< September 17	September 19 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallavants[edit]

I can't find any reliables for this movie that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ^Talk 23:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The name rings a bell, but I see no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find evidence that this movie is notable per WP:MOVIE. Apparently it never received a theatrical release in the United States; it does not appear on the list here, and neither IMDb nor Box Office Mojo reports any box office gross. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was Withdrawn. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Realization[edit]

Delete as an unneeded disambiguation page that doesn't lead anywhere. According to MOS:DABRL, "a disambiguation shouldn't be made up completely of red links, because the purpose of disambiguation is solely to refer users to other Wikipedia pages." Tavix (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless dab composed of red links. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per below. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly... Just a cute case of vandalism. The links are all blue and this dabpage should be speedy kept -- saberwyn 00:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Oops, I should've taken a closer look. Thanks for catching that. Tavix (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources do appear trivial, and two relists failed to salvage the article. Ultimately notability is fatally low. — Coren ^(talk) 02:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lupertazzi crime family[edit]

Unsourced article, almost completely in-universe, searching for references reveals only trivial coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete*** Fake Testmasterflex (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination's searches are too narrow. I see plenty of sources and there's more in the many books of critical analysis about the show. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is trivial coverage, however there isn't significant coverage, so it should be deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The many sources seems quite significant in covering the various members of this family and here are some more. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't seem to decide what needs to be done for this article, but it is a branch of "what some call the greatest show of all time" which may give it notability. I can't decide. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 08:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ff m 23:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Jersey Paranormal Research Association[edit]

This article's subject Central Jersey Paranormal Research Association has no google news hits, and I can't find any RS to substantiate. The only hit on google that is notable is their own website. So, since it doesn't meet notability guidelines, propose to delete. Groupsisxty (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Fixed to use AFD template by Kesac (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We66er (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ^Talk 23:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can not see anything that might possibly be notable. DGG (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yarr, avast this sea lawyering and blast this hoax to Davy Jones's locker! Protonk (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Who you gonna call? Sounds like fun, but certainly not notable. No sources, none coming. maxsch (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GEO TV controversies[edit]

Delete. A mass of unsourced or poorly sourced original research created by the author as a WP:POVFORK when I stopped letting him insert it into the main article. I know nothing about Geo TV, but all this article tells me is that its author clearly dislikes Geo TV. The non-policy violating material could easily fit back in the main article, since it's one sentence at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a forkdump and reads to me like an unfocused rant, and many of the sources do not match up with statements made in the article. Nate • (chatter) 03:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV-fork containing whole sections of unsourced attack on the subject. Serious WP:WEASEL problem. Not fixable. The author should be made aware that well sourced criticism should always be welcome at the main article. AndyJones (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Data Airlines[edit]

Delete non notable "sub-record label" per WP:GARAGE, and WP:ORG Mayalld (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think that this article is among WP:GARAGE rules. This record label's artists are having their own albums, they were on real tours, they're not formed their bands yesterday. Well sorry, I have no experience of making and filling good articles. With best regards, --I0ngunn3r (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Data Airlines is a established comercial label with distributiondeals with one of the three largest distributors in France (the first and only chipmusic-label to accomplish this. It is not, as earlier stated in the article, a sub-label to anything. IMO its very relevant to wikipedia in general and the chipmuisc/8-bit history in particular. Deletion would be a catastrophy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.165.156.94 (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related

deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:59, 9 September 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 03:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing indicates notability. Fails WP:CORP and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Hello Control. I could find no 3rd party news coverage of Data Airlines or of Dubmood for that matter. Sashaman (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos amador munoz[edit]

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

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

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable person, never mind that it reads like a copyvio and appears outdated. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deleting this article as my searches on Google News and Google Books did not turn up any results. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree with deletion. In a fast searching in google I found references of award winning in Spain (Losdenmedium Los Obsenos). Montevideo Uruguay seminars about Music benefits for healing. (User: Alex Wendell , FL)
I do not think this article should be deleted. I found certain information in Pierrot Lunaire Ensemble Austria's webpage in section "concerts 2007". User: Mark zuniga
- Neither Alex wendell (talk · contribs) nor Mark zuniga (talk · contribs) have any contributions outside this debate/vote page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete this article. I'll love to know about Central American shamanic chants (Mrak Sandowsky (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Apart from this comment/vote, Mrak Sandowsky (talk · contribs) has a total of five edits, of those four to talk pages. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "I like this article" is not a valid reason to keep it. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article shows the work of a central american composer who is working in a very different and special field. Searching in Universidad de Costa Rica files www.cariari.co.cr I found references of the value of this investigation about the almost extinct oral traditions of Guaimy , Cabecar and Bri Bri indian branches in Central America. In stead of recomend the delition I suggest that Wikipedia editors should recomend the author to include all the missing information about native oral traditions that this musician is recording and documenting. (Mrak Sandowsky (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)) I included this article to show an interesting work of a costarican composer who make real efforts to preserve culture and traditions in his country. If it is possible to improve the article please tell me, you are the experts! Is your decision and I'll accept it.(Mikaelangelo777 (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note: All users above this line appear to be single-purpose accounts. Please remember AfD is NOT A VOTE and that users who are repeatedly commenting on the discussion using multiple accounts will be blocked according to policy. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if referenced I think he might be notable, but we need some 3rd party sources. DGG (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless referenced to show notability. If the sources exist all the new enthusistic editors should be able to add them, or at least point to them here, instead of claiming obscure references exist. And it really looks like a copyvio (the formatting = copy paste). Edit: Copyvio from his website [1]?Yobmod (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment, also his my-space has no friends. Notable people always have hundreds of friends. Even spannish people don't know him! (I know, is not conclosive, but...:-)Yobmod (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyvio -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Toay an article was created on Amador carlos, whoch seems to be on the same person. --Crusio (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The latest editings and references improve the article. Please don not copy this article or post it with different name it doesn't help.(Mikaelangelo777 (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Drew (cartoonist)[edit]

I do not see clear evidence of notablity in this article Boleyn (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 02:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see a clear assertion or demonstration of notability. He is one of over a 100 people who worked on Yellow Submarine - one of 178 animators. I've had a quick look on the internet, and I only see Norman Drew's name in relation to Yellow Submarine when Drew is talking about it himself. I don't see anyone else talking about Drew himself in relation to the film. I'm sympathetic to the fact that he is involved in the film, so I'm not going for a delete, though I would like to see more evidence of notability so I can't say I'd like to see the article kept. SilkTork *^YES! 03:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, some suggestions of potential notability, but nothing really substantiating it. --Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ If it were Yellow Submarine that he relied on for notability I'd be saying delete, but looking at his entry at IMDB I see numerous cases of being credited as either "Animation Director" or "Assisant Director". That would seem to be "a major role in co-creating," per WP:BIO. The next issue is the next part of WP:BIO, "a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of ..." I suspect we could find the required references for the TMNT TV series, amongst others. The bits about "industry standard training" ~~and the Presidency of the industry org~~ (Not sure how all-encompassing it is - OK, having taken a look, it's more a promotional vehicle than an industry org - strike that comment) would also lend weight to the keep. MadScot (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw the weak keep. As things stand the text is pretty much a direct cut and paste from the subject's webpage. Its close to copyright violation as a result, I think. Its going to need a pretty thorough rewrite to address that issue. MadScot (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has gone through a couple of discussions now and editors have looked carefully for evidence of notability. No one has yet confirmed it. We cannot have an article on Wikipedia for everyone who has a very minor part in the entertainment industry; it makes a mockery of our claim to be an encyclopedia. The editor who created it does not seem to have improved it since it was tagged or argued for it to be kept. The creator has only contributed to three articles, 1 of them Norman Drew and one to add info on Norman Drew. All contributions were made within three days, and to write a complete article on someone as your first contribution seems to me suspicious. So far, four editors have contributed to this discussion and they have all, in the end, voted to delete. Boleyn 09:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

César Eduardo Hernández[edit]

This looks like a hoax to me... There's no actor by that name on imdb,[2] and of two of the productions with characters names a) he is not listed as an actor, and b) there is no character listed by that name.[3][4] Additionally, being made by User:Cesar16 suggests WP:AUTO/WP:COI. No other google hits seemed to bring up anything: [5][6][7]

He is actually listed on the Wikipedia page for the telenovela - Cuidado con el ángel - but was added by a similarly suspiciously named User:Cesar1992.[8]

I could be completely wrong here and he could be real, but either way, no sources are cited to establish notability, and the above google links don't show any sources with which to establish that notability. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 04:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 23:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at the very best violates WP:N, but could be a Troy Rodriguez style hoax- similar name, similar age, purported film star... not saying Troy is at work again but this could be a copycat attack. Nerdluck34 (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - fails verifiability rather spectacularly -- Whpq (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. it looks like it could be deleted or redirected; but, if someone is, essentially, vandalizing the redirects, a better approach is probably simply requesting protection for the redirect. slakr^\ talk / 06:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Williams (Coronation Street)[edit]

Non notable character, Fails notability. Anonymous IP reverted conversation to redirect. Redirection is not really needed since character is very minor. No media coverage, no real world information, no third party sources. Magioladitis (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I just took a look at the Coronation Street characters category. Although one could argue WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS can't be used as a defence, the fact is I don't see any reason why this one character is being singled out among the dozens listed. If someone wants to push for a mass deletion ... even that wouldn't work because some characters may be more notable than others. A better idea might be to try and reach consensus on a "minor characters" article. As it stands I see no reason who single this one out. 23skidoo (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for relisting. I stand by my original opinion, only because I feel something more organized needs to happen besides picking a single article out of dozens to nominate. Another issue is the fact that Coronation Street is an institution in Great Britain; therefore one must be careful not to fall victim to WP:OSTRICH; I've seen similar mistakes made regarding character articles from Doctor Who, for example. Again, no prejudice against a relisting or revisiting of this article later; I just don't see the sense of it being the only one AFD'd. 23skidoo (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:RS etc. I reason that the other bad CS articles should also be deleted (or be merged where appropriate) instead of this one kept. Cleanup needs to start somewhere. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment The last days an anonymous IP account, a sock puppet of a blocked user, reverted some (maybe many?) redirects. Coronation street characters need a serious clean-up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 11:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Coronation_Street_characters, along with all the other nn Coronation Street character articles. If a minor characters article needs to be broken out, so be it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a completely non-notable fictional character. RMHED (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to a listing into a combination article, breaking it into parts if necessary--the question of how to arrange them is for the talk pages. Every named character there should have at least a redirect, so deletion without it is inappropriate. The onus is on the nom to indicate why a minor character shouldn't have a redirect. The reason why they should is that people may well come across the name--and how will they know it's minor if not here? Yes, I know there are a great many characters, but fortunately a/we are not paper, and b/we have editors who are interested in the series. It is, after all, an internationally notable series.DGG (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More as an attempt to explain the situation than trying to change anyone's opinion, but redirected articles (not redirects) are reverted to their former article-self without any discussion at times, and by the time it is noticed, a new merge proposal or AfD debate has to be started to confirm old consensus. That's why delete-and-redirects often suffer less abuse afterwards than just redirects. And Magioladitis noted above that improper article resurrections are already occuring for characters of this series (I haven't checked myself). – sgeureka ^t•c 10:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree it can be a problem, but it can be solved the same way many article problems here can be, by people watchlisting and paying attention. DGG (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think having literally thousands of redirects on my (anyone's) watchlist is the solution. And what happens when these watchlisting editors depart from wikipedia? (This is getting into a meta-AfD discussion, so I'll shut up now. Maybe I'll join the exciswting discussion on your talkpage.) – sgeureka ^t•c

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by British artists which reached number-one on the Hot 100 (USA)[edit]

Trivial intersections, no sources. A similar list on the European charts is also at AfD for the same reason. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:40, 14 September 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)} 00:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable intersection and per WP:SALAT. "Lists that are too specific will be of little interest to anyone except the creator of the list." Tavix (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting, but is a useless intersection. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inclining towards deletionPerhaps rewording or merge with main article would be better accepted. Stand-alone as list not acceptable. Prowikipedians (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change all to categories more suitable as subcategories of Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles. Sebwite (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable sources someone has added below do show the importance of British artists on the U.S. pop charts. Sebwite (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These would not serve purpose as a category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly strong keep. The importance of British artists reaching the Billboard number one spot, warrants the following news articles. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7316521.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7464051.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4764678.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/mar/03/arts.artsnews2 http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS175059+17-Apr-2008+PRN20080417 http://chartrigger.blogspot.com/2008/03/leona-lewis-is-first-uk-female-artist.html http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question94244.html

"Love him or hate him, the feat can't be taken away from him. James Blunt yesterday proved his global appeal when he became the first British artist to top the US charts since Elton John nine years ago.

You're Beautiful, Blunt's plaintive tale of unrequited love, finally knocked Beyoncé off the top spot." - The Guardian

"Singer Leona Lewis has become the first British woman to top the US pop chart for more than 20 years with her single Bleeding Love.

Kim Wilde was the last UK female to top the Billboard Hot 100 chart, with her 1987 cover version of the Supremes hit You Keep Me Hangin' On. " - BBC News

I hope the above has demonstrated the list is of interest to others than the creator of the list. Dmn € Դմն 00:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the influence of British (and to a lesser extent, other nations') artists on American music is significant and these lists contain useful information regarding that influence. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dmn has demonstrated above that this is a notable phenomenon. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every time a British artist tops the American charts it's huge news, take Leona Lewis as the latest example. Granted, it could use a good reference sweep, but it's very much important. Red157(talk • contribs) 00:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hop Is Dead Movement[edit]

This is an obvious piece of original research and as such has no place here. Woland (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It appears to be ok article, but it has a violation of WP:OR. However, it looks like someone didn't just blatantly make up these quotes, and we might be able to find them with a search or something. RockManQ (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above just one gigantic WP:OR violation after another. JBsupreme (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep (non-admin closure) as having more cultural significance and potential than just a Dictdef. Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant in the room[edit]

Dicdef and list of uses in film and TV. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep- I found this article helpful; that is reason enough not to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.184.238.224 (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC) keep- this is longer than a dicdef, is mentioned in multiple reliable sources (which counteracts any lack of depth of sources which most phrases would have) and AfD is not for cleanup. An article could be made from this, if people aren't happy with how it is already, which discusses he history of the phrase and so on. We have a very large category of phrases [9] including numerous subcategories. I don't mean 'other stuff exists' but that they are a valid type of article. You can see that a longer article can be made about a phrase too, in the article Hail Satan. Sticky Parkin 23:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a phrase used in a wide variety of contexts, article suitable for expansion, sourcing should be no problem. The list of uses is in fact relevant content too, but there's a lot more to say besides that. DGG (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Used extensivly on the E Series of QI. Lugnuts (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I'm not keen on articles about words or phrases, this article is (or should be) about the Elephant in the room concept rather than just the phrase, so if developed further would go beyond a dictionary definition, if it hasn't already. The first page of google results give these [10], [11], which suggest there's plenty on which to base an article.--Michig (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I share Hammer's concerns about the poor state of the article at the moment, and I'm not at all sure Lugnuts' argument is really a very persuasive keep rationale. But I think the other keep voters are right: this is a phrase on which we could have a decent encyclopedic article, and there will be plenty of sources out there. AndyJones (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody wrote a Wikipedia article about my mother-in-law? All seriousness aside: Keep due its significance within the vernacular. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as below to Elephant. notable, and easily integrated as part of cultural significance in section of larger article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elephant. Wikipedia is not a usage guide or dictionary. This seems to be just some assorted metaphorical references to elephants and so would best form a section of the main article. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore it. Isn't that what we do with elephants in our respective rooms? Or was that an 800 lb gorilla? Seriously, I'm Switzerland on this one. Shouldn't be deleted though, it could land somewhere, either in Elephant (which could anger the "Elephant" writers, or as it's own article, nicely stuffed away and not bothering anyone. An elephant in the room having a nice cup of tea.) Keeper ǀ 76 15:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Dr. Zille-Umar Qadri[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Hús ö nd 21:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No sources and no real indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until verifiable notability is expanded and established (which is an ok thing to do) this just isn't up to speed. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable--and the title calls him Dr. but he is still studying for a doctorate, accordingto the article. DGG (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 02:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as blatant and obvious misinformation (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Incaudo[edit]

Quasi-hoax article, substituting "Andrew Incaudo" into the bio of notable track star Steve Prefontaine. An article with a similar name was speedied for A7 in January. Ravenswing 20:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Article's creator User:Djstrackid has a history of vandalism, mostly in pathetic attempts to be funny. Get a life. Mandsford (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3, vandalism. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laura warwick[edit]

Non-notable self-published singer, fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V. The only working sourced referenced is her own website, and the paltry 83 hits on UK Google are all Wiki mirrors, Facebook, the personal website and blogs; nary a reliable source to be found. RGTraynor 20:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No valid assertation of notability, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC, yet. (Also, Geogre's Law.) AndyJones (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? 600 Google results for "laura warwick" "no more" - various independent media discussing the single and The Public Record Label. Don't know if it's a little early for her to have a Wikipedia page though...shooutoout (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As it happens, most of the results when trying "Laura Warwick" + "no more" on the UK Google turn out to refer to a character in a stage play. To quote from WP:V: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers." The "independent media" - largely comprised of bloggers - don't have a sterling reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. RGTraynor 14:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Covenant (Halo)#Species. MBisanz ^talk 13:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter (Halo)[edit]

This is a type of enemy found in the Halo (series) video games. The other enemies are under Covenant (Halo)#Species, and a section there for the Hunter already exists. The individual species are not worth individual articles, with the exception of Elite (Halo). Elites are noteworthy because they have their own story arc and the player can actually play as one in the later games of the series. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 20:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 20:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Mostly game guide information, and the only references are to the instruction manual and to Wikia, neither of which are considered reliable sources at the slightest. MuZemike (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete game guide information. RockManQ (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patent WP:GAMEGUIDE. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Covenant (Halo)#Species cites a wikia and a non-independent document. Not likely to be found in reliable, independent sources. However, if material is shared between this and a list, it is likely that some has been borrowed back and forth, so we might as well maintain attribution. Protonk (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There does seem to be no significant content beyond that already in the main article, but there's no reason given why a redirect isn't suitable. DGG (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the article's history notable by any means? If not, there is no reason to. It is not a viable search team as is. MuZemike (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), as notability has been confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Kinkead[edit]

Normally I object to AfDing an article too quickly, but while this fellow was a decorated fighter pilot in WWI, he topped out with a DSO and a DSC, and didn't seem to do much of anything else in his life (if the only 4 Google hits on Google South Africa are an indicator). I believe it's been held that you have to be a VC medal holder to be prima facie notable, and as it stands, the subject fails WP:BIO and WP:V RGTraynor 20:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fighter aces attract considerable public interest. Newspaper and magazine from WW I may have more details. --Eastmain (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eastmain's point about older newspapers and magazines (and likely South African sources which aren't yet digitized?) is a good one. Wikipedians tend to rely on Google too much for notability checks which are likely to fail for minor (yet encyclopedically worthy) individuals. I take the original editor(s) in good faith on this one for my advising "keep." --Quartermaster (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as one of the top aces of WWI. Also for his leading a 100-strong RAF Flight during the Russian Intervention even after the RAF offically withdrew. And for being a member of the RAF Trophy Team who died attempting to set the world speed record. Edward321 (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral In a sense, I am glad that this motion for deletion has been made. As the new guy in Wikitown, I don't have a firm grip on suitability and notability. This will give me an opportunity to learn. Please let me explain my working criteria to date,and whatever rationale I may have evolved.

I have been following the guidance so kindly provided by the man who invited me to this project, Trevor Innes. His belief, as I understand it, is that all the World War I aces are notable figures. As there are 1860 of them (according to www.theaerodrome.com), I have my doubts. Even if they are all notable, I doubt the info exists for all of them.

It has been posited that winning a Victoria Cross is the only sufficient notability. I can only assume that the equivalent medals in other nation's services would serve for them. I would like to make the following points about this approach.

1) Medals are awarded to maintain morale and keep troops fighting. Higher ranks tend to award one another as a promotional aid. These unfortunate slants taint the heroism of those that honestly earned them. Still, there it is.

2) Criteria for awarding medals varies widely from country to country, and even from case to case and from time to time. For instance, the Pour le Merite was pegged to a certain victory total. When a German pilot reached that level, he got the Blue Max. That victory total slid steadily upwards throughout the war. Many pilots scoring late in the war exceeded the victory total that had brought earlier pilots the award. Boelcke and Immelman received it in 1916 for 8 victories. By 1918, there were literally hundreds of German pilots who had 8 or more wins and didn't get the Blue Max. On the other hand, Otto Konnecke qualified--and the war ended before he could have it awarded.

3) On a personal note, I served with Fred Platt, who was twice recommended for the Medal of Honor. He didn't get it because, while he was on crutches, he defended himself against assault by a superior officer. In other words, the deserving can be shortchanged for some very shifty reasons.

4) Some relatively minor aces went on postwar to quite notable careers in either military or civil aviation. They would be deleted for lack of the requisite medals.

5) The reverse is also true. It was possible to win one of the qualifying decorations and not be an ace. That is, at the extreme, one could win it without even shooting down a single enemy.

6) Kinkead, though not winning the VC, won the Distinguished Service Order, two Distinguished Service Crosses, and two Distinguished Flying Crosses. Follow the links and make up your own mind about notability. I might add that the pilots I knew who won DFCs were very brave men indeed.

I don't know how this figures in, or even if it does, but...is colorfulness and human interest a factor? For instance, Kinkead's brother being killed at a crucial point in his career. Or Leon Bourjade interrupting theological studies to become an ace and being ordained postwar?

So then, we are in truly muddy waters here. I do have a passion for the subject, but lack guidelines and have not yet developed a feel for what fits here.

Given that I am creeping down the List of World War I Flying Aces, I am at the point where, if this article is deletable, then pretty much anything written about aces lower on the table (that is, having scored fewer victories) is deletable. I guess. Probably. Maybe. Heck, I dunno.

At any rate, I see no point in completing Kinkead just yet. Nor do I feel inclined to write other articles just to see them deleted. This is not petulance speaking, but practicality. I do have a couple of books that I am writing. I have been holding them in abeyance to write here. It seems to make more sense to me to write on them instead, at least until this shakes out.

````George J. Dorner, 18 September 2008, 2046 hours PST```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjdorner (talk • contribs) 04:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A couple relevant gbooks hits, including Aces Falling: War Above the Trenches, 1918 by Peter Hart, p.6 with "Samuel Kinkead was killed, in a sense looking to the next war and pushing back the frontiers of aerial technology, while attempting to break the world air ..." and who knows how much more; some sources are in article already John Z (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep VC is by our usual practice fully sufficient by itself, but it certainly is not necessary. Sourcing is not yet adequate, but the article is too strong to be deleted only 7 hrs after creation while it's still in progress. I think that would be too soon unless its quite clear that its going to fail our standards. People are allowed to create articles step by step. DGG (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is likely well referenced in newspapers of the time and published books. Protonk (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have done some edits and the article is now referenced and I have records that he died trying to set the new Air Speed World Record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordoliver (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a blatant copyright violation (CSD G12). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby born with penis on its back[edit]

BLP1E, N, NOTNEWS, take your pick. – iride scent 19:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N. Although I had a good laugh at But he was rushed to Tianjin Childrens' Hospital on May 27 for surgery to remove his extra manhood. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as being a copyvio of [12] and so tagged. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Xy7 (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tortience[edit]

Fails WP:NOTDICDEF. Has about 15 ghits, most of which are extracts from the novel which provides the main citation. Cites no reliable sources that demonstrate this is a real archaic word, but does provide a secondary and a tertiary source that assert it, which is why I haven't prodded it. I'd have transwikied it to Wiktionary, but not without proper sources. Ka renjc 19:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dicdefs, if notable, go in Wiktionary. This is spam for a book. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, a mere coatrack, no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable at all. abf /talk to me/ 19:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Del Rossi[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) 19:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. The character isn't notable per guidelines to warrant an individual article. RMHED (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Marco Del Rossi is only one character of the Degrassi series. By nominating this for deletion, you're saying that all of the characters should be removed. If this is true, shouldn't you then nominate all character articles? — Kendra Michele — 01:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 22:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 22:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as what appears to be a main character in a major show. I think the nomination is indeed meant to indicate the view that no character from this show or any similar show warrants an article, and presumably all character articles whatsoever. I presume he's picked this particularly strong one to try to make a case for it. The sourcing for what the character is is in the show itself, so it passes V and RS. I do not see any OR, just description. Plot description can be a major part of an article, though I would probably reduce some of the detail. The N is as a major part of a major show -- the N applies to all the major parts as well. NOT Inherited notability means we cannot assume that a derivative of the show, like a book version, was notable. The case here is different. That the nomination is for delete, not merge or redirect, should be an indication that the intent of it is that no part of the content is suitable anywhere, and that it isn't a possible search term either. As that is not asserted-- it is a nom for deletion to force a redirect or merge. Redirects and merges are gotten by discussion on the talk page--I see no attempt on the article talk page for any proposal of the alternatives. DGG (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am given no indication that this or any other deletion represents some watershed event. The nominator is just adding deletion nominations and merge suggestions of fictional subjects one by one. No part of that is some broad scheme to force us to make a proxy decision for every article out there. This particular article cites no sources (and hasn't for 6 months), covers a fictional subject in a manner that is entirely plot repetition and appears to receive at best trivial coverage from reliable sources. Protonk (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to be right, looking at the others. Thanks for the correction DGG (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think I mentioned it because you and another user had the same idea. I agree that TTN's path seems to be a broad swath of fiction sub articles, so at the end of the day we will see a deletion discussion for many, many, many articles. But I don't fear that the community will lose the ability to say "stop". Protonk (talk) 05:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with an eye towards renaming MBisanz ^talk 13:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas[edit]

Too many self-made rules for inclusion; use of WP:SYNTHESIS. Almost completely unsourced or "incorrectly" sourced. Does not distinguish between "Native American writers of anything" and "Native American writers of Native American subjects". Also a conglomerate of writers who's cultures should not all be lumped into the same list, making it a random directory. Bulldog 00:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongest possible keep - Proposing editor seems to primarily edit WP only in an effort to remove articles dealing with ethnicity, which is highly disruptive and damaging to our project, and our users' efforts to find the encyclopedic, verifiable information for which they are looking. Badagnani (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take your own advice and comment on the content, not the editor. There is no reason for "keep" anywhere in your rationale; only a grudge. Bulldog 00:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

keep - Only one rule that I see: "Self-identify as indigenous peoples." It even lets in controversial members, unless there is authoritative consensus that they are not indigenous peoples. NJGW (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem. It defines it's own inclusion criteria despite the name of the list: "It has been noted that some writers self-identify in this way without necessarily satisfying tribal membership rules or governmental requirements (e.g. blood quantum)" The fact that it "lets in" controversial members should say that the list can be seen as "controversial." Wikipedia members should not decide who is able or not able to be included in a list like this. Bulldog 22:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sooo... are you trying to say that Wikipedia shouldn't include anything on the site which is inheirently controvercial, or that Wikipedia shouldn't have any lists of "writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas"? NJGW (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary and it serves only as a resevoir for non-notable red links, revert wars, and WP:COI problems. Further, we are not allowed to have unsourced lists per policy. If nobody bothers, or sources can not be found, the only thing left is to delete the article. We have a category, and inclusion in that can only be added if it's explicitly recorded in the article, not by a wikipedia member's discretion. Bulldog 00:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"It's not necessary" is not a violation of policy... more of a POV. I also see many of the entries are sourced. Should the whole list still be deleted? NJGW (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is not to delete the article (as the proposing editor has attempted to do time and again to ethnic group articles), but simply to add a short annotation after each name, such as "Ned Martinson, novelist; maternal grandfather was Choctaw and paternal grandmother was Seminole." This would leave no ambiguity. The solution is not to delete the entire article; please stop disrupting Wikipedia to favor your point of view that ethnicity should be ignored or "cleansed" from our encyclopedia. Badagnani (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The solution is not to delete the entire article" but, apparently, the solution is not to source it and remove unverified entries either? Since you've only harrassed and edit warred with people who have tried. You need to understand that you do not own these articles, and neither do the creators. You also need to understand that WP:OCAT, though not specific to lists, has been applied numerous times, legitimately, as a guideline specifically forbidding some ethnicity lists. Lastly, please cool down and stop throwing out false accusations. Bulldog 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing is an important part of our project. However, the proposing editor actually tried to delete entire articles by blanking all text and turning the articles into redirects, without prior discussion. We must be reasonable in everything we do, and that action was clearly unreasonable. In other cases, Google Books sources from published biographies about the individuals in question were removed (see this edit). In other cases, the WP articles about these individuals stated their ethnicity. In each case, the reasonable thing to do would be to evaluate each individual, using "Discussion," and taking time to research their ethnicity and locate a source if that individual's heritage is believed to be in doubt. Simply charging in and blanking dozens, or hundreds of individuals from the lists without taking the necessary time to actually improve them, is not helpful to our users. To reiterate, sourcing is extremely important; let's work together to make all our articles have the finest sources possible, rather than simply editing WP by attempting to delete text and entire articles due to an anti-ethnic groups bias that involves "cleansing" ethnicity from our encyclopedia, as appears currently to be the case. Badagnani (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"rather than simply editing WP by attempting to delete text and entire articles due to an anti-ethnic groups bias that involves "cleansing" ethnicity from our encyclopedia, as appears currently to be the case." - Getting a little tired of the incivility. It's interesting how whenever you refer to "delete entire articles by blanking the text and turning the articles into redirects" you conveniently fail to mention that I moved all legitimate and verifiable entries to the article in which I redirect - which means it is a merge and not a "blank." Bulldog 01:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No, really--an examination of the edit history shows that the proposing editor really does only edit WP in an effort to "cleanse" ethnicity. To be fair, s/he attempts to "cleanse" all kinds of ethnicity: Jewish, Asian, European, Native American, etc., so this does show some diversity of interest. Badagnani (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right because List of songs about Oklahoma (a recent AfD I nominated), is crucial to ethnicity on wikipedia. Bulldog 03:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep - the fact that it distinguishes writers only based on ethnicity and not on which topic they write on is not a problem, at least I don't see any arguments or precedents on wikipedia to think that it is. The criteria for inclusion are straight forward, and don't suggest that editors engage in OR to include writers - they can be easily sourced. I would only add one criteria, namely that the author should have a wikipedia article before inclusion on the list. And then I would move the list to List of Indigenous American authors which in my opinion is a much better title since native americans only cover those indigenous people that live in the USA but which is not usually used about indigenous americans elsewhere. Alternatively it could be redefined to include only indigenous authors from the USA and Canada - it seems that noone has actively included authors from south of Texas anyway. The sourcing problem is solved by including only those authors that have wikipedia articles and therefore are provably notable and for whom sources exist. In this way I would support the pruning of all authors in the list that have no corresponding article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 04:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, I recommend retitling the article as the current title is a bit messy. I had to read it a couple times to make sense of it. No opinion on the AFD itself. 23skidoo (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider changing the title. List of writers by ethnicity are established practice here, as they ought to be. individual instances can be discussed at the talk page. The criteria are sufficiently clear, and the grouping meaningful. DGG (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 07:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Party[edit]

"Solar party" movement of dubious validity. Seems to be more of a marketing gimmick than a real movement. Only one article about it that seems to be connected back to company/websites also promoted in this article.Creator continues to delete tags despite requests to the contrary, and article is becoming more full of peacock terms & advertising speak as his edits continue. Weak Delete or major rewrite. Improbcat (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem? -unsigned comment left by User:Hadmanz

Keep; Tupperware meets Greenpeace. Leftfoot69 (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam until they become notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, no real movement. abf /talk to me/ 19:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether to merge, redirect, or otherwise is a matter for the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Blanc[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ — Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought nor are its articles intended to be plot summaries. MuZemike (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will certainly approve of a redirect to Onimusha 3: Demon Siege — nothing else, unfortunately. MuZemike (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Onimusha 3: Demon Siege. Edward321 (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but edit. A major character in the game; the article though i considerably over-long, and I do not wonder it has attracted unfavorable attention. But sometimes the action of fiction is best told through concentrating on the characters. Its a matter of style more than notability. I note that the nomination gives no reason why a merge or redirect would not be satisfactory. Of course a nom for deletion doesn't have to explain that, but if it's the sort of thing that can often be solved by merging, then ~~one wonders why it was nominated for deletion instead~~ it would help for this to be explained. DGG (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:ADHOM. Argue about the article not the nom. MuZemike (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring only to the statement of the nomination., sorry if it was not clear. I fixed my wording. DGG (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Character appears to play a sizable enough role to be mentioned in an article. Also, keeps the main article from becoming too long. Of course, article needs editing, paring down, etc. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nearly unanimous, and no rationale given for merging. lifebaka++ 17:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samanosuke Akechi (Onimusha)[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Again, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought nor are its articles intended to be plot summaries. MuZemike (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Onimusha (series). Edward321 (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy and notability outside the series is established. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - seems to just be an agglomoration of the plots from the individual games? If the games are notable, their plots shuld be covered in their own articles. If there is nothing more to say about this character, then an article is not needed. Good video game character articles exist, but this is not one of them. It needs referenced sections on development, and influence and reception to be near worth keeping. For now, delete.Yobmod (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Arreat[edit]

This fictional location does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a fictional locale that just isn't notable. RMHED (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Contains game guide information and original research, not to mention lacks reliable sources as the nom stated. MuZemike (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, more plot rehash. Nifboy (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Generally there is no need for separate articles n fictional locations, so it should be proposed for a merge. At the least its a reasonable search term, and could be redirected to a list of locations. I cannot tell from the article whether its the major location in the game). DGG (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable independent of the Diablo series, then redirect to an appropriate Diablo-related article. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tristram (Diablo)[edit]

This fictional location does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article contains no citations whatsoever, let alone reputable second hand sources. Non notable- it is a location in a video game series that contains no third party sources. Most of the information on the page is repeated elsewhere in other wikipedia articles. --Banime (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another fictional locale that isn't notable. RMHED (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not a you-know-what nor you-know-what. MuZemike (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more ~~plot~~ character rehash. Nifboy (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Generally there is no need for separate articles on fictional locations, so it should be proposed for a merge. At the least it's a reasonable search term, and could be redirected to a list of locations. apparently it's a major location in the game, so some information on it is necessary. DGG (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The bulk of this article is a character list, so I went to see if it could be salvaged that way. Nope, there's already an article named List of non-player characters in Diablo which expands on every piece of information in the character list. Take that out, and you are left with one sentence about Diablo, and two sentences about Diablo II. Not enough information to even pretend it's a merge.Kww (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How can a town be a list? MuZemike (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please tell me that you didn't argue for deletion without reading the article. 80% of this article is really List of Diablo characters that live in Tristram. Renaming an article is a hell of a lot easier than deleting it, so if that would have worked, that's what I would have argued for. Kww (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I took another look, and Kww is right about the nature of the article. Most of it should go, as it is just a summary of the fuller page he specifies. The general paragraph about the town , though , should still be merged somewhere. And there should still be a redirect in any case. DGG (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I looked at it; it just seems confusing as you say named as such. MuZemike (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ace Combat X: Skies of Deception. MBisanz ^talk 13:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gleipnir (Ace Combat)[edit]

This fictional item does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Original research does not pay. MuZemike (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more plot rehash. Nifboy (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Generally there is no need for separate articles on fictional weapons, so it should be proposed for a merge. It seems from this and the game article Ace Combat X: Skies of Deception that this weapon is a key element in the game, but the main article gives almost no information. Therefore just a redirect is inappropriate, and a merge of the content is necessary. DGG (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some very minor expansion may be required in the game article, but so little that calling it a merge is only a technicality.Kww (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

surely deciding how much should be merged is an editing question, not one for AfD. And anyway we'd need the redirect. DGG (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and it looks like an anon already merged it to List of nations of Ace Combat... ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 15:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Megami Tensei monsters, bosses, and creatures[edit]

This list is pure trivia and game guide material. The overall fact that the enemies are based off of other fictional elements and the like is important (if sourced correctly), but the actual instances are not. TTN (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic in presentation and scope, and constitutes original research (or at least, excessive reliance on primary material) for the most part. Could be replaced by the line "many creatures in Megami Tensei have mythical antecedents". Protonk (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Contains nothing but WP:GAMEGUIDE information as well as being heavily-laden with original (primary) research. MuZemike (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Far too excessive detail. It's like saying "The items in Disgaea frequently have humorous descriptions or other accompanying texts" and then the going on to post every, single, one. Nifboy (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

excessive details? its just a list of the items, not a description of them. DGG (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: For failing WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:VGSCOPE, in addition to lacking the reliable third-party sources to meet its research WP:BURDEN. Completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. non-notable/poorly-sourced neologism; wiktionary would toss it away, as well. slakr^\ talk / 07:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Botsourcing[edit]

This article fails WP:NOT, primarily that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JBsupreme (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my rationale provided as nominator, this is a non-notable neologism unsupported by reliable third party sources. And even if it were, its still a dictionary definition. JBsupreme (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the nominator need a bold faced vote in addition to the nomination text? Chris Picone! 19:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even independent of "not a dictionary", there's no sources of the term even being used. Chris Picone! 19:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Botsourcing. I think this explains the origin of the term. Kinkydarkbird (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wictionary As per WP:NOT 83.100.203.53 (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary This is a useful word which should be documented in Wiktionary. Tommy (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SuperStuffed Nicktoons Weekend[edit]

Non-notable. The article is unsourced and contains possible original research, as well. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I often refer to people wanting to make Wikipedia into a TV Guide on steroids, and this is one of the worst examples I have seen. Might as well just yank a few pages out of Nick's program schedule and past them in here. WP:NOT has a section on other terrible ideas, and this is one of them.Kww (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:WHOCARES. It's Thankgiving and everyone at the network is home, so they marathon stuff. Like every other cable channel. Non-notable, crufty, easily forgettable (no one except the obsessed care about cartoon ratings, they just want to be entertained for a half-hour), and contributed by an editor who has had many articles of this ilk deleted for the same reasons. Nate • (chatter) 03:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also added the title 100 Greatest Moments in Nicktoons History, which was prodded in late August, but just merged into this mess without care and redirected into this article. Nate • (chatter) 05:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled sixteenth Styx Album[edit]

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 16:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete you know the drill. JuJube (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 19:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hammer No sources, no title. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smash it with the crystal hammer. MuZemike (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kill with the crystal hammer. The Man in the Rock (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imogen Heap's third studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Imogen Heap's third studio album

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 16:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your reasons are not valid. The article is very well referenced, I've used official announcements by Imogen Heap herself through her YouTube channel and her Twitter page; I've not included my speculations or thoughts, it's all from those sources so it is not speculation. The title for the album is unknown yet, but the article contains "enough verifiable information for a decent article even if the title is not known". I strongly disagree with your nomination. --danBLOO (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We don't know the album name, the release date or the track listing. What verifiable information is there beyond "I'm recording a new album and here are some of the songs I'm considering?" RGTraynor 17:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you know the drill. JuJube (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure speculation, very little real, sourced information. Maybe just a mention on the Imogen Heap article that she has announced a new album in the future would be sufficient. --Sapphire Flame (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this speculation. Sourced info should be the artist's article. Cliff smith ^talk 19:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of Crystal Ballin --Banime (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hammer No sources, no title. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hammertime! Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MuZemike (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete via WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. The Man in the Rock (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Xy7 (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdays, Funerals And Things In Between[edit]

Non-notable unreleased album with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and is an un-notable crystal ball article. --Pmedema (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any WP:RS for this album and it fails WP:CRYSTAL. It can be recreated if/when the album is released and there are some reliable sources. Bláthnaid ^talk 18:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 19:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL; WP:MUSIC; WP:N --> Delete abf /talk to me/ 19:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), as notability has been firmly established (and let's not forget the film's star and writer is a very famous Academy Award-winning performer). Ecoleetage (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13th Child[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Lack of Notability Barton Foley (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for nomination:

The reviews for the film located on Rotten Tomatoes are from website reviews that are not what one would call mainstream or notable being mainly personal websites or personal blog not connected to a mainstream publication or newspaper. Any coverage of the film appears to be trivial.

The link to the director redirects to an American politician named “Thomas W. L. Ashley” which led me to believe the director was not one of note. An IMDB search indicated that this is the director’s first film, and he has not directed any other films since this movies release in 2002.

The actors in the film seem to be on the downward arc of their careers, this does not make the film less notable, but the presence of once notable actors in the twilight of their acting career should not be given undue weight for notability.

In the six year since the films release it does not appear, via an internet search, to have garnered a following among academics, not being used to illustrate any points of filmmaking, nor has it been cited as a milestone or other achievement in US filmmaking. Nor have critics taken a renewed interest in the film or otherwise made it part of a noted film festival. I could find no references to the film being shown at film festivals of large repute or note.

The film was a low budget direct to DVD release. This is not in itself a strike against notability, but in the six years since its release, the film appears to have not garnered a “cult following” or made a crap ton o’ money like “The Blair Witch Project”. The film has not been picked up by a major since its release for release or other large marketing scheme. It seems to have languished in obscurity. Barton Foley (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep - This is a low budget horror movie (although it has some notable stars and was written by Cliff Robertson) so what do you expect?? I added some more reviews and the listing at Turner Classic Movies. They think it's notable!!! miniluv (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The TMC link is just a box blurb summary, like a IMDB entry. If it has been shown on TMC...Barton Foley (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it has been shown on TCM or not. I do know that TCM doesn't include all movies like IMDB does. For example 152 (film) (which you also nominated for deletion) isn't included and it was a featured selection at 2 separate film festivals!!! miniluv (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be an argument that 152 (film) is notable. Not so helpful for this film. Barton Foley (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added 2 articles from the New York Times and 1 from Publishers Weekly. Notable enough now? miniluv (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews in the New York Times and Publishers Weekly clearly indicate that this article meets our notability guideline. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that all who are interested read the three new added links. One is about the Jersey Devil and only mentions the movie in passing, one is a mentioning of the film being made and the other is about the book the film is based on. Barton Foley (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times article is all about the movie and is substantial. The Publishers Weekly article is half about the book and half about the movie. Regardless, neither is a trivial mention. Honestly, if you don't think that the NYT article constitutes the kind of coverage we're looking for for WP:N, then I don't know what would. -Chunky Rice (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that it was not appropirate coverage, I was asking that people read the NYT and PW links and decide for themselves, rather then (within the context of this AfD) take them at face value. Barton Foley (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well done on the referencing part; It clearly shows that there is enough coverage for presumed notability. As the notability of this article is no longer a problem as far as i can see, its definately a keep. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 07:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping: Unless someone has any objections, I agree with Chunky Rice and Excirial that the references lend themselves to presumed notability, and will withdraw this AfD in about 24-36 hours. Barton Foley (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are waiting to withdraw the nomination if you now agree that it's notable. miniluv (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as people have pointed out to me, there is no rush to do things here. And if someone has an arguement as to why this film is not notable, I would be interested in hearing their perspective and views on the topic. I have had my say, you yours, and I would be interested in hearing as many others perspectives before this matter is resolved. Barton Foley (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —miniluv (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability per WP:RS and WP:V is established. A non-admin clussure or a nom withdrawal is in order per the nom's own admission that notability exists... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect - nobody would search for "Circuit Lane (Reading)". — Xy7 (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit Lane (Reading)[edit]

Non-notable suburban road. Not even notable enough for a redirect. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unlike towns roads aren't inherently notable and this one doesn't have anything I can find that makes it important/significant. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is trivial in the extreme. No attempt has been made to establish notability whatsover. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 15:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southcote, Berkshire. People often look up their own addresses, so could easily be a search term. JASpencer (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David F. Hoenigman[edit]

Subject does not appear to meet notability criteria. All I'm finding on Google with "David F. Hoenigman -MySpace -Facebook -Wikipedia" are 897 hits, most of which appear to be selling his books without useful reviews. I get about a third of that putting his name in quotes. The article has very little useful content. I've deleted this twice under CSD A7, but am bringing it here according to my personal rule of only deleting something twice for the same reason. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete article blatantly only exists to sell books therefore it's spam. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt since he's obviously not learning if it's been deleted twice already. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Excepting Willis Bates and Harry Huston, as they satisfy WP:ATHLETE.

This AfD had quite a few arguments to it. It appears that the NAIA teams (small colleges) are equated with NCAA division III. As such, their athletes would fail notability for athletes, as they have not competed at the highest level (NCAA division I) of amateur sports.

But, that's also assuming that a coach could be grouped an athlete, so that would be cause for falling back on general biographical notability; however, the subjects are not recipients of notable awards nor made widely-recognized contributions in their specific field— at least, the articles do not assert that. J. J. Thiel's article, for example, states that he is the "9th most successful coach in Southwestern's history." That makes this individual the 9th successful coach at the 3rd successful grouping of college teams. Finally, falling back to the more general notability guidelines, there is no demonstrated widespread media coverage from independent, reliable sources.

Some arguments allude to Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Notability. This is neither a policy nor guideline, nor is it supported by consensus from the entire community. In fact, it could be seen as contradictory to the official notability guidelines.

Finally, there are arguments that a bundled afd is inappropriate; however, there is neither a guideline nor policy discouraging it. In practice, it is actually encouraged that afds are grouped into one page if the nominator believes, in good faith, that the articles will meet the same rationale and that none of them would be likely to survive on their own. There appears to be no malice in this nomination, as they all appear to be Southwestern College Moundbuilders Head Football Coaches, and the rationale was that simply being a coach at the non-highest-level of an amateur team does not, in and of itself, satisfy notability guidelines— a notion that it appears is supported by consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West, for example. --slakr^\ talk / 08:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. Thiel[edit]

Obscure football coach for a low-level NAIA college, fails WP:BIO, WP:V. No biographical information other than his won-loss record. See other recent AfDs on similarly obscure coaches for similarly obscure colleges: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Holm, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McCracken, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West.

I am also nominating the following related pages, all for coaches at this school, and all which lack any biographical information save for their years coached and won-loss records:

As a side note, I am not nominating seven of the coaches from this school, four because there is evidence of their independent notability, three because while I feel they are not notable, an assertion of notability is made sufficient that their inclusion in a bundled AfD is inappropriate. RGTraynor 15:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 19 September 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)).

Please Move Discussion All of a sudden, there are a large number of college football head coach articles being considered for deletion. There has always been a trickle--one or two at a time, but my current count shows 28 [Wikipedia:WikiProject College football#Articles & Pages being considered for deletion|articles for deletion]], and I'm sure I'm missing many. One editor has achieved a deletion of Walter J. West and is now claiming "precedent" to delete coaches. I suggest (and have been suggesting for some time now) moving these argument to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Notability so that we can have a uniform and open discussion about what truly makes a notable college football coach. This will prevent arguing article-at-a-time and help to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. It will prevent a "scramble" on both sides of the argument and make for a single place to come to a true consensus instead of a hit-or-miss end result.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not at all against people having general discussions, and when and if WP:ATHLETE is amended to explicitly grant prima facie notability to coaches of even the lowest possible levels of college ball, of course we ought to rule on black letter policy. RGTraynor 02:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and precedent at Walter J. West. Dpmuk (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Walter J. West is not precedent, but one AfD that "slipped through" the process. There many, many, many, many other articles very very similar that have passed the AfD process. Oh, and since I now have to go put this on a whole bunch of other AfDs, this once again supports my reasoning to please move the discussion to a single location.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: Mm, if you've seen other Div III or NAIA coaches without any biographical info that have survived AfD, feel free to cite them, but I don't believe there are any. That being said, fourteen editors advocated deletion on the West article, which is not "slipping through" anything. Among them, the sentiment was very broadly held that (to choose one of the less caustic quotes) "[A] Wikiproject does not make policy that can override site-wide policy." That's considerably more consensus than actually levied "Support" or "Oppose" opinions on CFB:COACH. RGTraynor 14:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: I feel justified calling it a precedent for three reasons:
    - These articles are unlike many other articles that you gave in the West case as most of those other articles had significantly more detail and often other claims to notability. Hence there AfDs aren't precedent for this case.
    - Consensus can change (see WP:CCC). As Walter J. West is a very recent discussion I feel happy saying that's a precedent where as I'd be less happy saying some of the older discussions were a relevant precedent.
    - Walter J. West got comments from a lot of editors - certainly more than for any of the other AfDs mentioned - so again IMO this makes it the most valid precedent.

AfDs are an area for discussion. If I want to call it a precedent I'm quite entitled to and you're quite entitled to disagree (which you obviously do). Given that it's meant to be a discussion and people will often disagree I do not find your language or the use of bold to be helpful - please try to respect other user's opinions even when you disagree with them. (Only going to post this on one AfD at the moment). Dpmuk (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Talk Precedence Please forgive the table in this discussion... it bears scrutiny.

[ Table moved to Discussion page]

If "Precedence" is the true guidance on this, the result must indeed be keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Actually that would be a WP:WAX arguement and is not a very good one. Nevermind the fact that a number of those were non-admin closures and should never have been closed by a non-admin, and one was withdrawn. So there really isn't any "Precedence" going your way either. -Djsasso (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question why is it "precedence" when there is one AfD discussion that says "delete" and "WAX" when twenty-four say keep? And remember, I didn't bring up precedence... the deletion argument did.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Table and rebuttal moved to the Talk page for discussion. RGTraynor 19:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You already raised this issue in the Holm AfD, and if you require a reiteration, so be it. (1) Dahlene passes WP:ATHLETE as a prominent kicker for a major college program and WP:PROF as a college president, both long-held to be prima-facie passes; (2) Moulton's nomination was withdrawn after you claimed that he was an Olympic athlete, another prima facie pass on WP:ATHLETE, although your evidence for the same never was revealed or made it into the article; which was in fact in error, because the Olympic athlete was Fay R. Moulton, who has his own Wikipedia article; (3) Taylor was a state official prominent in the civil rights controversies of the 1950s; (4) Wright was elected to a Hall of Fame ... so all those are discredited.

1) I added a merge tag to Moulton several months ago because I thought they might be the same person. It turns out that they were not as SYSS Mouse confirmed on May 8 (check the history of the page). 2) Fay G. Moulton was a head coach at Kansas State University which is now a Division I FBS school and not related to this discussion at all. You can read about it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fay G. Moulton. Yes, the nominator withdrew and it appears it may have been for that reason (or may not, read closely), but there was no intent on my part to mislead anyone. 3) A "guideline" is not the same thing as a "policy". "Guidelines" are used for notability essays. 4) CFB:COACH specifically states it is an essay and any editor can check the page to verify. 5) How does continually calling me a liar when there are historical archives of the pages that anyone can look at comply with "black letter of policy throughout" ?? Wikipedia is about truth, not falsehoods and you have obviously been digging like crazy into my editing and contribution history.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gottsch, Stevens and the SINGLE Prairie View mass AfD, I'll grant you, a decision based upon your misleading inference that CFB:COACH was an official notability guideline and a misreading of the then-current wording of "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)" from WP:ATHLETE. You failed completely to cite, in those AfDs, that the coaches neither competed at the highest level in amateur sports (that being Division I NCAA football), nor that they met the general criteria of secondary sources. DJ's also dead right in that all but one of those AfDs was closed by a non-admin, which they are not allowed to do for any result other than an unambiguous, non-controversial Keep, and was therefore a heavy violation of process, so much so that the editor responsible for most of them had a 75% Oppose vote at his subsequent RfA on the strength of his poor closures. Are you sure you want to claim those AfDs as supporting your case? RGTraynor 19:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question can you please cite the source or policy covering non-admin closures of AfDs? One other time an admin stated that it was policy that only admins could close AfDs but that was false. If you have new-different-more clear information, can you please present it before we go further?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem: WP:DPR#NAC, which holds: "Editors in good standing who have not been made administrators may close deletion discussions, with the following provisions ... Deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus and taking account of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you are not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, it is best that you only close discussions with unambiguous results ... Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator ..." RGTraynor 20:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All fails WP:BIO, WP:V. -Djsasso (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question RGT, have you checked that none of these had a professional career? That was a problem with some of the other nominations in these groups of articles.. And I'm also thinking of some similar cases where a few of the apparently non-notable athletes later became state legislators, or notable surgeons, or whatever.-- Agreed its the article authors fault for not checking & inserting the information, but so should we before we delete. But I thing your careful approach here is very reasonable, it would just help to know what you have checked. DGG (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: While deletion policy holds that it is the responsibility of editors who want to save an article to provide sources and prove notability, not the responsibility of noms to prove otherwise, pro-football-reference.com has no record that any of the subjects listed above played pro football. RGTraynor 12:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response that would be unlikely for many of them... Thiel, for example, coached for the 1903-1904 seasons. The NFL didn't start until 1920. This was most definitely the highest level of the expression of the sport at the time for many of these coaches. Think history.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So find offline sources that prove they are notable. You have 7 days to do so, if you just sit here and argue then of course they will be deleted. -Djsasso (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timely? For these and 57 other articles. See AfD talk page, that's hardly enough time to address and improve articles on them all. Sorry I don't devote my life 24/7 to Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or the months and months since the articles were created. -Djsasso (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a cheap shot, DJ, and adds nothing to the discussion. Please retract it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's no more counterproductive than claims that, for articles now nearly a year old, the project that engendered them hasn't been given enough time to improve them. RGTraynor 16:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they weren't given enough time to make some improvements, but demanding that 57 articles suddenly improve all at the same time virtually guarantees that some will not be fixed, even if they can meet WP standards. I'm simply saying that that this is an unreasonable demand in general. Moreover, the "months and months" comment doesn't help anything and only serves to inflame the discussion into areas that are not directly related to the deletion discussion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I'd like to add to it that there have been many, many articles that started out as stubs that have been improved! You can start by looking at the other coaches at this school in question and checking their history. Start with Harold Elliott and go from there. By placing these stub articles out, many other editors have been easily able to collaborate and grow articles. Deleting these articles will lose that benefit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, Wikipedia is not an indiscrminate collection of information. See also WP:BIO, WP:V, and WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request As discussed on the AfD talk page, if this article (or any of the series of articles) is closed as a delete, please kindly first move the article to User:Paulmcdonald/Articlename, where "Articlename" is the name of the article (or articles) being removed. Also, please note the new page location at User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach so we can be sure to find the moved page.
Why? There have been, at present count, 58 articles of our project placed on the AfD list and there is just not enough time to adequately and appropriately respond and ultimately improve the articles themselves. This would give the project memebers time to work on improving the articles. This request should in no way imply that I believe that the article (or articles) in quesiton should be deleted at this time. I am making a simple cut-n-paste request due to the sheer volume of AfDs in such a short period of time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Harry Huston. He satisfies all policies and has played professional baseball at the highest level. No opinion on any of the others. Wizardman 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harry Huston. He reached a major league, making him notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Alex (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This information on Harry Huston was just added today, and while of course WP:ATHLETE gives Harry Huston, the baseball player, a free pass, I'd be interested in Paul McDonald's (who added the info) evidence that we're talking about the same fellow. While I understand the temptation to believe that contemporaneous Harry Hustons in Kansas must be the same fellow, the chronology holds that while he was supposedly attending the University of Kansas in Lawrence, he also did a stint as a head coach for Southwestern College in Winfield, KS, as a sophomore, with the campuses a hundred miles apart, which seems a bit of a stretch. Is there any actual proof that these are the same fellow, or is this speculation? RGTraynor 03:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response it wasn't all that uncommon for someone to participate at a school for baseball in the spring and not attend that school in the fall. From everyone that I can reach at the time, it appears to be the same person. Hard, linkable, online proof? Nope. But it is more than reasonable. If it does turn out to be a different person (like the crazy coincidence of the two Fay Moultons at Kansas State) then of course we fix it right away. But it's a good faith contribution.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, do you have any paper evidence that shows these two are the same person? For that matter, is there any evidence that the Huston who played on the Phillies is the same as the one who played for the Lowell Tigers? "Harry Huston" isn't that unusual a name. Zagalejo^^^ 03:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No paper evidence, no. As this is an AfD, I'm throwing it out to the community for collaboration and support. I did attempt to mark it with a fact tag, but it looks like that didn't work. I suppose the Lowell Tigers player could be different now that you mention it, but I have a good deal of confidence that the KU/Philadelphia player is the SC head coach. Same region, same time period, low population base, common for the time period...--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Fay Moultons is indicative of the problem. We can't just assume that people of similar names just must be the same person, because you've already been proven to be dead wrong in such an assumption. (Heck, I can find three "Harry" or "Harold" Hustons in Kansas today.) "From everyone that I can reach at the time, it appears to be the same person." What makes you say that? What precisely is your evidence? Online's not necessary; if you have a newspaper cite, that's what the Boston Public Library is for. RGTraynor 04:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I just called the Southwestern College library to see whether they have any biographical info on Huston-the-coach. The library staffer on duty said that she couldn't find any, and that she didn't really know of anyone else there who could help me. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we're able to come up with any evidence that the two Hustons are the same person, I think his article should be kept, as with all MLB players. If they aren't, or we aren't able to verify that they are, then I think we should still keep the article, but remove all reference to the football coaching until such time as it can be verified. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. No matter how it shakes out, an article on the baseball player is warranted. RGTraynor 19:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed I'm good with that, actually.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request Please consider Willis Bates separately. He also coached at what was once called "Fairmount College" that became Wichita State University. There's some more detail for him from the others.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find this nomination, well ... obscene, there are 19 articles here and another 9 that I'm aware of. Surely other means to address some problem could have been attempted instead of taxing everyone's time and energy. -- Banjeboi 23:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be more specific, it was suggested to run a RfC regarding the essay of the related wikiproject to directly address concerns.
- A merge of all these coaches from the same school into a list tied to the history of the football team might be an elegant solution. If any of the coaches gets enough coverage to warrant their own article then re-create it. The football team is notable but is part of the schools sports article, take the content from there and add the coaching info and viola! -- Banjeboi 00:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Xy7 (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.G.A.S.[edit]

spam article containing fake inline citations previously tagged for speedy but, speedy tag removed without explaination by anon user. Instead of speedy tagging again or risking PROD tag removal I figured best to bring it straight here for consensus. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of reliable sources. Would support G11 due to the extremely spammy language. However, I think calling the citations "fake" is going a little far. Perhaps we can assume good faith and say that the creator, new to Wikipedia, doesn't understand how footnotes are typically used. gnfnrf (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is very confusing, doesn't seem to be all that notable, and the footnotes are bogus. Someone should inform the creator of the article how footnotes are usually used. Tempodivalse (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pierce Williams[edit]

Article created by same user as AfD-nominated Dylan Jones (musician). No evidence for this drummer performing with Pennywise, Jerkwater, The Toadies or ‎The Aquabats. Fails WP:V. Tassedethe (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Xy7 (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 06:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references and none appear to be available. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted before. — Xy7 (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demonata Book 9[edit]

This article contains very little text - unworthy of its own article. No references, citations or even external links. It focuses on a book that has not yet been written: see - Template:Demonata called "Demonata - Dark Calling". I see no need to keep this article until substantial information on the book emerges. . .Until then, if the user wishes, the information could be merged with the main article - Superflewis (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my nom --Superflewis (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant CRYSTAL BALLery. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 14:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Xy7 (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Guy Calvert[edit]

Suspected hoax. No relevant ghits for this person except this obituary. No trace of a French existentialist philosopher either, the Denis Boucher linked is a baseball player. Tassedethe (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original article was an unsourced not notable obituary, which later was added to with unsourced claims that would have made it notable. The additions/changes appear more to be vandalism.--Pmedema (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced at best, likely hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete smells like fish Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect title. A reasonable case for merging this content has been made here, and in the previous AFD. I need to also add that I am not merging (for one thing, it isn't decided really exactly where this should be merged. Please use Talk:Snotling to discuss possible locations. Keeper ǀ 76 15:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snotling[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article was nominated before for failing WP:NOTE, with a result of "no consensus". Since that time no effort has been made to assert notability - all the sources provided merely mention the subject in passing. There is no real world context to the article, and it still consists almost entirely of WP:PLOT -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 12:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no independent third-party sources which feature the Snotling as a primary subject. Fictional race with only minor import even within the game universe; the notes on metabolism and origin et cetera can be fully covered in Ork (Warhammer 40,000) or greenskin or another extant article which already contains most or all of it anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to one of the many "orky" articles. At least one of them somewhere should meet the criteria for inclusion. Although, I feel I must again point out that they aren't just a 40K thing).Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Normal way of handling these, no need to bring it here--talk page consensus is what was needed. DGG (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as I suggested last time. The last AfD has an exhaustive overview of the possible sources and their relationship to the subject (result: nil). The previous close resulted from vociferous and repeated opposition to deletion that largely amounted to WP:ILIKEIT or "it's notable". The article doesn't cite independent sources covering the subject and (just like the rest of the GW sub-articles), few are likely to exist. The article was redirected after the no consensus close but that redirect was reverted citing WP:IAR. Since then, no further sources have been added and no improvements made. IF someone feels this is a likely search term, they can make a redirect after deletion, but this article doesn't meet wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Protonk (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, we have learned since then--myself too, I said keep at the first afd-- and nobody here is proposing to keep the article as is. Now we have consensus for the merge, and it can be enforced. DGG (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too specific and specialized for Wikipedia. I'm happy for anything that's sourced to be merged as DGG suggests. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 14:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the "delete" reasons given in the first AfD. Any "references" appear to be insubstantial, trivial (in the truest sense of the word), and/or not independent of Games Workshop (please see, for example, the analysis of purported references I gave in the last AfD). --Craw-daddy | T | 10:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge, too specialised for WP (although i've heard of them somehow?!) Remake a redirect if needed. If there are articles on the Orc-type warhammer races, don't they already have all the relevant info, so merging would be purely for show?Yobmod (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- edit: checked greenskins - each race has only a single sentence, and Snotlings already covered, but if that article is to be their only representation, no problem to merge the 1 other cited info from here to there (changed vote).Yobmod (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.. — Xy7 (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 1 Series 2 Waterloo Road[edit]

Not-notable enough to have its own article. Fails WP:NOTABLE. Also contains no reliable sources. D.M.N. (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

D.M.N. (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 13:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, as they appear to be word-for-word duplicates of information found at List of Waterloo Road episodes, which is actually quite a good listing of the episodes. Even if they are kept, which I guess is possible, they need to be renamed to the form "Episde Title (Waterloo Road Episode)", or some such format. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Duplicate information (WP:SPINOUT), no evidence of notability (WP:N) or sources (WP:V, WP:RS). Since the show doesn't even give its episodes titles, the titles of these articles aren't likely search terms, and thus redirects aren't needed either. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplication of other material. I bet there's probably a wikiessay similar to WP:HAMMER to be had regarding untitled episodes, along the lines of "if the series can't be bothered to even name its episodes, are the episodes really notable enough for individual articles?" 23skidoo (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no outstanding delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawn sweeper[edit]

Contested prod. I'm not sure where to begin here. Article is a mix of a dictionary definition, advertising, and original research. I would have tagged this for speedy, but was not sure where to put it. TN‑X-Man 18:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lawn mower. I know, mowing and sweeping are different tasks, but people generally do not purchase two separate machines for this purpose. Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Extremely weak and feeble~~ Keep In its present form this article fails WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:V too (the "refs" are both links to commercial sites selling the machines). However, the lawn sweeper does appear to exist as a specialist piece of kit which is different from the lawn mower, so I'm not sure a redirect is appropriate. With all the howtos excised and a rewrite to make it more encyclopaedic, this would make a decent gardening stub. Ka renjc 17:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a separate device. Many manufacturers. IDONTUSEIT is not a reason to delete. DGG (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to leaf sweeper, since it sounds like the same device. (If not, then someone should clarify the differences.) I'd also suggest cleaning up the how-to information in lawn sweeper, although it's sort of ironic to suggest cleaning up an article about a tool used to clean up. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, I have attacked this article, removing all the howto and starting to Wikify. I'm going to redirect Leaf sweeper to Lawn sweeper because it seems to be a more widespread term for the same article, judging from the gardening websites out there. I'll alter the ((types of tools)) template accordingly. Ka renjc 18:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am willing to withdraw this nomination based on the excellent cleanup by Karenjc, if there are no objections. Good work! TN‑X-Man 18:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11. Spam from a spam account. Nuked under G11 and nuked the editor at the same time. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 12:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loftlife magazine[edit]

Article created by someone with a WP:COI about a new magazine which is currently only being sold in a test market. Tagged for numerous issues, the article is WP:SPAM and fails to assert WP:N. Ros0709 (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Wooten (trooper)[edit]

I am the author of this page. I copied over the background of Mike Wooten in the expectation that the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal article was becoming too filled with information, that it had to be split into a 2nd subarticle. Now that significant edits have been made to the original article, that issue is no longer evident. All information about Wooten is sufficient as it pertains to the investigation, and by that measure, there is plenty of "fat" to trim from this article as well, plus the fact that this article has become a coatrack, now that the original is in working order again. But in doing so, it would become a clone of the text in the original article. The information in Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal is able to cover everything without the need of summary. Duuude007 (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal article, which has a lot of detail about Wooten, is already at 66kb. Furthermore, it will continue to grow for some time, as there are new developments practically every day. Just yesterday, some legislators filed a lawsuit to stop the investigation, and the state Attorney General said that state employees would not testify in response to subpoenas. These are just the latest procedural developments; we can expect further substantive revelations, as well. As the article grows, it will become even more important for the extensive detail about Wooten to be moved to the Wooten bio article, with only a summary left behind. Let's keep the separate Wooten article at least until the situation stabilizes, when we could consider consolidation. JamesMLane t c 16:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge ~~& redirect~~ to Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. See WP:ONEEVENT. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I second this, ~~with a redirect~~. edit: Nevermind, I just saw the disambig page. --Soyweiser (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there ever was a WP:BLP1E, this is it. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (leaving a redirect to Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal) per nominator (article is redundant) and others (one-event BLP). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Leave redirect, this article is an attempt to WP:COAT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzel (talk • contribs)

Hey now (in response Arzel's accusation), I didn't create it as an attempt to make a coatrack. But I did submit it for deletion because I agree that is what it has become. Duuude007 (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per A.B. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. Delete per previous BLP1E arguments. The redirect is unnecessary since the Mike Wooten disambiguation links directly to the dismissal article, providing more information than "Mike Wooten (trooper)". I skimmed the history of the main article since this subarticle's creation, and I didn't see any copying back that would create GFDL concerns. Flatscan (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E suggests, Cover the event, not the person. The overall event (Monegan's dismissal) is notable and has its own article. Wooten, his career, the investigation into his conduct, and his suspension in 2006 are not independently notable. Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you mention no redirect, but I would like to note that Walt Monegan, the other minor name on the same page, also has a redirect that goes to the page. If this one has no redirect, then that one ought to be removed too under your logic. I would support whichever decision is consistent between both of them. Duuude007 (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Monegan has his own article. What Flatscan is saying is that the article Mike Wooten (without the parentheical) is a disamb page, which identifies the trooper (as distinguished from the ball player) and links to Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. Thus, no redirect is needed. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Kelly ^hi! 04:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the creator of the page has requested it and has given compelling reasons for doing so, even without having to consider BLP. 23skidoo (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 23skidoo and Kelly. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim it to it's bare essentials. Since much of the info is already in the Troopergate article it is redundant here. But to delete it because he's just famous for one thing, is inconsistent. Bob Beamon was also basically notable for just one thing, all his subsequent fame came from that one jump, we wouldn't have known about his Black Power positions hadn't he made that jump. Yet, I don't see calls for deleting his entry. Plus, Mike Wooten, (or if you will, the Mike Wooten case,) will affect much more people than Beamon, so to delete him, would go against the notable policy. Keep and trim, and move appropriate info to the Troopergate article.--CrashTestSmartie (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all, and WP:BLP1E. Grsz ^talk 15:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep BLP1E does not apply given that his career is now a national issue. Weak keep only, because I'm skeptical about breaking down each of her publicized deeds into separate articles. In any case there is a problem with excessive detail--The article needs editing. DGG (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To add, his career is no longer merely a national issue, it's international now. Therefor I agree, that BLP1E does not apply. --CrashTestSmartie (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with its current separate state as a WP:COAT is also the fact that it could gain numerous inaccuracies that aren't properly maintained, as the source article receives every day. There are plenty of those even now, if I compare the fixes that have been made to the source article. Who will commit to keeping this WP:BLP article WP:NPOV, and judge the right time to move over content from the original article, summarizing it there? That is a massively daunting task. If noone in this conversation is willing to step up to that, I urge "keep" voters to reconsider whether this article will really do what it was intended to do: tell the facts accurately as an encyclopedia. Duuude007 (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Or at the very least change the article to be about the controversy over his firing, as it is worthy of an article. Merge with redirect as this remains an important topic. Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 00:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, did you read the nominator's reason for deletion? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.190.207 (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — Individual is notable under the biography guidelines as I read them, and most of the arguments for deletion seem to be regarding items that can be fixed by an editor, such as duplication of material and insufficient coverage of other aspects of his life. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information is important and should remain easily accessible. The Alaska Public Safety Comissioner Dismissal (APSCD) article has at least two layers: the underlying issues surrounding mr. Mike Wooten, and the processes surrounding mr. Walt Monegan. Regarding the article maintenance problems, I suggest that the APSCD article should concentrate on the latter layer, and refer to the Mike Wooten article for the first layer. I believe the intelligent reader will want to know if there is any real substance to the allegations against Mike Wooten, before judging the second layer. Due to the size of the text, it is much easier to estimate said substance based on a dedicated article. PerezTerron (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep STOP DELETING PAGES ON WIKIPEDIA! IF THERE IS DUPLICATION, REMOVE IT! IMPROVE NOT DESTROY! Chendy (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the point, the whole article is inherently a duplicate of the source. it should be removed in its entireity, and at most have a redirect go back to the source. Duuude007 (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep per DGG. Issues that have gotten international coverage are hard to claim there is a BLP1E issue. Moreover, BLP1E is intended by and large for flash-in-the-pan style things, not serious corruption scandals. Finally, if one of our underlying ideas behind BLP is "do no harm" then that isn't an issue here. Given the vast amount of continuing coverage there's no way a Wikipedia article influences that at all. However, even given all that, I don't think I'll complain loudly if this is redirected to Troopergate which has most of this material anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Investigation is heating up and ongoing, so there is interest in Wooten. Wikipedia isn't paper. We66er (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. or nomination withdrawn, take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armands Strazds[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This subject is not notable. A search for independent resources has yielded nothing and it is not even clear whether or not the composers works have ever been performed professionally. Furthermore, this article was deleted in an AFD two years ago and then recreated by the same SPA account that created it the first time with no one noticing.Nrswanson (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He may be more prominent in Latvia, but access to their press is difficult. This is what I could find:

List of publications on official web site + Google Scholar results
Nomination for what appears to be a theatre award (Spēlmaņu Nakts) in Latvian.
Interview in the Latvian music journal, Mūzikas Saule.
Something on Latvijas Radio 1 (The national public radio station. Haven't got a clue what it says)
About a performance of his oratorio Gitanjali (in German)
Something about music he composed for the film Dark Wave – Im Flug der Libellen in the Newsletter of Deutsch-Polnische Gesellschaft der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (in German)

I'll post a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latvia and see if they can shed any light.Voceditenore (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Never heard of him, but I'm not interested in Latvian music and theatre. But as for your link collection - Spēlmaņu Nakts is a seasonal award ceremony of national importance. That's schedule of Latvijas Radio broadcast for November 27, 2005 - it apears to be a radio drama for which he has composed music. IMHO it amounts at least some notability ~~Xil (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I'm inclined to say keep in light of Xil's comments. Plus, his "Zime" project (also spelled "Zīme" in Latvian and sometimes "Zimej") was the Latvia Pavillion's central exhibit at Expo 2000. See his write-up in German on the Expo 2000 official site (scroll down to STRAZDS, ARMANDS and click on the link). The Zime project site has photos of the President of Latvia at the time, Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, generating a Zime in the Pavillion. Voceditenore (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Update I'm even more inclined to keep after finding this article devoted to Strazds in Latvijas Avīze, one of the main newspapers in Latvia. Voceditenore (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all sources above ~~Xil (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to the efforts of voceditenore in finding sources in foreign press, etc. As I am the one who nominated this in the first place I think an admin could reasonably close this with a keep now.Nrswanson (talk) 05:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Pedro. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 12:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SG(People)[edit]

Hoax and/or nonsense. VasileGaburici (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article, which is completely lacking references, claims that Kevin Ashman is a girl?! VasileGaburici (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G3) Complete nonsense, tagged as such. treelo _radda 10:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#A7 - no assertion of notability Pedro : Chat 10:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Jordan[edit]

No relevant sources. The article describes a non-notable person: "little known" etc. Appears to be self-promotion or hoax. Gimme danger (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax/vanity/joke article. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. NN, unref, no ghits, probably a hoax. -- Alexf⁴² 10:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Leaning towards keep. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTFPL[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable software license, used on only a handful of projects - most of which are minor coding projects by the license author. Only secondary source is a post to debian-legal several years ago inquiring as to its suitability as a DFSG-approved license; there are no reliable secondary sources. External coverage appears to consist entirely of user-generated content or blog posts, from a look at Google. Previous AfD basically predicated the keep on the one source which says that the FSF has looked at it, but given that the FSF's job is to look at licenses this is hardly a stand-out feature. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Verified but not shown to be notable by reliable sources. Include in the author's article if absolutely necessary. gnfnrf (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep About 48k ghits now, listed on FSF license page, featured on prominent software blogs, several Linux distributions, Gentoo 1, 2; Fedora ship software licensed under the wtfpl, license listing on freshmeat. In the ghits you see people discussing it 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; licensing blogs or artwork, about 10 - 15 coders using the wtfpl, 1, 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fafnir665 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of those links points to a discussion of the license or indeed anything resembling substantial content. Several are automatically generated, most of the rest are user-generated aggregations, a couple are forums, one is a blog post and one is an SVG file (wtf). "Featured in several Linux distributions" isn't a threshold for notability, which is why we don't have an article for every keyboard layout the X Window System is distributed with. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, its obvious you didn't even follow more than, maybe, one of the links. X-Windows layouts are irrelevant to this discussion. SVG "file" is a wikipedia link, follow it to an image on wikipedia with the wtfpl. None are automatically generated. Kthnx Fafnir665 (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. You didn't follow that text block properly. "Featured on blogs," "Software included with licenses in several distros," were separate statements in a list, follow the commas and the semi-colons. Here is a link to a page on logical fallacies for you. Maybe it can help you better form an argument about facts rather than attacking my credibility? Fafnir665 (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My issue was with the quality of the references, not your credibility. I've looked through each of those links and it doesn't matter how many discrete instances of software under the WTFPL you find if there are no reliable (i.e. not forum or blog) secondary sources which have discussed it. Right now, nothing more of that type exists with the exception of the FSF ruling, which as I've pointed out isn't as exceptional as was made out in the first AfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FSF link is not to an e-mail about the WTFPL, it is to the inclusion of it on their license page, which was never discussed in the previous AfD. Fafnir665 (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here, its also listed on the Fedora Project Licensing page as a "Good License" Fafnir665 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Fedora link is a wiki, and the FSF one is a trivial reference on a long page of licenses. As I said before, the FSF's job is evaluating licenses, so individual instances being stamped as acceptable is hardly a significant claim of notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fedora page was created by fedora manager, member of the board, and maintainer of a large number of packages. Check the history. Second is your personal opinion not an objective statement. Fafnir665 (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fafnir665. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my heart wants to keep this, because it makes me laugh. My brain says it isn't really notable. --SJK (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere? Being listed by fsf.org gives it a nonzero amount of notability, but there's really not much else to add about this license. If there is a List of free software licenses or such, perhaps it can be merged and redirected. --Itub (talk) 08:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was suggested on the talk page, but someone decided it should be deleted instead Fafnir665 (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is notable, the new creative commons CC Zero[13] is a follow up on this license, common sense over wikilaw, both Debian (Windowmaker) and Ubuntu are sharp on included licenses, by accepting the license and including it in the Distro, they confirm notability. Mion (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence whatsoever that the Creative Commons license you linked is a descendent of the WTFPL, or is that conjecture on your part? Inclusion in Debian is no threshold for notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This pipermail from creative commons in Poland, with a WTFPL link [14], for the latter, thats your personal opinion, which i dont share. Mion (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Fafnir665 (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While that email is incomprehensible to me, it does not appear to contain any evidence of the sort. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree that the WTFPL sofar the only license is that compatible is with CC Zero ?

Keep - Notable license with multiple independent third-party sources. Deletion would harm the encyclopedia. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GFV[edit]

This is a dubious neologism and I doubt if the cited reference ("100 Years of Australian Football 1897-1996") supports this usage. The social activity described of people dropping in on other people to watch football on TV doesn't deserve an article, at least from the narrow perspective taken. Grahame (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not about something made up one day by a single-purpose user. WWGB (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is close to falling into the nonsense speedy deletion category. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax article.--Lester 11:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, WP:DICDEF. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find at least one easily verifiable secondary reference, and with Grand Final coming up, you would expect something if the term was in wide use.--Takver (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:NFT - Longhair\^talk 09:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Akiko Hatsu[edit]

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnotable manga artist; tagged for notability since January with no improvement. No significant coverage for this artist. Fails WP:BIO.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this artist has produced around 40 manga works (many multiple volumes, too), all published through major publishers in Japan over the last 25+ years. Her works are generally highly regarded as well. None of her works have been published in English as far as I know, but she is very well known in Japan. I'm working on getting more information and more sources (not that the ones there are invalid for any reason). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I should also note that all four sources are not simply for her (never heard of a guy named "Akiko") list of works. Did you not notice them being used in the intro? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed my pronoun usage and remove misstatement. FYI, per AfD guidelines, you should note that you are the article creator when commenting keep/delete/etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People who care can check the article history (it's not all that long). Just because I created the article doesn't make my opinion any less valid, especially if I raise legitimate points. I'm not saying "Keep" just because I created the article (though I realize some people do that). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've sorted this discussion into the list of Living people-related deletion discussions and the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (adjunct professors count as educators, right?)

Comment: The main problem here is that the article suffers a bit from WP:HOLE. I hope my recent addition about her being a co-coiner of the term yaoi does something to alleviate that concern. -Malkinann (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Certainly not notable academically and does not pass any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. May be notable as an artist under WP:CREATIVE but at the moment the case is not particularly convincing. The article says that "she coined the term yaoi with Yasuko Sakata". If that is correct, it may be sufficient for passing WP:CREATIVE under "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." However, I am confused by the references given in the article to support this point. This reference[15] (currently ref no. 3) says:"The term yaoi was coined in the late seventies by Kanazawa region dojinshi artists included Yasuko Sakata and Rinko Hatsu." Here is another ref (not currently listed)[16]:"The origin of term of Yaoi was from the manifesto of Kanazawa region-based group (e.g. Rinko Hatsu and Yasuko Sakata) that they ironically called the content of their dojinshi were “Yamanashi, Ochinashi, and Iminashi." Are Rinko Hatsu and Akiko Hatsu the same person or two different people? Nsk92 (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, perhaps Rinko was her pen-name at some point? The book clearly states Akiko Hatsu. -Malkinann (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the hits I see for the term ascribe it to Rinko Hatasu, however, as mentioned above, you can clearly see it credited to the subject here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added later: She is cited as Akiko in the Saito Tamaki article that Malkinann quoted. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With that much manga published in Japan, Akiko Hatsu is notable enough for inclusion here. If her work is translated in print, then it will be more obvious to English-only audiences. However, two of her works -- Devil in the Water and Mourning of Autumn Rain -- are presently available in ebook format from Adobe (see http://ebooks.ebookmall.com/author/hatsu-akiko-ebooks.htm). Timothy Perper (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't aware we had a WP:DEADLINE, but even so I'm ambivalent on this one. I just find it odd that if this artist does indeed have 30+ works under their belt, why do we (and ANN) only have two listed? If I saw just, say, 3-4 more I'd say keep. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the subject's role in orginating the concept of yaoi, and the volume of her work. Assuming the link I cited above in reply to Nsk92 is accurate, I feel her role is sufficient to meet WP:CREATIVE. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It'd be a weak one based on WP:CREATIVE, at least what's given here, were it not for coining (or being credited with coining) a significant term. If it stated (with a source) that her works are "highly regarded" in Japan, then it wouldn't be weak in the first place. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since I'm a beginning Wikipedia editor, I don't know the ins and outs of WP notability requirements, so I'll tell you what I know. Hatsu was an assistant to Moto Hagio in the 1970s, and was prominent in the dōjinshi community before making her commercial debut in 1981. In 1979, as a member of a dōjinshi group that included Yasuko Sakata (who also went on to become a prominent professional manga artist), she participated in a group discussion about the dōjinshi world which was printed in the group's self-published dōjinshi, Rappori. The idea that many dōjinshi were "Yama nashi, ochi nashi, imi nashi" (having "No climax, no point, no meaning") was frequently discussed among community members, but this group discussion is the first known usage of the acronym "Yaoi". After her professional debut, Hatsu was picked up Junya Yamamoto, the editor in chief of Petit Flower and highly regarded "father of the Year 24 Group. Hatsu was representative of the literary, slightly intellectual atmosphere of Petit Flower, which included work by most of the artists considered to belong to the Year 24 Group, as well as such prominent post-Year 24 Group artists as Ryōko Yamagishi, Tomoko Naka, Shio Satō, Masumi Moriwaki, etc. Hatsu is known for angular faces of her characters, which are immediately recognizable to anyone even vaguely familiar with the shōjo manga artists of her generation. She is also known for her technical skill, attention to detail, and refusal to "fudge" or "wing" anything. Many casual readers find the "sharp" look of her characters off-putting, but she continues to have a solid following, and as I write has about 36 tankōbon in print (some of which are different editions of the same works). She is currently one of the star artists of the magazine manga magazine Nemuki, which also features such creators as Ichiko Ima and Baku Yumemakura. She taught as an adjunct professor in Kyoto Seika University's Department of Comic Art for several years. I should note that she is a friend and former colleague of mine. I also wrote the afterword for Vol. 5 of the bunko ("pocketbook") edition of her 雨柳堂夢咄 (Uryūdō yume banashi). BTW, "Rinko" is simply an amateurish mistake by someone who was too lazy to look up the proper pronunciation of the name 彬子. She never had such a pen name, and there is no such person. Matt Thorn (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide verifiable, reliable sources for all of this? -Malkinann (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that Matt needs to provide refs for everything he's saying here. What we need instead, I think, are some selected refs showing that Hatsu was/is a well-known mangaka of the period in Japan and was/is highly respected as an artist. Once again, just because her work is unfamiliar to many Anglophone readers does not mean that she is "not notable" for our purposes. Actually, given Matt's status in this field, I'd say that his judgment is quite sufficient to show that Hatsu is notable. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Providing solid references is not a problem. Matt Thorn (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be deeply helpful if you could add that, with the sources, to the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear claims of notability and article is very well sourced for its size, especially considering most sources would be in Japanese. Edward321 (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An originator of the term "yaoi", extensive body of work, influential drawing style (this last might be hard to reference, but I'm willing to take Matt Thorn's word for it for now). I also comment Thorn for his full disclosure. That kind of thing is appreciated by many Wikipedians, and he shouldn't take a few negative reactions as typical. I expect the nom will withdraw any moment now.... --C S (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This appears to be a case of WP:SNOWBALL. Anyone want to grab an uninvolved admin to close this? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bump mapping (sixth generation consoles)[edit]

Mixture of original research and nonsense. VasileGaburici (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the title this article claims to be about bump mapping implementation techniques in "sixth generation consoles". What this article actually contains (by section):

"What are they": a catalog of bump mapping theoretical concepts, covered in detail elsewhere.
"Implementing":
- a few hardware details about various game consoles, probably covered elsewhere (didn't check all).
- An unsourced speculative analysis that attempts to determine how well-suited are the various consoles to implement bump mapping. This seems original research.
"Issues with use on PS2/GC":
- An original research analysis that details how well bump mapping looks in various PS2/GC games, and attempts to guess what bump mapping techinique was used in each game.

Bottom line: this article engages in speculation, lacks any technical depth, and when read start to end, doesn't make any sense. VasileGaburici (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per VasileGaburici. Rilak (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ouch, that's the essence of original research. Equendil Talk 08:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- what's useful is elsewhere, and what's original isn't very good. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of the information can be added to bump mapping and then the article can be deleted.--SkyWalker (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Original research does not pay; you cannot make non-trivial assumptions or inferences from sources. MuZemike (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionpedia[edit]

Non-notable web site, fails WP:WEB. One short article at TheStandard.com, and the link to Slashdot is merely a pickup of that. Just doesn't clear the notability bar. And of course, when it's deleted, you can read about it there. Ironic, isn't it? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:08, 18 September 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)).

Question (rhetorical): It was mentioned by The Wall Street Journal too; WP:WEB says "multiple non-trivial published works"; does "multiple" mean >1? :-) 67.101.5.132 (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: I've worked on the article a bit more, and the website no long fails WP:WEB as Realkyhick (talk · contribs) initially asserted. It now "describes the site in an encyclopedic manner and offers detail on ...significance" and cites reliable independent sources, with notability established by being the subject of multiple sources. So what's left is the chance to make this the subject of yet another deletionists and inclusionists clash. :-) 67.101.5.132 (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Uh, did anyone actually check the new references? The WSJ article mentions Deletionpedia exactly once. Yep, once, and it was definitely a passing, trivial mention in a larger article about deletion vs. inclusion. The Dutch site mentions it twice in one single paragraph, but I'll be danged if I can figure out what else it says because I don't read Dutch — for all I know, it says Deletionpedia is a porn site. All of the other "new" references are either from Deletionpedia itself, or don't mention it at all and only speak of deletion vs. inclusion in more general terms. Folks, do not make this AfD a straw man for the larger deletion-vs.-inclusion debate, because it is not. It is about this one article about a non-notable web site, and that's all. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dishonest statement. It's not a non-notable web site but a web site some people don't want to be mentioned on wikipedia. Maybe because it can be used to support the mentioned debate by showing some very well written articles which were deleted anyway. But the project is useful in itself and none of this makes it or this deletion request discussion a straw man. -- 80.139.32.34 (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not dishonest in the least, and I strongly resent you stating otherwise. It is a non-notable website that is merely a repository of deleted Wikipedia articles (including many that I suspect you disagree with the deletion), and it got a big Slashdot jump one day. Six months from now when this all dies down, we'll all be saying, "So what was the big deal? How the heck did this get on here in the first place?" - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you admit, it is currently notable. Surely, it will eventually lose notability, as will everything. When it does lose notability, then write another deletion request. Until then, it should stay. MaxHarmony (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. Once something is notable it does not lose that notability. Davewild (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation for Realkyhick-- I don't read Dutch either, but Google's machine translation does . . . well enough for me to ascertain that the article in De Telegraaf really is about "Deletionpedia" and does not say it is a porn site. Crypticfirefly (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suspected as much - it was more of a lame attempt at humor. But with the Dutch, you never know. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletionpedia (2nd nomination) (now closed, was the product of a TW edit conflict). - Icewedge (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I guess my Twinkle is faster than yours. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TheStandard.com article is the only original notice of this in a reliable secondary source, according to a Google; no prejudice against recreating in the event of more substantial coverage. TheMolecularMan (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Changing to keep now that more substantial coverage has emerged. TheMolecularMan (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Realkyhick|Talk to me]]) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep It's relatively new, but it consists of a considerable body of content that a large number of people felt was notable, even if the majority of people paying attention here at the time did not. Not a scientific sample to be sure, but the very first entry I came across Edward Tudor seems notable enough to me. --Belg4mit (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does this make the website itself notable? - Icewedge (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The transitive property. --Belg4mit (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure the transitive property does not apply to WP:N, or at least not in that way. If it did nearly every website would be notable. - Icewedge (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, if the deleted subjects were notable, they would not have been deleted. Just because it's a "considerable body of content" doesn't make it notable by any means. I could simply copy-and-pastethe phrase "CHICKEN POO! CHICKEN POO!" 100,000 times over at a web site and it would be a considerable body of content, but otherwise useless. This site isn't much better. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You place a greater faith in the system than here than I do, and clearly expressed in my original note. And no, your hypothetical site does not consititute a "considerable body of content." Besides the utter pointless of such a thing, I would propose that anything which could be compressed 99% with RLE is not considerable.--Belg4mit (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you have little faith in the system here because "the system" keeps ridding itself of articles about non-notable subjects, an assessment with which you disagree on a regular basis. Well, you're probably screwed in this case. By the way, "transitive property" doesn't have a bloody thing to do with Wikipedia notability, thank goodness. And you can RLE that all day and night. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actual articles in Deletionpedia are not merely not notable, they are typically so egregiously non-notable as to be ROFL. I particularly enjoyed, from the front page, the "concise list of films with monkeys in them" article, which was not only laughable in that it listed only three films, none of the three films actually had monkeys in them! The notability of the site is not for the notability of what it archives, but for the nature of it, and most interestingly for the insight into the nature of deleted articles.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we should keep this because the site makes fun of stupid deleted WP articles? That's what makes it notable? (Sigh...) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We all understood that you are against the site and the article. You can now refrain from telling over and over again. -- 80.139.32.34 (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you have twisted my statements around. I am not against the site in the least. But I am against the article, because I don't believe the site meets notability standards. Just because a site isn't notable enough for Wikipedia doesn't mean I'm against it. Heck, I run sites that I wouldn't even think of being notable enough for WP, but they should still exist (if for no other reason than to pay might light bill). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Navel-gazing, with little in the way of sources to write a proper article. Apparently made in response to a Slashdot post. Hi Slashdotters! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single article newspaper article, about half of which is criticizing Wikipedia is more suitable for a short note in Criticism of Wikipedia, probably in the "notability" section. The Slashdot discussion revolved around deletionism vs. inclusionism in Wikipedia; that's hardly hardly an endorsement for deletionpedia. VasileGaburici (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question — Isn't Wikia a good enough place for those articles who do not make Wikipedia muster, or is it not desirable because it doesn't have the adequate search engine optimization capabilities that Wikipedia has? MuZemike (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just think, in just a few days they will be able to host a copy of their own deleted Wikipedia article!! JBsupreme (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've switched my !vote as a result of recent changes made to the article, it appears this website has received coverage from multiple third parties which meet our guidelines for reliable sources. So much for the massive paradox. JBsupreme (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep now that it's being fleshed out a bit. Forget the Large Hadron Collider, that will make the Internets implode! ~~(also delete).~~ Prince of Canada^{t | c} 09:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. That's the kind of site that's going to generate quite a bit of buzz solely due to it being related to Wikipedia itself, but there doesn't seem to be all that much non trivial coverage atm. Plus the irony of it all is damn tempting. Equendil Talk 09:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just updated the article, fleshing it out, adding an infobox and categories; I also cited how WSJ called it a response to the culture clash that exists on Wikipedia between deletionists and inclusionists as well as explained what The Industry Standard thought about Deletionpedia too (hint: we Wikipedia editors are guilty of groupthink). Perhaps mentioning the culture clash will make the outcome of this vote even more ironic. :-) BTW, I can't recall whether we editors-who-don't-always-log-in when contributing get to vote or not. It used to be allowed, and if it still is, I vote Keep... 67.101.5.132 (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Transwiki to Deletionpedia 70.51.8.158 (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe by default everything sent to AfD should be transwiki'd there? 70.51.8.158 (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article deals with a subject which is both better cited and more notable than many other small wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is strong enough to withstand criticism, competition, etc as presented by the subject of this article. - JustinWick (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is saying WP can't take the criticism; the article simply fails WP [{WP:WEB|policies]]. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 10:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fail WP:WEB any more, and it wasn't that hard to fix. I think the rapid proposal to delete without giving it a chance to develop a bit is an unfortunate side effect of the overall positive benefits of having new page patrollers. 67.101.5.132 (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment In the process of adding more details to the Deletionpedia article, I stumbled on this June 2008 version of the page for the website Malwarecity, the latest and greatest version of an article created only 30 minutes earlier that same June day. Anyone know why the users of new page patrol tools let Malwarecity remain in Wikipedia this long while Deletionpedia got marked for speedy deletion within one minute of its creation? Sigh. 68.167.252.78 (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

We have to sleep sometime, y'know. But thanks for bringing it to our attention. Malwarecity has been marked for speedy deletion now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that WP cannot handle this sort of criticism, however the sheer virulence of those asking for a delete leads me to suspect that there is an emotional component of some sort. Perhaps I'm in error on this. In any case, my comment stands, though I should probably issue the disclaimer that, generally speaking, I'm a Mergist and feel that Deletionism is an excellent way to discourage users by destroying their work. After all, why should anyone bother to be bold if it leads to naught over some Deletionist crusader's subjective opinions about what matters in the world? - 66.30.18.60 (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is nice that such site exists. Deletion of the correct articles just because they are "non-notable" is in my opinion the worst thing that happen to Wikipedia. Even if we delete this article, the link to deletionpedia should be put in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WWMPD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.65.67 (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage is fairly substantial Daimanta (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the shear enjoyment of seeing an article about Deletionpedia in Deletionpedia. :o) okay actually let's call it a Weak Keep based on precedent of similar 'pedia articles staying here and a liberal dose of WP:IAR. Although, I'd definitely remove some of the primary sourcing and suggest a rewrite for grammer and such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That IS ironic. It also exposes a very ugly truth about Wikipedia, and that's the REAL reason this article is up for afd right now, isn't it? keep per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.245.87.2 (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Really funny, guys. Slapping an AfD on something 24 minutes old. You might not care about your impression, but this just shows how some WP editors are just intolerant of criticism. --58.69.180.227 (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this wrong (note I "voted" keep above) but, you guys that are simply "accusing" others might want to address some of the policies/guidelines or something, otherwise the whole discussion becomes pointless. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Non-trival third-party coverage in publications such as Industry Standard and the Wall Street Journal is more than enough to satisfy notability under WP:WEB, and just about any other policy I can think of. Some of the arguments above seem to imply that there must be quantity in terms of third-party coverage. Nuh-uh. It takes only one. PS. I just took a peek at the site: aside from the fact they'll have a field day if their own article is deleted I'm also noting they're having server problems similar to that experienced due to high traffic by Wikipedia. That may be neither here nor there, but could be a sign of notable usage, if the Wall Street Journal isn't considered a good enough source for this article. 23skidoo (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm also noting they're having server problems similar to that experienced due to high traffic by Wikipedia." Most likely the problems are due to high-traffic due to [slashdot], not due to Wikipedia. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable web site. I took the time to read WP:WEB and it doesn't fail the criteria as far as I can tell. I won't defend it because the Nominator has not made a sufficient case, rather rhetoric without substance behind the nomination. You can't just say a site is non-notable and fails WP:WEB without actually explaining how and why. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Deleting this article looks, to me, like more of an exercise in the behavior it decries, than actual productive maintenance of Wikipedia. I echo the two posters above me. (Oh, look; hi, 23; funny meeting you here. :-)
--Baylink (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have anything to prove. The verifiability of the subject is what matters, not the subject itself, and this should be no exception. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia until we have a few more sources for a split. It's got sources so it's worth mentioning, but not well covered enough for its own article. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It clarifies interesting insight about the normally-invisible workings of Wikipedia, which is notable, and thus transitively is notable. But, for that matter, the article refers to external sources which seem to make it meet the explicit notability criteria.. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The mention in the Wall Street Journal is enough for me to show that this is notable. I guess it was inevitable that someone would create an afterlife for articles that get killed here. It's nice to know that in "the culture clash between deletionists and inclusionists", we can now say "Ship this one off to Deletionpedia." Mandsford (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the absence of a suitable merge target. This wiki doesn't have Earth-shattering notability, but the article is good enough to keep it on wikipedia. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with merging it to here? --Explodicle (T/C) 14:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I would not have a problem with merging this to D&I in WP. (Yeah I shoulda checked to see if that article existed first. My bad.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Weak keep. It probably fails the letter of WP:WEB - the WSJ article may as well be a prototype of trivial mention, and the Standard.com/Slashdot/Dutch references are essentially one article repeated three times. Still, I think that a bit of systemic bias could be in play here, as its existence is an implied criticism of Wikipedia, and I would rather err towards keeping the article it an attempt to counter that. The merge suggestion a couple of entries above has some merit as well, although it's not the most intuitive target. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is it really non-notable, or just a touchy subject? This is ridiculous. novakreo (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a strong argument for non-notability. Multiple sources are writing about it, and the article is properly written. I expect the article has been cleaned up since nomination. The article should exist for now, and if there is still conviction to delete, renom it in a few months after it has stabilized. -Verdatum (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Strong Keep Stronimo (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Explodicle (T/C) 15:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It strikes me that the article makes a fairly obvious case for significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Potential embarrassment over the subject seems to be the chief problem with the article, and that doesn't amount to a case for deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I seem to have trouble finding the claim that this article is embarrassing or any other comments that could make me think the nominators nomination wasn't completely in good faith. I don't think it'd fair that the people discussing keep and delete are looking at completely different nominations; Assuming in good faith as I am that you aren't accusing the nominator of bad faith when he was perfectly valid in at least making sure the article was discussed. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the articles cited in this article seem to establish notability. Give WP:RESCUE a go on this before blitzing it. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 15:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If we delete it, there will be additional news stories about how we deleted this article and it was moved to the very site it was about. Which will make it even more notable. The site is notable and will grow more so no matter what is decided here. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment. As one of the evil deletionists I would have a conflict of interest in voting unless I were so ambivalent as to abstain anyway. Therefore when I say I agree with both A Man In Black and Xymmax, and that I think WAS 4.250 has a good crystal ball, I should just be ignored. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering how arbitrary Wikipedia articles can be kept or deleted at times, this serves as a good back-up and can help some editors blow off some steam---more so than Conservapedia, which even Jimbo Wales kinda praised. Yartett (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved. sufficient sources. In any case I think NPOV makes it necessary for us to be sure to resolve any doubt towards including articles that might make us look bad. Excluding them makes us look even worse. DGG (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's now substantial and well-referenced enough that wanting to delete it is pretty much indefensible. "I don't like it" is not a basis for deletion. Languagehat (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is there a page on criticism on wikipedia? It should probably even be linked from such a page. -- Kju (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps it failed WP:WEB when this was initially nominated for deletion, but that certainly is not the case now. RFerreira (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of 9 Sources, only 1 major source, which features a superbly trivial mention [17], consisting of nothing but a passing mention without even defining the site. The only articles actually dedicated to the site are an averagely notable article [18] and a foreign language article [19] that while i can't confirm the importance of, makes itself the only serious source, and then only if it is a major source. Another 4 of the sources [20][21][22][23] are completely unacceptable as sources of it's Notability, one being completely trivial and the other 3 being the actual site itself. The final two sites [24] don't even mention Deletionpedia, though one [25] uses the term Deletopedia at the last moment, while the content is dedicated to Wikipedia. I don't believe there to be any serious non-trivial sources, and I hope the closing Admin isn't swayed by numbers considering at least 6 of the keeps I read above this either provided no reasoning or were in somewhat bad faith. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep — as much as I don't like it, it meets the WP:GNG for having several reliable sources. MuZemike (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Multiple reliable sources. Meets WP:WEB. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could the previous two keeps give examples of "multiple" reliable sources with Significant coverage of the article topic? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. The Industry Standard article is all about Deletionpedia (3 paragraphs but still decent). The Telegraaf article is slightly shorter and gives a few more details. That's two, two reliable sources. So we're done. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Unfortunately, The Industry Standard is not a Major source, so we can't even Make up 2 Major English Language Sources. If this was notable it would be easy to leave out sources, however, this article struggles to even reach the minimum i would expect. And i like the website... - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What do you mean by "major"? We don't need major sources. WP:N calls for non-trivial sources, and it meets that. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        By major, I mean major. WP:N calls for multiple non-trivial sources, it fails that. As for the many other criteria, Verifiability is based upon the communities ability to trust a source, which is of course easiest from a major, or serious source as opposed to "The Industry Standard". On the other hand, you seem to just assert that it complies with policy in every argument without putting forward any reason but to say you disagree, which is far from helpful to discussion, so I won't be responding again. Remember that you're allowed to read arguments and change your position. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I did explain. WP:N calls for non-trivial, not "major" as you yourself observed. They have very different meanings. Non-trivial, is a low-burden. Major is a large burden. See the difference? (Oh and incidentally, while were discussing what WP:N says, the language of the sources is generally irrelevant. Whether we can find sources in English has no bearing on the matter). JoshuaZ (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Seems to have enough references to establish notability.
keep per JoshuaZ - reliable sources met; WP:WEB met --Matilda ^talk 22:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N, is informative and is worthy of notice. Moreover, it is past being a Start or Stub article. It is also mentioned in international news such as the dutch article previously mentioned and in the German Press--Bob (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That article appears to be almost completely a translation of The Industry Standard article. The only addition is that they explain that fancruft ("Fanmaterial" in German) is material that isn't offically part of the fictional universe (there may be a mistranslation here either on my part or on the article in question since that seems to confuse fancruft with fanon or possibly other issues). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being?? Many newspapers/media outlets use text ad verbatim from sources such as AP, AFP and Reuters and lesser ones such as IS. The fact that it is being picked up and reposted lends to the WP:N. --Bob (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it means that it is difficult to count it as a separate independent reliable source from the Industry Standard article. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I don't think keeping this article alive will hurt Wikipedia, but trying to suppress it certainly will. If WP (-defenders) can't stand some criticism (and by now way I think the site deletionpedia is criticism in itself), then they just don't understand the fact that it is this bottom-top approach which made Wikipedia what it is, and deleting this article without proper reasons turns this approach upside down and sympathy away from wikipedia. The reason why I estimate the notability of the site is because the deletion policy is a major soft spot in WP and many people have strong feelings about it. Therefore this morgue deserves an artivle in WP. - Ironically, this whole discussion gave this article more importance by triggering more news sites to mention deletionpedia and the fuss around it. Trying to suppress opinions in the digital world can sometimes yield the opposite effect... I'm also sure that quite soon similar sites will appear for other languages in WP thus also increasing the notability of it. Matthiku (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not trying to suppress anything. The site itself will go on no matter what we decide here. The question is as to whether the site is notable enough to merit an article about it on Wikipedia. This suppression argument is pure WP:BOLLOCKS. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because...? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's be honest, this article really belongs on Deletionpedia.--Pushsense (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are being honest. Do you have any actual reasons to back up your opinion? --Explodicle (T/C) 14:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough significant coverage here to establish notability, with more coverage in the last couple of hours here - due to this AFD and here. While not enough on it's own combined with the coverage already in the article I think this more than establishes notability. Davewild (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage of this website has spread rapidly in the last 24 hours and will only continue to do so. T0lk (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may fail WP:WEB but has garnered enough media coverage to make it notable (partially thanks to the irony of this deletion nomination). -Nv8200p talk 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hehe that is ironic. I'd gt a laugh out of that, care to show me a Verifiable source discussing the Article because of this AfD? Infact, show me any more sources than the minimal few already on the page? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that this is an apropo use of WP:IAR. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a free online encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is greatly improved by the fact that the revision history is available and all content contributed to an article is present in some form. It allows future editors to build on the work of previous editors, even when the contributions in past edits were not yet acceptable for front-end content. Furthermore, editors are accountable for the changes they make. This accountability and preservation of content is not present with deleted articles. Deletionpedia could fill this need, or it could become a catalyst for change, but it can't do either without building a strong link with Wikipedia. This article is the first step in that direction. The consensus appears to be that it improves the wiki.--128.6.210.119 (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the snowball has grown large enough to be noteworthy. Ezratrumpet (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but steal their thunder by closing as many AfDs as keep from here on out! J We do not want to risk them having more articles than us, lest they actually become the comprehensive encyclopedia we allegedly aspire to be… --172.129.17.196 (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article would not have been considered actionable via WP:AfD if it weren't Wikipedia-related. On the balance of fact available, it was borderline notable before, and the act of nominating it for AfD has taken the "borderline" off the "notable". Like rain on your wedding day. —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2008-09-20 20:52Z

Um..... not so much. I don't get it, what makes you (all of you) think anyone here thinks that it should be deleted because it is "Wikipedia related"? I dont see a single delete comment expressing that view, there are a few comments on the irony of the situtaion but nothing more, it seems this article has been turned into a straw man for deletionist bashing. The article was originally nominated for deletion because the total reliable sourceing out there amounted to one article and then another four sentance mention. Articles with more coverage than this are routinely deleted. In fact I think what is hapenning here is the opposite of what you are alleging, it is probably because that it is Wikipedia related that so many 'keep' !votes are coming out, because, as I said before the particular irony of the AfD has every one up in an anti-deletionist blood frenzy. - Icewedge (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you give examples of "Articles with more coverage than this are routinely deleted"? Mdwh (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:WEB requirements of two non-trivial independent sources. There is no requirement for being "major". Mdwh (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Deletionpadia is an excellent repository of pages, many of which lasted for extremely long periods of time, with many, many edits before they were deleted. Also, both the site is self, and other sources that mention it (even if in passing) make it notable enough for inclusion. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's borderline, to be sure, but it's gotten enough mention to be borderline, and yes, quite frankly I think we should strive to err on the side of inclusion when it is material that is critical of Wikipedia. I am confident that the world will find Deletionpedia to be far less useful and interesting than (say) Conservapedia once the novelty of the idea wears off and people actually start reading the "content." We can always revisit the issue in six months or so. Right now, deleting this article smacks of bias. Caesar's wife and so forth. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examination of the sources[edit]

Lets go over the sources on this article, (the numbering here referrs to the sources by number as they were on this revision.[26])

A page on the website itself, not only is a SPS but it is an SPS on a Wiki. Entirley unreliable source, invalid for notability.
same as above. Invalid for notability.
Same as above. Invalid for notability.
This article has exactly one sentence about deletionpedia: "Still, even deleted articles survive, on Deletionpedia: 50,000 and counting.", nothing more. A single sentance is not in depth by any possible definition. Invalid for notability.
This article[27] actually does appear to be legit.
A slashdot discussion, web forums are not reliable sources by any definition. Invalid for notability.
This article is actually about the topic... but it is only one paragraph long. One paragraph is not the kind of "in-depth source" referred to at WP:GNG.
This article mentions Wikipedia deletionists but does not mention anything about deletionpedia at all. Invalid for notability.
Same as above; this article mentions Wikipedia deletionists but does not mention anything about deletionpedia. Invalid for notability.

So in summary the combined relevant reliable sourcing of this article is one medium size article and one two small mentions; 4 paragraphs and one sentence in total. Face it folks (and sock puppets, SPA’s, ect.), This does not meet WP:GNG. - Icewedge (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm going to have to disagree with some aspects of your analysis. Note that the Slashdot piece has a few sentences before the forum discussion (I don't think that that is enough to count as an independent source but it is worth noting). In the next case, the article in De Telegraaf, a long paragraph devoted to a specific topic is non-trivial coverage from a reliable source. So we have two reliable independent, non-trivial sources. That meets WP:N. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with how Slashdot works? The stories that people comment on are user submitted.
Now about WP:N, it states that "sources [should] address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content", is four sentances an in detail discussion of the subject? - Icewedge (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, which is probably why he noted himself, "I don't think that that is enough to count as an independent source". TheMolecularMan (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but he did present it as if it in some way heped establish notability, which it does not. Oh, and it is possible that you did not fully get the context of my comment, the second part is about the der telegraf piece. - Icewedge (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree that the Slashdot matter is minimally helpful. (We could have a discussion that about whether the editorial selection by slashdot makes the comments selected as the leads somehow more reliable but that's iffy at best). As to the telegraaf piece, the standard needed is non-trivial, which it meets. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 news sources, plus, few more already sourced in the article -- more than enough for inclusion, IMHO. In addition, If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. WP:IAR. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, this is interesting. The most vocal people speaking in favor for deletion of the article keep telling that the reason is not that they dislike the subject in question but that they just believe the article fails the guidelines. It seems that a majority of commentors feel otherwise which now causes that the people in favor for deletion go through lengths arguing and explaining why the latter people are wrong and only they are right. Also they choose to diffame the other commentors as sock puppets, SPA etc. For me thats a sure sign that its not about the compliance of the article to the guidelines but about a article which some people want to suppress. While i understand that this is not a majority vote as noted on top, said people should probably accept if a very clear majority don't feel the same way as them instead of keeping arguing and answering to votes in favor to keep the article and so on. This certainly looks like some people fighting a holy war and not just discussing if the article mets the guidelines. My 2ct. -- Kju (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC) (not a sock puppet or spa)[reply]

I couldn't care less about Wikipedia... see my poor edit history and lack of interest for huge periods of time... and I simply don't believe that 1 useable source of notability is grounds for inclusion. More importantly, going around assuming other people's position just because they put forward stronger arguments instead of repeating "It has serious reliable sources" over and over and over and over again, could be considered somewaht rude. No one has made claims to not liking it, and i'm personally somewhat offended by the accusation that I care about the content of the article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

' I couldn't care less about Wikipedia... '... ' offended by the accusation that I care about the content of the article '

Just out of curiosity, if you don't care about Wikipedia, nor about this specific article, why you bother writing here? I write here because I do care about Wikipedia. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a little off topic... my point was that I have no reason to take the article personally and I made my Delete Comments based upon the lack of sources and not the content of the article. As did all the other people who have so far argued for deletion, and been perfectly civil and in good faith while those considering keeping it are reduced to making accusations of bad faith with absolutely no evidence, every other comment. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all need to keep generalisations out of it. Not all delete "voters" are doing it for WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons nor are all keep voters doing it by making accusations of bad faith. Generalisations don't help the article, this discussion, or wikipedia. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm in favor of keeping this article and frankly I don't see any evidence to back up the claims that people who want this deleted are at all calling for deletion out of some dislike for deletionpedia or what it stands for. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note There's another source which is now active: in German. It discusses briefly Deletionpedia and mentions a few additional examples of articles which were deleted and migrated over. It also connects Deletionpedia to other related issues such as Wikiscanner although what connection they are trying to make is not clear to me. Possibly someone with better language skills can figure that out. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a short introduction of Deletionpedia the article talks about the repeated problems with manipulation of wikipedia articles, names manipulated articles like one about the CEO of a swiss bank which was cleaned up from a bank's IP and finally mentions wikiscanner. -- 80.139.2.106 (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LaMB[edit]

This month-old article on an up-coming film has had requests for reliable references to establish notability since its creation (though tags are repeatedly removed). The only sources for the article are press releases from the production company and a blog. Recommend deletion for lack of Reliable sources for a WP:NPOV, WP:V article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, after a quick google search it appears to have a ANN page with a couple realted articles citing that it's real and that's going to be broadcast in multiple countries on a major television channel. I don't see why it wouldn't be notable.- Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They all appeared to be press releases written by the production company to me. Did you find something independent? DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm... I think this is independent. The rest do seem to be press releases. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability isn't an issue here, since anime with broad international releases are generally deemed inclusion-worthy. The problem is that the writing is awful, and that there isn't much to say about it yet. It can at least support a decent stub until release though. --erachima talk 03:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. A few press releases do not make this a notable future film. No objection to creation if/when its actually released next year. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF has a good idea that "information on the film can be included in articles about its subject material". I don't think there's an article on the subject but there is on the production company Animax. Perhaps a smerge there would be appropriate with a break-out article if it ever gets independent sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the page would be non-conducive to presentation of the material, and the page shows clear potential for expansion. --erachima talk 03:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this were a film based on a manga or anime, then I'd agree a merge would be best. But merging to the production company doesn't seem like a good fit, as we wouldn't normally include "upcoming films" in such articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My view still is that this article does not have the necessary sources for a NPOV article and should be removed. However, a slight merge of simply the fact that the film is in production could be stated on the Animax article and this article could be redirected there awaiting better references. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animax as the more notable entity (for now) but, get someone to cleanup the Animax reference section (too much primary source and press release stuff there as well from what I can tell) Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does fail WP:NFF, which exists precisely for this reason. We know it will be released, but we don't know for certain when, and there isn't much to say yet that isn't speculative. Maybe someone could userfy it until some sources appear. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.I made this page,and provide the References and also I,take the info from Sony Pictures Entertainment office so if any problem with this page please write in my talk page I will provide the solution--Sumit (talk) • contribs) 17:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- RE: you take the info from Sony. That is the problem. We need a balanced and neutral point-of-view article and independent sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason why independant sources are required for articles is so the information will be presented with a neutral point of view, yeah, but as of now the only info in the article is facts about its production. There's nothing to be non-neutral or opinionated on. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~,There is a lot of info about this movie can be find in ANN.I not take the info from Sony I justify the info from Sony and also this movie is also released in Feb in 2009 as now people want info about this movie and it is main aim of Wikipedia "to provide free knowledge to the people" . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumit sony145 (talk • contribs)
- - Now the info in LaMB does not create any non-neutral points as Norse Am Legend said and also it is the development and productions info with is given in any other movie Wikipedia and There's nothing to be non-neutral or opinionated in it.--Sumit(talk) 03:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All info about.com[edit]

Another article about a website, with no assertion of notability. Wongm (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:WEB. TheMolecularMan (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:WEB, non-notable. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 05:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. JuJube (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another ad farm. Equendil Talk 09:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca DeLorenzo[edit]

She was "Director of Operations" so she didn't play. There's no evidence her work there was notable, and this is scarcely above a speedy. One of a series of highly questionable contributions from this editor. Team is notable, neither the person nor her college lacrosse career appear notable. TravellingCari 02:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:BIO. No assertion of notability. TheMolecularMan (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Equendil Talk 09:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, what about these credentials, Francesca DeLorenzo joined The Pride this season after pursuing a career in real estate. She was previously working with The Marketing Directors Inc., a prominent real estate company in Manhattan. She handled sales for high end communities, including Trump Plaza in Westchester, NY and The Solaria Condominium in Riverdale, NY. She has a high level of experience in the sales and marketing field as well as business management. DeLorenzo graduated from Marist College in 2005 with a degree in Finance and Marketing and a minor in Spanish language. At Marist, she was a three-year starter for the Marist College Women’s Lacrosse team. She currently ranks as one of the all-time leaders for games played (59), ground balls (75), and draw controls, having played every field position for the team except goalie. In her career she amassed 23 career goals and 25 career points. Francesca was also a three-time Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference All-Academic Team selection. Her previous experience with the Pride was as a front office and game operations intern in 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDelo93 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it unnecessary to use the statement "a series of highly questionable contributions from this editor." I take that as an insult and would like you to name what contributions of mine have been "Highly Questionable." I do not appreciate you demeaning me for attempting to contribute to the Wikipedia society.

I agree, maybe "questionable notability" would be accurate but "highly questionable contributions" suggests it was not in good faith (Assume good faith is a Wikipedia guideline). --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one where you over-wrote an existing article with information on someone of questionable notability to add him as anotable alum? or this? Perhaps this one wherein you tried to AfD a category I created as a result of this discussion? Maybe I was a little harsh, but you haven't indicated that I was wrong. TravellingCari 02:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of coverage other than on the team's own website, which is not independent of the subject. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Stead[edit]

Non-notable person, a lot of the article is written as if written by the subject or someone close to the subject. No real claims of notability, no reliable sources, nothing at Google news. His two books are listed at over 200,000 and over 350,000 most purchased at amazon.co.uk. Corvus cornix_talk 03:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly had a sizable following in his radio days and he's pretty well-known in the South Wales region as a journalist these days. His books sold far better in the UK than in the US and are widely available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.226.3 (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I specifically looked for the sales figures at amazon.co.uk because he's British and so are the subjects of his books. Please also provide reliable sources for his notability. Corvus cornix_talk 03:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHis book on Brian O'Driscoll was in the top 10 best-selling rugby union books for some time earlier this year, and remains the only biography of him that has been written. His first book received national press attention, partly because it was released so close to Dettori's Derby win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.226.3 (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC) — 87.112.226.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Both those are if anything arguments for the notability of the books (which are themselves pretty thin arguments - top 10 rugby union book for some time is hardly a great advert for wide notability). What's notable about the man himself though? I don't see much. MadScot666 (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smells like autobio and no independent references are offered. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after doing various searches I have to conclude that he doesn't meet the notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, very likely conflict of interest. Equendil Talk 09:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable (yet). Try again when he's got some secondary source coverage. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I can tell, all the info on his page is true and accurate- he remains active and is in the public eye to a resonable extent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.2.251 (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment The above is the only contribution from that IP address, provides no evidence for its statements, and fails to address the main verifiable notability issue. Someone more cynical than me might have certain suspicions. TrulyBlue (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Nyce[edit]

Claim of notability unverified by a reliable source. Article mostly analysis and observations of primary sources. Suspected original research. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Does not meet WP:PORNBIO by any stretch. --2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 02:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete because having heard of her just isn't a good enough reason for keeping and I don't have access to a computer where I can find reliable sources (without getting fired) I have to judge on article content and GNews searches both of which fail. Although she gets 600,000+ hits in a Gsearch I'm guessing too many of them will be to picture galleries and the like. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to the gnews lack, 0 article returns for both xbiz and avn. Lack of independent coverage, and nothing in the article is indicative of meeting WP:PORNBIO.Horrorshowj (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This has been here more than long enough. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frontiers (non-profit organization)[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:N, WP:ORG, and google yields little promise. User:L^BPub 15:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly, Frontiers is a notable international organization.--Alfredie (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you back that up at all? Leonard^(Bloom) 04:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any non-religious references to the organization through google. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:08, 6 September 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) 03:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite The first sentence of this article may be copyvio from this image and other places. However, they do have some news mentions, such as a January 30, 1995 article in The Vancouver Sun and another in a March 9, 1996 article in the Calgary Herald. There appears to be controversy surrounding the group, as mentioned in an article in The WSJ. They appear to be just across the threshold of WP:ORG; "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization", which can be verified in at least the above articles. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:06, 8 September 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) 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources to demonstrate notablity. We66er (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I could not find any sources through google, though admittedly the organisation's name is difficult to isolate and google certainly does not have everything but there are no Reliable sources given in the article either. I see that Mendaliv, above, has found some "mentions" but just because organisations international in scale are usually notable does not mean that they are. In the end, we still need independent sources to meet the core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. If reliable sources really can be added, my suggestion would be keep and clean-up for NPOV. Otherwise, delete and create upon discovery of adequate reliable, independent sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Djalma Bom. MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idalina mantovani[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Google turns up almost nothing and she is not mentioned in the sources cited in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't inherited. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect to Djalma Bom, Google searches indicate she isn't notable. RMHED (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Equendil Talk 09:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wolgot[edit]

The article about this supposed city does not have a strong, solid background. There are absolutely no statistics and demographics to speak of, nor anything indicating a strong presence in the realm of geography. As it is, the article is of very poor quality right now, and is thus worthy for deletion. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 15:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Official website is under construction; here, i think. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 15:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reply An official website for a city would most likely have the ".go.kr" suffix. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 15:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —- -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 15:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason why this article shouldn't be kept; this may be a case of WP:POINT,

(Basically to make a short story shorter; the user had this page listed at User:LUUSAP/Wolgot, i turned it into a wikipedia article. The user responded with this Edit. I informed the user here about GFDL. The user has prodded the article (twice) before listing it here for AFD). - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found mentionings of Wolgot here & Here - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 16:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also found mentions of a "Wolgot-myon" and a "Wolgot-dong" through searches of "Wolgot". Are these the city in construction where talking about or different places alltogether? - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 16:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I don't know if the AFD nominee can vote as well, but if we can, then I'm voting. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 03:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination counts as a "vote" already, but really it's WP:NOTAVOTE it's a discussion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 02:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I'm a bit concerned the location found on the internet for Wolgot appears to be fields and trees. Doesn't seem to be much of a city there: http://www.maplandia.com/korea-south/kyonggi-do/wolgot/ Now of course, high altitude imagery may have been done many years ago, but then again, I'd like to be sure there's an actual city being built there, so reliable sources are needed. Equendil Talk 09:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, it seems sort of notable, but I am not sure if it falls foul of wp:crystal ball --UltraMagnus (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Whatever the history of pointiness, Googling the term brings up only 5000 hits, googling "Wolgot Korea" limits it down to 1500. None of the ones I checked looked like reliable sources. So unless actual reliable sources can be found, I don't see much value in the article. Please note that the current quality of the article is quite irrelevant, what is important is the potential quality that can be achieved with available sources. If someone digs out reliable sources, I'm quite willing to change my vote. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
move to userspace, until some reliable source identifies its existence and location. There is confusion as to precisly the location of the city, or even which provience its in. Google news lists potential matches as: Wolgot-myon, Kimpo-kun, Kyonggi Province; Wolgot-myeon, Yonggang-ri; Wolgot-Myeon Gyeonggi-Do; Wolgot-myun Gimpo-shi Gyunggi-do. Its supposibly near Siheung in Gyeonggi, and there is reports of construction in Yonggang [28]. --Salix alba (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too many WP:V issues, and copying-and-pasting an article from someone's sandbox into an article without crediting them as the author violates the GFDL. Mr.Z-man 17:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all towns/cities are inherently notable a long as they can be proved to exist and I have found several mentions of it.[29][30] - Icewedge (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem, that we don't even known where it is. The article says its being built near Siheung (google map) south of Seoul, yet the second ref, puts it somewhere to the north east of Seoul. The first ref does not have enough detail to locate it. --Salix alba (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have tried to find citations for a undeniable location for this place. It seems to be non-notable, if it is to exist at all doktorb _words^deeds 22:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ezatullah (Sorubi, Nangarhar, 2001)[edit]

Contested PROD. There are simply not enough sources to write a full, neutral biography of this individual. I found two mentions that, while verifying the information in the article, are no more than trivial:

A one sentence mention in a New York times article, which, rephrased, is basically the entirety of the article.
Six years later, a mention in three paragraphs of a larger article with some brief quotes

These are trivial mentions and, as such, do not meet WP:N's requirement of a subject's non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. All we can say about him is mentioning two posts that he's held and perhaps his opinion as presented by the Wall Street Journal. That is not appropriate for a biography of a living person. It may be argued that he is automatically notable as a district governor (is that sub-national?) per WP:POLITICIAN, in which case the information here should be merged into another more detailed article. It cannot stand alone as an article. Cheers, CP 02:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- no offense, but I think there is a difference between notability and notoriety. Nominator seems to be suggesting that the holder an important political position has to be famous (ie notorious) in order to merit coverage here. I suggest being a leader of a provisional government makes an individual notable. Nominator asks:
It may be argued that he is automatically notable as a district governor (is that sub-national?) per WP:POLITICIAN

Well , the Eastern Shura, of which Ezatullah was a leader, was at least briefly independent. The anti-Taliban leaders who formed the Eastern Shura could have joined with the Northern Alliance. They chose not to, giving them an independent voice at the Bonn Conference that chose Hamid Karzai as leader of the Afghan Transitional Authority. That would make him a leader at the National level -- clearly qualifying for inclusion under WP:POLITICIAN.

Comment -- Ezatullah is a very common name in Afghanistan. Our disambiguation page, Ezatullah, currently list half a dozen individuals named Ezatullah. The standards for disambiguation pages are that they are not supposed to contain references. These individuals are all easily confused, if we don't have articles about each of them, with references that allow us to distinguish between them. Geo Swan (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator may have confused the Ezatullah from Nangarhar with the Ezatullah appointed to a position in Sangin -- hundreds of miles away. They might be the same guy -- but that would be unsupported speculation. We have zero indication that they are the same individual, except that they share a very common name. Deletion of brief, neutral, factual articles like this one, are a disservice to the wikipedia project, because they guarantee later confusion. When additional notable references to an Ezatullah in Afghanistan come to light it guarantees that whoever wants to include that information has to repeat the same hours of research that have already been performed, to figure out which Ezatullah those references refer to. Geo Swan (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Please do not put words into my mouth; I never suggested that anyone has to be famous in order to merit coverage. Accusing me of such shallow and trite thinking is an uncalled for insult and distracts from the issues at hand. In quoting me, my suggestion that "in which case the information here should be merged into another more detailed article. It cannot stand alone as an article" was left out, thus giving more credence to the above interpretation what I may be "suggesting". Taken together, I am suggesting that WP:POLITICIAN as a policy does not automatically override the policy guidelines at WP:N, it merely suggests that the material should be on Wikipedia in some fashion. There are many subjects on Wikipedia that are notable, but do not have their own article; for a long time The Angry Video Game Nerd was deemed notable enough only to have a section about him in ScrewAttack. Later, when more sources came out, he was given his own article. You have suggested that he is notable per WP:POLITICIAN, fine. But why not merge this into some other article, delete this redirect as it is a highly unlikely search term and create a link to the section from the Ezatullah page. If all that were to be agreed upon, then I would obviously withdraw the nom. At the moment, however, I feel that it is appropriate to boldy draw some attention to this issue by suggesting that this individual article be deleted. There is simply no evidence of enough sources to support a full, neutral article here. I also view the "is it the same guy" question as an irrelevant distraction but, if anyone disagrees, they may view my response to this on my talk page, as I see no reason to further discussion on that subject here. Cheers, CP 05:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to subsection? -- Nominator asks why not merge this material into another article, and change the disambiguation page (Ezatullah), to point to the subsection heading of the target of the merge where this material had been shoehorned. Why not? Because redirection to subsection heading is deeply broken. Geo Swan (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I think systemic bias may be an issue here; see WP:BIAS. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, ~~this google search gives no results. --Soman (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)~~ Seems i misspelled, [31] is probably more correct. --Soman (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably notable, given the leadership role specified by the NYT. (I don't see the POV problem--whatever one thinks of his activities, the NYT is a reliable source for his role.) We should be able to write a better article except for cultural bias in searching and the name problem. Although it might seem that a combination article would do, it is probably simpler and less confusing to give each person their own main article.DGG (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WorldExtend[edit]

Borderline advertising for (once open source, now commercial) software, with dubious notability. 9Nak (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is very "spamming" and turns up one passing mention on Google News. Because of this, I believe that the article fails company notability guidelines. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 10:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 01:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam advertising, non-notable. The Man in the Rock (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — the menu consists of "Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, baked beans, Spam, Spam, Spam and Spam." MuZemike (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. Equendil Talk 09:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verschoyle Patent Mandrel[edit]

The one reference cited is a family history book, with "Verschuijl and Verschoyle Family" in the title, and published by "Verschoyle Mason Publications". The external link is practically a carbon copy of the article, which would seem to show that either the article is a copyvio, or that the external link is copying the article. Google search turns up 31 hits for "Verschoyle Patent Mandrel" -wikipedia, however all hits are mirroring the wikipedia article (except one which is the external link, mentioned). GoogleBookSearch gives no hits for "Verschoyle Patent Mandrel". The article admits "The machine was marketed in 1918 but was never a financial success"... Also, note the only real editor to the article is LukeL (talk · contribs) aka 82.30.37.26 (talk · contribs) who stated "He is my cousin" in reference to the article, and gives his name as "Luke Verschoyle" [32].

No third party, reliable sources. Conflict of interest. No hits turn up in google except one. Possible copyvio. No hits turn up in Google book search, showing the subject has not been written about in countless published books scanned there. Celtus (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest notability, I did find the book referenced (here) but its self-published so probably doesn't count as a reliable source. The article fails general notability guidelines. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 10:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 01:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete "never a commercial success" An invention that gets patented but not written about or significant otherwise is not notable.DGG (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saddletowne (C-Train)[edit]

Per WP:CRYSTAL we should not yet be making an article on a train station scheduled for 2011. Calgary Transit and C-Train are the appropriate places to discuss work-in-progress and plans for the system. The only sources cited so far are from the city government. When the station is complete, or very close to complete, we can make an article. I could see a justification for this article, if there was a huge controversy or something causing lots of coverage of the specific station. But, I'm not aware of it. It's just one of around half a dozen LRT stations in the works in Calgary. Rob (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Rob (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with C-Train for now. It's not WP:CRYSTAL if it's been announced by an official body - i.e. the City of Calgary - however it's still premature as construction has not yet even begun. 23skidoo (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. The C-Train article already mentions the extension. PK T 18:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 01:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete when construction starts, an article will be justified. There will then undoubtedly be suitable newspaper sources. Only a weak delete, since it is scheduled for 2008, but that does not necessarily mean it will actually start in 08. DGG (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States Academic Decathlon. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alli Blonski[edit]

Subject does not meet notability guidelines and her mention in the USAD should suffice Million_Moments (talk) 20:12, 8 September 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) 02:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Academic Decathlon per WP:BLP1E. no need for formal deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would argue it is very unlikely anyone would look up Alli Blonski but a redirect is an acceptable alternative. Million_Moments (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 01:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete name is mentioned in coverage of the event, but lack of significant/biographical coverage. Redirect is not necessary as it is unlikely that people would expect an article, and there is only one link to the article from the main namespace. Content already in United States Academic Decathlon article is enough. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the major contributor to United States Academic Decathlon, I'd say this is a rather unnecessary article (I didn't create it). Her notability will disappear when/if someone outscores her, in which case the article will have to be deleted anyway. - Yohhans^talk 00:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I believe a redirect is appropriate even with the low likelihood that someone would look her up. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 14:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henchman 800[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series, so it doesn't require an article. TTN (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator, there is no notability established. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, generic enemy with a generic description and generic sub-types. Yawn. Nifboy (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete common enemy in the game without significant coverage in reliable third party sources, thus failing our WP:V policy (if not just our WP:N guideline). Randomran (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial-tastic treatment of generic enemies, no sign of passing WP:N in regards to significant coverage. Someone another 01:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Game-guide material (WP:NOT#GUIDE), the list is trivial, no evidence of notability (WP:N). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Calibration. Content, what little there is, can be merged at editorial discretion to Calibration. I'm inlcined to delete this article as it manages to get "zeroing" wrong and relate it to scales without using the word 'tare', even as a contrast. However, consensus is to redirect. (non-admin closure) Protonk (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroing[edit]

This neologism doesn't balance when it comes to notability. Anyone care to "weigh in" on this? Ecoleetage (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "zeroing" can apply to almost any measurement device, not just a balance. It's basically calibration to the null reading. As it stands I think the article is too focused on one case of this. However it seems a bit definition-y. Couldn't the one sentence the article consists of go into the scale article? MadScot (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best a dictionary definition, so fails WP:NOT. Equendil Talk 09:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Calibration. Not enough topic for more than a dicdef; Calibration article needs expansion anyway; and a redirect would be useful because many instruments have only this single calibration point. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Calibration, it can be mentioned in that article. As a separate article it is unlikely to become more than a dictionary definition. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 19:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest buildings and structures in Toronto[edit]

This huge list has no clear inclusion guidelines and scant few sources. Is it supposed to be a list of the few building that have survived from the pioneer days, or is it a list of all vaguely "old" buildings in the city of Toronto? It really needs to be deleted and not restarted until the inclusion guidelines have been set (and perhaps a new title) and some souces found.--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove all buildings under one century old and/or remove every building that does not have a heritage designation. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Re: your first idea, why 100 years? Re: your second, in that case rename to "Listed heritage buildings in Toronto" (or similar) or better yet turn it into a cat.--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would comment on my own comment: It would be better to include only heritage-designated buildings, regardless of age, but preferably if they are at least a century old, since it would help shorten the list and would make a good cutoff point. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. There's a building from 1948 in that list. There are people still not yet retired older than buildings on this "list of old buildings". I shudder to think what a "List of Old Buildings in London" (England, not Ontario) would look like. Maybe make it a list of notable buildings in Toronto, and gut the list. But as it stands its hideous. MadScot (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem: there is already something like that. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for reasons given, plus an AFD right off the bat seems inappropriate with no prior effort to clean it up by the nominating editor, no tagging in an effort to have it cleaned up, and no comments on its talk page by the nom since April. I'll also add that the Toronto landmark template is A: a template, not an article, and B: rather different from the suggested heritage list. I believe that after this AFD is resolved it should pared down to include only heritage buildings and the rest either tossed or merged with more appropriate articles. Westrim (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuild as "pre-Confederation ..." 70.51.8.158 (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I read the nomination and the Good Grief comment I had not looked at the article and expected something hideous. That is not the case. The nominator did not really invoke any WP guideline or policy violation as reason for deletion, so why would we delete it? I agree the article needs a solid lead-in to set inclusion criteria and better in-line (not table-cell) source citations. Indeed the title could be improved to something like this (just an example of a better title in this context) List of pre-20th century buildings and structures in Toronto. A list title can indeed clarify inclusion criteria. IMHO this is exactly the type of navigational list that makes WP a comprehensive and easy-to-use encyclopedic research tool. This one just needs to be cleaned up style wise.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but trim the newer buildings. Talk:List of oldest buildings and structures in Toronto) has a discussion on the desired contents of the page from last year. The suggestion of "A comprehensive list of everything surviving from prior to Confederation should be possible, and after 1867 the list could only be those buildings that are prominent enough to have their own Wikipedia articles" makes sense to me. I was curious to see how the list would change and evolve, but I agree it is time to set some guidelines and enforce them. It seems excessive to delete the page and start over when the solution is simply to lop off some of the newer tables. Hilmar (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. I agree that better inclusion criteria are needed for the article but that can be cleaned up with an appropriate introduction and trimming. Perhaps the 100 oldest buildings or pre-Confederation buildings; whatever can be hammered out on the article's discussion page. The idea and start of the article themselves are solid. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. This is an important list. Much is notable architecture in terms of British North America; some is important in terms of world architecture. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of software moguls[edit]

If this deemed a necessary or useful description, then a category could be created. At the moment, this is unsourced original reasearch. PhilKnight (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 19:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like a holdover from the early days of Wikipedia (2004), when phrases like "software moguls" seemed encyclopedic. I think the list is superseded by List of the 100 wealthiest people and a redirect there would be OK. Mandsford (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I think a redirect there would be ok. PhilKnight (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Due to the fact that "software mogul" is an ambiguous designation, any inclusion criteria for this list would necessarily be subjective, arbitrary, or both. I see no need to redirect, as the article has few incoming links and the title does not seem to be an especially likely search term. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mandsford, above. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 00:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, it doesn't cost anything extra to have a redirect and if it helps one person find what they are looking for it will pay benefits. Jeepday (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Question Why redirect to the List of the 100 wealthiest people? I bet not even 10% of that list have derived their wealth from software, or even computing in general. If I put in "software mogul" as a search term, "Warren Buffett" is hardly the result I'm looking for ....MadScot (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I agree with MadScot here, why redirect to the List of the 100 wealthiest people? The Man in the Rock (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Black Falcon. The fact that Linus Torvalds and Steve Balmer are both "moguls" in this list proves how worthless the list is. VasileGaburici (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List offers nothing more a category would Equendil Talk 09:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; unless there is a better list of those people involved in software who are rich, famous, powerful, or influential. Yartett (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced original research, scope is far too vague to make a coherent list. Hut 8.5 12:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DMS4[edit]

This is a non-notable piece of hardware with no links or sources except the manufacturer, and few edits except for vandalism patrol. Miami33139 (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, no verifiability, no notability. The Man in the Rock (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should have been speedied. VasileGaburici (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see an encyclopedic article being built on an entirely obscure bit of hardware. Equendil Talk 09:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — No content. Iffy on A1, though. It could also have been prodded. MuZemike (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - individual modchips are not notable. --SJK (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birgoslaw Zniemeszczesky[edit]

I've had no luck trying to locate independent confirmation of this subject's notability -- though maybe I am looking in the wrong places? As it stands at the point of nomination, the article fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This smells hoaxy. No Polish name would end in -sky (-ski is the Polish spelling) and a Google search [33] confirms my impression that Birgoslaw is not a real first name. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 19:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No google hits or sources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Coleman Memorial Square[edit]

Article was prodded, but later removed. For a local plaza to be notable there would have to be a nice amount of reliable sources on it. The first source is more about Howard Beach rather than the Square. The second one's just a photo gallery. Ergo, no notability. Wizardman 16:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry, but a lost case, see above. Also, this violates these rules: notability, reliable sources, notability of a plaza is not inherited from a neighborhood. This is a tiny space on a tiny island. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The square seems non notable in my search. If there is enough material about the actual memorial, it might make an article on its own. --Stormbay (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought that the article, with picture, would be more convincing to keep. The picture just looks like a street. Miami33139 (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Handsome Devil[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The band's only apparent item of note up until recently was the inclusion of a track in Guitar Hero II. A song has been included in List of songs in Rock Band 2. Recent edits have been attempting to wikilink to the band's article, leading to a number of articles that incorrectly point towards Guitar Hero (as per the original redirect). If not deletion, the article is in need dire need of cleanup/creation in order to avoid confusion caused by linking a band name to a video game article they have no connection to save for a single song. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 16:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: - Looking at the article's history, attempts were made to flesh out the article here, which were then rejected and removed in one fell swoop here. I would be in support of keeping the article if it's allowed to be reverted to a state similiar to the first link. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 16:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: - WP:Music #10 was originally used to apply to this band. However, with the inclusion in a second work of note (Rock Band 2), the question becomes which one would the redirect apply to? -- TRTX ^{T / C} 17:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article "deleted" on August 10, 2007 with a redirect to List of songs in Guitar Hero II left behind. TRTX seems to be disagreeing with that deletion? If so, it would seem that deletion review is more appropriate, or a redirect deletion discussion, not restoring the original article against the previous deletion discussion, then renominating it for deletion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - As stated above, the use of WP: Music referenced in the original AfD no longer applies. I have restored the article to a previous state that attempted to fulfil the request to build a more substantial article as a temporary place holder so that both articles referencing the band actually point to the band (rather than RB2 unexplicably linking to GHII). It is inaccurate to present That Handsome Devil as relevent only due to inclusion in GHII when we now have a second noteable item which also references it. I support deletion if it is decided that the band is not noteable enough to support a full article. But I do not support the inaccurate redirect. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 02:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the band is still unnotable and the article is no different from it was when it was deleting via redirect last time. Due to the issue of link conflicts, go with full deletion rather than redirect. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I was prepared to endorse deletion, but I just can't shake feeling that it's inappropriate to delete the article because we don't know what to do with it. The group's original claim to notability - having a song available on a notable game as a bonus track - was weak. It now has a stronger claim - yet another song will be featured in a different notable game. As a result of this increased notability, the article now should be deleted? The guidelines are to be read with common sense, and to me the easiest way to avoid a paradoxical result is to keep the version mentioned by the nom. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. agreed that the whole delete/redirect/unredirect/delete thing is ass-backwards, but looking at this AfD in isolation still points to the band being not-notable enough for an article. We delete article by bands with greater success this early in there careers until they have enough reliable sources and pass WP:MUSIC. Some of the older Singstar games were mostly songs by unknown musicians that have never gone on to achieve enough success to have an article - inclusion in a game is very little claim to notability, and nor is being on a compilation. I say delete now, and allow recreation if/when the first album gets enough press, or wait for the 2nd album.Yobmod (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ron's sources are good enough for me. I might as well withdraw, or this'll keep getting relisted until the end of time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Entertainer (DVD)[edit]

Unsourced DVD package. No reliable sources found, just PR sources from Walmart regarding the DVD's release and trivial mentions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:13, 13 September 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)} 03:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found mentions in the Los Angeles Times (fee-based access required) [34], the Kansas City Star (also fee-based) [35] and mention in Billboard. [36]. The article needs better sourcing, but notability is confirmable. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Octopus (politics)[edit]

Unnotable conspiracy from Danny Casolaro. Lacking sources since January 2007. We66er (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely lacking in any serious encyclopedic value. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no refs or sources.(69.231.39.97 (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't remember, but wasn't there a famous political cartoon depicting a certain government as an octopus? I want to vote a redirect to that cartoonist, but since the details escape me, I'm voting Delete for now. JuJube (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete existing article. That was Thomas Nast's carton of William M. Tweed, the 19th century Tammany boss of NYC. It has since been used in many other contexts, including Richard Nixon. It was the title of a 1901 book byFrank Norris, where it stands for the Southern Pacific Railroad. None of these need a link here, for this particular use is not notable. We need an article on Cultural references to octopus. Or a completely new article under the present title, where I suppose this might possibly get a mention, just for completeness. DGG (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilligan's Island (island)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gilligan's Island (island)

The location of the island is already in the main article and the rest is trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial information; no verifiability, and by extension no notability. The Man in the Rock (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep not a very good article but given the popularity of the show and the size the main article (Gilligan's Island) it's a reasonable split. JJL (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Gilligan's Island is notable, but that doesn't make this article by extension notable. If reliable sources are found for this subject that would make it notable; it would also need a significant rewrite. The Man in the Rock (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see the article as acceptable in the context of Wikipedia:Content_forking#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles. JJL (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and RockManQ, I mean... come on. JuJube (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Gilligan's Island is the unnoficial name ..." - this and a complete lack of sources make this decision fairly easy (plus there is WP:OR, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:RS, WP:N, ...). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is entirely trivia and speculation. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable, as per previous comments. Though perhaps a case for keeping the article if you throw in some GDFL photos of Tina Louise as Ginger. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LocalCooling[edit]

This defunct software is not notable or even available anymore and is only sourced to the author of the software and some forum posts. Miami33139 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TheMolecularMan (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this defunct software is not notable. The Man in the Rock (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Equendil Talk 09:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
Delete - No sources to indicate why this software is notable. TN‑X-Man 14:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Being defunct (why is everyone italicising that word?) is not a reason for deletion: Wikipedia covers history too. A Google News search finds what look like reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pencil trick[edit]

I have nominated this for deletion as it has been unreferenced for two years. This may be a real trick in electronics but it is not notable to the world at large. If sourced, this information could belong somewhere else but Wikipedia is not a how-to either. Miami33139 (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being non-notable with no reliable sources. Not widely-known source in the world. --Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I've heard of this, certainly - but I doubt very much that there are reliable, verifiable sources that would confirm its notability, nor does my (admittedly limited) search reveal anything to support the article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Surely the fact that you have heard of this means that it is notable enough to remain as a seperate wikipedia article. All it needs is to be expanded by someone who has a good knowledge of the topic. If every page with a topic which you didn't know fully about was deleted, how would you learn any new information if you were looking to find out more about the topic by using wikipedia and learning from others who have experience in that field of technology? 90.206.245.69 (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're going in two different directions, here. I concur that the Pencil trick exists, and that I've heard of it - but that's not enough for an encyclopedia article on the subject. Here, we need multiple Reliable Sources that discuss the subject's Notability, and my point was that I don't think those sources exist for this. Quite honestly, one magazine article discussing the technique would prove me wrong, but I'm not finding that. As for individuals with knowledge of the topic, they would still need to provide independent sources to document their edits - otherwise, it would be Original Research, which is also not permitted. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, nothing to support this as a separate article at all. If anyone can find a reliable source we could put line about it at Overclocking, but I didn't even see that (although I too didn't look all that hard). Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere when I think pencil trick, I think of what happens when you type that into YouTube... an oriental kid twisting a pencil or pen around his or her finger in various ways that the rest of us can't do. 70.51.8.158 (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I am sure this is real, I dare say it is too obscure even for Wikipedia, except for perhaps a brief mention in the overclocking article. --SJK (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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