< October 21	October 23 >

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana High School Speech League[edit]

Reads like an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. Notability, if it exists, is extremely localized. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD:A7, no assertion of notability. Tagged as such. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy. Though being a statewide organisation of this nature isn't usually notable, its a plausible indication of possible notability -- & even might be, if there were really significant sources (I therefore removed he speedy tag). DGG (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a well established subject in Wikipedia. See: Atlanta Urban Debate League, Jersey Urban Debate League, Minnesota High School Speech, Maryland High School Mock Trial Competition, Florida Forensic League, Inc., Indiana High School Forensics Association, Pennsylvania High School Speech League ..BlackThor^{Talk • Contribs} 12:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG, and I probably would have speedied this if I'd come across it. But an AfD has more sticking power, I guess. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually found this lying about in WP:Backlog - it dates from December 2006! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional in nature and relying on exactly one source, the organizational web site. The LHSSL may have the references in the Internet to establish WP:ORG, but this article won't be the vehicle for it. This is too spammy to keep. B.Wind (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not free webspace. Mr Stephen (talk) 13:03, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luso-Britons[edit]

Being Portuguese, I hate to see articles about the mother country get deleted. In this case, however, I can make an exception. I see no encyclopedic value here -- lacking in WP:RS, at the very least. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, term does not seem to have gained any currency. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article of a term that appears to be a neologism.B.Wind (talk) 02:54, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect. It was not absolutely clear to me what the redirect target was meant to be. For now I have pointed it to Siege of Constantinople (674–678), but the editors involved certainly could conclude that another target is preferable. Per discussion, no merge was performed. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Syllaeum[edit]

As noted on the article's talk page, the article is misleading because there was no battle at Syllaeum. The Byzantines did indeed attack the besieging Muslims, but they did so in the Sea of Marmara, and no details are known other than the fact that Greek fire won the victory. What happened at Syllaeum was that the retreating Arab fleet was wrecked in a storm. Cf the sources, Theophanes (primary) and Treadgold (secondary). IMO it should be deleted (and its interwiki clones) and the correct events added to the article on the siege itself. Constantine ✍ 23:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename It is not that the naval campaign did not happen, merely that it was not a battle at Syllaeum. There was a battle, followed by the fleet being wrecked at Syllaeum. The article is needed, but the title is inappropriate. I do not know enough of the subject to suggest the right title, but hope some one else can. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. This listing is unnecessary. Simply merging the info and redirecting the article is sufficient. (I wonder where I got the name from? Apparently not Treadgold?) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to explain why I took a rather drastic step of listing it here, instead of simply redirecting it: apparently aided by the WP article, this "Battle of Syllaeum" has proliferated throughout the web. Since there was no battle, and the details of the naval campaign are minimal (IIRC, Theophanes is the main source, and you can see how little he says), keeping the page even as a redirect might be misleading, as it would continue to imply that there was a battle. It is an event that never happened, and as such should not have a page. Regards, Constantine ✍ 06:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IN that case it should be Merge then delete and salt (to prevent re-creation), but where should it be merged to? If to the article in the seige, please indicate what it is called (for the benefit of the closing admin). Peterkingiron (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The events the article concerns are part of the Siege of Constantinople (674–678). However the information the article contains on the naval actions is false, so there is nothing to actually merge into the main article. And, is there a proper procedure to notify the other-language Wikis that have got copies of this article? If necessary, I can find my way around the French, Spanish or Italian ones, but not the Bulgarian or Arabic... Regards, Constantine ✍ 22:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (apparently no merge is necessary?). While I understand the reasoning that we shouldn't perpetuate a falsehood, in reality redirects are cheap and rather meaningless from an accuracy standpoint. They are just matters of convenience, and if this term has proliferated around the web, we might as well have a redirect so that people who see the term used somewhere will be able to easily access the correct information on WP. Everyking (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you do make a good point. Alright, I withdraw the delete proposal. Redirect by me, too. Constantine ✍ 10:08, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, tending towards keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrik van Riessen[edit]

The only reference in this article is an unpublished lecture. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep per WP:POTENTIAL, WP:V. The current state of the article does not determine the worthiness for inclusion of the topic. In this instance, a quick look at Google Books/Scholar indicate that van Riessen himself and his work in the philosophy of technology is referenced and discussed by dozens of sources. Note also that van Riessen hardly ever published in English, thus his true level of notability may be underrepresented in English language sources. I'll have to take a closer look at the available English sources later, but he certainly passes the sniff test. the skomorokh 00:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
note four page obit article in journal: Vlot, A.D. & Griffioen, S. (2000) Hendrik Van Riessen in memoriam = A la mémoire de Hendrik Van Riessen, Philosophia reformata 65:121-125. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:57, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 06:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pass the Turf[edit]

Likley hoax article. Millbrooky (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing I can verify here for existence. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable, almost certainly a hoax/made up in school one day. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Made up one day. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. The names of the participants are a giveaway. Neil916 (Talk) 00:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. JBsupreme (talk) 08:25, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. As always, merge/rename discussions may occur at the appropriate talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Bliss, Texas[edit]

According to the Military history Wikiproject Manual of Style:Mugs2109 (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a unit, formation, or base should be placed at "Name (optional disambiguator)". The name should generally be either the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit or base belongs

the Move request on the talk page^{[clarification needed]} makes it clear that the bases are to be called "fort X", not "Fort X, location". Moreover, there does not appear to have been any discussion concerning this move before it was made. Becuase this is the second instance of "Fort Bliss" being moved out to "Fort Bliss, Texas', and becuase an article needs to exist under only one name, I am asking that this page be either redirected and protected or deleted and protect to prevent a third reincarnation. TomStar810 (Talk) 22:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: from Talk:Fort Bliss Mugs2109 (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC):[reply]
- The solution is to have a separate article for the census-designated place, which should be called Fort Bliss, Texas (and make clear whether the CDP includes anything outside the fort). This will be a stub, and probably will always be a stub. User:Septentrionalis 18:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect page is uneeded. TomStar810 (Talk) 22:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —TomStar810 (Talk) 22:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The base and the community are two different things. From the article about the census-designated palce: "This article is about the census-designated place (6.2 square miles) within the larger military installation (550 square miles) of the same name. For the main article on the United States Army post (in both Texas and New Mexico), see Fort Bliss." -- Eastmain (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain, the CDP and the fort are separate entities. ~~Nom is possibly confused.~~Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is against police to have two pages on what is essentially the same topic.^{[citation needed]} It would be like having an article on the White House and an article on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the former discussing the house and its history and latter discussing the current residents. Moreover, the article size - the only real justifiable reason for splitting an article up - is well below the threshold that would nessicitate a break up. Fort bliss, Texas, is therefore uneeded because fort bliss can do the same job as effectively but without confusing people and without creating the illusion that we have two articles on the same subject. TomStar810 (Talk) 23:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There are different articles on White House and its subset Oval Office, just as the "Fort Bliss, Texas" CDP -- as named by the census bureau -- is a subset of the Fort Bliss -- as named by the Army -- military installation that spans an area in both New Mexico and Texas. To claim policy prohibits a subset of Fort Bliss from having its own page would require each wikipage for a Fort Bliss unit to be deleted with redirect. Agree - nominee is confused (very).Mugs2109 (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few years ago, CDPs of military bases (assuming that they share the same name, such as Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio) were merged into their respective bases^{[citation needed]} under the reasoning given by TomStar. Against this standard, the CDP information was split out as a separate article two weeks ago; consequently, I'm restoring the Fort Bliss article to the standard format (and putting this title back to being a redirect), and ask that this be speedy closed as a result of all problems having been resolved. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I'm not putting Fort Bliss, Texas back to a redirect; that's against policy. I ask that such be done when this is closed. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The unsupported claim that something was done a few years ago does not make it the standard.Mugs2109 (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider reversing the old practice on this generally. We need to recognize the official designations. I think our geographic coverage is much more sophisticated now than a few years ago. DGG (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this really the right place to discuss a reversal of longstanding consensus? I think the better place to discuss a reversal of the old practice would be Talk:Fort Bliss or the military wikiproject noted by the nom; as a merge/redirect would fit current consensus, it would be best to go with the nominator's revised proposal. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - For those who want the policy for pages on military installations to have the prohibition, here's a draft for the Military History Style Guide (yes, it is a guide, which differs from policy) that shows how ridiculous such a prohibition would be: Mugs2109 (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRAFT
for
Military History Style Guide

Prohibited articles: The following are prohibited articles:
1. subarticles on Census-designated places when a CDP is part of a military installation that already has an article - even when the military installation spans two states (such as Fort Bliss) and the CDP is in only one state (Fort Bliss, Texas)

Merge/Redirect—we don't need two articles! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 02:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relevance: (regarding "need", versus value to the reader), e.g., a different Oval Office article isn't a "need", either.Mugs2109 (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Fort Bliss, Texas and Fort Bliss are not the same article. In its simplest terms, one is about a military base and the other is not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article about a CDP; The fort is a separate article. Alansohn (talk) 05:28, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Robertson (Scottish footballer)[edit]

Michael Robertson is a football player who has yet to play in a fully professional match (or a senior match of any description, for that matter), which means he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. I listed the article as a proposed deletion but the notice was removed by an IP (the only edit by that address) without explanation. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 22:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Hockey-holic (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article fails policy, I suppose. However, the subject could be the subject of newspaper reports, and probably is for that matter. Captaining the U19 squad of a premier league team passes my criteria, though only just. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partick aren't a Scottish Premier League club, for a start. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are, Jmorrison. Partick is already second-tier, which pushes its junior squad down another notch. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the subject is not notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete and recreate if/when he plays for the first team MadScot (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability Firebat08 (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's synopsis. Recreate if and when.--ClubOranje^Talk 07:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't matter whether he's a 'great prospect for the future', youth team players aren't notable enough for Wikipedia. Bettia (rawr!) 08:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody else -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. JBsupreme (talk) 08:24, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kate & Kacey Coppola[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I've been on the fence of this for a while, but I think they're not notable enough. There are a couple legitimate claims (signed to a notable label, wrote a song for George Strait, placed on Can You Duet), but I'm not finding enough sources that actually talk about them; almost everything I found was related directly to Can You Duet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being signed to a label, being beaten on a tv show and co-writing a non notable song does not make one notable. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been asking about this, too. Delete. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 01:31, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThatAussieGuy[edit]

Non-notable internet personality. No independent reliable sources are provided to support the claims to notability. The article appears to be self-promotional in nature Mattinbgn\^talk 22:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--totally not notable. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost reads like blatant self promotion. fails WP:BIO badly Michellecrisp (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a nobody per WP:NOT#USER.--Sting Buzz Me... 23:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above I have same reservations--VS ^talk 05:44, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete Parts[edit]

Contested prod. Promoting http://www.myobsoleteparts.com/ --The Firewall 22:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--blatant advertising, terribly written. We ought to charge for the temporary free publicity. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Promotional link removed by author diff. --The Firewall 23:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Self promotion. Third party reliable sources of notability or deletion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost a G11 too. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. advertising. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:59, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Magioladitis (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious job posts[edit]

Basically a dictionary definition and unsourced potentially libelous statements, if an allegation of an example could be located. Unsourced, unsourcable, and a potentional WP:BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Nominator makes a good, succinct case. There is no merit whatsoever in the article. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Heck, the page creator makes a good, succinct case too (WP:NEO). As he explains on the talk-page: The Term does not exist therefore I am creating a "NEW" term. He then goes on to explain how the phrase is nothing more than the combination of the dict-defs of the words. Taken together with its talk-page, the whole thing is barely more than a walled-garden blatant attack page. DMacks (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to being a dictionary definition, it is almost certainly original research, and if the talk page content had been on the article page - I would have speedy-deleted as an attack page. I've archived the talk page to page history due to BLP concerns & a big chunk of copyvio text from dictionary.com. --Versageek 00:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Editor's other contribution, List of malicious job posting companies was speedy-deleted per A1/no-context, was another part of his swath of BLP content. DMacks (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's another: Malicious job post, a copy of the one under discussion with added 'references.' Drmies (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've deleted that one.. --Versageek 04:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, he wrote that one first, and it was speedy-deleted under G10. (Actually, without the list, it doesn't seem to me to be a G10, so....) I restored it as a protected redirect to this one. (And the first copy of each new version has had the list of "examples" / "references".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the author makes a good point, it expresses a non-neutral point of view, and ridding the article of the POV would likely reduce the article to nearly nothing. I suspect the author was victimized by one of these posts. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Coming to Wikipedia to write one's personal conjectures about it isn't the answer. Getting a source published is. And — Lo! — someone already has:
  - Better Business Bureau (1991-04-09). "False Job Ads From Kuwait Lure Unwary". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. p. 5D. ((cite news)): |author= has generic name (help)
  - Angelia Chen (2002-10-05). "Firms duping `employees' into buying their products". Taipei Times. p. 10.
  - Alexander Besher (1991-06-28). "Australia wants phony job ads to stop". Rocky Mountain News. Colorado.
  - "Women warned about fake `job in Japan' ads". Taipei Times. 2005-12-19. p. 2.
  - Associated Press (2003-02-28). "Latest ID theft scam: Fake job listings". New York: CNN.com.
- Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to False advertising. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:45, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by me. This is creative spam, non-notable, and cannot survive AfD. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the userpage of User:Teebomb was substantially similar and I have speedied that for the same reasons. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National share a skip week[edit]

Guerrilla spam by a skip hire company. The other links are totally irrelevant. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I agree with RHaworth: this is spam, non-notable, etc. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily deleted by me - it's entirely non-notable, promoted by a commercial interest, etc. Though, it is some of the more creative adspam I've seen. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:11, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Given the circumstances surrounding the other articles in this group, it is understandable that this one is viewed with some suspicion. However, there does not appear to be a consensus to delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Kuzhinapurath[edit]

Another non-notable priest/monk from the Kuzhinapurath Family. He didn't make it beyond deacon as far as I can tell. VG ☎ 21:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the article shows little sign of notability, apart from leaving his original church (with a mentor) to start a branch of the Catholic church. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not clear to me that this is NN. I think it needs a good going over and a search for sources. Merger to Kuzhinapurath Family may be indicated. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The discussion at this related AfD may be relevant. VG ☎ 08:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be the subject of significant coverage. Satisfies N. Wily D 10:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is he? where is it? can you link to the five most notable sources? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order 1) Yes; 2) Take a look at the article; 3) Possibly, though I'm not sure. Cheers, Wily D 12:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has one source of dubious quality (written by the guy who wrote the article) - how does that establish notability? How does that indicate significant coverage? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm - please review the article before asserting things about it. Your statement about sources is flatly false. Two sources are presented, by different authors (the second a collection of authors). Wily D 13:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well let me tell you... you are complete right. Sorry about that - I'm getting mixed up with another article in this walled garden. Apologies. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 13:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N. Springnuts (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fr. John being the only priest of the historic event of reunion he is notable. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike the subjects of other articles in the walled garden he is notable:
1. Per reason provided by WilyD
2. The subject is one of the 5 behind reunion with Catholic church (ref Image:Five_Pillars.jpg). Another among the five is on the path to sainthood in catholic church. This was a significant event considering the million people involved and the coverage then. Also need reference citing the contribution of John Kuzhinapurath in the reunion. Having a photograph with Mar Ivanios and naming it "five pillars" doesn't make him one of the 5 behind. Also, the first sentence of the article that he is the first priest who reunited is bogus, unless bishops behind the movement are not considered as priests.
3. Superior General of Seminary. Ref need to be added.
- Article should be cleaned up to meet wiki standards and focus need to be on the positions he held and his contributions. Need to delink from the Kuzhinapurath family propoganda.. --Jacob.jose (talk) 21:42, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedily deleted by Nyttend Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Browntown, Alabama[edit]

This is an odd one; it appears to be someone's SimCity. It looks to me like a copy of Abbeville, Alabama with some modifications made; the geolinks coordinates point there, much of the demographics section is the same, and the radio station mentioned is also there. The references given don't contain any sign of a 'Browntown' (anywhere in the U.S. as an incorporated community, for that matter), and a google search only brings up a few small towns in Jackson and Walker Counties, both far away from its stated location in Henry County. The roads listed are also all over the place, and (save one) not near the listed location. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Ten Pound Hammer. Appears to be WP:HOAX. And a nicely odd discovery, Spyder_Monkey. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the GNIS, there are three Browntowns in Alabama: one in Autauga County; one in Jackson County; and one in Walker County — although Autauga County is much closer, it's still in the middle of the state. I echo CactusWriter's praise for the nominator. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted as hoax per cactus and otters. Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplay Cafe[edit]

No evidence that subject satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Original prod was disputed by IP editor. Farix (Talk) 21:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per TheFarix. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I expected an article on the weird Japanese cafes found in Akihibara, not an anime. I do not think the adult cartoon is the primary meaning of this term. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cosplay restaurant may be a possible redirect target after the article on the pornographic anime is deleted. --Farix (Talk) 11:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as per Farix. -- Highwind ⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 23:49, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devadasy[edit]

No evidence that subject satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Original prod was disputed by IP editor. Farix (Talk) 21:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite arousing description in article. Unfortunately, there is only one valid source, and it is also an external link with little information (aside that the article title is an alternate name, with the official name being De:vadasy). B.Wind (talk) 06:36, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Figwit[edit]

This is an article for an unnamed character in the Lord of the Rings (film) with no lines who does not appear in the books. The only reason the article exists is because the actor portraying him is a member of the popular band Flight of the Conchords. The page should be either deleted or redirected to Bret McKenzie. I'm not aware of any guidelines for notability of film characters, but it's pretty obvious that should such guidelines exist, this character would not meet those criteria. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 21:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources like this verify the fan-derived name and contain sufficient out-of-universe information. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band has nothing to do with the existance of this article. Figwit is a kind of internet meme, actually, and there's plenty of sources for that. Not to mention that the character does have a speaking role in the third film, and that's solely because of the meme that made him popular. --Conti|✉ 21:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - character has received more than enough significant coverage to maintain a page. It's merely a little sad that the size of Figwit's page so greatly exceeds McKenzie's. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are 17 sources on the page. At least 7 are nontrivial articles in reliable secondary sources that are specifically about Figwit and having nothing to do with the Conchords. --Smashville^talk 22:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per general notability guideline. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Bret McKenzie. The only sources that focus on the character, rather than the person who played him, are from no later than 2002; he clearly has no lasting notability. Wikipedia should not be about documenting fleeting internet memes like this one; if it does pass our current notability guidelines, as the people above seem to think, then those guidelines ought to be rewritten, because cruft like this doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Terraxos (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh... did you look at the dates for the articles? I see article dates from 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2007. That's four different years, spanning a total of of six years. Yes, "fancruft" is deleted a lot, but only because it is "often poorly written, unwikified, unreferenced, non-neutral and contain[s] original research"—which this article isn't. You can call it "cruft", but you can't admit it's not well-done. Mr. Absurd (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the character was played by Bret McKenzie, but the article exists because the character was the subject of an Internet meme, not because of the actor's previous fame (in fact, this was much before the Flight of the Conchord show had even started, and arguably before it had gained much of the fame it has today). At any rate, the article is easily well-sourced enough (and it's even a GA). Mr. Absurd (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the reliable sources cited in the article are about Flight of the Conchords or Lord of the Rings generally, not about Figwit specifically, and only make passing mention of the character. As Terraxos mentioned, none of the articles that focus on Figwit (and not on the band or LOTR more generally) were made past 2002. Let's face it: Figwit is an internet meme that briefly got a tiny bit of attention from the fringes of the media but failed to achieve lasting notability. If we gave articles to every single internet meme, then we'd have articles on the Picard Song and the Shoes (video), both of which are redirects and also much more popular than the Figwit meme.

Additionally, it doesn't matter whether the article is well-done; it could be worthy of FA status but it still wouldn't be notable. Notability is distinct from quality. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that sources extend beyond the currentness of the subject. That's faulty logic, considering that's where most sources on every article come from. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument. Also, "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." That is the notability guideline, which it clearly satisfies. --Smashville^talk 13:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the sources that matter, not the "popularity"—I'm sure if "Shoes" had enough sources, it could be an article, but I suspect it was mostly original research/plot re-hashing (and anyways, as Smashville pointed out, WP:Other stuff exists). Mr. Absurd (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A nomination for a good article must surely be a troll. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... AGF? Notability is not one of the requirements of a good article; it's perfectly possible for an article to pass WP:GA, yet be on a non-notable subject (as, I argue, this one has). Terraxos (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it is "non-notable" doesn't make it so. You haven't given a good reason why this article should be considered non-notable despite meeting the notability standards. --Smashville^talk 17:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject of multiple, substantial, reliable independent publications. Satisfies usual N criteria, no apparent reason to deviate from usual practice here. Wily D 10:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No comment.--X093i (talk) 14:02, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. No independent references to establish notability.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millsian[edit]

Article was tagged for deletion but the prod notice was removed. This article is not notable, as the theory has never been noticed by anyone outside the Millsian Inc organization. There are no peer reviewed articles on it by anyone other than Mills and coworkers and it not clear that they are peer reviewed. Bduke (Discussion) 21:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. The work described in this article looks impressive on the surface, but it is not supported by any independent review. The comparison with quantum chemistry methods is spurious, as they refer to Hartree-Fock results which we have known for decades do not give accurate bond energies. However other methods do and are now in in wide use. Mills is well known for odd science, which only he knows about. For example, Hydrino theory, which has redirects from his name, Randell Mills, and his company, Blacklight Power, covers a lot of his work and this software could possibly be mentioned there. However, it has received minimal notice even as pseudoscience, and no notice in the regular scientific literature. If it receives such notice, it can be recreated, but it would need to be more NPOV. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the one who proposed deleting the article but the "prod tag" was removed. This product is not notable because there are no reliable independent publications about it. I took a quick look at their self-published white paper and it doesn't look like mainstream science to me. --Itub (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A software implementation (of a fringe theory) which has not received independent coverage from reliable sources. Whilst the theory has, for various reasons, received commentary, I can't see anyone other than Mills' gang using this particular program. Fringe issues and questionable comparisons aside, if there is no independent application and reporting of the software, either in academic or industrial settings, it can not yet be notable enough for an article of its own. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see this as being notable. It's comprised solely of primary sources, which isn't helping me feel any more confident. ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 05:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep.

Claim: "The theory has never been noticed by anyone outside the Millsian organization."

Status: False. The 893 members of the Hydrino Study Group have posted 13,913 messages.

Claim: "It is not clear that [Mills' articles] are peer reviewed."

Status: False. Here's a list of Mills' peer-reviewed papers, most of them describing the theory behind the Millsian software. Having said that, peer review is not the standard for the existence of articles about commercial software applications. iTunes, for example, has not been peer reviewed, yet it's entirely appropriate to have an article about it. If you have concerns about the quality of the peer reviews, why not constructively add that to the article, rather than destructively deleting the entire article?

If Hartree-Fock gives such poor results, why aren't you advocating deletion of the Hartree-Fock article? Instead, you're advocating deletion of an article about a molecular modeling application that gives results far superior to Hartree-Fock. How illogical.

Your kneejerk application of the "pseudoscience" tag lumps Mills in with the likes of Dennis Lee and John Keely. Clearly, he does not deserve this -- his work deserves fair consideration, which it will not get thanks to the kneejerk namecalling. If Millsian someday gains mainstream acceptance, but that day is delayed because of Bduke's censorship and suppression of information about Millsian, the username Bduke will be lumped in with those who persecuted Galileo. Fortunately the faculty at Rowan University are giving Mills a fair shake, and have independently validated his experimental results. Novel compound (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone advocates a 'keep' position, it would be their onus to add what the article is lacking. ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 06:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Millsian someday gains mainstream acceptance (or at least notice), then we can have an article about it. As for "that day is delayed because of Bduke's censorship": it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to promote and accelerate the acceptance of new ideas. Read the policies on verifiability, original research, and neutral point of view for more information. --Itub (talk) 08:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note, Novel compound. This discussion is about the software package – not the theory or its predictions. Arguments for keeping this article need to show that this specific program is notable. Anyone can write a program to do whatever calculation they wish. It is the recognition, application, and commentary upon, by independent parties, which would make it notable. I can not see that any of these have occurred with regard to Millsian. However, as XF Law noted, if you can point us to such sources I would certainly reevaluate my position. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails relevant notability criteria. As a side note, appears to be another content fork/end-run related to Randell Mills' claims. MastCell ^Talk 17:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of independent sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sufficient mention of the company and product are already made at Hydrino theory; might be worth redirecting there. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:59, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VivirAquí[edit]

Promotional article on a non notable local Mexican newspaper, created by a SPA. Fails WP:NME, no award winning work, no significant purpose/history, non authoritative, not frequently cited by other reliable sources, no significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets. Google search comes up with no relevant hits to make the paper notable. (Most hits are irrelevant because Vivir Aquí is a common term.) Erebus Morgaine (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some vandalism from the article - but it doesn't affect the AfD debate. Springnuts (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - difficult to argue otherwise given no WP:RS it does not pass WP:N. Springnuts (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:23, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability for this free weekly periodical. B.Wind (talk) 05:08, 22 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} 21:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Free newspapers can be notable but there is no solid claim of notability here, never mind any proof. It is entirely unreferenced and the credits at the bottom are spammy. The original author has not been seen for more than a year and nobody else is working on it. I can't see any hope for it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:01, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability has been sufficiently established (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damned Good Show[edit]

NN book, fails WP:BK, no sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 04:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added two reliable source reviews to the article with citations and I have found another one shown below where I only have the abstract. This should prove that there are multiple sources providing critical commentary to satisfy WP:BK.
- Connelly, Mark. "How did they do it?." TLS (20 Dec. 2002): 20. Abstract: Reviews the book 'Damned Good Show,' by Derek Robinson.--Captain-tucker (talk) 17:51, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 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} 21:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With added RS reviews, article meets WP:NB item #1 (multiple reviews) MadScot (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are now 3 RS reviews, one in the TLS, above. I accept TLS alone as notability. DGG (talk) 21:13, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Top 40 Albums[edit]

Hoax chart? Seems to get very few hits for a supposedly official chart. Also note that its publisher, Media Traffic, is a red link, which is a big red flag. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: MediaTraffic = United World Chart = previously deleted. SKS2K6 (talk) 05:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mediatraffic is not a reliable website and neither are its charts. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 18:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article about something purportedly from the people who brought the United World Chart, which we deleted for lack of reliable sources. This included MediaTraffic, the purported presenters of both of these charts. B.Wind (talk) 06:55, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The sources do seem to echo the press release, making the concern about their independence a reasonable one. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir insight[edit]

Sounds like a worthy organisation, but claims to notability weak. Only reference provided is an external link to two websites, and the fact that both websites use identical text makes me suspect this is just a reprint of a press release issued by Kashmir insight. Searched on Google, only hits I can find where Kashmir Insight is the subject of the article is their own webpage and the Wikipedia page. Tagged for ((notability)) and ((neutrality)) since 27 September, neither issue has been addressed. Sorry guys. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with nominator, including the regrets. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:13, 20 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} 20:58, 22 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} 20:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not terribly great at distinguishing reliable from unreliable publications of India, but the profusion makes me believe at least some are reliable. See [1], [2], [3], Wily D 10:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't, however, whether these sources are reliable. It is whether these sources are independent of the subject, as required here. The references you have found are just two more reprints of the same story, word for word (and a third source already cited in the article), which still makes me think that it's the same press release reprinted by four websites. If that's the case, that most definitely does not qualify as notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are not reliable sources, and I couldn't find any reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of noteworthiness is forthcoming. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of WP:RS --GPPande talk! 17:39, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. I couldn't find sources either, and after 12 days it's time to pull the plug on this one. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Lembo di Pino[edit]

Subject is not notable. Most Google results are copies of the WP article, one indicates he gives workshops on calligraphy. No 3rd-party confirmation of exhibitions, awards, etc. And there is no WP:it article for this Italian subject Yumegusa (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 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} 09:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could not find reliable sources to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 13:09, 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} 20:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article has been unreferenced for too long, if no one can find reliable, third-party sources for over a year, then it is likely they will never be added, and is non-notable. Scapler (talk) 11:20, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Love Presley[edit]

Elvis's mother... Moms are great and all, but don't automatically inherit notability from their children. Elliskev 20:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect: Leave it as a redirect. It is a possible search term. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c)
DOH! I should not have nominated this. I should have just redirected. Sorry! Withdrawn --Elliskev 21:00, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Musikvergnuegen[edit]

No notability established for this company. The only direct reference given in this article does not even name the company, and therefore cannot be used to establish notability. The other references are overly vague making verification impossible and themselves should be removed. Article history also shows page creation and extensive work performed by Damien Chock who is a member of the company and mentioned in the article. Therefore it cannot be considered NPOV. CrispMuncher (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article in Mix at http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_la_grapevine_66/ discusses the company at some length and is sufficient to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concur with Eastmain here - substantial, independent converage exists and is cited, which establishes notability. I see no compelling reason to not follow WP:N in this case. Wily D 10:44, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criteria G7 (author blanked the page). --Allen3 ^talk 21:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ghoops phenomenon[edit]

Contested prod about "a new condition that is thought to be unique to student life in the small town of Ipswich, UK." Web search for information produces no hits outside of this Wikipedia article. Delete as per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day unless reliable third-party sources are provided to verify that this is not a hoax. --Allen3 ^talk 20:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as basically WP:BOLLOCKS and also stating repeatedly within the article itself that there is no information on the topic. Patent nonsense. Some people have too much time on their hands, I think. If I could fit it into a CSD category I would. MadScot (talk) 20:51, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD G4 - Recreation of deleted material. Gazi moff 20:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson controversies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unsourced POV-fork of activities of a living person MBisanz ^talk 20:42, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Year Prosperity Batch 2008-2009[edit]

A single grade of a single school, with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Previously prod was contested without comment by IP user. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notability on all levels, I even cringed at the sight of a "seat plan." Starczamora (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also for non-notability. And, hey, last time I heard, this is the English Wikipedia :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isnt this a candidate for speedy deletion? If Starczamora cringed at the sight of a "seat plan," I fawn over the names of the students with their corresponding traits. :) Axxand (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which criteria would you suggest? I couldn't quite bring myself to calling it an organization, and none of the others seemed remotely close. :(--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indeed. This is not even a single grade; this is a single class of a single grade of a school. Unless this class is unusually extraordinary and notable, I don't think there's any ground on which the article can stand on. Then again, there's always WikiPilipinas. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 16:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability of the article. Why publish the seat plan and class info online? Edraf (talk) 02:37, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nervous Set[edit]

This article is wholly original research, by Scott Miller[4], given the final paragraph: "All meterial quoted with permission from Scott Miller's article, Inside The Nervous Set, from his upcoming book Sex, Drugs, Rock & Roll, and Musicals."

There is, too a neutrality issue in that the article disparages a previous production & producer, whilst Scott Miller is the producer of a contemporary production which is treated most favorably in the article.

Other than to a Scott Miller article, the article is entirely uncited.

Given the WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and definite WP:COI issues in the article, I feel it would be better to delete this one and start again - as a clear marker that we do not wish Wikipedia to be used for opinion pieces - than to seek to cut this one down to its bare facts with the possibility of an ensuing revert war, hints of which are given in the current article's history. Tagishsimon (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources, original research, COI. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The question is not whether it is a good article; the question is whether this musical is notable. DGG (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A question, perhaps. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion for other valid reasons for deletion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The minutiae of copyright is not my strong suit, but I thought it wasn't sufficient to quote chunks of material from elsewhere with the rationale "used by permission". Doesn't the author have to contact Wikimedia officially, and shouldn't there be a GDFL-compatible statement published with the source material? It really does read like promo at present, and needs a lot of work to get in into an NPOV, non-OR, non-COI state. Ka renjc 22:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The author has provided an OTRS permission for another of his articles based on the same source & would doubtless do the same for this one if asked. Although technically a copyvio right now, in spirit he has provided a GFDL permission. I think there are more persuasive grounds for deletion right now than the copyright issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: You can't just say "quoted with permission". How do we know there is permission? I put a copyvio tag on the article. I am sure that the musical IS notable - It ran on broadway after a major regional run and starred a number of notable actors. Lots of broadway shows on Wikipedia are less notable. But the entire article is just a copy and paste from Miller's website, and that's no way to write a WP article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Don't know if the show is notable or not but almost none of the article is verifiable and much seems like a possible advert for a new book by the author of the article. ChicagoPerfArts (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC) — ChicagoPerfArts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

CommentThe article author admits OR: [5] --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:00, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. — neuro^(talk) 20:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Winternitz[edit]

Does not appear to have any real claim to notability. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is a grandfathered entry from the 1901-1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. The fact that there was an article about this guy in a printed encyclopedia is, by itself, already sufficient to pass our WP:BIO requirements. Further, a cursory googlebooks search reveals plenty of coverage: 551 hits[6], quite a few with specific and detailed coverage. Item 2 on this googlebooks result list (an article from Boston Medical and Surgical Journal) reads: "Its leadership in this branch of therapeutics was due to Wilhelm Winternitz, justly called the father of scientific hydrotherapy". I don't think there is a need to go further. The article would certainly benefit from expansion, but that is not a reason for deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Nsk92, Jewish Encyclopedia entry demonstrates reliable coverage of him as a subject in reliable tertiary sources. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Articles on long dead academics are very rarely deletion material. They don't do much spamming and self-promotion.John Z (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. --Crusio (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject of a biography in a notable encyclopaedia. Why second guess that? Wily D 10:45, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 01:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Lee[edit]

Per Wikipedia:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event, and even then it's questionable if she's sufficiently notable. The article asserts that she is personally responsible for getting Acupuncture accredited in California, without clear evidence of this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Misapplication of BLP1E - Lee's pioneering role does seem to be attested in other sources [7] Google Scholar lists several.

Wily D 21:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparent a prominent acupuncture practitioner and teacher. The event referred to is the highlight of her career, not the only event in it. DGG (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep getting accupuncture to be legal in California is definitely a noteworthy achievement!--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all of the above. Nsk92 (talk) 02:46, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NokVAULT[edit]

Article looks like it's just an advert for the software product detailed; parts of the text seem taken from the producer's WWW site?! Cupids wings (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — article contains truckloads of delicious spam. MuZemike (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable software and just spam H8gaR (talk) 12:34, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 01:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Institute of Oriental Medicine[edit]

It's a minor trade school, and there do not appear to be any really independent sources for it, outside of a puff piece in a (apparently minor) trade magazine. Surely a little more than that is necessary to establish a school as notable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being listed as "authorized" on the Washington Higher Education gives it notability, along with the articles from Acupuncture Today. Is it a "minor" school? Are the sources "minor"? Perhaps, but it has enough to keep. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the question is whether this is a college, in which case it is generally considered as always notable, or a trade school, which usually isn't. Since it gives an accredited master's degree, it's a college. DGG (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But one accredited by the trade's organisation. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to question the accreditation body when evaluating criteria for whether this masters degree-conferring institution is a college or a trade school, is nothing more than demonstration of systemic bias. This is a college, and therefore notable. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: To question the accreditation body is sensible and should be done with references, not deletion. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a degree-awarding body. TerriersFan (talk) 00:48, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 01:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of acupuncture points[edit]

This may be useful, but it's not obviously so, and this seemed a good place to get thoughts on it. It seems, frankly, like something that could far better be handled by an image, which would show where these randm names corresonded to. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a way of indexing these points, the list seems useful, even though few of the points have articles right now. It sorts the points by type, which would be harder to do in a diagram. Comment: Are these Traditional Chinese Medicine points, Five Elements points, or what? (Those are the variants of acupuncture that I am aware of, there are probably more.) I also wonder a little whether this would be more appropriate for some other Wiki - Wikisource, maybe? Brianyoumans (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I could see it on Wiktionary. It's defining terms, after all. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ow. Trying "conception vessel #1" sure did hurt. Mandsford (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You owe me a new keyboard, Mandsford. I just shot Dr Pepper out my nose onto it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr. Pepper Red Fusion" was bad enough, but Dr. Pepper Green Fusion is... never mind, send me the bill. Mandsford (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As you all know, Wikipedia is not a game of definitions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per below. Granted, I know bupkis about acupuncutre, but the comments below have me convinced that it must be expandable beyond a game of definitions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. As a bare list like this,its relatively meaningless. If it describes them, as the first few lines do, or even better maps to a drawing, then it's meaningful and relevant content as a supplement to the other acupuncture articles. I'm sure its sourceable in any book on the subject, but it would probably be necessary to know Chinese characters to find the information. DGG (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and finish improving. I encourage including an image however I lack the knowledge to do so at this point. I find the definitions, the spacing in cun to be very useful as a way of conceptualizing acupuncture points. I however lack knowledge on the points to say which tradition these points are relevant to, so I would encourage later revisions to state such as well. rkmlai (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A billion people believe in this system. Desperately needs some diagrams of the meridians. Geo Swan (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lists like this one make a great starting point for an expert on the subject to start writing articles.--Parthian Scribe 01:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - acupuncturepoints are a world-heritage, so they are relevant not only in medicine, but also in history. 217.237.123.231 (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful and well-referenced list. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There's much more than definition going on here: anatomical location, local anatomy and innervation, indications per TCM, contraindications, needling technique specific to each point, and research findings, as well as Chinese name and Western translation. Redlinking to the names was overdoing it, but at some point I could see articles for at least some of the more notable individual points. Lots more V RS's can be added here; I have dozens of them and will add them when I have time, but as it is there are enough. (BTW, I hope no one is contemplating going on a deletion rampage with acupuncture topics comparable to the one that happened a few months ago with homeopathy. Such overzealousness, however well-intended, never ends well.) --Jim Butler (t) 19:43, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Television of Warsaw University of Technology[edit]

Seems to be little more than a student organization. Has aspirations, but not currently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. (Lest we start listing each and every student org in the world) ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is not even one name in this article to give it some credibility, no notable anchorman or woman there or someone responsible. It could be someone as Viva Palestyna - an anonymous website without a name, address and stationary phone number - behind it, just pretending to be someone else they're not. Also, it needs some secondary sources like newspaper clippings or other opinion coming from the prestigious TVP media about this station and about what they're really doing except fooling around. greg park avenue (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable student TV station. Every university with a media studies department runs a station like this. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:46, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off Broadway Arts Centre[edit]

NN dinner theatre, with no assertion of cultural importance to Canadian theatre. The article's spammy text reads like an advertisement, and a Google search doesn't confirm its importance. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written like an advertisement, barely notable; already mentioned in this article, which is all the mention it really deserves. --Drm310 (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy delete depending upon whether or not you interpret Off Broadway Arts Centre as the building itself or the umbrella organization that runs the various theater groups. Either way, no readily apparent notability. Newsaholic (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can this debate be put on hold for a bit, and I will search to see if there are sources to vouschafe its notability, and re-write the article as per wikipedia NPOV standard. Because of the years it has been around there should be information from other sources about it. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 05:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Looked for more sources for notability and drew a blank. So, will remove hold, at this time cannot do more for this article. SriMesh | talk 15:16, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Notability per WP:MUSIC is not met. What constitutes significant coverage can always be debated, and open for interpetation. With the very weak qualifier on the only keep, we can probably fairly say this one doesn't meet the treshold. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dashboard prophets[edit]

NN band whose sole claim to fame was having samplings of two songs briefly used in an episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." The article was already speedy deleted twice as Dashboard Prophets and a Google search finds nothing that meets WP:RS standards. The formerly redlinked record label (the redlink was removed after this AfD began) doesn't help with cred, either. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both band and Burning Out the Inside, their album. No secondary sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BAND. Sam ^Blab 23:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bunch of sources just now. Oddly, given the apparent absence of more extensive coverage, many of the newspapers describe the band as "popular". None of the references I added are articles about the band, but they nevertheless allowed me to add a little more verifiable content, so I guess I will call this a weak keep per WP:MUSIC criterion #1. (On a side note, it looks as if the band Gordon merits a Wikipedia article.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am familiar with those sources you added -- I actually checked them out before bringing the article here. You are correct -- none of the references are about the band. Existence is not synonymous with notability, unfortunately. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do get overly optimistic (about sources) sometimes when there are a few mentions of a band or musician in several articles. "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." So an article can be built without there being references out there that are exclusively about the band. I know, I know—the ones I've added are barely a step above "trivial" mentions. Call my !vote a very weak keep, just barely above "neutral". :) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, can you please provide the exact URLs for the references that you added? In particular, I am unable to confirm the "Radio Sunnyvale" coverage. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, these references are not available online. I found them in a library database of newspaper articles. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:02, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Nihilist Underground Society[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Clearly this article has been through a number of previous AfD discussions, with varying results (one straight delete, one straight keep, two no consensus results and a speedy based on a nomination within five days of the previous AfD). The article is sourced at present, but nothing is presented to establish notability per WP:WEB. The closest candidate would be the award from the Houston Press for Best Nihilist Web Site, but as this has only ever been awarded once (the paper appears to make up wacky awards each year) it can hardly be described as "well-known" (per criterion 2 of WP:WEB). The rest are trivial mentions that suggest various actions have been rumoured to be associated with said website, and a couple of interviews with a co-creator of the site by online sites that are not giving any non-trivial background to the site itself. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I may have messed up this nomination somehow, but unsure how; any admin help would be gratefully appreciated... Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Delete, basically per nom. Apart from the Houston Press award (which seemed to have been meant as a humorous gig) and a little bit of minor newscoverage[8], there does not appear to be much else here. Does not seem to pass WP:WEB based on the sources available. Nsk92 (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, changing to plain delete. Nsk92 (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable [9]. Surprised it survived this long. Sticky Parkin 20:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and WP:ORG and WP:N and WP:V and WP:RS and pretty much everything else. I remember this getting quite rightly deleted ages ago but apparently it came back at some point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Catbird seat. Cirt (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Catbirdseat[edit]

No independent claims of notability, seems self-promotional. ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary sources only, no secondary ones found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Catbird seat, a no-birder. Mandsford (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:16, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Vision Strategists[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Looking into the history, this article has already been deleted once. the original rationale would seem to stand here "Not notable as fails WP:ORG. Sources listed don't mention article name. Fails WP:V". Someone might want to salt it this time. Cameron Scott (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt I am in agreement with the nominator. I nominated this article in the first AfD and nothing has changed. Fails WP:ORG and not verifiable.--Sting Buzz Me... 23:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4) — blatant recreation of deleted material. MuZemike (talk) 15:05, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was A7 by TexasAndroid, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allblog[edit]

No claim of notability. ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Non-notable website, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:43, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Is It Legal? episodes[edit]

This article consists entirely of self-confessed original research (see talk)... and covers only 2 of 21 episodes, both in the most absurd and space-intensive detail ever. I don't think there's any value to it at all. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial personal analysis. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR based upon as it stands now; however under current Wikipedia policy an article consisting of a list of episodes with minimal plot description is allowed, and so no prejudice against recreation in such a format. 23skidoo (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Keep and edit down. I'm not sure where my head was at when I put down the previous opinion; of course this should be expanded into a proper episode list article now, with the OR material removed. 23skidoo (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but edit down drastically the content now present, and add the other episodes. The usual rule is not minimal content, but concise content. My own rule of thumb is enough to understand what happened in one you missed if you were generally familiar with the show. DGG (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but edit as DGG suggests. Perfectly valid spinoff article of Is It Legal?; this is encouraged by WP:FICTION. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, normally I'd say keep as an episode list is a perfectly valid spin off, but this isn't what that really is at all. I think deletion for later restarting as a real episode list would be a better option here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:33, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Eden[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Sources used are almost all primary, and there don't appear to be any independent sources that could be used to make a biography. Google News has no sources and Google Scholar, once you ignore a lot of obvious false hits, comes up with no independent sources, as far as I can tell. When I investigated a couple of the claims to notability, such as the "bestselling" claim, I discovered that that was based on an unarchived, and thus completely uncheckable one-hour fluctuation in Amazon.com sales. That is, of course, not what is generally meant by bestseller.

Keep In addition to the arguments presented at the first AfD, there are plenty of gnews hits in the gnews archives, of course many self promotional, but some RSs [10] particularly the first one, an article about her from the St. Petersburg Times. John Z (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Feh. This post from the St. Pete Times is an community calendar advertisement. It certainly does not establish notability. By this standard, there are a number of graduate students I know who would be notable enough for Wikipedia articles on the basis of them having given talks and being interviewed by local media where they were giving the talks. We have standards for newsworthy notability and WP:PROF and WP:BIO are simply not met here. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand the claim that this is a community calendar advertisement - it is in the "Floridian" section, which is listed as a News section, and has an identified Times staff writer, and is somewhat skeptical. Although there is some PR type announcement mateial next to it, it seems to be a normal 'human interest' type news story. Is there real doubt about veracity or that it is paid material? The Amazon stuff seems more problematic; I wouldn't include it or base notability on it. We don't delete because of self-promotion, just self-promotion which has been unsuccessful in attracting interest from reliable sources. With the old AfD discussion, and the sources noted by Tim Vickers below, it still seems a keep.John Z (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just read all my comments from the first deletion attempt. Not a whole lot in the article has changed. Have the policies for deletion changed? Is this an appeal? Is it necessary to go through this again? There are challenges to the sources, but not one person in over 9 months has bothered to respond to my request for clarification on what, exactly, bugs people about the original sources. See Talk:Donna Eden#Quality of Sources, although it's a bit out of date since some of the sources have been removed. As to the statement "I discovered that that was based on an unarchived, and thus completely uncheckable one-hour fluctuation in Amazon.com sales", that is an oversimplification. The book was sitting at #3 for months, and hit #2 for a while. It's still sitting at #23 in amazon energy healing after 10 months. I don't know how to archive amazon ratings ... if that's the big issue, we can figure a way around it. --Mbilitatu (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RS is the standard bearer and it points out that third party sources are vital for establishing notability. See also WP:PROF and WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see how this works. First the skeptic deletes all the sources, claiming that they are no good. Then the skeptic claims there are no sources. Nice strategy. She is a best seller. She is well known. She is not marginal. If I care enough, I'm going to put that all BACK IN the article. I'm really not sure ... I may just let the skeptics rule wiki. This is a waste of my time and effort. --Mbilitatu (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I put back the bestselling amazon link. I do see that it changes often, thus the complaint about hourly. In the course of this discussion, I have seen it range from #2 (today) to #23. Those are all good. I also reference a comment from the PREVIOUS request for deletion that said, "Keep This author is notable within their field as evidenced by the fact that they have a book with a high Amazon ranking, she meets all of the criteria for having a Wikipedia page. The page is also sourced and cited. No valid reason for deletion. - perfectblue (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)". So a different person agreed that amazon had her at a high ranking back in January. I cite this as evidence of a consistently high ranking. Maybe the amazon ranks are a difficult thing because they change. But to claim that amazon is a bad source of ranking information is silly. That's who sells books. I did ask amazon if a ranking history was available, but customer service told me it is not. Maybe we need an official way to snapshot amazon ranking and get the snapshot blessed. This is a wiki procedural issue, not a notability issue for Donna Eden.--Mbilitatu (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I put back the Alternative Therapies source. This is a good source. It's peer reviews. It's clear that the issue is that skeptics don't like the peers. This is the same stupid problem all over wiki ... notability requires peer review, but when the skeptics dismiss the entire community of peers, there's no way to meet this criteria.
Delete As currently written and from what I can glean from possible sources, this article is of a marginal figure whose notice is derived primarily through self-promotion rather than third-party recognition. What outside source has indicated that she is an expert in this so-called "energy medicine" field? I cannot find any. Sure, there are "gnews" hits, but they all look to me to be either from unreliable primary sources meant to unduly promote energy medicine or the mention is so off-handed as to be useless in establishing notability. I point out that this particular person seems to fail WP:PROF miserably. So delete. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "So-called energy medicine". That's it. You just don't like the field. You have an agenda to rid wiki of things you don't like. That's the issue here. --Mbilitatu (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~, I could find no reliable sources that discuss Donna Eden as their subject, with the news articles simply short parts of long lists of events happening on a particular date. The books might confer notability, but I can't find any reviews of them in reliable sources - and Amazon ranks in a very restricted subset mean nothing. If this article had been published I might sway towards keeping, but I can find no mention of it in the 2007 edition of that journal see here. It is also not listed in her CV (link) Tim Vickers (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability requires notability in the field. Clearly the field of alternative medicine is notable. She is a bestseller in a notable field. That means that the ranking within that notable field is noteworthy. --Mbilitatu (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, the article was published the next year, and has been listed by PubMed PMID 18251321. Coupled with the books I think that's just enough for notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I understand it, this argument is a re-run of an AfD request earlier this year. Repeated attempts like this are a waste of time, if not an abuse of process. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see nothing here to suggest we should overturn the previous AFD decision. 23skidoo (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Donna Eden is demonstrably a bestselling author in the field of Alternative Therapies, just check out the ratings for any of her books on amazon. Even a book she wrote ten years ago is still in the top ten in the Energy Healing category, another is at number two in the Naturopathy cat., her books have received positive reviews from Publisher's Weekly [11] and Reed Business Review, I think this is definitely enough to consider her notable. Gatoclass (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine article (thanks, TimVickers) puts me close, but only by kinda kluging together notability guidelines; a full WP:PROF test is clearly not in order. Neither Energy Kinesiology nor the related association appear to have received any reliable coverage; it might be a variant of Applied kinesiology that should be mentioned there (with a source, of course). Publisher's Weekly, unless I am mistaken, only publishes positive reviews; the tone of a review is not really relevant, though, only whether it is substantial and reliable. Amazon is not in the business of providing scholarly critical reviews of the sort necessary for us to write an encyclopedic article rather than just another fluff piece. The obvious searches are not indicating that such reliable, substantial, independent reviews exist; an actual indication of best seller status would probably also kick me over. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You provide no evidence that PW "publishes only positive reviews". According to the Wiki article, the magazine's subscribers include "6000 publishers; 5500 public libraries and public library systems; 3800 booksellers; 1600 authors and writers; 1500 college and university libraries; 950 print, film and broad media; and 750 literary and rights agents, among others." That sounds like a reputable source to me. Gatoclass (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

an actual indication of best seller status would probably also kick me over

Okay, amazon ratings for some of her books:

The Energy Medicine Kit (2005) - #2 in Category:Naturopathy.
The Promise of Energy Psychology (2005) - #11 in Cat:Alternative Medicine.
Energy Medicine for Women (2008) - #51 in Category:Women's Health, #64 in Alternative Medicine. Gatoclass (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because the truth value of my offhand comment about the style of PW reviews is irrelevant to my actual argument. That is not a scholarly review, and does not provide the sort of analysis that we could use actually to write a decent encyclopedic article on this topic. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:13, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Walls[edit]

AfDs for this article:

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lie Lie Lie for more information Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was an official single and even had it's own music video that played on several stations.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep meets WP:MUSIC. Did you not notice the chart positions at the bottom of the article? If you didn't notice them the first time, here they are from the source, Billboard's official website. #3 Modern Rock Tracks? #97 Billboard Hot 100? Yeah, that's a notable single alright. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lie Lie Lie for comment on this issue. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:44, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5573 (Hebrew year)[edit]

Contains no nontemplated information, is an isolated hebrew year (no years for at least 27 years in either direction are listed), is unreferenced, and has been untouched for over 16 months. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm intentionally not nominating the future and nonisolated Hebrew years at this time, even if no non-templated information is available, until this AfD is resolved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP includes the function of an almanac, and such tables of correspondences are standard in almanacs. This is a perfectly reasonable way of presenting information about the dates, even without events. It is not just the corresponding Gregoriian dates ? should Julian be added also? but the position in the various Jewish cycles. All in all that makes sufficient information for an entry. It's not just events, but events can easily be added to every one of them, at least in the past. This would be one of the few good uses of the public domain old Jewish Encyclopedia, for example [12] The ref can be any printed source for hebrew calendars, but just as we do not need a source for 1 Feb following 31 Jan, we don't need one for 1 Chesevan following 30 Tishrei. The solution to having these isolated ones is pretty obvious: add the others. WEDONTHAVEALLOFTHEMYET is not a reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That purpose of this page could be better served by having a logical subpage of Hebrew Calendar, with (possibly hidden) calendar "pages" (sections), rather than individual pages for the years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per User:DGG, and because if this article/Hebrew year is deleted then all such Hebrew year articles should be deleted. Perhaps there can be a more general discussion in the near future at WP:TALKJUDAISM about the desirability and purpose of having articles keeping track of, and recording events via the Hebrew years. IZAK (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I still don't see any the purpose for the page. DGG hasn't described a purpose which is not better served by merging it into a single calendar page for the "century", with collapsed individual calendar entries. I don't know if any of the Hebrew year pages have non-templated information, but, if not, they should be merged into decade or century calendars, just as the English language pages are done futurewards of 2060. There's also a proposal that all year articles before 500 or 1000 be merged into the decade articles, which is getting some support. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see a reason for deletion listed in the nomination; and, besides, if the intention is to merge these types of articles into a larger representative article, that discussion does not belong at AFD, per WP:BEFORE. - Neier (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Neier - Epson291 (talk) 05:47, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Comment by MrMarkTaylor2 discounted as providing no argument. Sandstein 20:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of funny animals in media[edit]

AfDs for this article:

It's your opinion wether something is funny or not. Yowuza ZX Wolfie 18:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Sorry about my crappy reason, my brother really wanted to go on the computer and was looking over my shoulder so I had to type it quickly... Yowuza ZX Wolfie 16:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... it violates WP:NPOV Yowuza ZX Wolfie 17:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LC items 2, 4, 8, 9, and 10. Stifle (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV nightmare, listcruft. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if we can find sources verifying that whomever really is a "funny animal". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Funny animal" is a term of art used to refer to cartoon animals with humanoid characteristics - it's not the subjective criterion you've made it out to be. Zetawoof_(ζ) 18:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to the modified deletion rationale, how does this list violate NPOV? I'm really not seeing it. NPOV generally applies when there are multiple perspectives on an issue, and I seriously doubt that there's anyone out there claiming that Bugs Bunny isn't a cartoon character. (For instance.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Zetawoof's right. Funny animal is a recognized term, used to refer to a genre of animated or cartoon characters who are basically anthropomorphized animals (e.g. Bugs Bunny or Howard the Duck). It has nothing to do with a subjective evaluation of humor. Fumoses (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another list we don't need. MrMarkTaylor2 (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator's rational is fundamentally flawed - The term funny animal has nothing to do with whether you find it amusing. Edward321 (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim, possibly merge into funny animal. This is a real used term to describe a particular once-common comic-book genre, but this list stretches the concept beyond all reasonable recognition. I don't think anybody really considers The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe a "funny animal" work, but it's in there, for some reason. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe moving to, say, List of "funny animals" in media would be better. Yowuza ZX Wolfie 16:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another hodgepodge list that stretches the concept of "media" and "funny" to the fraying point. Though kudos are in order for Touché Turtle making the list...but where is Dum Dum? Ecoleetage (talk) 18:39, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fezbil[edit]

I cannot find any references at all on the Internet to a type of helmet called a Fezbil. Jll (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no refs, likely hoax. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for two reasons. Firstly, the by-the-book argument that it fails to assert notability. Secondly, the more knee-jerk reaction that it looks suspiciously like a pair of big hairy ones. Not sure if this isn't actually speedy-worthy under WP:CSD#G3. one brave monkey 20:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless refs can be found. Edward321 (talk) 14:35, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storm in a Tea Cup[edit]

Non-notable albums, no sources found. In fact, the band doesn't seem notable either, so I'm bundling them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the Myspace test. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have looked, but I have not found. Fails WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable EP. Lacks information of record sales, no reviews. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 17:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant assertion of notability. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:40, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace Tour[edit]

Non notable concert tour. No extensive media coverage. Just a list of dates, not encyclopedic and should be left to fansites. See also two other tours below Nouse4aname (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia isn't a fansite. Stifle (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Members of The Offspring have said that there will be a tour extension. So, right now is too early to delete this article. Alex (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What is notable about a tour extension? Nouse4aname (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, verifiable yes. Notable no. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also adding List of Offspring concert tours. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. «Marylandstater» ^«^reply^» 12:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Esradekan, just because something is verifiable does not make it notable. Aaronw (talk) 15:55, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Jamaican American. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamericans[edit]

Neologism. Variant of Jamaican American, simply a first-generation one. Non-notable, and seems to be based on an urban dictionary entry. Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to have gained currency. Stifle (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jamaican American, if it's a varient. Plausible search term. Wily D 18:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jamaican American. Also, Neologism. Lehoiberri (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jamaican American.67Knight 12:28, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bandhish[edit]

Non-notable film. Fails WP:NF CultureDrone (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; someone needs to run through a physical encyclopedia of Bollywood film and give cites to all these. But lacking that, we have to use common sense. I don't believe for one second that no sources exist for a film with the likes of Rajesh Khanna (say, Ronald Reagan in Western film) in it, especially one after he was an established actor.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Not so sure this isn't notable. It appears this might be a misspelling of Bandish. See the Google hits. --Elliskev 18:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Misspelling" might be unfair; if the movie's title is in Hindi, it strikes me that Bandhish is more likely the more precise transliteration to Latin characters. Neither transliteration is "correct", per se.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said "Alternate spelling". --Elliskev 18:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - given the context, with the big names, seems to be notable. Wily D 18:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its stubby and unreferenced in its current state, but given the context it is clear that sources do likely exist in its native language, and thus it passes the basic notability test. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~SNOW~~ STRONG keep as I have just added plot, cast, references, external links, and infobox. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable movie. Many of the google hits are related to movies with same name, particularly a Pakistani movie of same name, released in same year.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, I made a point to be careful just which film by that name I was sourcing when I cleanep up the article. It is also found it under "Bandish", as many times the english translations either add or remove letters. For instance the film Vamsi is also found as Vamshi and Vamsee. This can always cause great confusions. I confirmed by looking at director, producer, and cast. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think you did it right. The movie existed. But it was not notable enough to have an article in WP. The article was created by a Rajesh Khanna fan, who often adds a lot of fan-like flowery text in Rajesh Khanna page. The article Bandhish does not say anything on why/how this movie is notable.--GDibyendu (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a movie that's been noted with non-trivial references in multiple independent reliable sources. That's all it needs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are standard reliable sources. If any of them can tell why the movie is notable, why not add in the article? Even an information like 'hit' in the year of release or critically acclaimed (with citations) or awards will do. India makes 1000 movies every year, and many of them will have at least one notable actor/actress in them, does WP need to have an article on all? --GDibyendu (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had not noticed that Wikipedia has run out of paper, so yes... if a film has distribution and reviews, and is seen by close to a billion people, it can have an article on Wiki... or a thousand such films have a thousand articles. India is not "western" standard film or television, as ProjectIndia and ProjectIndiaCinema will tell you. And finding English sources on a 28-year-old Hindi film was tough. In assumption of good faith, you must allow that Hindi language sources exist and trust that they may one day be included. Not to be sarcastic, but you are welcome to learn Hindi and search for them yourself if good faith is not enough... as it is, I am gratified that I did find English sources... as User:Prosfilaes notes, "independent reliable sources". You will not find a 28-year-old Hindi film being reviewed in the Washington Post or London Times... and to underscore Prosfilaes comment, sources must be considered in the CONTEXT of what is being asserted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not in top 25 grossers of 1980 or top 50 grossers of 80s. It is not known yet how else it is notable. I can read/write/speak Hindi too (check my userpage), and as far as my knowledge goes, this movie is not-notable. The article or other sources has not yet disproved that.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If feel the film is not notable, that is your perogative. If wikipedia limited its film articles to only those that were in the top 10 or 50 for any certain year, there'd be a lot fewer articles. Project India or Project India Film might appreciate having thousands less articles to try sourcing, specialy since wiki is so quickly running out of room. Seriously though, and to quote Prosfilaes from up above, it's a movie that's been noted with non-trivial references in multiple independent reliable sources. That's all it needs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In websites like Chakpak and all, you and me also can add review. So... Not sure about Bigflix, but plot is also copy-paste among the external links which lists it down. None of the external links say a single thing on notability.--GDibyendu (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Per WP:FILM style guidelines: "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source"... however, it will be an easy matter to make it more consise. I will now do so, if you have not already done it yourself. And since it is not mandated that plot be sourced, I will change the cite to an external link. 2) As several times repeated above, it's a movie that's been noted with non-trivial references in multiple independent reliable sources. That's all it needs. If any one of the sources is a site where viewers may add reviews, and I used the viewer's review rather than the review of the site's editors, please tell me which one and I'll gladly replace it with another. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:08, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 14:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Connolly[edit]

Non-notable city councilor Oscarthecat (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fairly well-established consensus that politicians at this level aren't notable. Stifle (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, WP:POLITICIAN suggests notability means "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.". --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes the general notability guideline on the strength of this reference: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/10/18/i_wanted_to_be_like_my_dad____i_wanted_to_make_a_difference/ -- Eastmain (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known politician in a major urban area. Other officials from the region have pages as well. Alright, how about 3 articles on him in the Boston Globe in 10 months in office. That is significant. Thats just the Globe, the Boston Herald archives its articles so I could not acess them.Last and most important point,"Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." WP:POLITICIANThis meets Wiki's criterion based on the fact that he holds a citywide office in Boston.Cnhl33 (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)— Cnhl33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep as shown it generally turns out that the city councilors in one of the really major cities have sufficient material for notability. I'm not sure how far down the scale we should, go, but Boston is above the cutoff. DGG (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm rather surprised that nom selectively quoted the first sentence of that WP:POLITICIAN criterion and somehow missed the second sentence. I'd also like the nom to cite this "fairly well-established consensus" that directly contradicts black-letter notability guideline. One would think that one of the top 50 metro areas by population in the world would qualify as being a "major metropolitan city." RGTraynor 04:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the word "major" in the guideline refers to the political figure, not the metropolitan area. Obviously a local politician with a large metropolitan constituency would be more likely to achieve notability, but even (say) the mayor of a small town could become notable through ongoing national press coverage. Kestenbaum (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The full quote is: "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." RGTraynor 15:53, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Egoscue[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. No evidence of notable coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. The only sources cited promote a product associated with the subject. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egoscue Method. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the sources are about the product, not the person. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, this fails WP:BIO and should be removed. Verbal chat 18:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are not about him. Schuym1 (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not independently notable, plus how WP:POV could the article be?:) There's a separate article on the method itself anyway, though I've never heard of it (whichh is surprising given some of the flakey stuff I've been into over the years.) Sticky Parkin 20:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's published a few self-help books and one unimportant editorial (PMID 10881572) in favor of children getting more exercise. His credentials are the same as anyone that works at a local fitness center; he's not any sort of healthcare professional. This isn't sufficient for WP:BIO. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egoscue Method[edit]

Contested WP:PROD. Fails both general notability guidelines and WP:FRINGE. All sources are primary, promotional, and associated with the product. No coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources, thus no way to build this into anything other than a promotional brochure. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Egoscue. MastCell ^Talk 17:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTE. Verbal chat 17:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this article should be deleted. Pete Egoscue's book Pain Free is still being published. The article needs rather some reference to medical evaluations of the Egoscue method. Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.201.8 (talk • contribs) (moved from talk by Verbal chat)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merely being in print is not even close to meeting WP:N for books. I've read these books, and the "Egoscue Method" is basically a subset of modern physical therapy -- a bunch of exercises and stretches. As such, it really isn't its own thing; it's just a brand name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPRY Wrestling[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:CORP. The primary editor User:SPRY Wrestling has made no edits outside this topic, and because of the user name, it looks to be self-promotion. Nikki311 17:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki311 17:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP and is a recently established company that has no notability as of yet.--S _R X 22:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Myspace and Facebook are not RS. Darrenhusted (talk) 07:54, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 01:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predatory towing[edit]

This article should really be a sub-section in the parking enforcement article. 'Predatory towing' is a POV title, and the article smacks of non-neutrality from the word 'go'. At the very least, it needs a damned good clean and a rename. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Google News search came up with a source that contains the words:

“

Predatory towing, as defined by state lawmakers and industry experts, includes tactics such as not posting adequate signs in parking lots to lure drivers, […]

”

— Joseph Mallia (2006-07-24). "They're towing a legal line: Planting lookouts in parking lots, inflating bills, hiding signs — what they can do to get cash from you". Newsday. Melville, New York.

This would seem to indicate that there is a concept known as "predatory towing", and that it is defined by state lawmakers and industry experts. The second source that that search came up with (Mai Tran (2005-03-10). "Bill to Protect Motorists From Predatory Towing Clears House". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles.) seems to bear that out. Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, this one actually seems to be sourced. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Predatory towing gives me 19 hits--mostly to titles of bills, two to LA Times--in ProQuest. In Google News, it's clear that this title is used pretty extensively. The article needs cleanup, but the topic clearly passes WP:V and WP:N. I disagree with the nom about the title--"racial discrimination" is about as POV, in that it describes behaviours that governments have decided to outlaw. Jclemens (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are well over 100 articles listed in Google News / Archive on "predatory towing" including an article from the Miami Herald dating back to 1984. The concept is clearly notable, and the term well-supported. The reliable and verifiable sources in the article satisfy the Wikipedia notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Alansohn's research and reasoning above. --Lockley (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The POV claim doesn't hold water given that this is the terminology used in law and media. I've also removed the POV tag from the article. The contents is a bit thin, but clearly references to improve it exist. VG ☎ 14:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Informative article, notable, and I am not sure why the title would considered POV. Emet truth (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - POV is not a reason for deletion, and the Parking enforcement officer article (to which Parking Enforcement redirects) has to do with a completely different subject. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. -- Banjeboi 00:33, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DavidLee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non Notable per WP:Bio as well as WP:Music. A quick Google news search search turns up almost nothing. Adding "Th' Legendary Shack Shakers" to the search it returns nothing at all. A general Google search returns Wikipedia links and other article that have used the Wikipedia information but nothing that would constitute multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aki (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again. I've notified the original creator, User:F13nd -- it wasn't me -- I just moved the page in good faith to David Lee (guitarist). The latter has since been redirected to Th' Legendary Shack Shakers, and the original article creator then expanded the original page again. I hadn't realised there had been a previous AFD, otherwise I would have put a WP:CSD tag on it instead of moving it. Presumably the title with no space is a vanity thing after JoeBuck. David Lee (guitarist) should be deleted if this one goes through. It appears that no article has ever been created for David Lee's current band The Mercenaries; that's just an old redirect, now to a disambiguation page. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4) — blatant recreation of deleted material per previous AfD. MuZemike (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normal delete. I think the other AFD is a bit too old to rely on. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; after all, he might have achieved notability in the intervening years. Not that we have found any such evidence in this case. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. Change to a regular delete per nom. No verifiable sources present. MuZemike (talk) 15:09, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discode[edit]

Procedural nomination, PROD removed by an anonymous user without a rationale. The article was originally PRODed as it appears to be about a non-notable short anime series. Bettia (rawr!) 15:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources cited, fails WP:V. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original prod. No evidence that subject satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. --Farix (Talk) 21:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I thought we had long ago established that adaptations make for notability. This began its life as a game and was adapted into an OVA series. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From WP:BK The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country. For one, this is a game adaptations so this criteria from WP:BK wouldn't apply. Moreover, being adapted into an OVA wouldn't fulfill the criteria either. --Farix (Talk) 22:39, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IZEA[edit]

No real notability given. Pretty spammy; the "business units" section make it pretty clear that this was written by an insider. Most of the refs come from the izea.com home page. I declined a speedy nomination in order to get some input from the community. Tan | 39 15:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage in third-party sources as far as I can discern. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Time to cut the spam. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally, I would say merge to the article on the PayPerPost subsidiary, but there's no encyclopedic information in this article about the parent company IZEA. VG ☎ 20:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the combination of lack of sources and lack of meaningful content means it's not ready for prime time. I checked every single cite and even did some googling and all I could find are: (1) blog-style tech coverage including a blog that calls itself a "journal" (as opposed to professional operations that are called blogs but are really newspapers, with paid staff and editorial supervision); (2) press releases and material self-published by the company; and (3) citations to reliable sources that mentioned affiliate companies but not the subject of this article. You would think that any dot com startup in Draper Fisher's portfolio with $10M funding would get enough coverage to be notable, but in this case it does not seem to be there. Mabye it's on the verge of notability. Within a year things may be different. Payperpost, one of the family of companies, seems to be notable and has its own article, and the founder Ted Murphy may or may not be notable in his own right. So I would put this on ice for now, save the infobox and funding stats somewhere off wikipedia, and try again if the company becomes more prominent. Wikidemon (talk) 22:54, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of safety car affected Formula One races[edit]

Too many articles fall under this page - at least half the races per season have a safety car period in them. Also note, user who created this is blocked indefinitely D.M.N. (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A lot of articles are linked here, sure, but I don't see why that's a reason for deleting this list. That the list was created by a now-blocked user is noted, but seems irrelevant here; there's nothing malicious about the existence of the list. If those interested in Formula One racing find the list useful, then it's useful, regardless of who made it. Fumoses (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per items 7 and 11 of WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Use of the term "affected" is problematic. Pedantically, any use of the safety car "affects" a race, but some readers may understand "affected" to imply that the result of the race was affected, rather than just the progress of the race. Some explanation in the list article would certainly help with this problem. MadScot (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inclusion criterion is too subjective. Who gets to decide what goes in the list or not? --Polaron | Talk 16:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definition fails. Safety car "affects" a race, but a SC comes after a accident (or another event). Then, a accident (not SC) "affects" a race. Zero Kitsune (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasoning of Polaron & Zero Kitsune. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:06, 23 October 2(UTC)
Delist In response to Polaron, Zero and Esradekan, the article need not be subjective - if altered to be "List of Formula One races at which a safety car was deployed" it would be referenceable and there would be no element of judgement involved. In response to Stifle - I'm not sure 11 is valid, there are only 17-18 F1 races a year, so updating would not be a problem. 7 (no content other than links) is valid though, and is the basis for my delist. Create a category instead. 4u1e (talk) 15:08, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

300 Years of Khalsa[edit]

Notability and 'encyclopedicity' of the topic questionable KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's just an event that everyone will have forgotten in a few weeks. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are all sorts of anniversary celebrations happening for all sorts of events, and very few are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. This one was nine years ago. What reason is there to believe it is notable? —KCinDC (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne and Jim[edit]

article consists of link to promotional website only; and fails to assert notability. J. Van Meter (talk) 14:47, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Contemporary European Studies - iCES[edit]

Non-notable, no secondary sources, none found via Google. Prod removed by author Angels TiV, who has a possible conflict of interest (compare Angels Trias i Valls in the People section). Huon (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete blatant recreation of deleted article. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - previous deletion was an A7 so this is not considered a recreation and is not a speedy on other grounds. TerriersFan (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sorry about that, I assumed it was a recreation (for some reason). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 13:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nom hits all the nails on the head. Salt if recreated again. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a division of university-level college Regent's College, and is listed on its WP page. I agree that there are problems with the present article: (1) conflict of interest (2) lack of independent sources. However those are reasons for tagging the article, not deleting it. If I remember rightly Regents College was set up as an American University in London, but appears to be offering British degree courses as well. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kirk (convict)[edit]

Article about a convict that has been subject to NPOV controversies (see talk page) but trying to sort them out seems to be doomed due to lack of in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Apart from supporting sites and primary governmental records (one link currently defunct) there are only a few news articles covering the trials (such as the copies linked here [13]) but not much that really covers the controversies. I found e.g. this [14] but it does not seem to have been published. So I don't think we should keep it. Tikiwont (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. —Tikiwont (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tikiwont (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on what I see in the article, this person is not notable beyond the sole event of his conviction for a crime. Fails WP:BLP1E. If the event is notable, it deserves an article. If not, the person does not. --Elliskev 15:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SOAPBOX for a WP:BLP1E. This is a non-notable local event. Aside from court documents, there are only 1997 press clippings at his supporters' website. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems defeatist to delete an article simply because it's frequently the subject of debate. I also don't see a BLP1E issue here; there are multiple events involved here. Fumoses (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said nor meant. One of the reasons why we have a notability guideline is to ensure that we have enough to work with to write an article that meets core policies such ass verifiability and NPOV and it seems to me that this one doesn't meet that threshold.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BLP1E, WP:N (nothing beyond the murder makes him famous, and even that is doubtful given that there are no references beyond court papers and his own web site), and the article has serious WP:COATRACK and WP:SOAPBOX issues (Wikipedia is being used to re-run his trial in the court of public opinion). This article is basically spam from a convict. VG ☎ 16:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person by any standards. And I would suggest that it is contrary to public policy to promote articles on non-notable murderers. Collect (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Tikiwont seems to feel the case evidence should be balanced but unfortunately criminal cases do not follow what anyone wishes to be true. Ted Bundy’s case is not balanced between guilt and innocence either but no serious person objects. Cases are whatever the evidence dictates. There is actually a lot of material to expand the article. I think Tikiwont should argue his POV rather than engage in censorship. If he has unpublished material on the case, he can email it to me and I will find an URL for it, so he can reference it. The case against Kirk, however, has four fatal flaws. I seriously doubt a single one of them can be overcome.

The case is clearly notable as a triple homicide. I suppose if this article is deleted, then most articles on single and double homicides should also be deleted on grounds on non-notability. The article is also notable as a seriously flawed criminal case for anyone intelligent enough to review the actual case evidence and not just “opinions” of local authorities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danras (talk • contribs) 04:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me underline that this isn't about censorship or my own personal opinion whether or not the subject is guilty. Editors assessing themselves the evidence and arguing their own opinion about it is precisely what we do not want to do here. If there is material by independent sources, it hasn't been brought forward and I certainly don't have it.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not present my opinion in articles, but only present the evidence in the best possible light of a defendant to view whether there is reasonable doubt that he is guilty. If such light creates a plausible theory of innocence, then guilt is not proven. The fact that a defendant might be guilty is not especially relevant. Your edits highly suggest that you are contemptuous to a defendant’s view and are not intellectually serious in determining whether guilt is accurately proved.

An inmate based website is a reliable source of case evidence. The inmate wants to get out of jail and has to address evidence known by courts, which have access to all the case documents. You apparently feel that there are some independent sources that contradict the evidence presented on Mark Kirk’s site. Since you have not found these hypothetical sources, and are not likely to, censorship is your only option. You are not the only censor on Wikipedia, but I suppose the good thing is that the Internet as a whole end-runs this censorship. --Danras (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I feel that there are no independent sources at all that discuss the evidence, whether or not supporting or contradicting. You don't even appreciate that i searched for some that would help to keep this article. The fact that I don't want to form or discus my own opinion on his guilt, doesn't mean that I am contemptuous of any views or that I censor things.

Basically you're confirming above what Vasile said earlier about Wikipedia being used to re-run his trial in the court of public opinion. That approach is not compatible with what we're trying to do here. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A tragedy, of course, but one with little notice or impact outside of a very small circle. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:23, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Indefblocked user and lengthy rant discounted. Sandstein 20:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomáš Krystlík[edit]

The author removed the notability tag without giving a valid reason according to WP:BIO. In the Czech Republic, Tomáš Krystlík seems to be a rather marginal figure without special journalistic or academic achievements. Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author has a single book in the Czech official catalogue of books ([15]). The book was published by a company, who produced 2 books this year ([16]) and 6 books in 2007 ([17]), only the Krystlík's being about history.

Moreover the article in the Czech WP claims that Krystlík is the editor-in-chief of "internet periodical" CS-magazín. The periodical is here: it has the look of an average blog. The editorial beggs readers who have old copies of the newspaper Lidové noviny to send them to the editor's office... --Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article's subject appears to have a non-trivial Google presence, albeit one that largely turns up non-English hits. What's there of the current stub, together with his entry on the Czech language Wikipedia, hints at interesting work he may have done. I'd like to see the article get a chance to grow before it gets deleted. Fumoses (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He IS of course an internet-based journalist, therefore the Google hits. And the Czech article has a notability tag for a month or so, without resolving the issue. There are some external links there saying basically "Tomáš Krystlík writes nonsense about history", but nothing more. Which of the WP:BIO criteria should apply here according to you?--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think any of the WP:BIO criteria have to apply; none of them seem terribly appropriate for helping English-language editors evaluate the notability of a foreign-language journalist. Which is why the WP:BIO guidelines are just that: guidelines. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we're allowed to use common sense. Common sense, to me, means we let the article get worked on by people who are interested in the subject rather than leaping to delete a potentially interesting article. And that might mean that we might have to let the article continue to exist - oh horrors! - even if the notability tag's been up there for a couple of weeks. Fumoses (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article has no relevant references and does not claim notability - it would be possible to conduct it even as speedy deletion. The criteria WP:BIO are easily applicable; I speak both Czech and German very well and can easily asses links in both these languages. But there are no links proving notability in the article - only a link proving that Tomáš Krystlík published a book about modern Czech history in a small publishing house specialized on fiction and cookbooks.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The above reads as if you made no effort to look for sources yourself, as Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage all say to do before nominating an article for deletion on grounds of notability. What did you find when you looked for sources yourself? Uncle G (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I used Google and found nothing in the sense of WP:BIO about him - a lot of blogs and e-zines, of course, probably a few articles in serious newspapers, but no sign of above-average journalistic/scientific achievments. It was of course the first thing I did before I placed the notability tag there. I know the deletion policy reasonably well and have no special interest to delete articles here - the opposite is true, it would be nice for me to find something proving the notability of this writer.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC) PS: I placed a more detailed explanation of my findings above.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I can testify that user Iannes Pragensis is on some kind personal vendetta against Tomas Krystlik and his request for deletion has nothing to do with Krystlik's notability or lack of thereof. Problem lays in last Krystlik's book, which is VERY NOTABLE and has all Czech nationalist foaming by the mouth - in short it is very truthful book, but attacks Czech nationalist myths on every page.

I would like to bring to the attention of general Wiki-public following: Czech Wikipedians are making periodic raids on English Wiki and requesting AfD of articles (mostly about living persons) who are not currently "kosher" in Czech Republic. One will submit AfD and other "conspirator" will "vote for deletion". And only-English, non-Czech speaking administrators will always fall for the trick, especially if some "useful idiots" will drone in, too. Want some examples? Vit Zvanovec, de facto founder of Wiki in Czech Republic and for years its administrator and organizing force, is now "banned" from Czech Wiki. He had article (quite justified) about him in English Wiki. It was offending "Czech pride", raid with AfD was organized, article was deleted. More names (and similar stories) available: Tomas Pecina, Yvonne Prenosilova.

Last example is myself - Ross Hedvicek. You can hardly deny me required "notability" and absolutely not on the Internet (google my name, if you do not believe me, 22,900 hits, itr may include some hate pages against me). I am also an author of several books and more than thousand articles. Two of those books, published in Czech Republic, were quite critical to their current regime and I became target of their nationalist revenge. I used to have an article about me in English Wiki too, after one abovementioned raids of Czech Mongols it was AfD'd and deleted. I still have article about me in Czech Wikipedia (full of lies, innacuracies and defamatory language). The paradox is that I would not mind article in English Wiki (I live in the U.S.), it would be very flattering, but I strongly objected against article about me in Czech Wiki. I wanted it deleted. I protested so much that I ended up with "ban for lifetime" from Czech Wiki.

I am claiming that zealots like Ioannes Pragensis (who is Czech)are damaging the reputation of Wikipedia and it should be brought to attention of senior administrators as a simple and rude ABUSE of Wikipedia principles. Ross.Hedvicek (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems Notable. But remove all information after: and for a number of czech language magazines. AlwaysOnion (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing administrators are not edit-on-demand services. You have as much access to an "edit this article" button as anyone else. If you see a problem with an article that requires it to be edited, please edit it yourself. Uncle G (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Absolutely notable. And it is just a personal attack of angry reader of author book. Ross.Hedvicek (talk) 16:22, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aanchal (1980 film)[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable film, fails WP:NF CultureDrone (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The actors in this film are all apparently notable, since they have their own articles, and Google turns up plenty of hits for lyrics to the movie's songs, so it's apparently known well enough. If it lacks cites to published film reviews as required by WP:NF, it's almost certainly because the movie's in Hindi, and the editors of this encyclopedia are overwhelmingly dependent on English. Keep it and let those interested in it make it better. Fumoses (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst I appreciate the difficulty, I don't see why WP guidelines should be ignored simply because the movie is in Hindi - surely, all movie articles should meet the same basic criteria, regardless of language ? Why does it being a non-English film mean that there are no suitable references and that it should be included regardless, whilst an English language film that provided no such references would likely be deleted ? Yes, the majority of editors here are dependent on English - this is, after all, the English wikipedia. Whilst this film may be notable due to the actors in it, I'd dispute the inference that every non-English film should be included. CultureDrone (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the guidelines should be ignored simply because the movie's in Hindi; it's that the movie appears to be notable based on criteria that aren't present in the guidelines, and that the guidelines don't anticipate because the guidelines were written from an English-language viewpoint. Wikipedia contains many, many articles on non-English films, although these films tend to be overwhelmingly European in origin. Films in Hindi are starting to attract more attention from English speaking audiences as more and more English-speaking filmgoers become aware of Indian culture, and in the meantime I think it's good to have articles on notable Hindi films. Sometimes we have to correct for cultural bias here, which is why the guidelines are meant to be guidelines, rather than rigid rules. Fumoses (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly true, and if an article is notable, then it should be included whatever language it is. However, that doesn't mean that notability and sourcing guidelines can be ignored whenever it's convenient to do so - notwithstanding WP:BOLD. If the guidelines are incomplete, then an attempt should be made to reach consensus on changing them - not just ignoring them CultureDrone (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is in need of clean up and additional sourcing, but this can be fixed once somebody decides to add the sources. There is no need for English language sources, sources in the original Hindi probably exist, given that this appears to be a wide-release film in India, and was likely to have gotten lots of press. Its true that the language of the article needs some real work, and the article is itself a stub, but neither of these factors call for a deletion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability exists. Will do a bit of sourcing myself. And to the nom, as soon as i find it, I will include the link to the part of guideline that allows leniency for sourcing Indian films. Its there. I have read it. Now to find it again. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found enough english language sources and fixed the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources found by Schmidt. Edward321 (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as updated by MQSchmidt. SkierRMH (talk) 18:42, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Was a Teenage Zombie[edit]

Fails WP:MOVIE. No references. All red links = bad sign. I only saw this on imdb and RT. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - review in the New York Times, for instance [18] Wily D 14:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's in Leonard Maltin's movie guide and there's a review on TV Guide's website: [19]SPNic (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it seems notable enough within its niche as a cult film. The red links just seem to come with the territory as far as that goes; plenty of cult movies are made by largely unknown cast and crew. Fumoses (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wouldn't call a New York Times review "no references". That satisfies a major lynchpin of notability. Can be improved, of course, but notability is established. 23skidoo (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Times review was just added, in reference to your snide insinuation. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That review isn't from the NYT, it's just a mirror of the review at Allmovie, and it's not enough to indicate notability by itself. That said, I'm satisfied by the reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes, so Keep. PC78 (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I Was a Teenage Zombie frequently appears on cable televison - within the last year I have seen it on either Sundance or IFC. Also reviewed at Rotten Tomatoes and Yahoo! Movies. ExRat (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep per notability well established. Why did this even come to AfD? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This should never have been AfD, a clearly notable film. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 08:40, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of wealthiest people by percentage of GDP[edit]

Indiscriminate collection of information, mostly original research or synthesis of published material. Probably also wrong, because I doubt that in more than 100 countries there are just four people whose net worth is more than 1% of their country's GDP. Huon (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a bit of a stretch to describe math as "original research." I'm also not sure what makes this list "indiscriminate"; the qualifications for being on the list are described in the list's title. Fumoses (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while I don't doubt that the people given on the list actually had the net worth given, both absolute and as a percentage of their country of residence's GDP, saying that these five are, as the list claims, the five wealthiest by percentage of GDP is purely OR. That criterion is useless in any practical sense, too. As an obvious example of its absurdity, I might make the list if I moved to Tuvalu. Huon (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would be the type of OR referred to as "original synthesis"; the information about the figures for a person's net worth and a nation's GDP are sourced, true; it's the process of creating a new measurement that gets into the original research problem. I think there's a reason that there hasn't been a previously published list of wealthiest people by percentage of GDP, and that reason would be that it doesn't actually demonstrate anything. The Gross Domestic Product is not the total worth of a nation's assets, but rather the total market value of goods and services produced during a year's time. If Bill Gates had earned $101 billion in 1999, it might make sense to compare that to the 9 trillion dollars worth of goods and services produced that year in the US. Or, one could compare how much Gates's net worth (assets - liabilities) to the USA's net worth. It's originally-produced and pointless at the same time. Mandsford (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per items 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, and 11 of WP:LC. See also WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. As Mandsford suggests, comparing net assets to GDP makes no economic sense. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Listcruft essay is not even a guideline because the criteria there are purely subjective, and many of t hem have been repeated rejected when raised at afds. In particular, 1)"just for having such a list" is obviously not subject to evidence, 2)"interest to a very limited number of people" is both unprovable and irrelevant--wp includes notable obscure information--thats what an encyclopedia is for. 4) "unverifiable" is not correct, the figures given can easily be verified from the sources given in Wikipedia. 9) "non-neutral POV" does not apply 10) As for OR, Long division is not OR, at least not with a calculator, & so I cannot see how arithmetic of that sort can amount to synthesis; the extent of the synthesis is composed of going through the list of most wealthy people and picking out the highest for each country. . 11) volatile require much upkeep-- no more than any other of the most wealth people lists--this is just a derivative of them. But I do agree with Huon that it is incomplete, asthere are probably a number ofsuch people in the less developed countries we havent yet gotten data for, so the answer to that is expand. I also agreewith Mandsford that net national worth be a more meaningful figure, and encourage him to do that also i the data is available. DGG (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mansford. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. I know I've seen a list like this in the past decade in a mainstream US magazine, Harper's? - list of all time richest people in order of gdp percentage - didn't find in a quick search.John Z (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A statistic this pointless would more likely be in the bottom left hand corner of USA Today. Bear in mind that if someone were to find a list like this in Harper's, USA Today, People Magazine, etc., it isn't original research. Even if it's been done before, this particular list cannot be attributed to a mainstream publication, and the original synthesis problem remains. Mandsford (talk) 16:29, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. There are no sources, so there's nothing to merge, and the term is an unlikely redirect target. Sourced material can be added at Ridley School District if any sources are found.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridley Rockin R[edit]

No indication of notability, no sources, no non-Wikipedia Google hits. Prod was declined without significant improvement. Might be turned into a redirect, but the title is an unlikely search term (and the obvious target, Ridley School District, contains no related information). Huon (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ridley School District; trimmed down considerably, this would be useful material there. The obvious target to me would be Ridley High School, but the logo is also apparently used at Ridley Middle School, so merging it with the district article would be best. Darkspots (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the problem I have with merging is the lack of any sources whatsoever. Maybe I didn't look thoroughly enough, but I couldn't even find the "R" mentioned or depicted on the school district website or related pages. So if we don't want to merge unsourced original research, nothing remains. Huon (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Ridley School District - this was a case to just boldly merge the content. TerriersFan (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Huon. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:02, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, notability is now established by recent changes, and POV material has been excised. The page still needs some cleanup work (keeping an eye on the POV issues), but that's not reason to delete in and of itself.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Witness Ministries[edit]

Possibly non-notable church. Article created by a member of, or leader of , said church. The entire church has less only 8,000 people on it's email list. A Gnews search shows no articles, and the entire purpose of the church seems to be to deride the Assemblies of God church. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC) ---[reply]

Comment Like I have Mentioned CWM is not a "church" but an association of many people who have left the AOG and also who have been involved in churches in error, and have joined the group. As I pointed out on your talk page:

I just can't see why CWM and Powell with 1000's associated would not be significant, even with the Newsletter to 8000+ people [20], the books he has printed and authored [21], the secular newspaper articles from News Corp, ABC, Sydney Morning Herald etc, the affiliated churches, his own seperate church fellowship church in Brisbane which he runs, and the 100's of christian sites that use his material and publish his articles.

Also he was General Secretary of AoG in Australia - 1989 to 1992, which is now Hillsongs the biggest church in Australia. He also was part of Paradise Community church Leadership which Guy Sebastian is a part of. Aeron Morgon the former AOG leader in the UK is his co-author. These guys are huge in christian circles.

BTW I am not from Powells Church, I have one of his books and have used the CWM bookshop to get stuff, as they are the only Dave Hunt outlet here in Australia. I was just surprised that CWM or Powell are not mentioned yet in the Frank Houston artcile he is cited. Most articles in papers about Hillsong or AOG or Paradise quote Powell. He seems to be an authority on AOG/Hillsong matters as he personally knew Andrew Evans, Brian Houston (leader of Hillsongs), and Frank Houston. 124.184.2.54 (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC) — 124.184.2.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Powell alo appeared on 60 minutes a few years back when a story on Hillsong appeared. Ths guy is notable! 124.184.2.54 (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Stubbify This is a horrid article in its current state--it seems highly POV, with BLP leanings. Nuked or rebuilt, either would be a marked improvement. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and BLP concerns. RMHED (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for POV and other problems. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - as non-notable in the Wiki sense eg for lack of WP:RS - and there is also the huge problem of POV issues and allegations of sexual abuse listed as fact. Springnuts (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it seems even the article about Michael Guglielmucci has been deleted also. [22] This is rather bizarre as he was all over the news a few weeks back in most major papers and on Today Tonight and reported on most TV News programmes in Australia. [23] Earlier this year, Mr Guglielmucci released a hit song, Healer , which was featured on Sydney church Hillsong's latest album. The song debuted at No. 2 on the ARIA charts, but is considered not notable in wikipedia??? Go figure. Hillsong is Australia biggest church and one of the biggest album sellers in Australia! Not notable?? [24]

I think that Many wiki editors in the US are deleting pages that relate to Australia, but have no idea how big these news stories are. This scam is like the Ted Haggart scandle, or Jimmy Swaggart scandle but now the entire artlice was deleted and he is unknown to anyone? What?? [25]

Also it must be noted that in Australia, Hillsong (the main 'mother' church for AOG, CLC, and ACC) has been known to sway vote on Australian Idol [26] it makes me wonder if there is a blackban on critical articles on wikipedia by Hillsong people (they had 30,000 at a recent conference) and are the main AOG/CLC/ACC church in Australasia. Australian Idol, Paradise Community Church, and Hillsong, promoted guy sebastian also.

It makes me wonder where wikipedia is headed when headline church stories and major record selling articts are shunned because of religious bias. No wonder I am having so much opposition to CWM and Philip Powell articles, Powell being Hillsongs MAIN critic in the media both secular and religious..

Keep – I do get a smattering of google news hits from a while ago (correction: the three 1986 articles appear to refer to a homonym, they don't mention Powell and would seem to predate foundation of this organisation), and the article cites one book mentioning the founder (non-self-published). There is also a Sydney Morning Herald article here. Google Books lists a handful of books published by CWM themselves, one Lulu.com publication which is irrelevant for present purposes, plus a mention in Business Review Weekly, which is more to the point. There may be more in local Australian papers. However, it may be better to create Philip Powell (pastor) (see Philip Powell) who as an individual may have more notability, and make this a redirect. POV etc. needs watching. Jayen 466 00:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's another source, [27], New Zealand Herald, there is enough significant discussion in sources independent of the subject to merit keeping the article. Cirt (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An article that does not meet NPOV standards does not mean it should be deleted; it means it should be edited. Given the number of school and sports team articles about groups with just a few hundred people; more importantly the number of references that can be produced; this group meets notability requirements. --^StormRider 16:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability and WP:BLP concerns. JBsupreme (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed unsourced (there were sources given, but not reliable sources saying what was stated) defamatory material from the article. Springnuts (talk) 17:50, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Wood (prisoner)[edit]

Per WP:BLP1E. This person is only notable in the context of a single event. Elliskev 12:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because of high coverage from media and its not just a single event.--Judo112 (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced. I would agree with the BLP1E deletion if the execution hadn't become a notable political football, especially one with multiple issues. Also, in this case the notability of the person is larger than the notability of the event. Darkspots (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above arguments. Fumoses (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cover the event, not the person. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this case the nature of the charges is more significant than the murder itself, so the correct article is on the criminal. DGG (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting is not notable. Thanks. JBackus13 (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable on many levels because of current events, plus mulitple legal actions.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 18:08, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Woods[edit]

Per WP:BLP1E. This person is only notable in the context of a single event. Elliskev 12:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or move. True, this is a BLP1E case, but BLP1E tells us that in these types of situations (where the underlying event is notable, as seems to be the case here based on existing newscoverage[28]), to cover the event, not the person. So the real alternative here is to move the title to something like Murder of Sarah Patterson and revise the article accordingly to include more information about the crime and the victims. If someone is willing to do that, good. If not, I think it is better to keep the present article for now. Nsk92 (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (per Nsk92) explaination. And it isnt actualy only one event it seems, hes case has been nationaly covered because of other subjects surrounding the case. But i say keep the article under its current name until any further information or stands are told. So keep.--Judo112 (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event itself is clearly notable, and the article should probably be expanded on, even if the name of the article itself is eventually changed (which may be appropriate). Fumoses (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the event is notable, the article should be moved and refactored to focus on the event itself. --Elliskev 15:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't decide one way or the other; it might be easier to make a decision if there was more reputable media sources (CNN, newspapers) cited. 23skidoo (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Existing coverage is enough for notability. Given there were more than one victim, the criminal might the best title for the article., but that can be discussed on the talk page. But it does need more sources. DGG (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I've done a bit of cleanup and added a few references from major Texas newspapers to cover any sourcing issues. - Dravecky (talk) 03:23, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Melchionni[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I can't figure out all these Wikipedia steps but this is absurd.

Observe the following claims that were made supporting Lee's notability in past debates.

1st AFD: The JJ Redick article says the Melchionni was a co-captain of the Duke team. In addition he has signed a contract to play professionally in Italy for Benetton Treviso[1] which is one of the top European teams, having produced current #1 pick Andrea_Bargnani.

Rebuttal: He doesn't play for Benetton Treviso. He never did play for Benetton Treviso. If Benetton Treviso kept a roster of 30 players he would not be on that roster. He was a co-captain of Duke? This is true. You know who was a co-captain in 2001 when Duke won the NCAA Tournament? J.D. Simpson. A walk-on. Who did not play in games 2-6 of said tournament. Co-captain at Duke is a title that does not mean anything except that that player is probably a senior.

1st AFD: Anyone who plays in every game for Duke is notable enough for me, and the pro contract seals the deal.

Rebuttal: Pro contract seals the deal? Nope. Played in every game? Yikes. According to this http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/gamelog?playerId=11142&year=2006 he was used for less than 20 minutes in 10 of the last 11 ACC games of his career. Am I the only one who's concerned that the article on Melchionni is longer than that of a player who averaged 15 mpg in 71 games he played for the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls, the winningest team of all time? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Wennington

1st AFD: college athletes per WP:BIO

Rebuttal: huh?

2nd AFD: The JJ Redick article says the Melchionni was a co-captain of the Duke team. In addition he has signed a contract to play professionally in Italy for Benetton Treviso[1] which is one of the top European teams, having produced current #1 pick Andrea_Bargnani. In addition I find it troubling that this is being resubmitted for AfD when the first nomination just concluded a couple days ago.

Rebuttal: The "facts" cited here have already been rebutted. And now it's been 2 years, and this article still looks ridiculous.

2nd AFD: Borderline college players who get a contract offer from Europe tend to wait a while to be sure that an NBA team doesn't pick them up as a free agent. That's not very likely to happen in his case, so signing with Benetton is a formality. He'll be playing pro on one of the best European teams unless he gets a better offer. BTW, as above, I also question why this was AfD'd again so soon.

Rebuttal: Wow. In his own words: "Since graduating from Duke in the spring of 2006, I played professionally in Italy. I played for a team just outside of Milan. You can't really have any complaints when you are getting paid to play a game you would play for free. It was a great experience to have my first year out of college and something I will never forget. However, it certainly was not Duke Basketball. I recently took a job with Wassserman Media Group in Los Angeles to begin working under Arn Tellem as a young sports agent."

additional rebuttal: oddly enough, the team just outside of Milan that he played for in 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_Draghi_Novara has him on the 2006-07 roster but does not list him under "notable past players" on Wikipedia. Not only that, but out of those notable past players (i.e. people who played well for this small Italian squad), only 4 of the 12 American players have their own Wikipedia page. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd AFD: against nom

Rebuttal: Huh?

2nd AFD: U.S. college stars who play professionally in Europe are notable.

Rebuttal: College stars are people who average more than 20 minutes per game in the ACC tournament. A college star would be someone like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Scott_(basketball) who had the most points ever in an ACC season, yet whose article is the same length as Lee Melchionni's.

3rd AFD: I would probably approve a credible article about any top 100 recruit. Encyclopedic interest is augmented by lineage.

Rebuttal: If he was really a top 100 player in high school he would have been on scholarship his freshman year. I've heard this claim about him being a top 100 recruit in high school and it just doesn't mesh with reality whatsoever.

3rd AFD: I think any recent Blue Devils co-captain deserves an article, even if he never plays professionally. Duke is a major, major basketball program, and it receives more national tv coverage than many (most?) NBA teams.

Rebuttal: Better get started on that J.D. Simpson article. Duke 1998-2001 accomplished a heck of a lot more than 2003-2006. (and before anyone says this, I will absolutely NOT write any article about J.D. Simpson)

3rd AFD: While he doesn't meet the "have played in a fully professional league" clause, he certainly passes the "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources" test quite easily.

Rebuttal: You got me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_plumber

3rd AFD: per nom

Rebuttal: What?

3rd AFD: The sum of available third party references fulfills WP:BIO requirements with ease.

Rebuttal: Is anybody writing anything about him now, besides me? The top 10 google hits include a link to some Duke student's blog. The defense rests.UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't like Duke basketball (or Duke or just plain basketball for that matter) but I believe that he got enough widespread news coverage through his career to warrant an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Collegiate NCAA basketball is a big deal in the USA. (As far as I am concerned, the college game is the real game of basketball, and the NBA version is a grotesque parody.) It is generally speaking the highest level of amateur basketball, and generates a prodigious amount of coverage in reliable sources. So just about any member of a NCAA college basketball team is going to meet the biography notability guidelines easily, especially when the player plays for a major basketball school like Duke University. Moreover, the notability he earned playing for Duke does not fade just because his college career is over and he hasn't remained in the public light. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Duke sucks! (Sorry, I couldn't resist). Seriously, have good coverage in external sources. WilyD 14:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have this place in your bookmarks by any chance, do you? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 21:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I don't like Duke, I don't like basketball, I don't even like sports, but I know that lots of other people care about this stuff. And seriously, four AfD nominations? At what point does an article just get immunity from what amounts to basic harassment? Fumoses (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Survey says no. Sorry, eh? Wily D 15:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Last 2 AFDs were keep decisions and I see nothing here to dispute that. Let's not make this an annual event. 23skidoo (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He clearly passes the general notability guideline. [29]. I wouldn't say that all D1 basketball players are notable - most basketballers from my alma mater aren't - but Melchionni was a productive contributor for one of the most-watched college teams in the country. Zagalejo^^^ 01:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasons, which I'll note have been entirely unaddressed. Two of the 'keeps' don't really do anything more than say, 'It's been kept before, so we must keep it now.' --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's reasons aren't grounded in any policies or guidelines. Melchionni quite clearly meets the general notability guideline (non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent sources). Zagalejo^^^ 06:56, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kur ykh 07:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piss Beer[edit]

disputed PROD diff reason given in edit summary "no thanks". Article is self referenced advertising, no independent reliable sources to assert notability Gnan garra 14:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Gnan garra 14:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. No evidence of notability provided. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article contains an independent substantial reference. Seems to satisfy N thusly. Wily D 14:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment presume you mean the ratebeer site, follow the link become an instant beer expert, this is nothing more than blog site its certainly doesnt rate as a reliable source. Gnan garra 15:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the prepared foods magazine article. Wily D 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I can find on "Prepared Foods" as a publication magazine/newspaper is this back to Jan 2001 though according to [30] its website has only been around from 2002. Then theres no listing in the Australian White Pages for Geelong Brewing] Gnan garra 15:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Findarticles reprints the intro, it seems: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3289/is_9_168/ai_56889144 Wily D 15:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination - arguments to date do not provide a RS worthy of note Satu Suro 15:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — piss poor sources which show no notability. MuZemike (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- it's a real beer (I've seen a bottle of it myself), but it never achieved anything other than it's brief novelty exposure. This article makes mention of it, but it's the only third party source I could locate. Who'd really want to drink it anyway? :) - Longhair\^talk 04:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment after looking at Longhairs sources maybe theres an argument for the creation Boutique beer in Victoria, with local knowledge here a Boutique beer in Western Australia is also feasible. As a matter of fact one could create a whole beer garden of Australian boutique brewers. If an editor was wanting to do such an article group I wouldnt be opposed to the article being temporarily moved to userspace for a merge of content as this article/brew isnt sufficiently notable for a stand alone article. Gnan garra 02:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- there is probably an article in a collected short-lived or novelty beer brands that have appeared in the australian beer drinking market that have not survived or remain below notability threshold Satu Suro 04:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's real, but it's a pretty non-notable novelty product really. Would not be opposed to userfication if someone wishes to do as User:Gnangarra has suggested above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:54, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete with some salt thrown in for good measure. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 06:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan and Sean's Not So Excellent Adventure (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ryan and Sean's Not So Excellent Adventure (film)

This has been deleted six times (see Ryan and Sean's Not So Excellent Adventure by CSD, but now that they're billing it as a film, let's finish this one off once and for all. Fails WP:NOTE. Newsaholic (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt — Nice attempt at a redirection to try to shirk the deletion process (logs). Lack of verifiable, third party sources establishing any notability, the same for many YouTubers. MuZemike (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Not notable, blatant attempt at sidestepping prior deletions. LeilaniLad (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per LeilaniLad. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete (film) because the author thought that all films had to have "(film)" at the end. Seriously, delete and salt, non-notable film, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt and snow JuJube (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SaltEdward321 (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 02:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt, and suggest blocking if it's re-created under another name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt, pepper, coat with olive oil and cook for 30 minutes, whatever...just get rid of it Six deletions and it is still here? Ecoleetage (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:00, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 07:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Whiteside[edit]

Fails notability. Ironick (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to fail WP:ATHLETE. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:ATHLETE having appeared in List A cricket, which is highest domestic format for professional cricket players. Johnlp (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played List A cricket so meets WP:CRIN and therefore WP:Athlete, but article needs to be amended to make this a little more clear. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:CRIN. I've amended the article slightly and added a reference. -AMBerry (t|c) 11:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reference shows that he has played in a fully professional league, passing WP:ATHLETE. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merged into Forever and Ever (1977 film) and redirected as per discussion. SkierRMH (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impetuous Fire[edit]

Minor (and unsuccessful) Hong Kong film. No evidence of greater influence, historical impact, or other factors indicating notability, In fact, in its current state, it seems to be functioning as promotional puffery for a minor sub-made-for-television remake starring what appears to be a major recent contributor to said article. Said contributor, unsurprisingly, removed the added PROD tag. CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing where this satisfies a single criteria required by WP:NOTFILM. The article reads like a tedious fanboy blog. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though the article needs cleanup and referencing, a quick : google search turns up plenty of potential reliable sources to show this is a real film under wide release and there is reason to believe that the sources exist even if the article, in its current state, is below standard. Needing cleanup is not a reason to delete. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is why simplistic google hits are deemed an unreliable argument in AfDs, as they often distort and give the wrong impression that something is actually more popular than it really is. Try reading through some of those links and we see they consist of mail-order entries, Amazon.com, one review by a non-notable amateur karate site, listings IMDb and various film database sites, blogs, angelfire.com personal websites, and so on. This isn't a question of clean-up, as there is nothing to clean up. As William Gibson once said, "there ain't no there, there". Tarc (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not that any of the sources found in the google search could be used in this article, the point is that the google search shows that the film was in wide enough release to presume that it is highly likely that, if one were to find some 1977 newspapers from Hong Kong, one would likely find the depth of coverage needed to deem this notable. Its not that the google search reveals any of these sources directly, its that it shows that they likely exist. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, looking on the internet for English sources for 30 year old film in a foreign language from a city that is now part of a country that notoriously censors their internet is kind of...counterintuitive...--Smashville^talk 14:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is by far the most ridiculous argument I have ever seen in an AfD. "Lots of google hits show the film is popular enough that there should be sources somewhere" ? Please. We deal in simple reality here; the reality being, this article fails to meet ANY criteria for notability. This cannot really be tapdanced around. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to say anything but Jayron, you and Samashville certainly have valid points. Yes that is the problem with Mandarin/Cantonese language films and, well anything Chinese related on the web. Hong Kong was under the UK at the time and there are numerous Hong Kong films which do have details in english but a large proportion don't. The film is listed in all of the mainstream film sites plus it is directed by John Law who directed under Shaw Studio, responsible for producing some of Bruce Lee's films and unquestionable the biggest film studio in eastern Asia during this period. Law worked with Run Run Shaw, a noted film producer by world cinema standards for much of the 1970s. Alan Tang and Candice Yu (wife of Chow Yun Fat are both notable actors too. It just needs to be rewritten and problems addressed with Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out the film is more commonly known as Forever and Ever (1977 film) Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we just set up a redirect to the more common name, and declare the matter closed?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead mate Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 16:51, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Horizon Christian Academy[edit]

Non notable rehabilitation center, supposing notability as a school but with only 12 students that seems unlikely. No attempt to establish notability or add any references since this article was previously deleted - see comment on talk page. Only reference is actually about another organization of the same name who if anything have more chance of claiming this article title instead. Mfield (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established by coverage in third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Keep This likely qualifies as a high school, thus notability doesn't have to be established at all. What makes me say we may have to lean to keep is on their about page, as they offer High School diplomas. This means, according to Arizona law, they are qualified as a "high school" (and a 501(c)), Their website here says they were under construction since 12/07, which means if they don't qualify under wp:schools, they are not notable as other sources can't be found. They are pretty heavy on the religion, but so are all private christian schools. I was on the delete side until I found out they qualified as a high school, (including the first time the article was speedy deleted) but I think we have to pass it like any other high school. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definite high school, see [31]. Only twelve students? Hey, WP:NOTBIGENOUGH would apply there!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, needed to show Notability. A real high school is an important part of its community and inevitably has such evidence of notability. A program for 12 guys is just not inherently or presumptively notable. This "high school" amounts to about one half of one normal classroom. This sort of creeping inclusionism would mean that "The Smith Family Home High School" with two students named Smith would also be automatically notable. Edison (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ due to lack of notability, because I don't see any indication of third-party coverage. However, in its favor, (1) the article is written from an appropriate NPOV perspective (it's not an ad) and (2) regardless of size, a residential rehab program/school such as this one easily may be notable because such schools typically enroll kids from far outside the local area, may be unusual in their methods, and may be controversial. If any sources other than the school's promotional website can be found, this will become a "keep" for me. --Orlady (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Changing to Keep -- that one source establishes sufficient notability for me. --Orlady (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question those that are choosing to delete, are you saying the academy isn't a high school, or that all high schools have to demonstrate notability? PHARMBOY (TALK) 10:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly the second one. Most school articles tend to be merged into an article about the school district in countries that operate on that basis, or a list of schools in some state, county, or other administrative area in other countries. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the concensus is that all High Schools are automatically notable, and all lower schools have to show notability. I would be happy to see a recent precedent to the contrary, but every afd/merge I have seen has followed this example, and most in the essay WP:Schools tended to agree with that. PHARMBOY (TALK) 14:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's a source that has extensive coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the source provided by Phil Bridger, together with others available, clearly meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So we still have only one reference. I don't believe a single story in a local newspaper counts as 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. Mfield (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course the Local Paper can be a reliable source (if I read your comments correctly). If you can find a link showing that the Paper is produced by the school, then it would be different. There is no "Local clause" in WP:RS. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking more at the singular source aspect actually. The criteria for notability says 'significant coverage' in 'sources' plural. I don't think one mention by one local paper meets that requirement. I was not saying that the local paper could not be one such source. Mfield (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That article is not "one mention by one local paper", but rather a long and objectively written article about the school, with several photos. --Orlady (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is still only ONE source, however many pretty photos there are. Mfield (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two sources so we can move on ... TerriersFan (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the facts on the text you are adding. That is a reference and text about a completely different school of the same name in North Carolina. The reference makes it clear where in the country that is and it is not Arizona. That information has already been removed from the article once before. Mfield (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are three sources now, article is established well enough and just meets WP:N so should be kept in my opinion. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:01, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Andrews Economic Forum[edit]

PROD template removed without any reason given. Deletion reason was "Non-notable student forum. Recreation of previously deleted material, see previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St andrews economic forum. No references given, circa 19 Google hits. Delete (and WP:SALT?) Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:55, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by TexasAndroid. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pipl[edit]

Non-notable "deep web" search engine. No significant coverage referenced, claimed reach is limited. Should be re-listed if it ever becomes notable. The claim of this AfD listing is not that the website is bad or useless, just that it fails to meet the encyclopedic notability requirements of Wikipedia. Bongomatic (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD:A7, notability not asserted. Tagged as such. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breach (band)[edit]

fails WP:ENTERTAINER Michellecrisp (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE PER NOM THIS IS NOT A NOTABLE ENTERTAINER. (HAPPY CAPSLOCK DAY!!) JBsupreme (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP PASSES WP:MUSIC#C5 FOR 4 ALBUMS ON NOTABLE LABELS.......... sorry, can't yell any more, my throat is getting sore. 3 of their albums we released on Burning Heart Records, one on Relapse Records, [32], and one of them was reviewed by Allmusic too, so they're 1/2 way to passing C1 as well. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Esradekan. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, passes WP:MUSIC due to releases on Relapse and Burning Heart. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fumoses (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ Non-notable, Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. I am living in sweden i dont know who their are. AlwaysOnion (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTKNOWIT would suggest that's a poor argument. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have two other arguments... AlwaysOnion (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're using the wrong guideline... WP:ENTERTAINER directs you towards WP:MUSIC for notability of bands, where it clearly states the criterion for multiple releases on a notable independent label, that either Burning Heart Records or Relapse Records pass with ridiculous ease. So really, you have have no valid arguments relevant to this discussion at all. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes MUSIC, encyclopaedic in style, et cetera. Wily D 15:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, several releases on notable labels, and one third-party review, just seems to meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:03, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to NetCDF. The article and history merge is complete; I left the redirect in place. I did not want to attempt to trim the material, so it was merged in its entirety. Furthering editing of the article certainly is desireable. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CF Metadata Conventions[edit]

This seems an overly technical description of some file format conventions. I doubt this info belong in Wikipedia at all, even in the parent article. VG ☎ 05:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 05:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to NetCDF - the metadata conventions apply only to NetCDF files, so could be moved to the article with a "conventions" header (there are several conventions). +mt 18:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While the CF conventions are currently netCDF-specific, there is already an effort underway to make them independent of the underlying format, so they can be applied to HDF5 data, for example. Mrskeptic (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The CF standard names, which are part of the CF metadata conventions, are already in use for other data formats. Mrskeptic (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This appears to be somewhat valid, according to this whitepaper on the topic. +mt 03:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The CF Conventions are widely used for climate model output and oceanography data, and because of this are being proposed as standards for the World Meteorological Organization, NASA's Earth Science Data Systems Working Group, and the Integrated Ocean Observing System. At a recent international meeting of the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portal (GO-ESSP) in Seattle, a day was devoted to discussion and presentations on the CF Conventions as one of the technical themes of the meeting, discussing ongoing projects to extend the CF conventions to better address satellite data, unstructured mesh data, and collections of observations. The CF Conventions have been selected for use in the upcoming Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Phase 5 (CMIP5) multi-model runs, expected to provide input to the next assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Mrskeptic (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article will be useful, because new providers of geoscience data need a short, neutral encyclopedia article on the CF Conventions to put them in context, and to understand the background and history that led to their development.
- The development and evolution of the CF Conventions are important as an example of growth of bottom-up standards and governance from a widespread international community dealing with interoperability issues for important geoscience data.
- The article is still in the early stages of being built, and obviously needs more work. I intend to help with that as time permits over the next month. Mrskeptic (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The CF Conventions could be linked from NetCDF, but they should exist in their own right because they not only represent conventions for a file format, but a general data model for meteorological and oceanographic model output as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsignell (talk • contribs) 21:04, 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, Sandstein 20:27, 17 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, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to NetCDF. A web search reveals that few people care about this subject besides the ones developing it. The only other article to link to this is NetCDF. Wronkiew (talk) 05:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Lots of people care about CF, even if they don't know it, because without it their tools would not interpret data correctly. Evidence that CF is in wide use includes this list of projects and institutions adopting CF as a standard. Also a search for "climate and forecast conventions" yields hundreds of citations from many distinct institutions. Mrskeptic (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen plenty of folks (myself included) follow these metadata conventions that have no part in formulating them. +mt 03:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Being "technical" should be no bar for an entry in Wikipedia. Markb (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- VasileGaburici made a similar argument, that technical information is excluded from Wikipedia, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRK. I think that xe may have a misunderstanding of what that portion of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is addressing. It is not excluding detailed information on technical subjects. Wikipedia is both a specialized and a general-purpose encyclopaedia. It is excluding tutorials, walkthroughs, guides, and instructional materials.
  The proper question to be addressing here is whether there is documentation of these conventions by someone other than their original authors. Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - For a useful standard, it's better to have a single authoritative source than multiple authors documenting the standard independently. The conventions arise out of the consensus hammered out by a growing list of independent contributors working together to reach agreement. The process for adding to the conventions is open, and numerous participants have contributed to the evolving conventions.
    References to the CF conventions independent from the authors and contributors include a passage from "The Visualization Handbook", and descriptions in 5 other books found with a Google book search for "climate and forecast" conventions. Mrskeptic (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge to NetCDF. The information here is too specific to warrant it's own article, and although there is still debate on how spinouts notability should be measured, I still believe that every article must independently meet notability standards, and the conventions themselves in my opinion do not. Note that 1. I favour a selective merge, and 2. deletion is not an option when merging per GFDL compliance. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:04, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acid rap[edit]

Although I feel that this genre term is notable, unfortunately there are not enough sources to define any artist other than Esham, Eminem and Insane Clown Posse as performers of this genre. Because of this, and the fact that all of the information contained herein can be found either at the entries for these artists or in the article horrorcore, there is little reason to keep this article. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Largely unverifiable, only applied to an artist or two or three. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eminem is one of the bestselling rap artists of all time and appears to be a pioneering member of this genre. Also, the sources appear solid. 138.23.82.131 (talk) 01:01, 20 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, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE THE CONTENT IN THIS ARTICLE IS NOT VERIFIABLE THROUGH RELIABLE THIRD PARTY PUBLICATIONS. (HAPPY CAPSLOCK DAY!!) JBsupreme (talk) 07:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is; see refs. Spellcast (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems more like synthesis than anything else. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is different from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". The rationale for deletion is based on how popular this style is rather than notability (and even the nominator agrees this term is notable). Something only needs to be notable—not popular—to have an article. Since this is verified through reliable third party sources, I say keep. Spellcast (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It does not matter how many artists the term may apply to, it is verifiable in multiple WP:RS that the term exists and is applicable to a style and group of ppl. Even the Nom feels "this genre term is notable". Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:36, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Swibel[edit]

Advertisement; violates WP:COI. -- Gmatsuda (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator is rather randomly proposing deletion, often speedy deletion, of clearly notable entertainment industry figures. Last week he proposed speedy deletion of an Oscar nominee. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I couldn't find any significant coverage of Swibel himself, and the only award I could find details of is a student award at a minor film festival.--Michig (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked back at the first version of this article, which had a lot more in it, and if the worthwhile stuff in there could be sourced, then the article would be fine. There are some pointers to the awards and some additional coverage. I think we should allow some time for the article to be expanded, sourced, and tidied up.--Michig (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Though having said that, there is a list of claimed awards here for which I couldn't find a single reliable source.--Michig (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. - 68.183.55.64 (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable from NYT review. COI is not a reason to delete.Yobmod (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The NYT review says little about Swibel - it may go some way towards making the film notable, but I don't think it would count as significant coverage of Swibel himself.--Michig (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have to agree about the NYT review. Maybe the film is notable from that, but not Swibel. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh... but since he wrote and directed it, wouldn't the notability be his as the filmmaker? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:55, 23 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, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this subject barely grazes WP:CREATIVE, but the NYT review doesn't go far enough to assert notability. If multiple sources can be found that are something more than a review of his film (and are actually about him), then I'm willing to reconsider. Until then, though, it's not going anywhere. one brave monkey 08:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The NYT review, which is the only reliable source, is a review of the film, not of the subject, and notability isn't inherited. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are actually 2 reviews, of two different films. Making two prize-winning films is notable. DGG (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per being an award winner. Have just done some cleanup to the article. More sources needed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One review is sourced, but brief and with little detail on Swibel. I couldn't find the other one. In terms of the awards, one was a student award, the other was a "DRAMATIC SHORT AWARD" at the Black Point Film Festival - I don't think either would count as a major award. The best sources I could find were this and this, which to my mind are not enough to support an article. One or two sources giving significant coverage to Swibel himself, and it would be different.--Michig (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the NY Review of Books and the NYT reviews by itself are enough for notability. Reviews by such sources for 2 different works is enough. The prizes are an added factor. DGG (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. His works being reviewed... different works by multiple sources... assure his notability. Amn yes, the awards are simply icing on the cake. As for the review listed in the article that you cannot find, in light of all the other coverage of his works, an assumption of good faith in its existance is in order. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the review doesn't exist, but without being able to see it, it's impossible to determine how significant the coverage of Swibel is. Where is "all the other coverage of his works", btw? A couple of brief reviews, and blurbs from festivals that had shown the films is all I could find. I'm not really bothered either way on this article - I'm just trying to judge it based on policy and guidelines.--Michig (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above - first version of article had significantly more content and areas where notability could possibly be backed up by sources.--Michig (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews of a film director's work are about the thing that the director is notable for, so are about the director. We accept articles about rock stars', politicians' and athletes' work as providing notability: why have different standards for film directors? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kur ykh 07:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Loop[edit]

Neologism which is really guerrilla spam. A prod was removed with a rather revealing comment: "the phrase is catchy … Let's see if it catches on". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term spider loop is prolific in Florida and perhaps all of the South East U.S. it may be due to marketing efforts of the company that coined the phrase but none the less it is a common phrase that should be available to those that do not fully understand it's concepts. Spider loop is not a neologism as it is two separate but equal words that define a single objective. Spider referring to search engine spiders or crawler and loop referring to Infinite Loop as in a computer program that has no end. The words when combined describe a condition or theory on which an internet marketing plan can be derived, and many have. The lack of a phrase to describe such a theory has in the past been a deturrent from using the theory. I don't care if the article links to the coiners of the phrase or not. If the concern of the over zealous is to redefine the article so that it does not give credit to those who defined the phrase then so be it, but edit the article to remove the credit don't delete it! -- Prefict (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2008

Delete, self-promotional material. No sources, and a number of rather ridiculous claims - including one claim that this technique "has been used since the inception of http protocal" [sic]. (Entirely implausible, given that search engines and SEO techniques didn't spring fully formed from the head of Tim Berners-Lee.) The fact that it's a term used primarily by a company which we don't even have an article on (SpiderLoop) seals it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the author gets a few points for trying to fix the statement in question, it's still incorrect. Early web search engines such as WWWW necessarily predated commercial SEO by a significant interval. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not verifying notability, for starters. Seemes to be an embryonic neologism. It may well catch on (although unlikely), but WP certainly isn't the place to use as a spring-board. one brave monkey 08:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All else aside, if this were a prolific phrase, there would be plenty of sources. Anyway, "neologism" can also refer to new combinations of long established words, at least for AFD purposes. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are thousands of listings on WP that are simply definitions of a company or a company name many of which are so insignificant that they have done little more then create a single film or published an unknown book. The fact is that Micheal Stecher and Heather Coleburn did coin the phrase spider loop in December of 2000 the phrase is used and it does partially relate to a company name that has been in existence since 2001 the word and the company name are more relevant then many of the other listings on WP that have been here for years. If the pherase does become more prolific in a larger area of the US the article will just have to be added again. Removing it now would just prolong the enevitable, and be a loss to the current users of the phrase that are currently seeking more information about it. Isn't that what WP is for? To deliver information on subjects that people are interested in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.93.221 (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit made further edit to article per Zetawoof : further edit Prefict (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Further Arguement neologism states that 'The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people' spider loop does not fit this reason for deletion. Spider loop is well defined, the article makes spider loop well understood and it does not have different meanings for different poeple. If the reason for defining an article as a neologism and more importantly removing it as a neologism is the reason stated above then spider loop should be exempt as it does not fit the criteria Prefict (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
*keep this guy is right. It's a good word and I like it.

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Schuym1 (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raised Fist[edit]

fails WP:ENTERTAINER lacks third party sources to establish notability Michellecrisp (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:MUSIC#C5, 4 albums on a notable label. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:NMG per Esradekan. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple albums on the very notable Burning Heart Records. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable band on a notable label. Fumoses (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 4 albums on a notable label. Schuym1 (talk) 19:54, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kur ykh 07:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy johnston[edit]

Likely fails WP:MUSIC / WP:BIO, but asserts that person received play on "XFM" and has large local following, so I'm tossing it here. Cheers. slakr^\ talk / 04:50, 22 October

Delete per nom. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 05:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried various searches on Google News archives, and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but I was unable to find any sources to help to establish WP:N notability. Delete unless sources are forthcoming before the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely every musician whether old and great or young and upcoming deserves their place on a site like Wikipedia. Paddy Johnston has a set date to record his album in December and therefore is playing venues in the south of the UK at present. So someone may very well search for him to learn more about him and, though we have been caught up in this debate and therefore unable to continue improving his Wikipedia page, they could come here to learn more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazaj72 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not quite how it works. Please read WP:MUSIC to see the guidelines for notability that must be met for an artist to have a page on Wikipedia. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 12:38, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kur ykh 07:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annemarie vola[edit]

non-notable model. No coverage in reliable sources. Icewedge (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN --The Firewall 05:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. No non-trivial coverage found. Playboy Cybergirl of the Week (article apparently stretches the truth) does not satisfy WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moving an article to the right caps before an AFD is always a good idea. If not kept, it helps a lot in discovering reposts.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 16:57, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 07:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helio Ocean[edit]

Contested prod; Reframing: Wikipedia Policy states products should be included in the company's page unless it makes the main page unwieldy. This product is currently covered in the Company's main article rendering this additional page redundant and out of compliance. I propose deleting this page and redirecting it to Helio (wireless carrier) (I should note, helio was never an actual wireless carrier so that should be adjusted as well) Shell Kinney believes this redundancy is necessary. Further, this article was written by helio employees primarily as a marketing tool and reads as such which is also prohibited. Sgeine (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure I feel qualified to give a thumbs-up or -down on this, but I have a couple of observations that may be relevant:

The article as it stands reads like something direct from marketing--a rehash of press releases and spec sheets. The References and External links show why. At the very least it needs a major rewrite.

I'm not real sure what constitutes notability in electronic devices, but I would expect to see one of three things: a popular product that is a market sales leader in a significant chunk of the world; a cutting-edge product that has demonstrable design influence on the rest of the industry; or a product that has exceptional social impact. I don't see evidence of any of the three in the article.

Nor did I see those influences on Google. I searched "Helio Ocean" and came up with 616 hits, almost all of which were sales links, press release reprints or board discussions. Some were reviews, but I don't feel qualified to judge the reliability of those reviewers, hence my unwillingness to express a final opinion. Rklear (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: the following comments were deleted by User:Sgeine at 06:01 on 23 October 2008. Rklear (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you don't like the writing style, then do some copyediting. That is no reason to AfD it. If it's notable and supported by references, it stays. Anything else is scope for improvement, not removal. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient information for notability. A product does not have to be a great success to be notable.DGG (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ocean is a dual-slider cell phone (manufactured by Pantech), combining a traditional numeric keypad and a separate full QWERTY keyboard in a single handset. Designed primarily as a social networking tool, the Ocean merges instant messages, text messages, picture messages and email services from all of the major portals in one phone but none are integrated with each other. The Ocean also delivers MySpace Mobile on Helio with a new user interface, music downloads, video-on-demand, a 2 megapixel camera, an HTML browser, GPS-enabled Google Maps, Garmin Navigation, Buddy Beacon and supports Mail for Microsoft Exchange. The Helio Ocean comes with 200MB of internal memory and a microSD memory card slot (expandable up to 2GB). The Ocean became publicly available on May 11, 2007.76.213.229.6 (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Since this IP has now identified himself, it is worth noting that Sgeine was topic banned from Helio due to gross and repeated NPOV and BLP violations. Since he was evading this ban by editing without being logged in, I have indef blocked his account, Sgeine. Shell ^babelfish 20:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since the opening was reframed my original comments were removed: I believe the product itself is notable outside of the company and was covered significantly. I agree that it needs cleanup but like Andy Dingley said, that's not a good reason to delete the article. Shell ^babelfish 20:27, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of actual notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos E. Stolk, III[edit]

likely fails WP:BIO; no google hits; nothing for the mentioned companies, either. slakr^\ talk / 04:28, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 06:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Fulton[edit]

This individual doesn't appear to be notable. The article says that she won the MacArthur Fellowship, but I can't find any reliable sources to confirm this. She is still studying for her master's degree and has not done any major scientific discoveries. Seems to fail WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My money says hoax. MacArthur fellowships are a short list, and she isn't on it. The last three years of fellowship winners don't have her name on them. Also, it is a common hoax tactic to claim some rare achievement at a young age. Protonk (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her name isn't on the list of all Fellows. No other claims of notability in the article. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE HOAX FOR THE WIN/LOSE. (HAPPY CAPSLOCK DAY!!) JBsupreme (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, I can't find any publications under this name in PubMed. You don't get fellowships if you have no publications. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd say hoax. Violates standards and policy. Delete. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} Ici pour humor 22:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 02:23, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 06:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Malone[edit]

Appears to fail WP:BIO. slakr^\ talk / 03:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~ i would have thought this would be a speedy. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 08:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, notability not established. WWGB (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails all WP:BIO and WP:V criteria. He is not even mentioned in Neighbours cast list -- his one very minor claim of notability. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not a speedy because there's an assertion of notability but I can't find anything (reliable or not) that even mentions him in connection with Neighbours. TravellingCari 11:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Travellingcari. Fails WP:V. I can't find anything on him either, not even an IMDb entry. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kur ykh 07:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falling Rain Genomics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete. As far as I can tell, this website, which is merely some satellite images backed by a gazetteer with a side dish of Google Ads, is not at all notable. Our article on it contains no assertion of notability, and I myself can find nothing. Its root page looks like this!

I would have speedily deleted it per A7, but it seem that this has already been AfD'd once, here, where the result was no consensus on the back of very little interest. The only "weak keep" was based on the fact that there are apparently about 14,000 links to this site from within Wikipedia. I dearly hope we haven't reached the point where one can confer notability upon a website simply by linking to it from here. And I fear that the large number of links from here is an indication that we have been spammed bigtime. That site obviously makes money from page views, and it is clearly an unreliable and not-very-useful source that we ought not be linking to at all, let alone 14000 times! Hesperian 03:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. I don't think we've been systematically spammed, as the site does provide some useful data for lots of really obscure places. I'm unsure if its a RS though. But I agree that that has nothing to do with its notability. Moondyne 07:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - http://fallingrain.com/world/ is a useful site for showing railway lines and terrain together, and Falling Rain Genomics is a page that explains how it works. Fallingrain can access several million place name? Tabletop (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This discussion should not be about the site's usefulness as a Wikipedia reference. Moondyne 09:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, largely agree with nom. Also WP:NOTGUIDE. Agree with Moondyne too - many, many sites by the way are used as Wikipedia references (although this one shouldn't be IMHO due to the number of inaccuracies and errors) which do not have their own articles, so this is a red herring. Orderinchaos 09:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As proposer of the previous AfD, I still agree with my reasoning then, and with the current nom. Fram (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the primary notability criteria as has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Its a useful resource for determining the elevation of locations for geographic articles but the article is essentially a how-to guide, so also falls foul of WP:NOTGUIDE as noted above. Euryalus (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom - 1st afd and 2nd afd both raise questions about notability. My issue originally was with the very poor quality of maps/images used on wikipedia - however now i see the article I am concerned that there is something very odd in the article and the use of the material as source. Satu Suro 11:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usage guide to a non notable website. The given reference is a passing mention in a discussion of geographical sources, not specifically devoted to the website itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable site, 14000 links from WP seams like Spam links to me Gnan garra 04:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to pass WP:WEB. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:21, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kur ykh 07:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul Principles[edit]

Contested prod. No assertion of notability independent from the organizations allegedly abiding by those principles. No sources. Reads like a manifesto. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Notability is asserted but WP:RS support is insufficient and mostly local. It's out there among the activists on but enduring significance not yet established. • Gene93k (talk) 07:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Verified but only by primary source. Current content would warrant deletion and with such a controversial topic should demand at least 3 independent sources (if notable). And the long-term scope of this article is questionable. Will the next RNC use the Saint Paul Principles? Would Saint Paul have any precedent over other conventions? davumaya 15:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, if verified, subject matter. RayAYang (talk) 18:03, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by clear consensus. At least most of the bands are notable. Closing is subject to re-listing of individual bands that are clearly not notable, or merging of the side project, Onelinedrawing. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far (band)[edit]

Alright, phew. Basically, my main issues with all of the above; no sources equals no notability (no criteria are met). At most I could find about 3 sources, which were the only ones; honestly, is a band's notability proven if it has had one article written about it on 3 sites? This doesn't seem like comprehensive coverage to me at all. One source does call them an "emo icon", but I can't find any evidence of that... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 03:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep band articles, merge others into these and redirect Allmusic has a bio and 2 reviews for Far, and there's this from the San Diego Weekly Reader. Allmusic also have a bio and a review for Gratitude, and a bio and 2 reviews for onelinedrawing. Onleinedrawing (the easiest to search for of the three) also has these: [33], [34]. The band articles should stay, the others should be merged into these and redirected.--Michig (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the bands, merge the rest. Personally I don't think all these bands should have been grouped together like that, but hey. The bands have got multiple albums released on notable labels, reviews from reliable sources. Plenty to pass WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the bands. For the others, delete anything that isn't cited, merge anything that is. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the bands, merge the rest -- as per the previous comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the bands: Most all meet at least one of the 12 criteria listed at WP:Music - that is item 5. "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels".
Keep all. The bands are definitely notable, as are Matranga and Lopez. The album-articles are rubbish, but sufficient for enWP. --NoCultureIcons (talk) 16:39, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. One had to click on the external links to see a notability assertion, but it is present. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Go Giver[edit]

Contested prod. No assertion of notability for this book or its authors. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Wall street Journal and Business Week bestseller book. Here is the link to Business Week Article. http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/mar2008/ca20080311_967359.htm Gauravsangtani (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Searches indicate non-trivial coverage by multiple WP:RS. This can satisfy WP:BK. A fixable sub-stub written by a newbie. I suggest giving it a chance. • Gene93k (talk) 07:01, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Despite the majority begging for keep, none of their arguments are grounded in our policies in any shape or form. Note that use of terms like "vanity article" are strongly discouraged as a courtesy to the subject, the author, and other editors, and that legal threats will be dealt with severely per policy. kur ykh 07:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinthyia Darkness[edit]

Non-notable person. After reasonable efforts, couldn't find any significant media coverage. Her book is in the 5+million in Amazon's sales rank. Couldn't find a review, even on Amazon (don't search by the book name as there are books by other authors of that title that have been reviewed). Bongomatic (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing substantive on Google or Google News, no evidence of passing WP:BIO. Ravenswing 14:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you could not find a review on the likes of Amazon, does not mean the subject is not notable. Secondly, Sinthyia Darkness does many other things besides being an author.She is a talkshow host, entertainer and is regarded as an expert in the paranormal field. There is no way that you can say the subject is not notable. You cannot expect to find everyone's work and life history online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkfan (talk • contribs) 02:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC) — Darkfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP:I agree that this biography should not be deleted. We need to have biographies of those well known in the paranormal field and Sinthyia Darkness is well known. She is notable. We do need time to work on finding additional citations. The Miami Center For Paranormal Research is reputable and one of the only such organizations in the area. We must also consider the historical importance of this new paranormal talkshow of hers, which has never been done in the United States and as such will make television history. Very notable person, indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.210.223 (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC) — 66.176.210.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP:The discussion is absurd. Ms. Darkness has been on Wikipedia for some time now and nobody has had a problem. She is well known in several countries. I suppose that Wiki should only include the high elite in its articles. "Nothing substantive"...as who? Tom Cruise? Ms. Darkness gets plenty of press. Because she's not constantly highlighted on Entertainment Tonight, I suppose that's what makes the difference. Why aren't YOU listed in the Wikipedia?Pianotm (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC) — Pianotm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEPMs. Darkness is a non-self published author which means another party published her materail, even if it is Publish America. Her book does appear in Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble's website for order. I think if a link for The Miami Herald article could be given, that there would be substantial evidence by third party references to prove her notable. With a field such as the paranormal, it is hard to get references such as the Miami Herald and other news agencies to cover people known in these fields. I do believe that Ms. Darkness is notable and that this article should stay in wikipedia. Maybe request more citation including The Miami Herald article, bo do not delete it.TannithDarktalon (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC) — TannithDarktalon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: First off, what Miami Herald article? Neither the Herald 's online archive nor Google News have heard of Ms. Darkness. Secondly, what elements of WP:BIO do any of you claim she meets, and with what specific evidence? Thirdly, that she may have another book in the works and may be on a TV show I won't dispute, but WP:CRYSTAL holds that we can't take notice of them before they've actually happened without reliable, third-party, independent sources saying so. Fourthly, Publish America is certainly a vanity press. Fifthly, presuming that Ms. Darkness actually launches her "paranormal talkshow," it would certainly not be the first one in America; I found several with a casual search, and that's not even in the ballpark with Coast to Coast AM. Fifthly, WP:RS does not require online sources, but it does require that "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand ... As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Finally, I understand that a lot of you are piling on from Ms. Darkness' blog page, and recommend you familiarize yourselves with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, the only applicable grounds for debate here: WP:SPA, WP:PILLAR, WP:BIO are good starts. Ravenswing 17:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable enough for her own article. Interestingly enough, the "keeps" seem to be new users to wikipedia. Could it be the same person? Masterhatch (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LIBELThis is Sinthyia Darkess herself posting this message in this discussion. A few individuals have emailed me about this discussion and I have come here to see for myself. Now, either you remove the libelous and defaming comments made here by your editors immediately or I will sue you for damages. You have made some very strong accusations and your comments are out of line. I am giving you full notice. "Fifthly, presuming that Ms. Darkness actually launches her "paranormal talkshow," it would certainly not be the first one in America; I found several with a casual search, and that's not even in the ballpark with Coast to Coast AM." My talkshow will begin filming in December for your information. Yes, my show will be the first of its kind in the United States. Coast To Coast AM, is a RADIO show, mine is a TELEVISION show. Publish America is not a vanity press. I have not paid one cent for the publication and my next book will be published by another traditional publisher. I will not name the publisher here so that you can badmouth them as well. "Finally, I understand that a lot of you are piling on from Ms. Darkness' blog page," this is another libelous statement. I have not posted anywhere on my website suggesting that anyone come here. While I thank Wikipedia for consideration..this discussion has gone to the extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.210.223 (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Hello sinthyia Darkess. Thanks to your most recent post, i can now say that this is a vanity article (another reason for deletion). Your comment from your real self came from the same IP address as this [35] edit, and this one [36]. This means you are either talking about yourself in the third person or you have multiple personalities and one of your other personalities made those two posts. Now, since you claim that you learnt of this discussion via email, that rules out someone else using your computer to make those two posts. Otherwise, that person would have told you in person, not, as you said, "A few individuals have emailed me about this discussion and I have come here to see for myself." Masterhatch (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment:Masterhatch. There are two people posting from the same computer: myself and Sinthyia. You didn't think that I would just sit here and watch while this nonsense continued, did you? Furthur, the article you are responding to is in response to a rather poorly considered comment, wouldn't you agree? There needs to be a school to teach people to act their age. If you cannot be diplomatic, impartial and professional, then you don't need to be representing the Wikipedia.Pianotm (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

looking at your posts, I would say your only purpose on wikipedia is to promote Sinthyia Darkness and try to create notability for her. Again, if this isn't a vanity attempt and you are really on the up and up, why did it take an email for Sinthyia Darkness to know about this discussion when you could have told her yourself. I mean, you are using the same computer as her. Masterhatch (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

commentSo then delete my account. Like I care at this point. I might have used it to improve Sinthyia's article and maybe even occassionally added to articles about the paranormal or pianos (I'm a piano technician). According to articles on the subject, that does not violate the rules of Wikipedia. Also, I do not dictate what she writes. Since we're talking about the same computer now, let me simply forward this message for you. "I don't need any promotion. I have specifically asked for this post to be deleted along with the comments." The truth is, we will not be associated with a forum that cannot be conducted in professional manner. If another article is ever added about Sinthyia Darkness here again, we will take legal action to ensure its removal. I hope this has simplified your problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianotm (talk • contribs) 00:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RULESHere is your WP:BIO in a nutshell "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The Palos Hills Reporter (reported on her book), in Oprah "O" Magazine (under another name. She wishes it to remain anonymous), MiamiHerald.com (has in fact reported on "Nightmare Theater" in their celebrity column), Coconut Grove Grapevine (Reported on her investigation at Coconut Grove Bahamian Cemetery) and this is just off the top of my head. Publish America is not the most reputable publisher available, but they are no vanity press. A vanity press (as part of the very definition of a vanity press) requires its authors to pay a fee for publishing. However they may conduct their business, they do not meet the criteria of a vanity press. Because of questionable pricing, people have tried to make it appear that they are charging others the fees that would usually be required of an author, and maybe they are, but no matter how much they say it is, a publisher must fine its authors in some respect before it can be legitimately called a vanity press. YOU MAY NOT LIKE THEM BUT YOU CANNOT BEND THE RULES TO SUIT YOUR OWN WHIMS! Sinthyia Darkness, notable or not, is recognized by people everywhere she goes. They are reading about her from somewhere. Complete strangers (at the gas station, in the hospital, much to her surprise, the FBI) recognize her. Many of the journals she has been published second-party in, may be small, and many are not available online, but they are just as reliable as Pulitzer Company newspapers and Associated Press. Furthurmore, word has spread. People are recognizing in states that she has never dwelled in. It is not her job to do your research. If you cannot research properly, then step down. She didn't ask to be put in the Wikipedia, but now that she is here, everything here is reflecting on her character and your unprofessional behavior is too. Don't think that because this is the internet, you are safe, particularly on a forum such as this. What you do and say here is going to have real-world consequences for you. Your statements are indeed libelous.Pianotm (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment"Or you have multiple personalities and one of your other personalities made those two posts"

I agree that comments such as these are very libelous and unprofessional. I am disappointed. I truly expected more from Wikipedia. Have you no respect for a published author who is someone well respected in their field? Obviously not. While you do not have to agree that the subject is in your opinions "notable", your conduct here is appalling. There is no reason to wage personal attacks against the subject of this article. I created this article as I felt it was necessary for me to begin articles on those involved in the paranormal field. This was the first of several that I planned to write about other investigators and authors. That most certsinly will not happen now. I am now ashamed to be connected to Wikipedia and find it unworthy of academia. As the author of this article, your off color comments have placed me in a position of a possible lawsuit. I never meant for any of this to happen and I have offered Ms. Darkness my sincerest appology.--Darkfan (talk) 22:44, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Real estate appraisal. History not retained as it appeared to be all only sourced to primary sources and WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broker Price Opinion[edit]

Contested prod. No assertion of notability for this concept, and the article reads like an ad for its sources. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, as most of the article is a copyvio of the 2nd source. Tagged accordingly. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with complete rewrite to eliminate the COI/spam and cite to reliable third-party (media) sources. This does appear to be a term & practice used in the real estate industry. (As for the copyvio, I deleted it as G12, and then restored it when I saw that the author asserted that permission was granted and mailed to the permissions address. Assuming that the permission was in the correct form, we can deal with that when it goes through the permissions system.) --MCB (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite having tried to find a good explanation of a brokers price opinion several weeks ago when my bank had one done on my home before lending to us I'm actually glad to see this one Prefict (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to real estate appraisal, which seems to be a properly written article about the same thing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to real estate appraisal. The BPO article is an how-to guide for the USA only. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion on whether or not to delete, but I have done a bit of rewriting, and I believe it is no longer a copyvio. Perhaps it's at least more suitable to be merged into real estate appraisal now. raven1977 (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would support merging the current version. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A merge seems appropriate. Should not redirect because an apprasial and a BPO are NOT the same thing as my wife and I found out recently. Should not delete because it's solid information Prefict (talk) 21:07, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kur ykh 03:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City on Fire (Desperate Housewives)[edit]

The episode article fails the WP:EPISODE policy, and lacks sources besides his own paragraphs. A _talk 21:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Today it's October and this episode is for the next month. It's WP:RECENTISM since the episode, until now, has no notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:30, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Shell ^babelfish 02:36, 22 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the material is not supported with citations from reliable sources, delete per WP:CRYSTAL as this is an episode that is yet to be aired. No objection to recreation after airing or coverage in reliable sources (not fansites or spoiler sites). B.Wind (talk) 03:07, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Louis[edit]

Doesn't cite and references or sources. Page is well created for me to SD tag it. Beano (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like a vanity article, no notability established though it is asserted hence not speediable. Creator's only edits are to this article. Springnuts (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Might squeak by WP:CREATIVE but has no references to support it. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for expansion and sourcing. He's getting coverage: [37], [38], [39], [40]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:45, 15 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, Sandstein 16:09, 17 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as the yet-to-be-released film (WP:CRYSTAL) will be the first with him as the director. Assistant directors generally don't make it in the notability department in WP:BIO. Until a release date is officially announced by the director or the company distributing the film, the movie does not officially exist. B.Wind (talk) 03:31, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. vandalism. slakr^\ talk / 04:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacktorial[edit]

Contested prod. Someone is giving his name to a mathematical concept so trivial it doesn't need a name. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonnotable neologism unknown to Google. WP:NFT. It's essentially vandalism. —KCinDC (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too ... for words. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2009 in music. History retained as there is some good sourced material there. Cirt (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of albums released in 2009[edit]

Was tagged for CSD with "Better suited as a category, which already exists at Category:2009 albums". That's not a speedy criterion, so I'm taking it here. No opinion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I said in my (apparently misguided) speedy attempt, this already exists as Category:2009 albums, so there's no use in having an article for it. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CRYSTAL or redundant to the category, which is self-maintaining. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists and categories are not redundant, but simply two different ways of navigating and organizing the wiki. Not everybody likes to use categories, because the category system is cluttered and difficult to navigate. Also, lists can contain additional information, like in this case proper sourcing for each and every entry. The sources also mean this does not fail any Wikipedia policy with regard to sourcing and/or future releases. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, partly for the reasons given by Reinoutr. Also, there's no doubt this list is well-sourced. I'm also voting to keep for the fact that this list will allow acknowledgement of upcoming untitled albums within Wikipedia, reducing in theory the temptation to create articles that fall under WP:CRYSTALHAMMER. A category would not serve this purpose very well. I don't agree that in all cases lists and categories on a topic need to exist at the same time, but in this case I'm leaning towards saying yes. 23skidoo (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems better suited as a category rather than as a list. Actually, as a list this seems rather unmanageable, considering the number of musical acts out there who could potentially add non-notable albums to the list. AniMate 19:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-notable albums can be added all over Wikipedia (like in List of albums released in 2008) and maintenance issues should never be a reason for deletion. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now, per WP:CRYSTAL; then Keep during 2009, as albums are actually released, per the existing List of albums released in 2007 and List of albums released in 2008. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the information is sourced, which largely defeats the "WP:CRYSTAL" argument in my opinion. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2009 in music as a nearly exact duplicate of that article; it can be later restored as a separate article when the article 2009 in music is large enough to justify a split (probably some time in mid-to-late 2009). The crystal ball arguments to delete a well-sourced article like this, however, were rejected when the deletion of 2009 in music on the same grounds was overturned. DHowell (talk) 03:44, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kur ykh 07:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jobob Taeleifi[edit]

Likely WP:HOAX. This appears to be a teenage baseball player. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is almost a speedy deletion candidate. There are no sources, the name gets no Ghits for the musician. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Not a hoax but notability barely asserted. Kenny and Jobob are out there on MySpace and YouTube, but that's it. Article author matches name of their booking agent. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE PER FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH WP:MUSIC. (HAPPY CAPSLOCK DAY!!) JBsupreme (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NMG like the rest of them. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of assassinated people[edit]

A pointless and COMPLETELY UNSOURCED list. Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 02:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, trivial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TPH perhaps you could explain how a list of assassinated individuals is "trivial"? RMHED (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, not the best word. Seriously, millions of people have been assassinated, sadly. These people have nothing else in common. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopedic and appropriate use of a list, very useful to have a list of this sort rather than just a category. Unsourced isn't the problem,obviously no BLP issues and the sources would be on the assassinated persons article. All the red links though should be removed as unsourced. RMHED (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Lists and categories (in this case Category:Assassinated people complement each other. I assume most of the bluelinks state the person was assassinated. Sourcing is a matter for cleanup. --Pixelface (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you for one minute believe some person is going to come and source those items one by one? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 04:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be trying to imply that it is obvious that each entry in this list should have a reference, here, in this list, that backs up that the named individual was reported to be a victim of assassination. Is this what you really mean? If so, could you please spell out why the references, in the individual articles, are not sufficient sourcing for the entries? Geo Swan (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just from looking at the entry for Poland I see that this list is as random as it gets - an entry from the 11th century followed by four persons from different periods of the 20th century? I'm leaning towards deletion, although a list like this is in itself a useful thing, about that there can be no doubt - but it seems utterly unmaintainable due to the effort one'd have to make to source it and choose the content - how notable does one have to be to be included? Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 09:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing is not an issue, as the majority of the people listed here are blue-links, therefore sourcing is expected in the linked articles. If there's a concern that someone made up the redlinks, then remove them. That's a content issue, not an issue of article viability. 23skidoo (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP articles are not valid sources. Is the rule for lists different? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't readers who want to know the source of the claim that an individual listed here was assassinated go to the article on that individual? Geo Swan (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup, and work on the qualifications for getting on the list. In each case, the sourcing for list membership should be in the article about the person. Is it desirable to copy numerous references from each of hundreds of articles in to the article where a list is maintained? Obviously very incomplete, but that is a reason to edit rather than delete. Assassinations have altered world history by leading to regime change or by silencing importannt voices. The intro says it is "important" people, so there is room for quibbling there, as murdered persons may become "important " posthumously when used as political symbols. There are numerous redlinked people from developing nations who are of questionable notability. Then the intro excludes those who were "executed," but when soldiers or revolutionaries in a coup shoot the preceding leader, it looks mightily like an assassination, and in fact William R. Tolbert, Jr. is included even though he was "executed" by such a military kangaroo court. The list amazingly shows only 3 people assassinated in Germany while Hitler ruled, but includes Fred Hampton, shot by the Chicago Police in the 1960's allegedly for political reasons. The whole "Deaths under suspicious circumstances" section seems unencyclopedic and a breeding ground for conspiracy theories.Edison (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Concur with the Keeps and Clean-ups. Very nicely organized list that is exactly the kind of navigational artcle WP needs more of.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It would be an Augean cleanup job. This is the type of mess you can get into when you choose not to rely on sources. Yes, assassinations are an encyclopedic topic. Anyone who has looked at a World Almanac has eventually reached the section of "Historic Assassinations Since 1865", and this one is arranged by nation. It isn't limited to the heads of state or government, and that's part of where we get into a problem. What's an "assassination"? According to the article, this is a list of "important people who were murdered, usually for ideological or political reasons"; what's the definition of "important"? And does "usually" mean that it doesn't necessarily have to be ideological or political? If this list were confined to persons whose murders were described in publications as "assassinations", it would be a much smaller list. Since it appears that this will be a default to keep, I hope that folks will take the time to add those inconvenient things called "citations". If it's unchanged after four months, nominate it again. Mandsford (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated in 2007 and not one source has been added since then. Let's get real; it ain't gonna happen. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 16:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help us out. If it was previously nominated for deletion, why in the name of heck, in the interest of informed decision-making, hasn't the most recent nominator made a link to the previous discussion available for the rest of us to read? Current nominator, um, that would be you, wouldn't it, Adoniscik? Geo Swan (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of people by cause of death?
If so your complaint that a year has passed, and no one has moved or copied any of our existing references here falsely implies that the consensus at the ((afd)) a year ago was for the references to be moved here. That is plainly untrue. In fact, only two correspondents mentioned sourcing at all. And the closing admin didn't mention it.
Further, I suggest, our nominator has over-looked a couple of practical factors: (1) If the references were to be duplicated, both here, and in the individual articles, they would rapidly go out of sync. (2) the list entries are currently about 40 bytes long. Most fully populate references are about 200 bytes. If we moved just one reference per entry here we would quintuple the size of this article, and it would probably take thirty seconds or more to render on some of our readers' computers -- if it didn't cause their browsers to hang.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment*What about all the mob bosses assassinated in the US, such as Albert Anastasia , Joseph Colombo , and Sam Giancana? All were "assassinated," and all were "important." How about John Dillinger , Baby Face Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd, criminals many sources [41] , [42] say were assassinated by the police, with at least as much justification as for the claim Hampton was. Edison (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if they merit an article on the wikipedia, then why wouldn't they merit an entry on this list? Geo Swan (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons I offered in my comments above. Geo Swan (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I propose that the verifiability policy requires that redlink (no article) names may not remain on this list without a reliable source, so this is not used to place propaganda in a top website for political purposes. Also, the policy for biographies of living persons and/or WP:V require the removal of unreferenced statements that "so and so is suspected of the killing." The "deaths under suspicious circumstances" section should be pruned of those who officially died of disease (Arafat), suicide (Iris Chang), or accident (Paul Wellstone) where "someone suspects" there was foul play. Only documented assassinations of demonstrably notable people should be in the article. I could live without references for the listed names which already have articles documenting the assassination. Edison (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So far from a category making a list irrelevant, i would say that most categories here of people could probably be usefully done also as lists if anyone wants to do the work of adding additional helpful information, such as dates. . They give additional information very useful for browsing, a principal function of an encyclopedia. The red links are almost all of them people who would certainly be notable, and where the missing article is an example of cultural bias--eg supreme court justices in Columbia and Sri Lank MPs--it should rather serve just as a reminder to write the articles. That the people have been assassinated is obvious from the Wikipedia articles & if its though helpful to have source copied over, that's easy enough. -. The "suspicious circumstances" part should be treated as Edison suggests. DGG (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOEFFORT - just needs work. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Edison, etc. Edward321 (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since it looks like this will default to a keep, I've added the first citations and dates for those assassinations that have been listed as such in a common reference book. I hope that others will trim this 98 kilobyte article of its fat. Since the list has gone so far by the idea that sources aren't necessary, a new name got thrown on every time someone is murdered. Journalists, entertainers, guys running for sheriff, Mafia godfathers, persons who have been killed for criticizing the government, etc. can all be described, I suppose, as "assassinations". However, if the article had simply followed the principle of citing to a source, it wouldn't have become such a mess. I think that the standard should always have been whether a shocking murder is described in a news publication as an assassination, and being able to prove it. Mandsford (talk) 18:37, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 00:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Fuel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable product. The only coverage seems to have been a few small articles about some people getting upset over the name, but it was by no means widespread, and the drink itself doesn't appear to be notable. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a consumer product noticed by reliable sources, seems to meet the business and general product notability guidelines. I thought they ran on diesel, myself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject of sufficient independent coverage. Of plausible interest to readership. Wily D 14:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing wrong with this article, has photo, label, sources. It's entries like this that separate us from Britannica. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:00, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (Non-Admin Closure). Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review}

Baloo[edit]

Non-notable characters, mostly unsourced. Kit has two sources at least, but I doubt that's enough. Articles are also in-universe, and confused because all the characters except Kit are also different characters in The Jungle Book. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed Kit per suggestion on IRC. Another user thinks that they might be able to improve his article at least. Or at the least it can be merged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Non-notable??? YMBFJ. Baloo is a MAJOR character in Kipling's Jungle Books. If there are to be articles on individual Jungle Book characters then this one must be kept. Lee M (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I find it unspeakably odd that the one character who wasn't in "The Jungle Book" was removed from this nomination. JuJube (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The only reason Kit Cloudkicker got removed from the nomination is that he is the only one I know anything about, and the only one I can do anything about to make it into a decent article. As for the rest, Merge into the jungle book article or Keep as separates. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all non-notable!!! I can only assume you've suffered some kind of mental aberration. A lack of sourcing isn't a reason to delete patently obvious notable fictional characters. We're not talking about sodding Pokemon here. RMHED (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, these are some of the most notable fictional characters there are. If the article is in universe, rewrite it. And WP:N is not a policy by the way. --Pixelface (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from what's noted above, Baloo is used (perhaps adapted, I'm not that familiar with the Jungle Book) by the Cub Scouts in the USA, in which he is a major figure in the program. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Baloo is an obvious keep, and the others seem notable. With all due respect, TPH, this nom wasn't very well thought-out. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all par Pixelface and Stifle's comments. Europe22 (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. King Louie has three references to academic books describing the cultural impact of the character - exactly what is asked for to show notability of a fictional character. How did the nominator miss that? I'm sure similar references could easily be found for the others, as they are two of the leading characters in the Jungle Book. It also seems strange that the nominator withdrew the least notable of these characters from the nomination but persisted with the others. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Iconic characters from a classic piece of literature; they'd be notable even if they were created for the Disney movie. 23skidoo (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question for nominator. What do you mean by "also" in "all the characters except Kit are also different characters in The Jungle Book"? What else are they? I think that it's you who are confused here, not the articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Obviously notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:16, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - insufficient context to identify subject) by Nyttend. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gloom (Quake 2 modification)[edit]

With no content or notability whatsoever, this Quake Mod dosen't seem very much suitable for Wikipedia at all. Marlith (Talk) 01:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted under CSD A1. Nyttend (talk) 12:03, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 00:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wild (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails notability per WP:Music. I can not see they meet any of the 12 Criteria for musicians and ensembles except if you look "into the future" than perhaps item 6 fits - "Contains at least one notable musician". The article says that "Two of the members are now part of Escala". Perhaps a redirect and/or merge would work if that is the consensus. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, despite the apparently notable member. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Paul Erik's sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Escala unless DVD is on important label. Duffbeerforme (talk)
I have added sources just now. Articles about the group have appeared in several major newspapers in Malaysia and in Mexico (the one in Mural was also run in Reforma). The article's subject appears to pass WP:MUSIC criteria #1 and #4. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul Erik, the band is borderline notable, but notable enough I suppose. JBsupreme (talk) 16:06, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G3. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quintestant[edit]

Dicdef Elliskev 01:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clicking through on the references reveals that there's no such word. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A made-up word with fake references sounds like vandalism to me. —KCinDC (talk) 05:00, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Istvan Kovats[edit]

I declined a speedy for this article being nonsense, but I don't believe that this the soldier meets WP:BIO. Google searches for this individual return very few relevant results. There are also few relevant results in Google News Archive. Cunard (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The author of this article, MagyarTürk (d), is publishing through Wikipedia anecdotal memories about his grandfather. Besides not meeting any of the criteria for inclusion under WP:BIO, the article's content doesn't comply with any of the three core guidelines of standards for inclusion in Wikipedia: It doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability; It violates Wikipedia:NPOV; And it not kosher under the Wikipedia:NOR policy (the content relies on original research by the author into the history of his own family). The author is also involved in a good number of edit-wars and is actually blocked for this reason. Eklir (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically as per Eklir. Whether it's really the author's (great-?)grandfather or something like that I don't know, but it sure looks like just barely escaping A7. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He says so on his user page: "My grand-grandfather Istvan Kovats was a Hungarian valiant soldier in the World War One." The links he provides below here are pointing to 1910-1918 lists of soldiers, but they are not searchable. There are a lot of other people around with that name though but none that I can relate to the grandfather soldier. Anyhow, things being what they are, we presumably all have grandfathers that were valiant soldiers in their times which doesn't mean they qualifiy for inclusion in Wikipedia. Eklir (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Hmm...This site was created by the "Balaton Arts" group. http://www.google.hu/search?hl=hu&q=69.+gyalogezred&btnG=Google+keres%C3%A9s&meta= (Search 69esek, sorry for the long google link, I couldn't paste here the exactly link) You can read about him in this page. For example here : "69-ES VITÉZEK ARCKÉPCSARNOKA" You can find him. Etc. And that pictures are mine. I also can put my identity card, with my signature with the photographs. MagyarTürk —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Reply: I don't see how your link relates to the individual we are discussing. His name is not mentioned in any of the links. According to an online translator "gyalogezred" means "infantry regiment" in Hungarian, but that and the "69" you put before that search don't seem to me to be related to this person. Could you clarify how those links establish this person's notability? Cunard (talk) 06:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was the sixty-ninth infantry regiment. In "69-es vitézek arcképcsarnoka" there is he with pictures. But I have also thought it is "free encyclopaedia " well he is not so famous, as Michael Wittman, or Eric Hartman, He was a hero of a village (Soponya) in public esteem. MagyarTürk

Delete, per nom. Little/no coverage by independent reliable sources. Does not pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assuming everything to be well-sourced, he still isn't notqble. Being "the tallest soldier in the Austro-Hungarian infantry" is not sufficient. DGG (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I thought this discussion was sailing too close to WP:BITE, and so I left a message on the article creator's talk page.
- I told him that I thought that those awarded their nation's highest award, like the Congressional Medal of Honor, or Victoria Cross, were boosted into being considered "notable" solely by virtue of the award. Did I tell him the truth?
- Peter did reply, on my talk page, that "Valiant" was the Hungarian equivalent of a Victoria Cross. If that list of soldiers other participants here rapidly discounted, was actually a list of the Hungarian equivalent of a list Victoria Cross winners, then, wouldn't they be very relevant?
- Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found Wikipedia:Notability (awards) -- which says it has been retired. And, while it says that some awards, like the Nobel Prize, or Congressional Medal of Honor, made the winner notable, it didn't say all national level awards made the winner notable. FWIW I see this as Americo-centricism. Personally I don't regard the Congressional Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross as being as notable as a Nobel, by at least one order of magnitude. And if the CMoH is going to be given this precedence then every nation's highest award should be. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As far as can be seen, "valiant" is used as an adjective in "valiant soldier". Anyway, there is no Kovats on the list of recipients of the Order of the Valiant (in Hungarian, Vitézi Rend). As far as the link he gives is conernced, it needs a user name and a password, all this in Hungarian. Eklir (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Did you look at the reply the article creator left on my talk pages? I really think we are sailing way to close to violating the don't bite the newbies policy here. Geo Swan (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I've read the creator's comment on your talk page, but you nor the creator has provided links to any reliable source in either Hungarian or English to assert this person's notability. If you can find at least two reliable sources about this individual and the award he won, then maybe you have a case about his notability. I can't even find enough sources about the "valiant award" he won, which leads me to believe that this may not have been Hungary's highest military award. There must be some reliable sources (books, old newspapers, etc.) about this award if it is the Hungarian equivalent of a Victoria Cross. Furthermore, how is this discussion violating WP:BITE? This discussion has been civil with no personal attacks or accusations. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said before, the single link MagyarTürk is providing is the only source we have for the article he authors on his grandfather. That link is accessible under (paste into your browser: "http://" and "69esek.gportal.hu/picview.php?prt=418392&gid=2161598&index=6"; you have to paste because that hyperlink is blacklisted on Wikipedia). The grandfather is represented there as Vitéz Kováts István tizedes which tranalates as "Soldier Kovats Istvan private first class". Vitéz, besides meaning "soldier", also translates as the adjective "courageous, valiant" as in vitéz rend "valiant order" or "valiant medal". The vitéz rend is the lowest military distinction there was in 1910-1918 and it certainly doesn't say anywhere in that link that Istvan Kovats was the awardee of any REND "medal". The picture there, copyrighted to Balaton Arts, is also appearing in MagyarTürk's article (Image:Ükapám.JPG) as "created ... entirely by myself". In any case, are we all going to be entitled to articles about our grandfathers? Eklir (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, there were 122,000 such decorations given by Hungary in WWI: 96,000 for soldiers and 26,000 for officers, so it's not an equivalent to the Victoria Cross. [43] bogdan (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Geo Swan: MagyarTürk isn't a newbie protected by BITE. He has several months of relentless disruptive editing under his belt, and has had plenty of warnings about using sources and all the rest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have been contributing here for four years, and have over 30,000 edits under my belt. But there are still aspects of the wikipedia's increasingly complicated policies that I have no experience with. And, in those areas, I return to regarding myself as a newbie. Geo Swan (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and the unknown american hereos, such as Isaiah Dorman? Who is it? Doncsecz (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below to Carlos72 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fully agree with Doncsecz by the way I wrote more informations on Geo Swan's discussion few days ago, or yesterday. I was busy. MagyarTürk (talk). —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Why can't we keep this one? If you can keep the biographies of each american soldier, even those who only polished the boots of general Custer. On the other hand this article can be important to WikiProject Hungary.Carlos72 (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good keeping argument. The editors who have said keep in this deletion discussion have yet to provide even one reliable source in either Hungarian or English for this individual. If this individual has not received any coverage in Hungarian, then how can he pass WP:BIO and WP:V? Cunard (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Doncsecz. - Enbéká ^talk 08:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOR. Bring published reliable references for each affirmation and then it will be okay. bogdan (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with the more guys. By the way, once I have heard about him in a folk festival, on "Aba napok" "Days of Aba".

Lopbisz (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

- Comment: as long as no sources are forthcoming, all these WP:ILIKEIT "votes" are worthless. This is not a vote, so don't bother voting if you have nothing concrete to corroborate notability with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I gave many sources. I am sure, that you just don't like me, that's why that you want delete Istvan Kovats's article.MagyarTürk (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Where are your sources? Could you directly link to them here? As I have said above, you still haven't provided any. Cunard (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per WP:NOR. My opinion would change if the article included reliable references. In that case it would be fine. However, as it stands, I would give the nod for deletion.Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. WP:V and WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not a military obituary. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:54, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as patent nonsense. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information definitions[edit]

Original research, more or less in coherent Bvlax2005 (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete for an article about information, it imparts remarkably little. Indeed, I think I lost some information in reading it. MadScot (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - incomprehensible. If there is a real topic hiding here, it would need a complete rewrite. -- Whpq (talk) 02:26, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saint Louis Archdiocesan Auxiliary Bishops[edit]

The level of specificity seems odd. Not "List of Saint Louis Catholic clergy" or "List of American (all) bishops by diocese", but "List of (1) Saint Louis (2) archdiocesan (3) auxiliary (4) bishops". A Cartesian product over many dimensions. WP:SALAT. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential keep assuming sources can be provided; I don't study this type of thing, so I don't know where sources could be found; but such a list as this, in general, has nothing wrong with it; it could easily be renamed "list of the auxiliary bishops of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis" — the list is quite specific, likely quite referenceable, altogether NPOV, and not at all too small. If there's a problem with it being so specific, perhaps you could propose merging it with an article on bishops and archbishops (as opposed to auxiliary bishops) of St. Louis. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 17 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, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too specialized to be of encyclopedic use. Shell ^babelfish 00:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too specific an intersection to be useful. The folks at catholic-hierarchy.org may find this handy though. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see why this isn't notable. Catholic hierarchy establishes auxiliary bishops in a specific spot in the hierarchy, and turnover is small enough that it's not going to be problematic to have a hundred or so such lists. If there's a good merge target, that might work. Sourcing is deficient, but the relative notability suggests to me that sources for each of these will exist, even if only in the print archive of local papers. I would say that auxiliary bishops are probably the lowest level of catholic clergy to have presumed notability, however. Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete As individual bishops, they would not be notable; in the past, we have justified articles for all bishops of the RC and other territorially organized major churches by their administrative responsibilities for a distinct large area. An auxiliary bishop does not have such responsibility--he assists the bishop or archbishop in the administration of a particularly large diocese. By analogy, mayors of large cities are notable, not deputy mayors. In some very large dioceses the person may possibly actually have sources for notability per the general guidelines, but that would have to be shown. But this does not affect the notability of the office as a whole. But what information is there to give that could not be incorporated into the article for the archdiocese or diocese? It seems an unnecessary split. DGG (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The equivalent lists for Anglican bishops in England exist and many of those listed have articles. I do not see why this should not apply to those listed here. The probalem is that it is not clear which of the people listed have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have examples of such lists for England?—Largo Plazo (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: too oddly specialised to be useful or encyclopaedic. Springnuts (talk) 12:11, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 07:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Wayne[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) 19:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepLead character in a 6-year long, very notable television series, and (with some small effort), likely very verifiable in 3rd party sources. If nothing else, I remember as a kid the show being featured several times in TV Guide... and I never even watched the show, lol. Hopefully just get some sources up, and the issue will be dealt with. JasonDUIUC (talk) 22:50, 17 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) 00:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Shell ^babelfish 00:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - There are no references and little information beyond a plot summary. Its unlikely that this level of detail is necessary for an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Redirect to the show and include an pertinent information there (if sources can be found). Shell ^babelfish 00:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced original research. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep long-running series, I believe appeared on two series. Article needs improved and cleaned up...--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs some cleanup, but that's not a criterion for deletion. Subject matter is fundamentally appropriate for encyclopaedic treatment. Wily D 15:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Sources exist.[44] - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peregrine Fisher (talk • contribs)
Keep Central character of long-running and very notable TV series,and also culprit behind brief fad for Flip-up glasses. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whitley Gilbert[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) 19:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepFamous character from at least two very well-known, and verifiable, television series (The Cosby Show and A Different World), totaling over a decade on the air during first-run. With some small effort, likely very verifiable in 3rd party sources as an historically notable recurring character (and later lead character). Aim to get more sources for now, and if not possible, then maybe kill the page or merge it with Cosby Show or Different World... or both?...JasonDUIUC (talk) 22:55, 17 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) 00:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Shell ^babelfish 00:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Unreferenced with little more than plot summary. Its possible that people could search for this, so its best to keep it as a redirect to the show, where any pertinent referenced information should be found. Shell ^babelfish 00:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to which show? She was a major character in two different series..... JasonDUIUC (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely original research. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep long-running series, main character. Cultural impact.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 27 gbooks hits for "Whitley Gilbert" "different world" should be enough to support an independent article. Did the character appear on the Cosby Show, though?John Z (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So.... now I'm wondering if my brain just misfired in terms of remembering her being on the Cosby Show as well... may have just mixed up being on the SPINOFF and being on the SHOW... can't seem to find any episode records on her on Cosby... but the show's been off the air for a while, so that might not be so surprising.... blergh, and my bad if I'm wrong on that assertion above. Regardless, though, she WAS definitely the/oneofthe main characters on A Different World. Still notable and verifiable, so still keep. JasonDUIUC (talk) 05:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient sources to show notability.DGG (talk) 03:12, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Half & Half. Cirt (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Blackwell[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) 19:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced and original research. -- nips (talk) 20:29, 20 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) 00:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Shell ^babelfish 00:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - doesn't appear to be notable even within the series, so unlikely that it is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Also missing any form of references or any sort of verification; a quick search doesn't show any reliable independent sources that could be used either. On the off chance that someone may search for this character or attempt to recreate it, would probably be best as a redirect to the series. Shell ^babelfish 00:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I agree with nominator. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs — no article. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of refs would not prevent a merger, but the lack of importance makes it unnecessary. DGG (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to bookmark this AFD :) Stifle (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Exceedingly minor character. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Half & Half. Although it's non-notable by my standard, aren't we supposed to delete as a last resort? --Lockley (talk) 15:57, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanya Yudin[edit]

I doubt its notability --The Firewall 18:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:V (I've even added 3 more sources myself to the article). Due to the coverage and the rarity of the idea, I'd say that it passes notability guidelines.--Pmedema (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've just fixed a cut and paste move involving this page and Bird boy. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 23:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy or possible merge with Feral child without naming the subject. Do we want this unfortunate boy to live the rest of his life with this article defining him as a person? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see where you are coming from but It seems to be more an event larger then the individual as this is something that we read about tantamount to "The Jungle Book"... Moving on from that opinion, I can also see where your coming from regarding the name. The convention used for Rochom P'ngieng was to forward it to the nick name which is Cambodian jungle girl. The original of this article was the nick name... maybe we should consider moving it back to the nick name and having a redirect for Vanya Yudin... --Pmedema (talk) 18:26, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject appears to have brief notability only in reference to being mistreated. This seems to fall under BLP1E and should be delete in preference of privacy and dignity in treatment of the subject. Alternately if the incident received enough coverage itself, move it to the incident name and avoid using the child's name. Shell ^babelfish 00:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--because I don't even believe in this hoax. The article right now has five sources, but they're all the same, basically: it's just the same 'news' published in different tabloids. But besides that, it's a tiny little news item that has no place in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 07:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedestrian (band)[edit]

does not appear to be notable per WP:NOTE or WP:MUSIC. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, we got some valid source.--Free way 8 03:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC pretty cleanly. RayAYang (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't have third-party reference sources satisfying WP:MUSIC. --DAJF (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Now appears to satisfy notability requirements. --DAJF (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see those "valid sources" that Freewayguy mentioned. This was already deleted once via PROD. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1, now subject to multiple non-trivial published independent works. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Just now I've added more sources. There's an article on CNNMoney.com, a bunch of brief mentions for their tour with Our Lady Peace (mentioned in multiple newspapers, all of which note that band leader Joel Shearer also joined that band as a touring guitarist), and a mention on Actress Archives about Shearer dating a famous Hollywood actress. Taken together, it might be enough to barely squeak by our notability guidelines. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why would a band member's social life make the band notable? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I was not meaning to put forth the position that him dating a famous actress makes the band notable. Not at all. Sorry that it came across that way. I was saying that multiple non-trivial mentions in independent sources might make this band notable as per WP:GNG, and in my comments above I just wanted to provide some context for those mentions. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But from what I can tell, the band still doesn't meet the criteria under WP:MUSIC. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those new sources aren't properly linked, so we can't actually see them anyway, but the one that is looks pretty trivial to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are not linked because they are not available online. WP:MUSIC (criterion #1) gives examples of "trivial" as being akin to a directory listing—such as a listing of a performance date—so the CNNMoney.com article is a step up from that. The others are brief but nontrivial, as they are not merely directory-like listings, and they allow for some verifiable content to be added to the article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources & 3rd party reference concerns -- I think this is satisfied; there are several independent sources and most of these are from newspapers/online news sources. Notability concerns -- I have added 2 sources which may help establish a bit of notability (thecurrentonline.com article and thedelimagazine.com award). Conflict of interest concerns -- The article is composed of factual information and there are now references. I don't see the basis for this... Faninor 07:10, 21 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment -- the article changed substantially since most of the delete !votes. Looks like it's heading strongly towards keep now, but it should probably have a couple more days to make sure.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks like the concerns have been resolved, now appears to meet WP:MUSIC. Shell ^babelfish 01:01, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kur ykh 07:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sora Bulq[edit]

Non-notable minor characters; too insignificant probably even to warrant inclusion at the List of Star Wars characters (per WP:NOT#INFO, WP:NOT#DIR). --EEMIV (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a side of corn on the cob. JuJube (talk) 22:41, 17 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) 00:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Optional transwiki to Wookieepedia. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 01:04, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kur ykh 07:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ajax Starglider[edit]

Non-notable rapper, has a couple of self-released albums and is a member of a band that's also at afd. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:02, 17 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) 00:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NOTE Bvlax2005 (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:BAND - neither the musician nor the label are notable. Unable to find any significant sources. Shell ^babelfish 01:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless reliable sources can be found to establish notability and verify the facts cited. I've looked but I can't find any myself. Wiw8 (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable artist and non-notable albums. Schuym1 (talk) 19:58, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imperanon[edit]

Tagged for notability since last December. Does not appear to meet WP:BAND requirements. While they appear to be signed to a notable label, WP:BAND requires two albums, I only see indications of a single album release for this group. No other indications of notability are given, and no independant sources are provided. TexasAndroid (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both band and album, no sources found, fails WP:MUSIC right now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:24, 17 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) 00:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Shell ^babelfish 01:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - doesn't appear to really meet WP:BAND and since they indicate the band is no longer together, its unlikely that this will change in the future. Shell ^babelfish 01:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - group falls well short of the WP:BAND bar as there has been very little material by the group actually released, let alone reviewed. The lack of notability is unlikely to change barring a reunion. B.Wind (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, both articles fail to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:17, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kur ykh 07:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Galactic Insights[edit]

This article was previously part of this mass-AfD - while the AfD as a whole was a keep, most of the individual entries were subsequently deleted.

Unreferenced article for non-notable fan game. Google search yields no significant third-party coverage outside player community. --EEMIV (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Shell ^babelfish 01:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only independent sources given are very trivial references to lists of these types of game. No apparent notability. Shell ^babelfish 01:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wookiepedia and deathstar this article. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a shame, the MUD is 30 years old this week. Too bad this one is not notable. 9 meager hits, and none of them indication of significant coverage. Protonk (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:A7 as web content that doesn't assert notability. Tagged as such. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I declined the speedy deletion. While it might fall under A7, I do not think speedy deletion should be used in cases in which the article was previously !voted as "keep" in a previous AfD. We ought to allow everyone involved in the previous AfD to re-ass the issue. Also, speedy-deleting it would be against the previous consensus to keep it, something that I think admins should not decide alone to overturn. Regards So Why 10:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - While that's usually true, note that in this case it was only kept by AFD because the nominator bundled too much stuff at once. A botched AfD resulting in a procedural keep does not grant every single article immunity from speedy forever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, WP:N, WP:V, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:38, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Schiaffo[edit]

non notable actor Honey And Thyme (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability as an musican/producer/actor available with diligent searches: newsaskew.com, nyfilmvideo.com, cinemasky.com, etc. His films and his roles are being reviewed b-independent.com, "...Russin and Schiaffo, in supporting roles that parody Jay and Silent Bob, are every bit the endearing lunkheads as the characters they mock". He had the lead in an award-winning film: nyfilmvideo.com, "Idiots Are Us", 2006 best comedy feature. Article should be expanded and sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--maybe this guy is notable, and you seem to be really good at finding sources, but really, isn't that the author's job? I could easily create a dozen articles on topics for which notability could be established, but wouldn't that be MY job as an author? I think too many of these AfD discussions end up as fact-finding missions, putting the workload on everybody but the author (and see Prosfilaes' correct note below, "in the article," "evidence"). Drmies (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no reliable sources in the article, no evidence of notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: reliable sources showing notability do not have to be in the article, though yes... it would be wonderful. All that is required is that they be available. They are. He is. His being the lead in an award-winning film was easy to find. This AfD is flawed. Per WP:AFD, this article should have been tagged for sourcing and improvemant, not for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That really turns every AfD into a search by editors for sources, when that job should have been done already. If you could find it easily, then the author could have found it easily too. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.., it does. But with respects to the nom, WP:AFD and WP:ATD distinctly advise a search for such sources before nomming an article... and when finding them, to have the article tagged for improvement reather than deletion. The fact that I found the sources means the nom could have too. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. It's not the authors article, it's now wiki's article. We don't punish the author by deleting a badly sourced article on a notable topic, we damage wiki. If some other editor can save the article, that's a good thing. MadScot (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish he had sourced it, too. But as notability exists, this should not have been brought to AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:22, 22 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) 00:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sufficiently notable; even new sources found on this AfD don't rise to a high enough level. Mentions on minor internet sites and niche movie reviews don't make an actor notable and would be opening the door to many other barley noticed in the profession. Shell ^babelfish 01:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, that boat has already sailed. Wiki has hundreds, if not thousands of less notable persons with articles, and Wiki has not run out of paper yet. Starring in an award winning film gives notability. Enough "mention' in niche reviews counts, and WP:RS recognizes this when it allows that sources nust be considered in context to what is being asserted, IE: The Washington Post is not expected to write in-depth reviews on horror films and Evil Dread will not have an article on Sarah Palin. Scott Schafiro having the starring role in a award winning film is a simple assertion and was easy to verify. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be the policy for lines such as Wiki has hundreds, if not thousands of less notable persons with articles. Honey And Thyme (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shell_Kinney, the sources do not rise up to the level required by our biographical guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 15:56, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Kimm[edit]

Not notable. There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Suntag ☼ 10:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that there doesn't seem to be very much of anything in the way of WP:RS about him as an article topic in his own right (virtually all of the web hits he gets are mere mentions, not valid references), in principle it shouldn't be impossible to write a referenceable article about a person who's hosted a nationally syndicated radio program. Keep if references turn up before close; delete without prejudice against future recreation if they don't. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearcat. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:03, 20 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) 00:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear to have sufficient notability. Shell ^babelfish 01:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Weak keep per the sources found by Paul Erik. As DoubleBlue says, not sure there's enough for a good article, but that can come in time. Shell ^babelfish 04:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has had at least three non-trivial mentions in the Toronto Star. I've added those references just now. Keep per the general notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Bearcat suspects an article is possible and Paul Erik has found references he asserts are non-trivial. I am still concerned that the sources may not be adequate for a WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR article but the current stub is acceptable and time may be given to improve the article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:38, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kur ykh 07:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politic live[edit]

Not notable. There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 10:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't see any reliable sources here. 10 or 20 facebook or myspace citations don't make up for a lack of any reliable sources. Mayalld (talk) 08:20, 20 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) 00:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Shell ^babelfish 01:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Majority of the sources given are repeats and appear to all be of the press release type, not independent coverage. Shell ^babelfish 01:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:25, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kur ykh 07:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subdownloader[edit]

Non-notable minor software, no references, doesn't appear in any major reviews in the media, besides an Ubuntips news item. GreyCat (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 17:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Despite the high-number of ghits, I couldn't find any third-party substantive take on this software. There's brief review linked from the article, but it's from a blog. VG ☎ 17:09, 17 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) 00:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no substantial third-party coverage that would indicate sufficient notability. Shell ^babelfish 01:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Shell Kinney. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability has been sufficiently established (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.J. Perry[edit]

Not notable. There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 10:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has several independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't enough information in the sources to justify an independent article. -- Suntag ☼ 16:13, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage in Candian papers, especially those with an interest in jazz such as 'P.J. Perry - a Canadian legend,' interview with Brian Turner,' Coda, 202, Jun-Jul 1985 or Rempel, Byron. 'The ghosts and spirits of P.J. Perry,' Alberta Report, 19 Jun 1989 - appears to meet WP:MUSIC for having a wealth of recordings, and being notable in his particular niche. Shell ^babelfish 01:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shell. Other sources include
- Marchand, Francois. "Dion leads the Juno pack; On the local scene, P.J. Perry and Corb Lund pick up nominations", Edmonton Journal, 2008-02-06, p. D1 (describes him as an "Alberta jazz legend")
- Infantry, Ashante. "CD reviews: PJ Perry Campbell Ryga Quintet", Toronto Star, 2007-09-11, p. L10.
- Wolch, Michael. "PJ Perry & Campbell Ryga Quintet / Joined at the Hip", Winnipeg Free Press, 2007-08-25, p. C4.
- Miller, Mark. "Saxophonists's soul salvation: PJ Perry's new CD, Come Sunday, reveals a changed man who has overcome addiction in a search for his own personal God", The Globe and Mail, 2004-11-04, p. R6.
- others... Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:00, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted (CSD A7) by Orangemike. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 03:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Phi Omega Philippines, Lambda Nu Chapter[edit]

No evidence that this individual chapter has any notability. No reliable independent sources about this chapter. Main recognition is "Recognized by the University as the best organization in 2001 as well as the best Chapter of Region XI by the RAD office in 2006, the ΛN Chapter has produced a total of 24 brothers and 51 sisters as of 2008." An in-university award and a regional chapter award are both very limited in scope and not really independent. Fram (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've sort of been waiting for this to happen unfortunately. I'm one of the primary editors of the main Alpha Phi Omega page and remember when an entire group of Alpha Phi Omega chapters in the USA got AFD'ed. I may salvage at least one piece of information from here (the fact that more than one chapter does an Oblation run. I'd like to see this information kept in some way, but better would just be to figure out how to get the National Office (either USA or Phils.) to create a Fraternity wiki.Naraht (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 07:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you could move it to WikiPilipinas which is a Pinoy Wikia of sorts.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:54, 19 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) 00:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I consider all of these Greek-type organizations to be non-notable, and chapters of them are even more so. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please propose an AFD on Phi Beta Kappa.Naraht (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  That would be a waste of time. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  But apparently equal in your views, correct?Naraht (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual chapters will almost never be notable, for this and other national organizations. a good general rule, which we should maintain unless there are very special circumstances, which are not shown here. As for the notability of the major national greek organizations, I think its unquestionable, given the amount that has always been written about them--the only question arises with so called national fraternities consisting of a very few chapters, & many of them have been held not notable. DGG (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having you people decide whether this post is notable or not turns my stomach. As far as I know, the chapter is ‘notable’ to the people we have helped in our community and in our country with the numerous projects we have initiated. I think that having these individuals think that we are notable is more than enough for us. We do not need you guys here in Wikipedia to tell us if we are or we are not notable. Besides, to be identified as notable is not the goal of the organization and explaining our goals to you guys will just be ‘a waste of time’. And, from the comments I read here, it seems that ones ‘notability’ is determined by other people’s biases. I will not subject the organization and the chapter to this. There is no need for you to discuss this further as I will make things easier for everybody. I would like to request that the article be deleted immediately. Thank you. APO1113

Comment I've placed the relevant tag requesting deletion (by author request), as soon as an admin can get to it in the queue, it should dissapear. --RedHillian | Talk 16:16, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Grassroot Deviation[edit]

Not notable. There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 10:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article already lists an Edmonton Journal article, and additionally I have found this article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 20 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) 00:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:MUSIC by having several independent sources which gave significant coverage, two albums and a national tour. Shell ^babelfish 02:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:26, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spacedog[edit]

Advertisement; violates WP:COI -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The parent company seems more notable[45], but is redlinked. If this article is kept, someone may want to take on the task of writing an article on Mendelsohn|Zien Advertising and merging this into it. (full disclosure -- I declined the G11 speedy request because it didn't seem spammy enough for a speedy. However, I'm not convinced Spacedog is notable, so I'm not !voting keep or delete.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - 68.183.55.64 (talk) 00:56, 20 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, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:07, 22 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) 00:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references appear to be trivial mentions, mostly focused on their clients as opposed to the company itself. Doesn't meet WP:CORP. Shell ^babelfish 02:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE IT FAILS WP:CORP, THE RESULTS ARE IN: SPACEDOG IS NOT NOTABLE. (HAPPY CAPSLOCK DAY!!) JBsupreme (talk) 07:26, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kur ykh 03:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City on Fire (Desperate Housewives)[edit]

The episode article fails the WP:EPISODE policy, and lacks sources besides his own paragraphs. A _talk 21:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Today it's October and this episode is for the next month. It's WP:RECENTISM since the episode, until now, has no notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:30, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Shell ^babelfish 02:36, 22 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the material is not supported with citations from reliable sources, delete per WP:CRYSTAL as this is an episode that is yet to be aired. No objection to recreation after airing or coverage in reliable sources (not fansites or spoiler sites). B.Wind (talk) 03:07, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What More Do I Need? (Desperate Housewives)[edit]

The episode article fails the WP:EPISODE policy, and lacks sources besides paragraphs he may have made up himself. A _talk 21:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Today it's October and this episode is for the next month. It's WP:RECENTISM since the episode, until now, has no notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:30, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above.--Non-dropframe (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Shell ^babelfish 02:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Desperate Housewives episodes. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a stub to be sure, but not a criterion for deletion. Wily D 15:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Episodes aren't inherently notable, and this one seems as unsourcable as the other DH eps. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:22, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Bleich[edit]

I declined a speedy on this because of assertions of notability (College World Series, first round draft pick), but I can't quite find enough evidence of notability to put me strongly in the keep column, either. Lots of ghits, but many of them are passing mentions. I've added a couple of the beefier ones to the article -- does this tip the scales enough to the keep side? Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage from reliable sources. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Named a high school All-American by Collegiate Baseball, according to his Stanford bio. However, this article is in real need of work to be brought up to snuff. Blueboy 96 04:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. BRMo (talk) 03:47, 21 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) 00:05, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon 5's use of the Internet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Babylon 5's use of the Internet

Here's an interesting find: this entire article is original research from head to foot, including its claim to notability. There is nothing salvageable here. If Babylon 5's use of the Internet is significant it would actually have to be described from scratch using reliable sources. Shii (tock) 07:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an empirical example of WP:SYNTH. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle and lack of reliable sources. 59.167.44.59 (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC) — 59.167.44.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep pending improvement. I think the article is viable and B5 is considered a pioneer in this arena. I say pending because it does need better sourcing, however given the nature of the topic, some slack needs to be given to online sources. No objection to the article being renominated in a 6 months to a year if it hasn't been improved. See the nom I went in expecting to see an OR essay, but I do not feel that is the case here. Needs to be retitled to something less essay-ish like Babylon 5 Internet marketing or some such. 23skidoo (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a lot of RS material with which to improve this. See rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated and its recently concluded deletion discussion for an example. I'll ping the B5 user project for assistance. Jclemens (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's an entire book devoted to this subject:
- Kurt Lancaster (2001). Interacting with Babylon 5: Fan Performance in a Media Universe. University of Texas Press. ISBN 9780292747227.
Uncle G (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor quible; only one chapter of this book is devoted to use of the internet. Taemyr (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon 5 is a genuine pioneer in this area. The matter has feasible layman interest and academic interest as an early and extensive example of the interaction between the mediums. I'll revise my opinion after I've looked further into what is available, but given Uncle G's track record on these matters I expect I'll be for keeping. --Kizor 17:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually came across it when finding sources that documented The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 (AfD discussion) (also nominated for deletion by Shii (talk · contribs)). I was surprised to find that documented in books, and the extent to which it was documented. (I was expecting just a cursory mention along with a URL.) I was similarly surprised to find this documented. Uncle G (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We are not looking for documentation, but rather evidence that either subject is relevant to non-fans. Is it Babylon 5 that is important, or are we rather talking about a hypothetical article named "Science fiction and the Internet" that would benefit from this information? Shii (tock) 01:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The existence of independent coverage suggests that it is indeed relevant to non-fans, or certainly more than the casual fan. The show apparently isn't offensive enough for people to get uppity in opposition to it. Just because the people interested enough to give it the discussion required for verifiability and notability to be met also happen to have positive feelings about it doesn't render their analysis null and void. --Masamage ♫ 02:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies, documentation is precisely what we should be, and, for some of us, are looking for. And deleting things because only some people are interested them has never been our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. You need to read about Jimbo's "no". Notability is not fame nor importance. Uncle G (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. --Captain Infinity (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated. No reason to lose any content per se, but at least put them together. --Masamage ♫ 23:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This was brought up in the AfD for that article, and several editors had serious misgivings about it--Seems the newsgroup has content on more JMS projects than just B5, so the topics of the two articles don't overlap cleanly, and there's no really good place to put the remainders. Still, it's a much better option than deleting either one. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed...Keep per Uncle G. Tomer ^talk 02:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have rearranged the article and added several sources. Every individual claim now has some sourcing. Will all Delete voters please revisit the article and add ((fact)) or other appropriate tags such that I can correct what deficiencies remain, with an eye towards meeting WP:HEY? Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even before the recent added citations, the article was fairly well sourced - I never saw "original research from head to foot" as the nom suggests. Agree with the idea that the article may need a better title, tho. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the article still doesn't have any reliable sources, it's kind of pathetic really. Shii (tock) 01:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of the three I added, one was a copy of an SEC filing documenting the referenced contest. If you are here to help improve Wikipedia, specific, actionable criticisms would be welcome. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shii, with that comment your agenda has become clear. --Captain Infinity (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What's his agenda? Tomer^talk 18:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not privy to User:Shii's agenda, but calling something "pathetic" is a value judgement. Might not hurt to look at Special:Contributions/Shii, either. Shii has threatened to WP:IAR and delete another former featured article without going through the AfD process. This level of antagonism against B5-related articles is perplexing. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We have procedures for handling this. Tomer ^talk 22:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak keep Going through the sources provided; The first 5 is attributed to Straczynski, and as such is not independent. The lurkers guide is a fan run web page, that I don't think can be considered as reliable pr WP:RS. It also only give passing mention of overall use of the internet, so as such does not give non trivial coverage. The hollywoodupclose does not give nontrivial coverage of the subject. The next two is sourced to Straczynski. The last two sources are primary sources, thus not independent. The book by Lancaster is independent, and gives nontrivial coverage. The requirement of WP:N, is multiple independent reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage. One source is not "multiple". Taemyr (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Withdrawing vote, depends on depth of coverage.[reply]

OK, I added another book source--now there are two. Does that meet WP:HEY for you? Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, I would have to go to a library to check that the book gives indepth coverage of topic. Taemyr (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I found at least one of them on Google Books, so you might be able to find it there. Thanks for the !vote revision. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added information and citing from two more book chapters and another journal article. --Zeborah (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Zeborah's work. -- Banjeboi 00:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reasonable subarticle, seems well-cited. Everyking (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but merge with rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated. I don't accept the arguments about original research - this article seems to be sufficiently well-referenced to pass our guidelines. However, I don't see the need for two articles on very similar subjects. Terraxos (talk) 12:35, 27 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.