do not assert your opinion as fact. There is a near majority of people here who do not feel this subject is notable under the guidelines of Wikipedia. Thank you, JBsupreme (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy and this isn't a vote. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources do not add up to notability, and I'm doubly concerned that there is a certain Wikipedia:Conflict of interest going on here amongst some of our editors. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ed. (Sorry, Michael.) لenna vecia 21:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, as I am sure you feel that THIS is a bad article when THIS is what it began as, and THIS is what came from the first AfD. I am surprised that the "keep as notable" consensus of the first AfD is being ignored in violation of WP:NTEMP. I am even more greatly surprised that the nom decided THIS was notable for Cameron Scher and yet THIS was not for me. All I can do is shake my head in confusion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misinterpret WP:NTEMP. It says notability is permanent, not that consensus that an article is notable is permanent.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little confusing to me. Don't we decide whether the article subject is notable? Articles themselves aren't notable, since they exist only on Wikipedia. However if the subject has been found notable, that notability remains. You're on record above though as being of the opinion that the previous close was wrong - so then it really is a matter of try and try again until you get the result you want? Franamax (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Just because one AfD finds a subject notable doesn't mean that it is, and consensus on the matter can change. WP:NTEMP means that things aren't just notable for now, and that they things in the past are less notable than comparable things in the present.
Yes, it can be a matter of try and try again until you get the result you want. (Deletion isn't irrevocable, either, though.) But AfDs without a few months since the last one will usually get quickly closed, and many editors have a negative reaction to repeated AfDs; every time you see a 3rd/4th/7th nomination, you get a lot of people calling for it to be closed right off, and there's not really a lot of them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote from WP:N is accurate, but JohnCD makes a point below about "how the notability guidelines are interpreted in practice". There is a whole offshoot of en:wiki, ArbCom issues with "Episodes & Characters", discussing this exact point. (Links on request, but you really don't want them :) Rather than hew to the precise wording, we instead must deal with the common interpretation within the milieu of the article. My position here is that the article (very) barely survives the threshold of indirect notability as generally applied, regardless of whether it surmounts the barrier of the precise wording in the guideline.

Note on your last point: deletion is indeed a significant obstacle, all things considered, and certainly a higher barrier than an AFD-keep, which only needs a few months 'til the next try; and the circumstances of this nom are quite troubling - the AfD must be considered on its own merits regardless of the nom, and the argument has been advanced that we could close this one and someone legitimate could file another one; but in fact no regular editor did file an AfD, instead a brand new editor with remarkable wiki-knowledge chose that course. That doesn't prevent the discussion, but it does cast it into an unfavourable light. Franamax (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point out that everytime this gets brought up, it increases the chance there will be a third AfD. If this isn't going to be treated as a valid AfD, then we have the right to do another one without the issue of the nominator clouding the issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Ecooletage's as per. On balance, I think the subject just clears the threshold Ed F. sets. Any one minor role, or major role in a minor work, doesn't confer notability (and won't get written up in a trade rag); it is the sheer number of these roles that becomes notable. I'm sure there's competition for minor parts too, the fact that the subject is able to win so many parts indicates something unique (I believe the "body style" may be a factor). So I'd say keep until we run out of WP:PAPER, at that time we can always tear this article out and write something else on the back. Franamax (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eco, I don't really want to do per name, per name, per name... (Hmm, we have a lot of "per"[s]) RockManQ ^(talk) 02:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, suspicious nom. RockManQ ^(talk) 02:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm abstaining from this discussion because of extensive contact with the user who is the subject of this article. However, I find it very weird that, thus far, the nom has done nothing but nominate several actor's pages for deletion. I just wanted to point that out. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even weirder, ever article he's edited is a person whose name starts with "Sch"... —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 08:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curiouser and curiouser, the creator of this article is actually permanently blocked as a member of a sockfarm, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/L.L.King. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 09:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to stay on topic. We're discussing if the subject of this article is notable enough for inclusion. Who initiated this article and who nominated it for deletion is irrelevant at this point. Thank you. JBsupreme (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If sockpuppets are working the debate, then it may be relevent. I'm not making an accusation, just pointing out some patterns for others better equipped to evaluate. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 10:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Q. Schmidt is not a sockpuppet of L. L. King. He once hired King to create an article for him, and also once edited from his office. Since then, however, he's been a legitimite contributor. And if I have the details wrong, I'm sure he'll correct me. :) --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the only "correction" is a clarification to dismiss any misinterpretation: the (amateurish) King group was hired as publicists much as many actors hire publicists, and one of the choices they made was to write the article. I never instructed or suggested they specifically use Wiki. I apologize for their choices and the subsequent drama. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is that the nominator is a sockpuppet, not Michael. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet concerns Several editors have questioned the history of the SPA who nomed the article. The article has seen radical changes and paring down since the last AFD. Asking about it (in a reasonable fashion) during this AFD would be on topic. If enough were, and there was cause to think the nom was a sockpuppet, it would be reason enough for an admin to do some looking. How many new editors do you know start their editing career by noming and article, then go on an AFD rampage after being asked about it? At the very least, it looks fishy and worth mentioning, in addition to any other merits. Faith in nomination is not completely irrelevent. If it was, it would reward bad behavior. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK, so what if we let this AfD slide, because too many people don't trust the nominator, and then someone else nominates it, and we can discuss the actual issue at hand, namely whether this article should be on Wikipedia at all? Honestly, I don't see how the nominator's status is relevant. If they're a sockpuppet, then ban them, or whatever, but don't let that cloud the issue of the merit of the article and the notability of its subject, because really, it might well be that muddying the waters will prevent deletion, regardless of the article's merit, or lack thereof. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm putting my reservations aside about the new account creating an AFD (though I still think it's kinda suspicious), but the article seems to be fairly well cited. At worst, it's a borderline case of WP:N. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ecoleetage and Dennis The Tiger. There are lots of articles about less notable entertainers - "reached last 10 in a talent show", etc - and yes, I know about WP:WAX, the point I'm making is about how the notability guidelines are interpreted in practice. JohnCD (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing in Wikipedia says that a small time actor or actress can't have his/her biography here, if indeed he/she wasn't notable then he/she shouldn't have anything more than just being a "Stunt actor" or "Fisherman B" (remember Craig Ferguson?) mentioned when the credit starts rolling. ...Dave1185 (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; does anyone else feel that there's serious problems when the subject of the article is preparing a DRV (User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox DRV Preperation) before the AfD is closed?--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, as the Boy Scouts state -- be prepared! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Prudence is a virtue, and to assign anything other than prudence as the reason for the sandbox is unsustainable. Collect (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respects to all, I have requested a G2 deletion of that userspacee. I have never done a DRV and needed to know what was involved. I prepared my thoughts on the matter, and requested input. I received some sound advice, even from editors who have voted delete above. Point being that I have a better idea of how to prepare one, but understand now that I cannot do one for the article in question. To those who helped educate, Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assamite[edit]

There are no independent references to demonstrate notability of this fictional vampire clan. Notability isn't inherited from Vampire:The Masquerade. The external links given are either officially sponsored by White Wolf (that makers of the game) or are fan sites (i.e. either not independent, or not considered reliable by WP standards). A redirect was tried by another editor that was reverted, a prod was removed, so that's why we're here. While not a reason for deletion, the page is also 99% in-universe material with possible original research (or at the very least, material not backed up with citations). --Craw-daddy | T | 10:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 10:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the other clans appear to have their own pages. Instead of picking off one at random and causing a hole in our coverage, I'd suggest a merge discussion whereby they can all be turned into one article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Vampire Clans. Edward321 (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as all the other major clans also have pages of their own, or discuss all the articles in a single discussion. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What further information do you want beyond that which is contained in Clans in Vampire: The Masquerade? I'd redirect all the pages there (with possibly some merger), but I predict I'd be reverted on these, as previous redirects and prods have been removed with nebulous claims of "notability" (which have yet to be demonstrated) or "importance". I don't like the WP:ALLORNOTHING claims that I have seen in other related AfDs and the removal of prods. If even one of these articles showed a shred of notability, I'd reconsider my current opinion that this one needs to be deleted. As is, they all appear to rely on sources that are directly from White Wolf and/or fansites (which aren't considered reliable sources according to WP standards). Given that, in their current status they belong on a White Wolf wikia. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew L and Jhattara, or merge and redirect to Clans in Vampire: The Masquerade. BOZ (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - Considering that each of the subsection of this game's clan system have their own articles, it is improper to nominate one of them without nominating all of them. Should a blanket AfD be created, I would be more open to discussing the merits of deletion. Trusilver 02:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why it's is improper to nominate one of them without nominating all of them? --Craw-daddy | T | 10:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of these related articles are of equal weight and equal notability. It's not my fault you didn't do your homework before you chose to nom one without digging a little deeper to see the big picture. Nom them as a group to keep things organized and I will support it, do it in a disorganized piecemeal fashion that creates twice the headache and ten times the work and I won't. Trusilver 16:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assuming things about my course of action and knowledge of the situation, nice to know my work is appreciated. I'm well aware of the other articles, and if you'll check carefully yourself (i.e. dig a little deeper), you'll see that I was the one who placed most of the notability tags on these articles, some several months ago, none of which have been dealt with in the time since. And yes, as far as I can tell, they're all of equal notability, namely none. WP:ALLORNOTHING is equally valid here. The (non) existence of other articles has no bearing on the notability of the subject of this one, but apparently I'm speaking hot air here. Cheerio. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!(See, I can wikilink too!)And you might have noticed that WP:ALLORNOTHING isn't policy. Trusilver 19:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know we can all wikilink. Maybe I should have just cited WP:V and delete all the uncited material. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raúl Sánchez[edit]

Appears to fail WP:FOOTYN, having (as far as I can tell) never played a league game for either Barcelona or Dundee Utd. --Badmotorfinger (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. --Badmotorfinger (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Soccerbase confirms he made no first team appearances for either team. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 10:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN. --Angelo (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 11:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another almost-but-never-quite-made-it-yet footballer. delety per nom and re-create if and when..--ClubOranje^Talk 10:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Louisiana, 2008#District 4. MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Carmouche[edit]

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Kmusgrave (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Kmusgrave. Furthermore, possibly used ad advertising. Maethordaer (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Louisiana, 2008#District 4 per WP:BLP1E, the regular practice for non-notable candidates. Not much content worth merging. All substantial RS coverage found comes from running for office. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as per Gene93k. Seems like the logical thing to do. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, "up and coming" doesn't do it. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeuce[edit]

Not-notable indie group with only one album recently produced. No proofs of their third-party independent sources. Dekisugi (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently responsible for the Jeuce band page on Wikipedia. I have noticed your application for deletion and must protest this allegation. Jeuce are an up and coming band, the evidence is plain to see. Their music is known and played all over England and you are able to purchase their music over the internet via providers such as iTunes, Napster, eMusic, etc. Jeuce also have an official Hadouken! remix, licensed by Atlantic Records (please see Hadouken! Declaration Of War (single)). I have also noticed that there are a great deal of Wikipedia pages with much less content and importance than this page. I hope this matter can be resolved and if you feel you can advise on any extra content to be included on the band's Wikipedia page the information will be greatly welcomed. Kind Regards, Josh Get Sound Sexy Records —Preceding unsigned comment added by Getsoundsexy (talk • contribs) 16:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher alexander prentice[edit]

Procedural nomination, PROD removed with rationale "remove prod - I've found a source that seems to confirm his call-up for the national team, so I think this article should at least get scrutiny at AfD rather than be summarily deleted". Player does not appear to played at a professional level, and so fails WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Could not find any ghits that confirm him as professional. In fact not much on this person at all. Guatemalan National Team's webpage does not mention him. -- Alexf^(talk) 09:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any proof he played for Guatamala senior side - called up to squad once apparently, but never played. Only appears to play non-pro university football.--ClubOranje^Talk 10:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't played for a club in a fully pro league, and it doesn't look like he's played for Guatemala either. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN, and lack of appearances with Guatemala national team. --Angelo (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 11:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of 2008 automobiles[edit]

Such a list doesn't exist for other years, so it seems a bit out of place, and I don't see the value of having such lists. Furthermore, this list would need constant updating as the market shares and prices change. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} - Do I suck or rock? 09:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consumer guide, rather than encyclopedia, material. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPRICES.—Largo Plazo (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic article, table of prices. And automobiles of which country? I don't buy cars in dollar. Zero Kitsune (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There currently is only US released cars on the list. That is because very few other people are contributing to the article. It is listed in United States Dollars because it is the only current info I could find.Spitfire (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be deleted than Comparison of Web Browsers should be deleted to. Spitfire (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the issues of concern (price guide; market share that changes from one moment to the next; market in which country?) in your article aren't present in the comparison of web browsers article, that isn't a valid conclusion.—Largo Plazo (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it could easily be renamed 2008 in automobiles, populated with Category:Vehicles introduced in 2008, and the prices removed. --Pixelface (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that, granted that the market share info is dropped as well, but I think that would qualify as a new article, since basically nothing would be used from this one. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} - Do I suck or rock? 22:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Something that belongs in a car magazine. Mvjs Talking 05:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author removed the Under Construction tag and wrote in the edit summary that he's lost interest. I think this article is, therefore, a lost cause. WP:SNOWBALL?—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joel H. Rosenthal[edit]

Fails notability for biographies since June 2007. No references given. Magioladitis (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. President of a notable private institution, editor of a significant academic journal (WP:Prof 8.) Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless anyone can find reliable sourcing with which to verify the information in what is currently an unsourced biography of a living person. Guest9999 (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I added some sourcing. They're from sources affiliated with the subject but I think that's sufficient to verify the factual information in the article. I'm more concerned about whether he passes WP:PROF or WP:BIO — is there some reason to believe his council or his journal are particularly notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that if his work for the council/journal have caused him to have received coverage by reliable, independent sources (not the ones currently in the article) then that would show that his positions have lead to him meeting the general notability criteria. Generally if something (or someone) meets the general criteria they also meet the specific criteria. Guest9999 (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Google scholar [57] seems to turn up three hits for him as an author, an edited book (cited 13 times), and two authored books (cited by 18 and 5). I searched for Ethics & International Affairs' impact factor (to verify Mostlyharmless's claim that it is in fact a "significant" academic journal), but havn't turned up anything, perhaps more due to my unfamiliarity with social science journal databases. Perhaps DGG will point to the appropriate metric for judging the journal, it seems too far from my discipline for me to judge. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As for the journal [58]. Published since 1987, by the major academic publisher Blackwell for the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, a respected nonprofit established by Andrew Carnegie in 1914 [59]. Journal's main articles are peer-reviewed but are essentially scholarly essays, not rigorous academic primary scholarship; some of the authors are senior academics, some are junior, some are significant policy makers. I think most departments would accept publication there as counting towards tenure, though would expect publications elsewhere also. Indexed in the major services. Not in JCR, which is weak in the soft social sciences. Indexed essentially everywhere else relevant, including Scopus and Philosophers Index. In about 320 WorldCat libraries. Editor in chief of a major academic journal of opinion like this is in my opinion enough for notability. So is President of the CC. I would not particularly consider him as a researcher. DGG (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One doesn't become president of a foundation and editor of a journal without having earned the esteem of one's colleagues. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter Anhuf[edit]

The article has already been speedy deleted. Being a university teacher is not enough to be considered notable. There is no source whatsoever of who considers him "one of the rare German experts of Francophone Africa." The article has a self-praising tone that looks like a personal ad (wikipedia is not meant for that). He doesn´t meet any of the 9 criteria of Wikipedia:PROF for notability of professors Mr.K. (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Holding a visiting chair internationally is usually a strong indicator of notability, and fulfils WP:PROF #6. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He held the 'Martius-Lehrstuhl für Ökologie' in Sao Paulo. More about its notability here, there are 5 google links about it. WP:Prof #6 is about "major highest-level (...) academic post". I interpret it as being university president, chancellor or vice-chancellor.Mr.K. (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has serious flaws: "real field work in tropical rain forests", others do only "unreal field work"? "tropical rain forest experience" could be anything from a tourist trip to "real" field work. "experts of Francophone Africa (African French) (Tunisia, Senegal and Côte d' Ivoire)": Francophone Africa is much broader than that. (African French in English refers only to a language variety, not a region, BTW). On the top of that, I can only confirm the previous comments that no point of WP:Prof has been fulfilled and that it is unclear who - if anyone at all - considers him an expert (besides himself, of course). Articles about university teachers that merely report the positions they have held and the papers they have published are more like resumes and hold no interest for any reader. WikiWiking (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete WoS lists 37 publications (some of which may be false positives) ISI h-index = 9. I agree with nom wrt Mostlyharmless's claim that a visiting chair meets WP:RPF #6. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna's upcoming forth studio album[edit]

Complete speculation, WP:HAMMER - disputed prod QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a collection of news. Announcing a forth (forth? fourth?) studio album is not the purpose of WP.Mr.K. (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality (Rihanna song) where a substantially identical article is at AfD. --Amalthea^Talk 12:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smash it with the crystal hammer. MuZemike (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC#Albums, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTE, WP:V.
And since the duplicate at Rihanna's Fourth Studio Album was overlooked when the above AfD was closed, where it was conominated, I'll just add it here again. All arguments brought forward apply to both articles, especially since it's substantially identical. --Amalthea^Talk 17:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 19:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slam dunk delete Purely speculation, no sources confirming the existence of the album. It's hammertime! --Winger84 (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP: HAMMER. They didn't even bother spelling "fourth" correctly on this one. 23skidoo (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HAMMER No sources beyond the ever-vague 'internet leak' song which sounds like it was made at the 'record a CD for $10' store at the mall by a soundalike. Nate • (chatter) 18:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also delete Dark Angels and salt that title. It's obvious they're not going to stop until this rumorage sticks. Nate • (chatter) 05:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The spelling makes this unworthy of a redirect, but this article also exists at Dark Angels. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airline liveries and logos[edit]

This is an unencyclopedic collection of information. The only point to it at all is the classification, and that appears to be original research. —teb728 t c 08:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The content does leave a bit to be desired, but the subject appears notable enough. A whole book has apparently been written on the subject of airline liveries. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article discusses a feature common to all airlines. It is not just a collection: comparing the symbols used as logos is of itself encyclopedic. Kransky (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This topic is demonstrably encyclopaedic. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A prime example of a list done right, which is all too rare on Wikipedia. Themfromspace (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Refactor or delete. Good effort but an obvious violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Perhaps a single logo per "Birds" or "National flags" will be acceptable but half a hunded FUs per page is over the top. NVO (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a collection of non-free logos that really should be removed. Without the non-free logos the content does not make sense. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with MilborneOne and NVO - the content doesn't seem to be covered under fair use. --Matt (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThough the article should focus more on the history and the most notable or creative examples, like Northwest's old logo -which was the initials NW on a circle,and could also be described as a compass indicating to the northwest- rather than being an illustrated list only useful for the seeing community. Entire books have been written on the subject.Synchronism (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This content belongs in wikipedia and is in pretty good shape on this page. --Lockley (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, severe violation of Fair Use, not only in that the logos should only be used in articles about the companies, not a list like this, but the fair use rationales must specifically list this article when a fair use claim is asserted. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per violations of fair-use rationales of WP:LOGO. I mentioned to the article editor here on my talkpage that airline branding is a notable subject (branding is more than a logo and a slap of paint on an aircraft), however, not like this. A referenced article, and I can't stress enough the referenced part, on airline branding is a good idea, but not in this form. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 11:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per fair use policy for logos. This is a discriminate and unencyclopedic list of information for logos, which is a list of images clearly not being used to illustrate their respective subjects/airlines/etc --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 02:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense - the logos are clearly being used to illustrate the sections about the respective airlines. The compendious nature of the article is no bar to such fair use. In any case, the image issue is irrelevant since we are not at IFD and the article is wider in scope than any particular airline or image. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just cited this paper which further demonstrates that this is a topic of great scholarly interest. No satisfactory argument has been presented above to counter the clear evidence that this is a highly notable topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the article stands now it's just a list of logos with no notability. The paper sourced above sounds interesting, but this is certainly not written like a scholarly article let alone an encyclopedic one. There's really no information in the article but it's just a way of sorting airline logos that obviously is original research. If there's no way for it to be improved I think it should be deleted. NcSchu_(Talk) 20:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not just a list of logos. For example, the first section on birds, provides details and links to the type of bird. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel, "notability" issue in this AFD is clearly secondary to copyright policy (Quote: In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section.). Survival of the article depends on trimming down the graphics, or persuading the community to take an exception (good luck, but seems a WP:SNOW to me). P.S. Hint: isn't it odd that the logo is FU, but a photograph of an airplane in full livery is not? NVO (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it FU?
commons says not

Your point is unclear but it is, in any case, irrelevant. The topic is notable and the article's use of images is a matter of content editing, not deletion per the emphatic statement of WP:AFD: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Please note that the nomination did not say one word about images. Its complaint was that the article was unencyclopedic. This claim has been been shown to be false and so the nomination should be rejected. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is pretty clear. Use photos from commons of aircraft with logos showing, instead of logos on their own which is a copyright infringement. As the article stands now it is a massive copyright infringement, and could have been speedied on that basis. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Because it looks to me like just a list of airline logos accompanied by a fragment of a sentence stating what, in your opinion, the logo means. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should note that concerns about copyright violations are indeed relevant. Even if the page is kept, all logos will have to be removed as they are non-free. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this discussion is only about whether the article should be deleted or not. All this talk about images belongs elsewhere, such as the talk page for the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig van Beethoven's religious beliefs[edit]

Largely unreferenced, almost completely composed (no pun intended) of WP:OR. I'm not sure it needs to be deleted outright, but a serious trimming or some actual references are going to be needed. Thoughts? ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 07:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, only nominate an article for deletion when you think it should be deleted. Your concerns should be brought up on the talk page. I see three refs and they appear to cover half the text in the article. The cited material could easily be merged into Ludwig van Beethoven, although it looks like this article is a sub-article of Ludwig van Beethoven#Beliefs and their musical influence. --Pixelface (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I said I'm not sure if it should be deleted. This page is far enough off the beaten track that a note on the talk page would probably go unnoticed for quite a long time. I listed it here because I wanted community input into whether it should be deleted- which is exactly what AfD is for. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 08:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see what you're saying, but AFD is not for cleanup. There are cleanup tags you can use (like ((Original research)), ((refimprove)), etc). Ideas like that are listed at WP:BEFORE. You could put a ((mergefrom)) tag on Ludwig van Beethoven to bring attention to the page, bring it up at Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven or WikiProject Classical music, etc. If a trimming or references are needed, deleting the article won't solve that. This article was apparently spun out from the Ludwig van Beethoven article in October 2004 because that article was getting too long. --Pixelface (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - AfD is for community input, and that is what I'm looking for here. You and I both know that adding cleanup tags has never, ever solved anything- the backlogs are tremendous and there's just not enough people interested in clearing them.
      To be honest, when I read this my gut reaction was to click that little delete tab, but when I realized it had a fairly long history I decided it probably deserved better than a drive by nuking- so, I brought it here. Do you have input onto whether the article should be deleted or not? ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 09:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's entirely wrong. Articles for deletion is, as the name says, for deletion. As the box at the very top of the page says, it's not for things that don't involve deletion. It has enough traffic coping with things that actually do. It's not a general talking shop. It's not the place for talking about cleanup. It's not the place asking for wider attention to an article's talk page. Nor is it a big hammer for forcing people to pay attention to cleanup tags. Per our deletion policy of long-standing if the problem is that an article is in need of cleanup, the solution is not to bring it to AFD. We don't get to use AFD to bully other people into performing cleanup in accordance with our personal arbitrary deadlines, and administrators certainly don't get to perform "drive-by nukings". There is no speedy deletion criterion that applies to this article, and no criterion that says that you are allowed to delete pages just because you personally think that they are "far off the beaten track". If you think that people not being interested in cleaning articles up is a problem, then you yourself are part of that problem. You saw an article in need of cleanup ("serious trimming or some actual references"), and instead of cleaning it up yourself, you thought about deleting it. You yourself weren't interested in doing the work of cleanup. Please go back to the basics of our Wikipedia:Editing policy and our Wikipedia:Five pillars. Perfection ab initio is not required, and we fix problem articles by boldly improving them ourselves. Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to sit here and argue policy with you and I'm certainly not going to respond to blatant twisting of my words. It's a waste of my time, it's a waste of your time, and it's frankly pointless. I opened this AfD to find out if the community believes this article should be deleted or kept, and that's exactly what I intend to do. Perhaps you should read our most important policy...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by L'Aquatique (talk • contribs) 20:00, 14 October 2008

~~Delete~~ - per nom --Az Cold As Ize (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Strike comment by blocked user. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main article. Content seems to be referenced, but Beethoven's religion is hardly a major factor of what he is famous for. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 13:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. It is a pretty bad article, with few references and much apparent OR. But religion is an important topic in Beethoven biography, so I think we need a better article, not deletion. Merging also not a good idea, because the main article would get too long. If I ever become a Beethoven editor again (I've retreated to Haydn and Mozart) I will get reference sources and see what they say on this topic. Opus33 (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The Ludwig van Beethoven's religious beliefs article is a part of Category:Religious views by individual. Religious beliefs of some people are notable. That's why we have articles like Charles Darwin's views on religion. Religious beliefs of Beethoven is an interesting topic and it justifies a separate Wikipedia article. It's a bad article, but we don't delete bad articles, we improve them. AdjustShift (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. As a sub-page of Ludwig van Beethoven, it could even be merged back into Ludwig van Beethoven#Beliefs and their musical influence if it needs to be. I don't think deleting this would solve anything. --Pixelface (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whether it is needed as a subtopic, or how the article should be divided, is for discussion elsewhere. As a composer of some of the most important religious music, it's certainly relevant enough. DGG (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and smerge a concise statement in the main Beethoven article is more than enough for this topic, in response to AdjustShift we have Charles Darwin's views on religion because as the center of a gigantic religious controversy his views on the matter are important; for Beethoven his views are relevant but don't require a whole a page to explain. The only sources in this article are (1) a primary source letter (2) a compilation of quotes by Beethoven introduced by two paragraphs and I am not sure what #3 as it cites to a book but given the information its citing I don't think it is going to be very in depth. Icewedge (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We also have articles such as Religious faith of George W. Bush. What's wrong with having a separate page on Beethoven's religious beliefs? Beethoven is a composer of some of the most important religious music. AdjustShift (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete (G3 - vandalism). Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starcasm[edit]

Not notable; violates WP:DICDEF -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also violates WP:COI. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --Az Cold As Ize (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Strike comment by sockpuppet. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete essentially nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G3. I've tagged it as such because the dictionary defs given seem entirely bogus. VG ☎ 13:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prestwich Cricket Club[edit]

Delete. This is a minor cricket club which does not meet the notability criteria set out in WP:CRIN and thereby WP:N and WP:ORG BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom --Az Cold As Ize (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Strike comment by sockpuppet. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they are in the Lancashire League, that would be enough to confer notability as one of the better club cricket teams in England. - fchd (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just saw they are members of the "Lancashire County League" not the "Lancashire League", which is a completely different matter. Delete. - fchd (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. There would be a better case for an article on the parent Prestwich Cricket, Tennis and Bowling Club that is referred to in the article, since a club founded as long ago as 1840 has some claim to notability on that ground alone. JH (talk page) 17:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Longevity does not equal notability. This is a non notable local cricket club. --bigissue (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Johnlp (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Miss Nepal. MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nepal 2003[edit]

Delete per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information, and this article consists of nothing more than such a list Mayalld (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Miss Nepal 70.51.10.188 (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP- The articles like these degrade the quality of encyclopedia. The opening line of this article looks like an advertisement pamphlet. Instead of providing with relative information to the subject, this articles explains height, weight and vital stats of the delegates. Clear case of WP:NOT. The major contributor of this article seems to be on a mission to include information about every single beautiful girl in Nepal. Hitro 09:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Nepal and include the top three finalists.—RJH (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Miss Nepal. MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nepal 2005[edit]

Delete per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information, and this article consists of nothing more than such a list Mayalld (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Miss Nepal 70.51.10.188 (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Nepal and include the top three finalists.—RJH (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Significant copyvio, among other issues. TravellingCari 12:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tshoki Tshomo Karchung[edit]

Delete non-notable person, whose only claim to notability is winning an equally non-notable beauty pageant Mayalld (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed. For what it's worth, "0.1 million" in Bhutan's currency is about $2000. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as per WP:1E, we do not need separate articles for every single beauty pageant title holder around globe. However, this article contains Copyrighted material from this site. Hitro 11:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Synergy 04:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Bhutan[edit]

Delete nn, unreferenced, beauty pageant Mayalld (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A national beauty pageant, the refs, though currently primary, are in the external links. A clear case of Systemic bias, now if this goes then surely Miss USA should also. RMHED (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have no reliable sources that show it to be a national contest. Mayalld (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added some refs. RMHED (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Notable in the same sense that Miss USA is notable.—RJH (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability doesn't only refer to large countries. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per others' comments. This is clearly a valid subject. --Soman (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Miss Bhutan is a notable event in Bhutan. Wikipedia is a global project, so we should have articles on notable events of developing countries. AdjustShift (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is notable event. Needs a dedicated team to work on it.--SkyWalker (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 08:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catboy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

First nomination resulted in delete. Goodraise (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the article discussed at and subsequently deleted as a result of the first AFD was about a radio host; i.e. whilst it shares a title with the current one it was actually on a different topic entirely. Nancy ^talk 10:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at most a dicdef. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --Az Cold As Ize (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Catgirl. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, dicdef. Might make sense as a redirect to catgirl, since those seem way more common. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The concept is perfectly straightforward; if you know what a catgirl is, you know what a catboy is. --Gwern (contribs) 20:20 15 October 2008 (GMT)

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 08:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Nepali[edit]

Delete as per WP:NEO, very small population to assert notability of the group. No references at all. May be madeup. Hitro 05:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another non-notable, rampantly inclusionist article from an editor who seems obsessed with creating articles about all things Nepali, no matter how insignificant. Mayalld (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "There are currently only more than 7,000 persons of Nepali origin settled in Australia" ... and none of them notable. WWGB (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing that asserts notability of this Australian minority. MvjsTalking 10:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sonic Edge[edit]

Non-notable music developer. Article is written by someone affiliated with the company, so conflict of interest is apparent. CyberGhostface (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether it is written by affiliation or not this is the wikipedia guidelines I read:
A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.
The article has been edited down to a neutral standpoint. The article is reliably sourced.
I do have an interest in the article though it is not to promote oneself. Just as before I am open to any suggestions on making this acceptable. I have written and edited the page no different from many other company articles I have read on wikipedia.
suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesonicedge (talk • contribs) 00:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete are you familiar with the Monty Python song, "Spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam". The article may have sources (all primary) and it may be verifiable but COI still remains as the primary editor is still the one with COI. You need significant third party sources. Notability is not met. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been edited to a neutral standpoint and meets the wikipedia guidelines. Were this spam, there would be text indicating a special sale or discount for example. This is no more spam than is the Lucas Arts or Danny Elfman page on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesonicedge (talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not for you to say it is neutral, it is for other editors (ones who have made edits other than to this page and who don't have the page name as their username) to say. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- all the sources are primary. Fails WP:N. Reyk _YO! 05:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. No third party sources for verification of notability. Themfromspace (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. I just did a google search and there are very few references to this "The Sonic Edge" and those that are there are first party. There appears to also be a Christian music group and a sound card from Philips with the same name. The sound card meets the notability requirements if anyone wants to write that article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches. MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarzan, Tonto, and Frankenstein's Monster[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tarzan, Tonto, and Frankenstein's Monster

This character article does not establish notability independent SNL. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches where characters have notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article suck. Delete. Yeah, it was a funny recurring skit, but not worth an article. The article's creator, who, thankfully, remains anonymous, ruined the joke anyway -- the skit was called "Christmas With Tarzan, Tonto and Frankenstein", with Frankenstein in large letters. None of the SNL writers were nerdy enough to say "Oh, Frankenstein wasn't the monster's name". The painfully humorless description of the joke as "sort of holiday greeting in the pidgin English style previous portrayals of the characters had made famous" kills any mirth this might have been generated back in 1990. Mandsford (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge per MichaelQSchmidt). If the article "sucks", it needs to be improved, not deleted. Owen× ☎ 20:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not worth its own article. This routine is nothing more than one of the hundreds of skits that have been seen on SNL over the last 33 years. Granted, there have been some very notable routines that started on SNL and then achieved notability beyond the television show. This isn't one of those routines. Merge would be alright, if it isn't already mentioned somewhere there already. Mandsford (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches. This non notable characters don't need a individual article in Wikipedia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Stewart (internet historian)[edit]

Notability, no references. Everyme 05:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable unless references provided. Redddogg (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete No references, but if it could be reworded to npov it might be an interesting historical article. CompuHacker (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can come up with third party RS, it might make a useful addition to History of the internet#Historiography. In that case, we should redirect rather than delete. But I currently don't see that happening; I've looked for RS and found nothing of value. Everyme 10:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 08:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malaysian coats of arms[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Gallery of non-free images. ViperSnake151 21:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the deletion rationale has to do only with copyright-related legal issues, I don't believe AfD is the appropriate place to discuss this article. It can be speedied under criterion G9, or it can be kept. Either way, I believe this is one best handled by Wikimedia's legal team, which should be notified about the existence of this article. I took the liberty of listing this article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 October 4. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nomination is in 2 parts: "gallery" and "non-free". Galleries of images are often not encyclopedic, so it could be deleted for that reason. Without discussion, it seems a certain fair use infringment though, true.Yobmod (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 03:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The material invites graphical presentation in just this manner. Print encyclopedias traditionally feature plates depicting coats of arms, flags, and the like. If they can do it so can we. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When a print encyclopedia features “plates depicting coats of arms, flags, and the like,” it either choses images that are in the public domain, or it pays royalties to the copyright owners. These gallery images are not in the public domain, and as a matter of policy Wikipedia never pays royalties.—teb728 t c 20:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Smerdis. Edward321 (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The use of the images is decorative with no pretense of critical commentary that would justify fair use. As such all but one of them are certain to be removed from the article. Indeed all but three could be summarily removed for lack of a non-free use rationale. With the removal of the images the article will have virtually no remaining content. —teb728 t c 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Free[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC policy on bandmembers Ironho lds 02:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Crass is not expanded before debate's end. Keep if an adequate expansion is made. -R. fiend (talk) 19:10, 6 October 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 04:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. The band itself is barely notable (no hits at all on the official UK Charts), but probably just about - certainly non notable individual members.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Crass easily pass WP:MUSIC; I wouldn't describe them as "barely notable". Ironholds (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Jay-Z vs. Nas feud. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supa Ugly[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable mixtape which fails WP:MUSIC. JBsupreme (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the track (not a mixtape, it's a single song from a mixtape) is quite notable: MTV, MTV again, on Yahoo Music, a bit (but w/ some non-trivial info of the song) on Billboard.com, Entertainment Weekly weighs in, lyrics are on a BET blog post, New York Times said Jay-Z's mother chastised him for the lyrics of the song, etc. The article is badly sourced, should renamed "Super Ugly" and could be better off merged into Jay-Z vs. Nas feud, but notability is not an issue. hateless 07:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:16, 5 October 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 04:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable, but merge and redirect to Jay-Z vs. Nas feud, of which this track is a part. 86.44.28.125 (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Jay-Z vs. Nas feud This song doesn't deserve it's own article for notability reasons and WP:MUSIC, but the content is justly deserved in the article of the album. Themfromspace (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supa get rid of since it fails WP:MUSIC by itself. Coverage seems incidental: his mom chastised him for it, etc. Presumably merge any info not yet in Jay-Z vs. Nas feud. VG ☎ 10:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This song is very notable. Been topic of discussion on MTV and BET documentaries covering the feud between Nas & Jay-z. No brainer here. Greyskies007 (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC) — Greyskies007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. also: this is the users FIRST EDIT[reply]

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Murphy (1965 - )[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:BIO. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 15:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:Bio with flying colors. Did several searches for this gentleman... (Paul Murphy, writer), (Paul Murphy, author), (Paul Murphy, critic), (Paul Murphy, artist)... and despite the common name, if one checks the source text to eliminate the wrong ones, one finds plenty to suport the article. It requires cleanup and wikification, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have cleaned up the article. Schuym1 (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I'll take a stab at a judicious bit of wikification. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a judicious bit of referencing is a higher priority if this is to survive AfD. I couldn't find anything useful when I searched for his name in conjunction with the titles of his supposedly main works, apart from the fact that they exist and can be bought:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Phil Bridger (talk) 8 October 2008

Did some wikification... and will look into sourcing... but am unsure as to how to handle wikifying his huge body of work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I moved the article to Paul Murphy (author) per WP:NAME. We never list a "birth dash" for a living person, and there was no author article yet. No opinion as to notability. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete unless MQS or someone can actually post the references to his work that he thinks supports the article. I didn't see any. DGG (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my searches above. For any notable writer of this age and nationality Google would be able to find substantial coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Final Exit Network. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Van Voorhis[edit]

There are several reasons for deleting this page. (1) This is a person known for just one event (her death) -- fails WP:BIO. (2) Contributors to the article are now implicated as probable sockpuppets of a banned user known for falsifying sources and content. (3) The article asserts notability on the basis of commentary on the case by medical ethicists, but the one article allegedly about this case is actually about a Swiss case.[60]. In fact, coverage of this case appears to be limited to local Phoenix news media and anti-euthanasia blogs. Orlady (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's not the death that makes her notable, but the subsequent discussion. DGG (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to either Final Exit Network or Hemlock Society, as her death and their involvement is the notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unpleasant as it is this seems to have been a notable case. I can also see the case for "merge" but decided to vote "keep" since her case does seem to have been widely discussed. Redddogg (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Final Exit Network. Wikipedia is not a place for news reports, no matter how fascinating. This information is better categorized under the organization that led to her death, since thats what the discussion of her was mainly dealing with. Themfromspace (talk) 06:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Final Exit Network. That article is stubby to begin with, and has some difficulty establishing notability had it not been for Jana Van Voorhis. VG ☎ 08:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Subscription Fund[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism; no sources; almost no Google hits. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:01, 6 October 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 16:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is not Wiktionary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems obscure enough that hardly anyone has heard of this type of fund (under 100 ghits for "capital subscription fund"), so it could have been prodded. Also relisted twice... VG ☎ 08:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a neologism to me with the three Google hits. MvjsTalking 09:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The American Plague[edit]

Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, no sources, reads like PR. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE HOLD ON This is my first attempt at a page and I accept your comments. I'm in the process of editing and adding better sources. Carrina, 9 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrina (talk • contribs) 17:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC) — Carrina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
They performed for Bonnaroo [61], and they have been covered in local newspapers: Knoxville News Sentinel [62] [63] and the Metro Pulse [64]. Probably enough for a Keep, unlesss you don't consider the Metro Pulse a reliable source (it's the "alternative" weekly paper).Wkdewey (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources added. Lead played for a prior notable band. Has 4 albums. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Newly added sources show that this band passes WP:MUSIC. Amazinglarry (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Recurring_Saturday_Night_Live_characters_and_sketches. MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Burns, Your Company's Computer Guy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nick Burns, Your Company's Computer Guy

Merge or Redirect to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches where a 5-skit character has notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 19:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Recurring_Saturday_Night_Live_characters_and_sketches is a list of hundreds (a guess) of characters, so it's not practical to merge there. But I'm not convinced that every minor recurring character needs to be featured on Wikipedia either. VG ☎ 13:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why must a character be major to be in a list of recurring characters? IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 15:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches, as per other recurring characters without their own userpage. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 15:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fuck that, the article stays!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Robinett[edit]

Has been deleted twice before at AfD. Not notable and although his name has been mentioned in articles on the BBC and The Washington Post sites, these mentions have been very minor and should not have his own article on Wikipedia because of this. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 04:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I also fail to see any real value in this article, and real notability in this personality. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a gossip column. I also can't find evidence of notability. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being the subject of independent reliable sources and passing WP:BIO is evidence of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it fails WP:BIO. "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." He certenly isn't "Worthy of notice" or "significant", "interesting or unusal enough to derseve attention or to be recorded". TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely ignoring the Basic criteria of WP:BIO guideline which states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Your personal opinion that the topic isn't "Worthy of notice" is just that - your personal opinion. Wikipedia has established guidelines to eliminate personal opinions on inclusion and that is the topic being the subject of independent secondary sources, which this topic is. --Oakshade (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has been the subject of independent reliable sources like The New York Times [65], The Wall Street Journal [66] and others which are beyond the scope of "mention" (which the nom conveniently fails to mention), the core criteria of WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY. The nom also fails to mention that the last deletion was overturned in DRV and the subsequent AfD resulted in a unanimous "KEEP" [67]. --Oakshade (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he had a minor mention in The NY Times and The Wall Street Journal, it doesn't mean he should have a whole Wikipedia article created for him. As for the deletion being overturned, consensus can change.TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?)

The material on this person is more than "minor." WP:BIO states in that the "Basic criteria" for notability is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,and independent of the subject." This topic easily passes WP:BIO. --Oakshade (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. X MarX the Spot (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a borderline case, but I think there are enough sources here that the subject passes WP:BIO. Amazinglarry (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete g3, vandalism/obvious hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama: The Novel[edit]

No notability is asserted and is unlikely to come up with sources to establish notability (and, let's face it, this is likely a hoax to begin with). Not eligible for speedy deletion but should probably be speedied anyway per WP:SNOWBALL. Loonymonkey (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Close and rename. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 10:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FXhome EffectsLab[edit]

This article may have notable and verifiable content, but I don't think the content is notable enough for its own article. What do you think?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it has been the subject of independent reviews e.g. [68] and [69], so meets Wikipedia:Notability. Jll (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very weak~~ keep. Seems to barely reach the notability standard with only one serious review in PC Advisor; the second review is from a site where anyone can add a review. VG ☎ 08:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC) (more sources found) VG ☎ 06:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now found reviews at PC Pro [70], Maximum PC [71], Microfilmmaker Magazine [72], Creative Mac [73]. Otest.co.uk, a site I had not come across before, says at [74] that it was reviewed in MacWorld and a magazine called Windows XP Made Easy. If you are searching for other online reviews, be warned that the PC Pro review seems to also surface as Computer Buyer and Computer Shopper; I think that these three titles are all owned by the same parent company. Jll (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment Incidently they all call the product EffectsLab Pro rather than EffectsLab, as does the "official site" link in the article itself so if it does survive this AfD then it needs moving. Jll (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. Please add the references to the article as well. VG ☎ 06:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to EffectsLab Pro per Jll. -- Banjeboi 17:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Witch[edit]

Nonnotable legend. A google search for "Bear Witch" kansas fails to bring up any sources for verification. Possible hoax? Themfromspace (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I can find nothing that shows this even meets WP:V, to say nothing of WP:N. Reyk _YO! 05:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stupid. JuJube (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Reyk. Mvjs Talking 08:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 08:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Square Mall Freeze[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable event. No sources except for a Youtube video shot by (presumably) one of the participants. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a non-event, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Themfromspace (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - individual flash mob events are not usually notable. Those that are belong as subsections in the main article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 08:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kun faya kuun[edit]

This article appears to be about a movie (see Kun fayakuun at IMDb), but it has been automatically translated from Indonesian. From what I can understand of it, it is not written in an encyclopedic style, but rather appears to be a personal narrative of the author's experience watching the movie. Even if the movie does meet the notability guidelines for movies, which I don't have enough information to be certain of, it's unclear that we would want to keep any of the current text in its current form. I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--speedily. Metropolitan's arguments are sound, and very diplomatically phrased (I couldn't do it like that). Drmies (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, this looks like a review of the movie, not a description of it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like someone was translating an Indonesian film review into English. --Yowuza ZX Wolfie 15:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete curent article but allow return if/when written encyclopedically and sourced, as there appears to be coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is a personal movie review -- Whpq (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was about to prod it for lack of a translator when I saw that it had been listed here for what it is: a personal review. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Functions[edit]

Non-notable dance crew. No sources exist to demonstrate notability. I felt like the article asserted enough notability to avoid a speedy, so after prod tag removed I brought it here for discussion. The references cited in the article don't lead to anything that mentions Advanced Functions or Mongoose. Darkspots (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that the links are not to actual sources. They are only *attempting* to get on a dance reality show. Clubmarx (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep <-- Changed The site can be accessed at www.AdvancedFunctions.tk. A redirect from freewebs.com, but as seen freewebs faced a roll back on a relative creation time with certain websites. Causing the actualy page to be inactive/non-existant currently. It is planned to be re-iniated. Also the page was not complete, more pictures and links were planned to be imported. I disagree that this page should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pevepower (talk • contribs) 01:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep <--- Changed Agree with aforementioned user. I dont know the crew personally. But I have visited their sites and other notations of them. Potentially not popular, they have very little searchable data on them on the internet. But is not in disagreement with becoming a Wiki-article. Give the guy a breather. Marjiid (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Has mininum or minimal suffiecient amounts of notability. HardronMan (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This one is close, i'm not sure these sources would pass WP:N, and it is written like an advertisment. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G7 - Creator has abandoned article. If G7 not met, then Delete ordinarily for not getting sufficient coverage to meet WP:N. RayAYang (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I restored the content per WP:OWN. I think this AfD should run. Darkspots (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The page should not be restored. There is no need of consensus, because the only source of information is me. Therefore If I want it removed I want it removed. No one else has contributed therefore, there is no need of consensus. Please do not bring back the page Darkspots. I think this AfD should end. (Pevepower (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hang On The only reason that ((db-author)) doesn't apply here is that two other editors have argued in this discussion to keep the article. Otherwise I totally understand, but we have to respect everyone who contributed. Darkspots (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment If by two other editors you mean have edited the article itself, no that is wrong. But if you don't mean that, you just mean they were involved in this AfD then I understand. And I agree to keep the page running. As long as the information of the page will not be returned till' further decision. Because we can always bring back the information later.

Sorry, but I can't have the information up right now for certain reasons. Thanks in advanced for understanding :) (Pevepower (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.6.127 (talk) [reply]

Actually, I don't understand why the article can't stay up so that it can be evaluated by other editors. Right now there is no consensus in this discussion to delete the article or keep it. Nothing in this article about the group violates our policy about biographies of living persons. I think the article should get reverted back to the last revision I made.

Now, if you happened to be in control of the two accounts, Marjiid and HardronMan, that would be a different story, we could delete the article and block those two accounts right now. Otherwise, I think we have to respect their opinion and let this get evaluated by more editors so the community can make a decision about the article. Darkspots (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Keep <- Changed Darkspots, the thing is, I am part of the dance crew. So we didn't fully agree on the name or much yet. It was a temporary name for some time. And my other people involved didn't really want this up yet till' things were settled. Now when I found this out after putting it up. I decided well I'll save the hassle and just take it down since it's my article and no one has contributed. But I guess since, Marjiid and Hardronman have for whatever reason sided for keeping it. I would have to leave it up. But I really don't want this article spread just yet. If the article does manage to come on Wikipedia, which I do hope for, now or later. I guess I will go back into voting for a Keep, because if I could get the article now. And then make minor changes in the future. That would be fine. Sorry, for putting you through all of this. (Pevepower (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- DELETE FINAL FINAL. I know this is me again. But we are not going with Advanced Functions, so looks like we will be going with another name. Finally, a change. I guess since we cannot change the article name. I'll have to make a new one. (Pevepower (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Delete I guess, if the name of the crew is changing. The article has to be changed. And should be deleted?. Yeah okay. And how long does this AfD stuff take. Marjiid (talk) 25:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Elgin[edit]

A previous version of this page was speedily deleted at least 4 times. The rewrite is less obviously promotional, but there is still no notability. Some celebrities may have worn these clothes by Paul Elgin, but I don't see awards or industry recognition. There is also a big WP:COI as the User:Htentceo is behind [[75]], which is associated with the clothing line. Clubmarx (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have had this page reviewed by another Wikipedia moderator, and was given the ok, provided we provided sources and references, and remove suggestive advertising. Wikipedia's policy does not require an individual to be POPULAR in order for an article to be written; they require NOTABILITY, which was provided within the article, with references / cross references. There is no direct correlation between us and Mr. Paul Elgin. Authors do reserve the right to create a username of their choosing, as long as any article they contribute does not show bias or support. This article about Mr. Paul Elgin is completely unbiased, factual, and verifyable. We feel that it is unfair for one or a group of individuals to determine a person or company's value, accomplishments, influence, or recognition soley based on that group or individual's independent knowledge of the person of subject within the article; it should be based on facts. If the content of the article is supported by references, we believe the article should qualify. Whether or not Mr. Elgin has received any awards or A-list recognition should not have a bearing on whether or not the things his companies have accomplished are factual, unbiased, and supported. Please consider this article for inclusion, as we see that it fits all of Wikipedia's authoring guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htentceo (talk • contribs) 02:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Article fails to meet basic requirement of WP:N, which is significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. A low level credit in a video game, a bunch of myspace pages with obvious COI, and a link to the subject's own website don't qualify. RayAYang (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the first keep comment is from the article creator. --Clubmarx (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ And so is the third...

Here are a list of INDEPENDENT references. Its funny how people will try to discredit an individual's accomplishments and / or notability based on lack of knowledge on the subject. The "low level" credit in a game sold world wide for Playstation to me seems to be an oxymoron. We fail to see the COI in the myspace references, but even with those excluded, there are far more references provided. Please review below:

There is an article on Paul Elgin's company, Catch 22 Clothing, on the World Westside Magazine's website, [76].

There is also credits given to Catch 22 Clothing within the Traxxpad game for the Sony Playstation game console, on MobyGames.com [77].

Catch 22 Clothing had a full 2 page advertisement in worldwide circulated Don Diva magazine, September, 2007 issue, pg 55.

2 music videos, Mistah F.A.B.'S "Ghost Ride the Whip" video, and Haji Springer's "Haji's Back" video, both aired nationally on MTV2, show Catch 22 Clothing's eyewear product being either worn by the artist themselves or showcased in the video.

Mr. Elgin also has a profile on IMDB.COM [78]. His IMDB StarMETER, which directly indicates a celebrity's popularity amongst IMDB users, is up 311% since the week of October 5th, 2008.

A google search of Paul Elgin corroborates all of these references. Nothing special is needed to search for Mr. Elgin in the google search bar; just "Paul Elgin". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htentceo (talk • contribs) 05:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless multiple reliable indepedent sources can be found, that provide significant coverage of him. Some of the sources used in the article are from the company myspace or homepage (so not independent). Mobygames just confirms he received a minor credit for a computer game - being associated with a successful game doesn't indicate notability (WP: INHERITED) The other reference in the article is IMDB, but the content is either from "Anonymous" or from an unnamed third party, so may not be independent, and there is no evidence of reliability. Just having an IMDB profile does not indicate notability, as it seems pretty much anyone with some film or other credits can have one. In this case he doesn't even have any credits.

As for the other references mentioned here. The "World Westside Magazine" article might qualify as significant coverage, but as an interview may not be independent, especially as it is next to what look like adverts, and multiple sources (independent, reliable, providing significant coverage, etc) are generally needed. An advert is not independent, and his clothes appearing in music videos does not indicate notability, although a newspaper article about that might. Again, an IMDB profile is not really evidence of notability, and a StarMETER rating isn't really either, as it could be manipulated (or distorted by people here visiting the site), and there is no indication of what the previous rating was, or what it means (see WP:BIG). Silverfish (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Silverfish, we think you bring up some legitimate points in reference to Wikipedia definitions of Notability. We believe you may have a point as it pertains to the IMDB credits (although it would take manipulated hits in the hundreds of thousands to truly effect starMETER), as well as Traxxpad, because of the INHERITED definition.

However, the World Westside Magazine article we believe would qualify because of the fact that the magazine itself is independent, and a lot of their articles are interview-based. It is customary with any article that you would have photos included; whether it be a press interview or an article written by an independent columnist. I believe you also mentioned MULTIPLE sources, so on that point we could look for more references.

We also have the conceptual design work Mr. Elgin has performed, for actress Zoe Saldana, which is referenced on her official website zoesaldana.com, and her myspace page, myspace.com/thesaldanaexperience. Mr. Elgin's contributions extend beyond his ownership of Catch 22 Clothing, as he also introduces the Paul Elgin Franchise aspect as well, which is the medium in which he performs these design tasks for notable clientel, who also acknowledge his work.

Also, to note a few things within the Wikipedia NOTABILITY definitions:

Creative professionals

Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

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

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

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

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

Catch 22 Clothing was the first company to officially trademark the slang term "Stunna Shades", and the mark is jointly owned by Catch 22 Clothing's parent company, New World Entertainment Group, Inc, and Mr. Elgin himself. Why is this significant? It allowed Catch 22 Clothing to brand eyewear with the term enscribed on them, thus setting a trend with "the official stunna shades" product, which was a HUGE influence during the Hyphy Movement Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area.Htentceo (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Lets show some common sense: this is one of the few times I have seen an article asserted to be notable on the basis that the person's company had placed advertisements. At most, the sources would support an article on the company, if the eyeglass material is actually real. As his connection with the eyeglasses, that an executive's name appears on the trademark application for a brand does not show his actual own creativity--and after all, the brand still has to be shown notable. It doesn't get so by placing ads and product placements. This isn't even reprinted PR, just downright self-advertising. DGG (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~STRONG Keep~~ "If the eyeglass material is actually real?" DGG must be confused, because "common sense" would tell him that if he were to actually look at the video, photos of Mr. Elgin, and referenced websites, he would see that the eyewear product actually does exist. I'm sorry, that was just a outright lame comment.

Secondly, product placement is not the basis of our arguement for qualification; the product placement is a by-product of the demand for the product. We are basing our point on the verifiable contributions Mr. Elgin and his company have made and should be noted for. We should break it down this way:

1.Catch 22 Clothing
2.Stunna Shades
3.Influence on Hyphy Movement
4.conceptual design work for actress Zoe Saldana

These in a quick summary are the contributions we deem to be notable. Lets address ALL of these when considering this article for inclusion, not just one particular area which is easiest to disqualify.

Also, we notice a certain undertone of hatred and / or anger toward us trying to contribute a wikipedia article. I know that a lot of you are used to people attempting to use Wikipedia for self advertising purposes, but we are not one of them. And of course, with all due respect, WP is definitely NOT the place to go for advertising / promoting, as I don't see how that would help any individual or company. It's not as if you can "sell product" on here or anything to the like. There are MUCH larger and more appropriate mediums for that, so lets really use some common sense here. If we are going to have a discussion about the qualification of this article under WP's definitions, let's do that. But the condescending, degrading sarcasm to me is uneccessary.

The references have been provided; its just the interpretation of the WP definitions on NOTABILITY that are in question. Let's keep it that way please.Htentceo (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: did a strikethrough on Htentceo's comment above me as this person has already voted. (see first comment.)--Clubmarx (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Htentceo I've considered the additional comments you've made, but I'm still not convinced he is notable. Doing design work for Zoe Saldana doesn't indicate notability IMO, unless reliable sources discuss the work at some length. Similarly for his role in Catch 22 clothing. As for the Stunna Shades I can confirm a trademark was granted (for a logo, not for shades themselves), but no sources (independent, reliable sources) have been provided that confirm he actually designed the shades, or that the shades themselves are notable, and we would need both, in my interpretation of the guidelines, to qualify under "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" criterion.

What will help a claim for notability most, is to provide independent, reliable sources, that provide significant coverage of him. The magazine article is a step towards that, but not enough on its own. Silverfish (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there simply isn't coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It may be true that this guy wasn't a pioneer of the Hyphy Movement in the Bay Area, however he and his company were definitely at the fore-front of it. When the popular glasses took off Catch 22 was in numerous stores throughout the Bay Area. Its probably safe to say that his Notability may not have extended nationally but definitely in the Northern California San Francisco Bay Area there was an impact by this guy. From Rappers to Urban Clothing Models, club owners, and the likes they know Paul Elgin. That shouldn't be discredited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FinFan88 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC) — FinFan88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keeper The WWS mag article / interview displays notability by itself. The product placement and the web design work is incidental, but the print media coverage and the "Catch 22" effect on bay area fashion are common knowledge. Under Per Wiki guidelines, WWS magazine is a reliable source. Greyskies007 (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC) — Greyskies007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note that the last two users who voted to keep have few, if any wikipedia edits. --Clubmarx (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy single purpose sock puppets. Er, I mean, DELETE and WP:SALT per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Beyond his borderline personal attack with sarcasm, the last user that voted DELETE did not substantiate his vote or opinion, as required by WP:JUSTAPOLICY . Also, please note, per WP:SPA, in response to Clubmarx:

While a new user without an edit history who immediately performs tasks that seemingly requires a post-beginner level of editing skills (such as editing non-mainspace pages, uploading images, or participating in a discussion) may be an illegitimate sock puppet, it remains possible that a new user’s contributions are alternatively the product of a disinterested third party wishing to improve the Wikipedia project, or a new user with previous IP editing experience. For these two reasons, statements regarding motives are not recommended without an examination of the user's edit history. The term should be used descriptively and should not be read pejoratively unless a disruptive agenda is clearly established. Users should be informed of relevant policies and content guidelines in a civil and courteous manner, especially if a tag will be applied to their comment.
New users acting in good-faith often will begin to edit topics in which they have a general interest. Such accounts warrant particularly gentle scrutiny before accusing them of any breach of official policies and content guidelines. Specifically, some new users may be unaware that editing a single topic, and in the process adding their own views, may lead to some editors giving less weight to their ideas in article discussions. Some experienced Wikipedia users may be active on a range of articles, and aim to expand the encyclopedia as a whole. Proponents of this aspect of Wikipedia culture expect new users to develop a broader interest.

Htentceo (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are questionable at best, raising serious questions of COI. And without the questionable sources (myspace and subject's own website), there is nothing to show why this person is notable.--Terrillja (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Reply to Terrillja - There were more references provided other than Paul Elgin's website and myspace page. There were the World Westside Magazine article, the Imdb.com profile, magazine article in Don Diva Magazine, September Issue, pg 55, and credits given on Zoe Saldana's website for graphic design, and mobygames.com for Traxxpad.Htentceo (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Synergy 04:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Connolly[edit]

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Kmusgrave (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep as he easily passes WP:POLITICIAN: 2)"Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city. 3) Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." His coverage includes Michelle Malkin, Crooks and Liars, Washington Post #1, Not Larry Sabato, League of Conservative Voters, Washington Post #2, Below the Beltway, CBS News, Greater Greater Washington, Open Left, NBC4,,, and a whole slew of stuff on Google News. He definitely pases WP:POLITICIAN. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep, he won the Democratic primary so he's notable for that if nothing else. It's a very close race, so obviously he's a credible candidate. I see the person requesting this deletion, kmusgrave, has been actively editing his opponent's article. That article reads like a campaign brochure and doesn't have citations. We really don't need this sort of game-playing three weeks before the election. Flatterworld (talk)
Weak keep Article as it stands does not demonstrate notability; only the bits submitted by Schmidt demonstrate his notability — he's an elected local official and an unelected candidate for political office, and only is notable because he meets the primary notability criterion. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. If the nom had simply search for the man's name on Google or Google news, this would/should have never come to AfD. Certainly the article could use an overhaul. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- he played a prominent and controversial role in the Islamic Saudi Academy controversy (see [79], [80] etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Connolly has won the Democratic primary for Virginia's 11th congressional district. The bio has reliable sources and satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. AdjustShift (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some info. MichaelQSchmidt's sources are also useful and they can be included in the bio. We should make an attempt to improve the bio instead of deleting it. AdjustShift (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~Keep to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2008#District 11. Sources uncovered by MichaelQSchmidt only address his candidacy, thus fails WP:POLITICIAN. See also WP:ONEVENT -- the event, in this case, is the election. "Cover the event, not the person." No prejudice against breaking the bio back out if he actually wins. RayAYang (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remark -- I can support the new standard DGG is proposing. Keep on that basis. RayAYang (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the major US party nominees for national-level political office are notable, even if they do not win the election. That only adds a few hundred more every two years, many of whom will be notable anyway if sufficiently investigated, and for people in a campaign like this, there will always be print sources available. This is a change of attitude here, and I am glad itr is becoming accepted. DGG (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even ignoring the Congressional race, he is the elected executive of a county with over 1 million people. 160.111.254.11 (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cristobal Dominguez[edit]

I really cannot make head or tail of this article - it is an almost entirely random collection of words. It does seem to vaguely mention a chess player who may or may not be worthy of an article, but as it stands this is a probable candidate for deletion per WP:PN; bringing it here for discussion. Ros0709 (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I agree that the article is poorly written and poorly sourced, but that is a matter for cleanup.. not deletion. As a Chess master he does have some coverage that may lend itself to cleanup, expansion, and proper sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Much of the writing problems stems from it being a translation of this page. I'm not copyright-savvy enough to know if that makes it a copyvio issue.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as english no good but chess ok. and per Q. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to have been a sufficiently highly ranked player and doesn't have significant tournament wins. Clarityfiend (talk)
Comment. The subject's maximum rating achievement appears to be 2259 [81], which is a strong master level, and of a level where you would compete in fairly prestigious national tournaments, but it is below the grandmaster and/or national champion level where I will almost automatically say "keep", and even below the international master level where I am somewhat ambivalent. However, the article does cite this Spanish biography which does seem to contribute to meeting WP:BIO guidelines. Staying neutral, and will add a note on the WP:CHESS WikiProject. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Major achivement of Cristobal Dominguez is not only to be well ranked but to be a booster of the Game in a city [82] that since his appearance recovered its relevance as a reference in South American chess [83] 17:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrominguez (talk • contribs)

Delete Not enough accomplishements to be considered a notable chess player. The title of Chess master is way too low to give notability, the least to be notable would be Grandmaster, which is much higher. SyG (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cities in the developing world[edit]

Appears to be a personal essay. Interesting, but fails WP:OR & WP:SYN. I don't think it's salvageable, as there's very little linkage between the cities mentioned, aside from their location in the developing world. Recommend Delete, but wouldn't be opposed to a fundamental rewrite. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 21:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'd suggest it be deleted, but it might be rescued. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't even a very good essay. The first point made is that "a defining characteristic of all major cities, both modern and ancient, is disease brought about by overpopulation", which isn't even true. (New York is a major city, for instance, but it's hardly defined by being disease-ridden!) The rest isn't much better. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete personal essay; original research. Any useful information here may be moved to Third World. Themfromspace (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cities in the developing world are the cities of tomorrow... Yeah. Delete JuJube (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ragsdale[edit]

Proposal for deletion due to lack of content which would tie this article to anything meaningful except for the naseba article. IMHO reads very much like a personal description on a homepage or such. piksi (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only real references are from the same small newspaper. Non-notable, non-verifiable.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Clubmarx (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with others that this appears not to be a significant or notable businessman — even if the company is notable, he doesn't inherit notability simply by being its founder, CEO, etc. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The requirements for WP:BIO articles is non-trivial coverage from multiple third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Synergy 04:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pathosray[edit]

Band fails WP:MUSIC. Most recent album was released by a non-notable label. Others were self released. No refs to support notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 17:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The band's album was released by Sensory Records and references can be found on http://www.lasercd.com/

Sensory is a well know publisher within the scene.

Panzerschrek076 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panzerschreck076 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unless reliable sources are found. There are a couple of reviews online, mostly positive, but not in what I'd call reliable sources. I can't judge Sensory Records' notability, but the band fails the "two or more albums" criterion of WP:MUSIC anyway. Huon (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to weak keep due to new sources and a better understanding on my part of the given sources' reliability. Huon (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1. In the context of their genre, I feel the references stand up. Here's an Allmusic.com one too just to fill it out a little more. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is some notability--heavy metal is not blessed with a plethora of printed magazines or independent journals. The Aardschok reference is plenty reliable, and some of the others should be ranked a bit higher than merely fanzines or blogs. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carter's Foods[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Carter's Foods

I created this page ages ago because I thought that the news of Carter's closure might be enough to carry it. However, I don't think that there's any hope of expanding the article beyond its current state, or even deorphaning it. Sources 1 and 4 are relevant enough, but they only cover the bankruptcy. Source 2 is an archive of their website, and source 3 is a press release, and those are the only sources I can find. Furthermore, I don't quite think that being the only employee-owned grocery chain in Michigan is that big an assertation of notability if there're hardly any sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems to me that 50 years of history and 30 locations (at its peak) is reasonably notable enough for a chain store to have an article. Grocery stores tend not to be big newsmakers, but I'd be suprised if there isn't enough sourcing over the years for a steady little article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked Google News, there's nothing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This is a defunct company being disscused about, so finding tons of refs is going to be hard. However as of now it is borderline passing WP:V, and can be Considered notable. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article really doesn't prove enough notability for WP:CORP, and since the company has gone to the great checkout line in the sky, it's doubtful any is forthcoming. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of marginal notability, admittedly, but it passes WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historical company. Print sources will be available to expand it. First step is to search the business pages of each of newspapers in the cities it had stores. DGG (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly how I got the Oscoda Press source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. g4 per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Future_Lovers_(Madonna_song) slakr^\ talk / 23:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Lovers (Madonna song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Topic is not notable per WP:NSONGS. It is an album track which has been performed live on ONE world tour by Madonna. Not reason enough for its own article Paul75 (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the qualified reasons cited by the nominator. I see that this was deleted by consensus once before, is this a repost? If so, speedy delete it. JBsupreme (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy None of the concerns raised in the first AFD have been addressed.—Kww(talk) 11:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Confessions on a Dance Floor. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Music (Madonna album). MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive Instant[edit]

Fails notability per WP:NSONGS. Article is almost entirely OR. No references. The authenticity of image used is dubious as well - cannot be found on the website stated by the person who posted image, and looks fake. Paul75 (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Was released as a club promo only, never a single, ~~never charted~~, article has no sources to show it had external notability. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- changed to weak. What it charted on gives it a tiny amount of something, but not sure that is enough. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Music (Madonna album). Fluffed-up permastub. Nothing sourced, and no reason to believe most of it is sourceable. The interminable list of remixes that these things get are not a reason for keeping an article, and that is what this article primarily is.—Kww(talk) 11:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was considered a single in its own right and still charted, but didn't go commercially on sale. As long as there is enough substance, the article should stay. Geoking66_talk 04:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "considered a single in it's own right" is pure OR!

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody Knows Me[edit]

Fails notability per WP:NSONGS - album track only. If that's not enough, add its lack of references and original research. Paul75 (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wow, I say that so rarely on this list, it felt strange to type. Anyway, as a single, the article is truly bad. However, about the song, it makes sense to have this as a separate article. It's been on two albums and the B-side of two singles. On a purely navigational basis, I just can't see where I would argue to merge it to.—Kww(talk) 11:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, song didn't chart. Alternatively, redirect to her discography. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Hammer above, notability has not been established. — Realist² 22:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The All-Girl Boys[edit]

unsourced, only one release. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chicks with Picks Sorry, just had to say that, as from the title alone, I couldn't tell it was about music... Unfortunately, bluegrass is a hard genre to source sometimes. It is an older demographic I suppose, but wp:v still applies and I couldn't find sources to show they were actually notable enough to pass wp:band. I even tried to dig up a bit on their 1997 "critically aclaimed" CD, Heart's Desire, but couldn't find anything that would remotely pass wp:rs. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desde Las Estrellas[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL I could not find any listings for Desde Las Estrellas in connection with Yuridia in google search. If and when the album is released perhaps then it will pass WP:MUSIC. But without references to where this article has gotten its information and the lack of search results, I say it needs to be deleted pending release. JavierMC 08:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any sources to verify the info in the article. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 12:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article says it all -- recording hasn't even started yet. No prejudice against recreation if the album is released and notability is established.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. still limited participation but there are no keep votes and I don't think re-listing would help. I look at it as I would a 9 day PROD TravellingCari 17:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Festive Land: Carnaval in Bahia[edit]

Not notable per WP:NOTFILM. No Independent reliable source prove its notability. The director was already deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carolina Moraes-Liu. Tosqueira (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Tosqueira (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTFILM. Bsimmons666
Weak delete. Othe than that silver award, which is secondary criteria for WP:NOTFILM, there are no reviews and less than 100 ghits. VG ☎ 13:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge (Madonna song)[edit]

Fails to reach notability per WP:MUSIC / WP:NSONGS. Delete Paul75 (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreleased demo - says it all.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of course, per WP:CRYSTAL. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone can find verifiable evidence that the leaked demo received truly significant notability, which isn't sourced at all in the entire article. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself sums it up rather nicely: "Revenge" is an unreleased demo. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pharmboy, this is non-notable vaporware. JBsupreme (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burns, White & Hickton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Burns, White & Hickton

Nothing in this article really indicates to me that the law firm is notable by Wikipedia standards. The awards won ("Best Lawyers in America" and "Super Lawyer") were won by individual employees and not the firm itself. Besides which, is that a significant number of honours for a law firm? Contested prod.... discospinster _talk 00:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without citations in secondary sources, the firm fails Wikipedia:Notability. The awards mentioned do not confer notability - they only indicate which lawyers are viewed favorably by others in the profession. --Megaboz (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete"" In my opinion this article does not meet wikipedias standards

Crazyla112 (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe article reads like an advert. This is an article about a law firm, per Discospinster's nom, individual awards do not necessarily indicate a law firms notability.— Ѕandahl ♥ 00:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--indeed, not notable, and the author's reason for inclusion (that it was a school assignment) has no weight. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lahing Kayumanggi Dance Company[edit]

I couldn't find anything online to confirm the notability of this dance group. Appears to fail WP:ORG. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. A Google News archive search returns no results. And a Google search only returns results from websites advertising this company's services. Article is written as an advertisement and seems to be a copyright violation as well. Furthermore, the article says that the company has 45 members — that's not enough to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 07:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough, even in the Philippines. --- Tito Pao (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. no votes to delete, a decision on whether to keep or merge can be made at the talk page. TravellingCari 17:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

19-0: The Historic Championship Season of New England's Unbeatable Patriots[edit]

Unnotable book as it hasn't been released. ~~Possible hoax.~~ Tavix (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage online, definitely not a hoax - see [84], article by the AP. 180 articles on google [85] for the book name in quotes -wiki. Meets WP:BK per criteria #1.Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a hoax. There are even screenshots of the book's cover on Google Search. This is simply an inevitable consequence of the long lead time on publishing, so in this case the publisher gambled (and lost) on a book that seemed reasonable at the time but sounds ridiculous in retrospect. *** Crotalus *** 00:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a category for canceled books, and this is in it. Major publisher; major anticipated event. 00:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I made a typo when I searched, that's why I wasn't getting anything. Sorry about the hoax comment. Tavix (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article on the Patriots, or that football season or Super Bowl. It is a fun trivia item but not important enough for its own article. Once you get to the punchline (the Pats lost and the book was cancelled) there is nothing more to say. Besides, more people will read it if merged with a major article. Redddogg (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Patriots article and add third-party sources. It's an interesting bit of trivia that doesn't warrant its own article. sixtynine ^{• speak, I say •} 20:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — There's enough significant coverage of this never-released-because-someone-choked book in the Google search above. Remember, Reebok made two different "Perfectville (Pop. 1)" commercials to air right after Super Bowl XLII. MuZemike (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should also be mentioned in the article on the game. It is not important enough for its own article, same as this. Redddogg (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete per WP:SNOW --Smashville^talk 18:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Huynh[edit]

I don't see how this person is notable. In the lead section it says "He is known for posting his thoughts on different subjects to YouTube with his own style of comedy and farce." I hardly think that justifies having a Wikipedia page. Pretty much all of the references are YouTube links and the NY TImes link just mention his name because he won a YouTube award, again, he shouldn't have a page because of this minor mention. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have already had to delete 3 of the sources in the lead, as the articles did not mention him. After searching for sources myself, I can only conclude the individual is not as independently notable as the article would try to have you believe. It appears to be pretty much shameless promotion. How it has lasted this long is beyond me. Claims Youtube awards started in 2007, yet the article about the awards says 2006, etc. etc. etc. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficiently notable. JJL (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly a non-notable Youtube "celebrity" who lacks the required non-trivial coverage to warrant a WP:BLP article. JBsupreme (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure really if one could become notable through posting videos on YouTube, but this guy surely hasn't — note that there are several non-YTube references, but they don't appear significant or reliable enough to confer notability. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately, Nyttend, you are wrong--just see Chris Crocker. But this person is not even Chris Crocker. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Youtube views alone do not establish notability. Themfromspace (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. If kept, most of the Youtube links will have to go as violations of WP:EL. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete not even close. No real sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]